否定极化句子理解过程中的一致性动态

Q2 Arts and Humanities Psychology of Language and Communication Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.2478/plc-2020-0001
S. Huette
{"title":"否定极化句子理解过程中的一致性动态","authors":"S. Huette","doi":"10.2478/plc-2020-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In a forced-choice mouse-tracking paradigm, true and false statements (ranging from very true, to ambiguous, to very false) were tested in both affirmative and negated forms. Replicating prior research, mouse trajectories reveal subtle differences in a continuum of true to false statements. However, negation modifies this process, particularly for very true statements (i.e. Bread is not made from sand). The mouse trajectories were more curved with negated sentences, with end-points of the continuum of truth (very true and very false statements) having the greatest area under the curve. The proposed explanation is the pragmatic meaning of a negated statement such as “Gummie bears are not alive” is infelicitous, whereas a true statement “People live on Earth” is felicitous. This study reveals the online dynamics of processing these statements and possible confusion, particularly when very true statements contain a negation.","PeriodicalId":20768,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Language and Communication","volume":"24 1","pages":"1 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Negation Polarizes Agreement Dynamics During Sentence Comprehension\",\"authors\":\"S. Huette\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/plc-2020-0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In a forced-choice mouse-tracking paradigm, true and false statements (ranging from very true, to ambiguous, to very false) were tested in both affirmative and negated forms. Replicating prior research, mouse trajectories reveal subtle differences in a continuum of true to false statements. However, negation modifies this process, particularly for very true statements (i.e. Bread is not made from sand). The mouse trajectories were more curved with negated sentences, with end-points of the continuum of truth (very true and very false statements) having the greatest area under the curve. The proposed explanation is the pragmatic meaning of a negated statement such as “Gummie bears are not alive” is infelicitous, whereas a true statement “People live on Earth” is felicitous. This study reveals the online dynamics of processing these statements and possible confusion, particularly when very true statements contain a negation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20768,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology of Language and Communication\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology of Language and Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/plc-2020-0001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Language and Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/plc-2020-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一个强制选择鼠标跟踪范例中,以肯定和否定的形式测试了真实和虚假的陈述(从非常真实,到模棱两可,到非常错误)。复制先前的研究,老鼠的轨迹揭示了真实和虚假陈述连续体的微妙差异。然而,否定会改变这个过程,特别是对于非常真实的陈述(例如,面包不是用沙子做的)。老鼠的轨迹在否定句中更加弯曲,真理连续体的终点(非常正确和非常错误的陈述)在曲线下的面积最大。提出的解释是,像“Gummie bears are not alive”这样的否定语句的语用意义是不恰当的,而“People live on Earth”这样的真实语句是恰当的。这项研究揭示了处理这些陈述的在线动态和可能的混乱,特别是当非常真实的陈述包含否定时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Negation Polarizes Agreement Dynamics During Sentence Comprehension
Abstract In a forced-choice mouse-tracking paradigm, true and false statements (ranging from very true, to ambiguous, to very false) were tested in both affirmative and negated forms. Replicating prior research, mouse trajectories reveal subtle differences in a continuum of true to false statements. However, negation modifies this process, particularly for very true statements (i.e. Bread is not made from sand). The mouse trajectories were more curved with negated sentences, with end-points of the continuum of truth (very true and very false statements) having the greatest area under the curve. The proposed explanation is the pragmatic meaning of a negated statement such as “Gummie bears are not alive” is infelicitous, whereas a true statement “People live on Earth” is felicitous. This study reveals the online dynamics of processing these statements and possible confusion, particularly when very true statements contain a negation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychology of Language and Communication
Psychology of Language and Communication Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
The ambiguous relation between verbal irony understanding and need for cognitive closure: Reports from two studies Are Polish CLIL learners more willing to communicate in English than non-CLIL learners? Twitter language samples reflect collective emotional responses following political leaders’ rhetoric during the pandemic across four countries A star is born? The German gender star and its effects on mental representation Stimulus-response binding is not a gradually learned association between specific stimuli and their responses: Evidence from a teenage bilingual population
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1