Activation levels of plausible alternatives in conversational negation.
Activation levels
Alternatives
Negation
Pragmatics
Priming
Journal
Memory & cognition
ISSN: 1532-5946
Titre abrégé: Mem Cognit
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0357443
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2023
11 2023
Historique:
accepted:
17
05
2023
medline:
13
11
2023
pubmed:
17
7
2023
entrez:
17
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Negation is often used to contradict or correct (e.g. There is no dog here.). While rejecting some state of affairs that is presumed to hold for the recipient (e.g. There is a dog here.), the speaker might implicitly suggest a set of plausible alternatives (e.g. There is a wolf instead.). Prior work indicates that alternatives are highly relevant to the comprehension of sentences involving focus: in priming studies, listeners infer plausible alternatives to focused items even when they are not contextually available. So far it is unclear whether negation similarly activates an automatic search for plausible alternatives. The current study was designed to investigate this question, by looking at the activation levels of nouns after negative and affirmative sentences. In a series of priming experiments, subjects were presented with negative and affirmative sentences (e.g. There is an/no apple.), followed by a lexical decision task with targets including plausible alternatives (e.g. pear), as well as semantically related but implausible alternatives (e.g. seed). An interaction of Sentence Polarity and Prime-Target Relation was expected, with negation facilitating responses to plausible alternatives. Results of the first experiment were numerically in line with the hypothesis but the interaction just missed significance level. A post hoc analysis revealed the expected significant interaction. Possible roles of sentential context and goodness of alternatives are discussed. A further experiment confirms that the goodness of alternatives is in fact critical in modulating the effect.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37458968
doi: 10.3758/s13421-023-01434-2
pii: 10.3758/s13421-023-01434-2
pmc: PMC10638209
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1807-1818Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Behav Res Methods. 2010 Aug;42(3):627-33
pubmed: 20805584
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 May;29(3):439-46
pubmed: 12776754
Cogn Sci. 2021 Jul;45(7):e13015
pubmed: 34288035
J Psycholinguist Res. 2021 Dec;50(6):1243-1260
pubmed: 34383177
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989 Jul;15(4):633-42
pubmed: 2526856
Behav Res Methods. 2015 Mar;47(1):1-12
pubmed: 24683129
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Jul;60(7):976-90
pubmed: 17616914
Behav Res Methods. 2015 Dec;47(4):930-944
pubmed: 25425391
J Neurosci. 2016 Jun 1;36(22):6002-10
pubmed: 27251621
Front Psychol. 2019 Aug 30;10:1985
pubmed: 31543850
Lang Speech. 2017 Jun;60(2):174-199
pubmed: 28697696
Front Psychol. 2019 Aug 08;10:1782
pubmed: 31440181