When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation

Psychological Science

Volumn 19, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 1213-1218

  Nieuwland, Mante S ^a,b   Kuperberg, Gina R ^a,b  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AFFECT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LANGUAGE; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; READING; RECUMBENCY; SEMANTICS; STATISTICS;

ADULT; AFFECT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; DECEPTION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; READING; SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 57649225173     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02226.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Brown, C.M., Hagoort, P. Kutas, M. (2000). Postlexical integration processes in language comprehension: Evidence from brain-imaging research. In M.S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 881 895). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
2. Carpenter, P.A. Just, M.A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review, 82, 45 73.
3. Clark, H.H. Clark, E.V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
4. Cornejo, C., Simonetti, F., Aldunate, N., Ibáñez, A., López, V. Melloni, L. (2007). Electrophysiological evidence of different interpretative strategies in irony comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 411 430.
5. Coulson, S. (2004). Electrophysiology and pragmatic language comprehension. In I. Noveck D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp. 187 206). San Diego, CA : Palgrave Macmillan.
6. Coulson, S. Federmeier, K.D. (in press). Words in context: ERPs and the lexical/postlexical distinction. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.
7. Delong, K.A., Urbach, T.P. Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117 1121.
8. Federmeier, K.D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491 505.
9. Fischler, I., Bloom, P., Childers, D., Roucos, S. Perry, N. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20, 400 409.
10. Fischler, I., Childers, D.G., Achariyapaopan, T. Perry, N.W. (1985). Brain potentials during sentence verification: Automatic aspects of comprehension. Biological Psychology, 21, 83 105.
11. Givón, T. (1978). Negation in language: Pragmatics, function, ontology. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 69 112). New York : Academic.
12. Glenberg, A.M., Robertson, D.A., Jansen, J.L. Johnson-Glenberg, M.C. (1999). Not propositions. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 19 33.
13. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41 58). New York : Seminar.
14. Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M. Petersson, K.M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438 441.
15. Hald, L., Kutas, M., Urbach, T.P. Pahrhizkari, B. (2005, April). The N400 is not a brainwave: Negation and the N400 effects for true and false sentences. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, New York.
16. Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
17. Johnson-Laird, P.N. Tridgell, J. (1972). When negation is easier than affirmation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 87 91.
18. Kaup, B., Zwaan, R.A. Lüdtke, J. (2007). The experiential view of language comprehension: How is negated text information represented? In F. Schmalhofer C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 255 288). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
19. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
20. Kounios, J. Holcomb, P. (1992). Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction-times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 459 479.
21. Kutas, M. Hillyard, S.A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203 205.
22. Kutas, M. Hillyard, S.A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161 163.
23. Kutas, M., Van Petten, C. Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II: 1994-2005. In M. Traxler M.A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 659 724). New York : Elsevier.
24. Ledoux, K., Camblin, C.C., Swaab, T.Y. Gordon, P.C. (2006). Reading words in discourse: The modulation of lexical priming effects by message-level context. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 5, 107 127.
25. Legge, G.E., Ahn, S.J., Klitz, T.S. Luebker, A. (1997). Psychophysics of reading - XVI. The visual span in normal and low vision. Vision Research, 37, 1999 2010.
26. Lüdtke, J., Friedrich, C.K., De Filippis, M. Kaup, B. (2008). ERP correlates of negation in a sentence-picture-verification paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1355 1370.
27. Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 574 591.
28. Sperber, D. Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, England : Blackwell.
29. Van Berkum, J.J.A. (in press). The neuropragmatics of "simple" utterance comprehension: An ERP review. In U. Sauerland K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), Semantic and pragmatic: From experiment to theory. Houndsmills, England : Palgrave Macmillan.
30. Wason, P. (1965). The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 7 11.