Accessibility of negated constituents in reading and listening

Intercultural Pragmatics

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 445-469

  Shuval, Noa ^a   Hemforth, Barbara ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61949332402     PISSN: 1612295X     EISSN: 1613365X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/IPRG.2008.022     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Altman, Gerry T. M., and Yuki Kamide. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73: 247-264
2. Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
3. Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
4. Cook, Anne E., Jerome L. Myers, and Edward J. O'Brien. 2005. Processing an anaphor when there is no antecedent. Discourse Processes 39: 101-120.
5. Cooper, Roger M. 1974. The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology 6: 84-107.
6. Gernsbachcr, Morton A. 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Giora, Rachel. 1985. A text based analysis of non narrative texts. Theoretical Linguistics 12: 115-135.
8. Giora, Rachel. 2006. Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 981-1014.
9. Giora, Rachel. 2007. "A good Arab is not a dead Araba racist incitement": On the accessibility of negated concepts. In Istvan Kecskes and Laurence R. Horn (eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 129-162.
10. Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Aschkcnazi, Keren and Alkabets-Zlozover, Inbar. 2007. Negation in context: A functional approach to suppression. Discourse Processes 43: 153-172
11. Giora, Rachel, Zimmerman, Dana and Fein Ofer. 2008. How can you compare! On negated comparisons as comparisons. Intercultural Pragmatics. 5. (4).
12. Hasson, Uri, and Sam Glucksberg. 2006. Does understanding negation entail affirmation? Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1015-1032.
13. th CUNY conference on human sentence processing, La Jolla, March 29-31.
14. Hemforth, Barbara, Saveria Colonna, Joël Pynte, Christoph Scheepers, and Lars Konieczny. 2005. Pronoun resolution across languages: The role of distributional differences between French, German and English. Paper presented at the 18th CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Tucson, March 31-April 2.
15. Hemforth, Barbara, Joël Pynte, and Emmanuel Bellengier. 2007. Making sense out of nonsense: The acceptability of repairs. In H. Christiansen and J. Villadsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Constraints and Language Processing. Roskilde: CSRR 113.93-100.
16. Henderson, John M., and Fernanda Ferreira. 2004. Scene perception for psycholinguists. In John M. Henderson and Fernanda Ferreira (eds.), The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World. New York: Psychology Press. 1-58.
17. Johnson-Laird, Philip N. 1983. Mental Models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Just, Marcel A., Patricia A. Carpenter, and Jacqueline D. Woolley. 1982. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111: 228-238.
19. Kaiser, Elsi, and John Trueswell. 2004. The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition 94 (2): 113-147.
20. Kamide, Yuki, Christoph Scheepers, and Gerry T. M. Altmann. 2003. Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32: 37-55.
21. Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum. 277-322.
22. Kamp, Hans, and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
23. Kaup, Barbara. 1997. The processing of negatives during discourse comprehension. In M. G.Shafto and P. Langley (eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 370-375.
24. Kaup, Barbara. 2001. Negation and its impact on the accessibility of text information. Memory and Cognition 29: 960-967.
25. Kaup, Barbara, Dijkstra and Katinka Lüdtke. 2008. Resolving anaphor after reading negative sentences. Paper submitted for publication.
26. Kaup, Barbara, Richard H. Yaxley, Carol J. Madden, Rolf A. Zwaan, and Jana Lüdtke. 2007. Experiential simulations of negated text information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60: 976-990.
27. Kaup, Barbara, and Rolf A. Zwaan. 2003. Effects of negation and situational presence on the accessibility of text information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29: 439-446.
28. Levine, William, and Joel Hagaman. 2008. Negated concepts interfere with anaphor resolution. Interculiural Pragmatic. 5. (4).
29. MacDonald, Maryellen C, and Marcel Adam Just. 1989. Changes in activation levels with negation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 15: 633-642.
30. Pickering, Martin J., Brian McElrce, and Simon Garrod. 2008. Interactions of language and vision restrict "visual world" interpretations. Paper submitted for publication. http:// citeseer.ist.psu.edu/656560.html .
31. Schimke, Sarah, Saveria Colonna, and Barbara Hemforth. 2008. Position effects in anaphora resolution in German and French. Poster presented at the 21st annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Chapel Hill, March 2008.
32. Shuval, Noa. 2006. Processing and representation of negated constituents. Unpublished ms., University of Provence Aix-Marseille I.
33. th AMLaP conference on architectures and mechanisms for language processing, Turku, August 24-27.
34. Shuval, Noa, Barbara Hemforth, and Catherine Rigaut. 2008. Accessibility of negated constituents in reading and spoken language comprehension. Poster presented at the 21st annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Chapel Hill, March 2008.
35. Spivey, Michael J., Michael K. Tanenhaus, Kathleen M. Eberhard, and Julie C. Sedivy. 2002. Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology 45: 447-481.
36. Tanenhaus, Michael K., Michael J. Spivey-Knowlton, Kathleen M. Eberhard, and Julie C. Sedivy. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268: 1632-1634.
37. Van Dijk, Teun A., and Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
38. Vonk, Wietske, 2003. Contrastive "but" and negation affect the interpretation and availability of concepts. Paper presented at the 13th Conference of the European Society of Cognitive Psychology (ESCOP2003), Granada, September.
39. Yoshimura, Akiko, 1998. Procedural semantics and metalinguistic negation. In Robyn Carston and Seiji Uchida (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 105-122.
40. Zwaan, Rolf A., and Gabriel A. Radvansky. 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123: 162-185.