Negation Polarizes Agreement Dynamics During Sentence Comprehension

Stephanie Huette 1
  • 1 University of Memphis


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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Abrams, R. A., & Balota, D. A. (1991). Mental chronometry: Beyond reaction time. Psychological Science, 2, 153–157.

  • Anderson, S., Huette, S., Matlock, T., & Spivey, M. (2010). On the temporal dynamics of negated perceptual simulations. In F. Parrill, V. Tobin, & M. Turner (Eds.), Meaning, Form, & Body (pp. 1–20). Stanford, CSLI.

  • Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.

  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0.

  • Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1): 9, 1–20.

  • Cohen J. D., MacWhinney B., Flatt M., & Provost J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25(2), 257–271.

  • Dahan, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K., (2004). Continuous mapping from sound to meaning in spoken-language comprehension: Immediate effects of verb-based thematic constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30(2), 498–513.

  • Dale, R., & Duran, N. D. (2011). The cognitive dynamics of negated sentence verification. Cognitive Science, 35, 983–996.

  • Dale, R., Kehoe, C., & Spivey, M. J. (2007). Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 15–28.

  • Dittmann, A. T., & Llewellyn, L. G. (1968). Relationship between vocalizations and head nods as listener responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(1), 79.

  • Duran, N. D., Dale, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). The action dynamics of overcoming the truth. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 17(4), 486–491.

  • Farmer, T., Cargill, S., Hindy, N., Dale, R., & Spivey, M. (2007). Tracking the continuity of language comprehension: Computer mouse trajectories suggest parallel syntactic processing. Cognitive Science, 31(5), 889–909.

  • Ferguson, H., Sanford, A. J., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Eye-movements and ERPs reveal the time-course of processing negation and remitting counterfactual worlds. Brain Research, 1236, 113–125.

  • Fischler, I., Childers, D. G., Achariyapaopan, T., & Perry Jr., N. W. (1985). Brain potentials during sentence verification: Automatic aspects of comprehension. Biological Psychology, 21(2), 83–105.

  • Gold, J., & Shadlen, M. (2000). Representation of a perceptual decision in developing oculomotor commands. Nature, 404, 390–394.

  • Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304(5669), 438–441.

  • Huette, S. (2016). Putting context into context: Sources of context and a proposed mechanism for linguistic negation. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(8), 1000–1014.

  • Huette, S., & Anderson, S. (2012). Negation without symbols: The importance of recurrence and context in linguistic negation. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, 11, 295–312.

  • Huette, S., & McMurray, B. (2010). Continuous dynamics of color categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(3), 348–354.

  • Incera, S., & McLennan, C. T. (2016). Mouse tracking reveals that bilinguals behave like experts. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 610–620.

  • Kaup, B., Yaxley, R. H., Madden, C. J., Zwaan, R. A., & Lüdtke, J. (2006). Experiential simulations of negated text information. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 976–990.

  • Kaup, B., Zwaan, R. A., & Lüdtke, J. (2007). The experiential view of language comprehension. How is negation represented? In F. Schmalhofer, & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher Language Processes in the Brain (pp. 255–289). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Magnuson, J. S. (2005). Moving hand reveals dynamics of thought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(29), 9995–9996.

  • Maldonado, M., Dunbar, E., & Chemla, E. (2019). Mouse tracking as a window into decision making. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1085–1101.

  • McKinstry, C., Dale, R., & Spivey, M. J. (2008). Action dynamics reveal parallel competition in decision making. Psychological Science, 19(1), 22–24.

  • McMurray, B., & Aslin, R. N. (2005). Infants are sensitive to within-category variation in speech perception. Cognition, 95(2), B15–B26.

  • McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M., & Aslin, R. (2002). Gradient effects of within-category phonetic variation on lexical access. Cognition, 86, B33–B42.

  • Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1213–1218.

  • Nieuwland, M. S., & Martin, A. E. (2012). If the real world were irrelevant, so to speak: The role of propositional truth-value in counterfactual sentence comprehension. Cognition, 122(1), 102–109.

  • Spivey, M. J., Grosjean, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(29), 10393–10398.

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634.

  • Tomlinson Jr., J. M., Bailey, T. M., & Bott, L. (2013). Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(1), 18–35.


Journal + Issues