Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Linguistic Research 34(2), 205-224
DOI: 10.17250/khisli.34.2.201706.003
Incremental processing of negation:
Evidence from Korean*1
Miseon Lee
(Hanyang University)
Lee, Miseon. 2017. Incremental processing of negation: Evidence from Korean. Linguistic
Research 34(2), 205-224. The present study seeks to investigate whether negation
is incrementally comprehended in Korean. Many of previous behavioral and
neurological studies have found delays and errors in the comprehension of English
negation. However, more recent studies have reported that negative sentences are
incrementally processed as fast and accurately as affirmative sentences, given a
pragmatically felicitous context. This discrepancy suggests that the poor comprehension
of negation is mainly due to the absence of a felicitous context. In line with this,
our hypothesis was that pragmatic felicity could help negation processing by establishing
expectancies for using negation. In an eye-tracking task, we found that twenty-four
Korean-speaking participants were equally fast and accurate in comprehending both
affirmatives and negatives within a discourse context. Fixation analyses further showed
that shortly after hearing the verb in a scrambled sentence, participants distinguished
between negative and affirmative interpretations. These findings support the hypothesis
that given a felicitous context, negation is incrementally processed by rapidly using
the polarity information of the verb. (Hanyang University)
Keywords negation in Korean, incremental processing, pragmatic context, a two-step theory,
eye-tracking
1. Introduction
Negation is essential in natural language to express various semantic categories
including nonexistence, rejection, denial, prohibitions, and factual descriptions
(e.g., The cat doesn't like it when you pull her tail). It emerges fairly early in child
* The author thanks the reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. This work was
supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government
(NRF-2014S1A2A1A01028248).
206 Miseon Lee
language development and negation words such as no and not are one of the most
frequently used expressions in adults’ speech to children (e.g., Bloom 1970;
Cameron-Faulkner et al. 2007; Klima and Bellugi 1966; Pea 1980; Wode 1977).
Ubiquitous and common though they are, previous studies have shown that
negation provides unique challenges for language comprehension, even for adult
native speakers. Evidence comes from a variety of experimental studies using
behavioral and neurological tasks (Carpenter and Just 1975; Clark and Chase 1972;
Fischler et al. 1983; Just and Carpenter 1971, 1976; Kaup et al. 2006, 2007;
Kounios and Holcomb 1992; Lüdtke et al. 2008; Mayo et al. 2004). A consistent
finding from these studies is that English speakers are overall slower and make
more errors in their responses to a negative sentence such as “A robin is not a
bird” than to its affirmative counterpart.
This general finding on the delayed interpretation of negation has been explained
by a two-step theory of negation processing. This theory proposes that a negative
sentence initially facilitates the representation of a situation described by its
affirmative counterpart and then shifts to the representation of a negated state
(Cuccio 2012; Hasson and Glucksberg 2006; Giora et al. 2004, 2007; Kaup et al.
2006, 2007; Kaup and Zwaan 2003; MacDonald and Just 1989). Many behavioral
studies have provided supporting evidence for the two-step processing. For example,
in Kaup et al.’s (2007) speeded picture-recognition task, participants read a sentence
(e.g., The eagle was not in the sky or The eagle was in the sky), and afterwards
responded by selecting a picture of the described entity (e.g., an eagle with its wings
folded or an eagle with its wings outstretched). The participants made more
picture-selection errors for negative sentences, which was claimed to be due to the
competition from its affirmative simulation. In addition, their response times to
negative sentences were significantly shorter when the picture matched the
affirmative situation (i.e., the picture of an eagle with its wings outstretched) than
when it mismatched the factual situation. These results were interpreted as showing
that understanding negation first requires constructing of the affirmative
interpretation, and subsequently forming of a representation of a negated state of the
situation (Kaup et al. 2006, 2007).
Several ERP studies support this two-step comprehension of negation, showing
that the N400 is insensitive to negation (Fischler et al. 1983; Kounios and Holcomb
1992; Lüdtke et al. 2008). For example, Fischler and colleagues (1983) found greater
Incremental processing of negation: Evidence from Korean 207
N400 effects for true negatives (e.g., A robin is not a truck) than false negatives
(e.g., A robin is not a bird). This result is in accord with the two-step theory of
negation processing. A true negative sentence (e.g., A robin is not a truck) elicits
N400 responses because listeners first construct the semantically implausible
affirmative representation (e.g., a robin is a truck) before applying the negative
meaning (for a review, see Kaup et al. 2007; Singer 2006).
However, more recent research has presented a different picture. It has been
found that with an appropriate context, listeners do not process negation in two steps
but immediately obtain the negative interpretation (Anderson et al. 2010; Autry and
Levine 2012; Dale and Duran 2011; Glenberg et al. 1999; Huette 2016; Lüdtke and
Kaup 2006; Khemlani et al. 2012; Nieuwland and Kuperberg 2008; Nieuwland and
Martin 2012; Orenes et al. 2014, 2016; Reuter et al. 2017; Snedeker et al. 2012;
Tian et al. 2010; Wason 1965). For example, using a similar paradigm as in Kaup
et al. (2007), Tian and colleagues (2010) examined how people comprehended
simple negative sentences (e.g., Mike didn’t iron his shirt) as compared to cleft
sentences with a negative clause (e.g., It was Mike who didn’t iron his shirt). Clefts
are known to have a presupposition (e.g., someone didn’t iron his shirt), so they
could create a pragmatic context for negative meaning (Levinson 1983; Roberts
1996). In Tian et al.’s study, after reading a simple negative sentence, participants
responded faster to a picture of an affirmative situation (e.g., an ironed shirt) than to
an image of a negative situation (e.g., a crumpled shirt), as found in previous studies
without contexts. However, after reading a cleft negative sentence, they responded
faster to a picture matching a negative situation. Snedeker and colleagues (2012) also
found that given a felicitous context, participants were equally fast and accurate in
comprehending simple affirmatives and negatives. In their eye-tracking task,
participants looked more towards the objects corresponding to the polarity of the
verb shortly after hearing the verb. For example, when hearing an affirmative verb
(e.g., broke), they looked more at affirmative objects (e.g., broken objects). Crucially,
upon hearing a negative verb (e.g., didn’t break), they looked more at negative
objects (e.g., unbroken objects).
A similar result was reported in an ERP study (Nieuwland and Kuperberg 2008).
Nieuwland and Kuperberg found larger N400 effects for false statements than for
true statements, both for affirmative sentences (e.g., With proper equipment,
scuba-diving is very dangerous) and for pragmatically felicitous negatives (e.g., With
208 Miseon Lee
proper equipment, scuba-diving isn’t very safe). Crucially, this result is inconsistent
with the two-step theory, which predicts larger N400 effects for true negatives (e.g.,
With proper equipment, scuba-diving isn’t very dangerous) than for false negatives
(e.g., With proper equipment, scuba-diving isn’t very safe). Instead it indicates that
negation can be immediately interpreted as long as it appears in a pragmatically
felicitous context.
Taken together, these results suggest that earlier findings of delayed processing
of negation reflect the infelicitous use of negation rather than delays in the
processing of negation. This is because, as Wason (1965, 1972) argued, the negation
requires a felicitous context that triggers the listener’s anticipation of its use. For
example, with the presence of an apple in a naturalistic situation, there is no
pragmatic reason to say “This is not a pear,” even if it is true. In contrast, in a
situation where several pears and an apple are present, it is more plausible to say
“This is not a pear.” Thus, when the context is felicitous and provides pragmatically
proper expectancies for the use of negation, it is expected that listeners would
process negative elements fast and incrementally in sentence interpretation. It is
partly because listeners are not only interpreting a sentence itself but also inferring
how the content of the sentence might be related to the real world in incremental
processing (e.g., Brown-Schmidt et al. 2008; Grice 1989; Hobbs et al. 1993).
The present study aimed to explore how adult native speakers of Korean interpret
negative sentences within a pragmatically supportive context. This study used
eye-tracking in the visual world paradigm to measure moment-to-moment eye gaze
data during critical sentences. On Kaup’s (Kaup et al. 2006, 2007) two-step theory
of negation processing, in which negative sentences give rise to affirmative
simulations that are then shifted out of attention, participants are expected to be
slower and less accurate in their responses to negative sentences and to look at the
affirmative target first. In contrast, in line with the incremental processing account,
we hypothesized that if participants can integrate the information from a supportive
context and rapidly process negation to guide interpretation, they should show
equally fast and accurate performance on both affirmative and negative sentences, as
found in English negation (Snedeker et al. 2012). Before moving onto the method
section, we present a brief review of negation in Korean in the next section.
Incremental processing of negation: Evidence from Korean 209
2. Negation in Korean
As is well known, there are two distinct forms of syntactic negation in Korean—
the short form negation (SFN) and the long form negation (LFN), as illustrated in
(1). In SFN, the negative marker an immediately precedes the predicate. In LFN, on
the other hand, an and an auxiliary verb ha- ‘to do’ follow the predicate which
appears with the nominalizer suffix -ci (an + ha is usually contracted into anh).
(1) a. Affirmative:
Eddy-ka sangca-lul yel-ess-ta
Eddy-Nom box-Acc open-Past-Se1
‘Eddy opened the box.’
b. Short form negation (SFN):
Eddy-ka sangca-lul an yel-ess-ta
Eddy-Nom box-Acc not open-Past-Se
‘Eddy didn’t open the box.’
c. Long form negation (LFN):
Eddy-ka sangca-lul yel-ci anh-ass-ta
Eddy-Nom box-Acc open-Nmn not.do-Past-Se
‘Eddy didn’t open the box.’
In general, the two negation forms are synonymous with slight stylistic
differences―SFN being slightly less formal, more direct and more colloquial than
LFN (Choo and Kwak 2008; Sohn 1999). However, some researchers have reported
that the two forms of negation are in fact different in their meaning and pragmatic
implications (Kim 1996; Lee 1993; McClanahan 1998). For instance, McClanahan
(1998) claims that unlike LFN, SFN an expresses the speaker’s strong volition not to
do the denoted action. The two forms of negation also differ in their distributional
property, with more restrictions on the use of SFN (Sohn 1999). Action verbs and
descriptive verbs allow both forms of negation, but SFN does not sound natural with
adjectives (in particular, those of three or more syllables) and compound verbs (e.g.,
kongpwu-hata ‘study’, yath-pota ‘look down upon’). While LFN is relatively free to
1 Korean examples are presented using Yale Romanization. We use the following abbreviations: N
om = nominative case, Past = past tense, Se = sentence ender, Qtf = quantifier, Gen = genitive
case, Acc = accusative case, Nmn = nominalizer
210 Miseon Lee
occur with any verbs, it is generally not allowed with a copular verb i-ta when it
has a noun complement (e.g., *haksayng i-ci anh-ta ‘(He) is not a student’).
Previous studies have consistently reported that SFN appears in production earlier
than LFN. In child Korean, LFN starts to be produced around age 3;5, much later
than SFN (Choi and Zubin 1985; Hahn 1981; Han and Park 1995; Kim 1997). LFN
is more difficult to learn than SFN in L2 Korean as well. Jeon (2001) reported that
learners of Korean made more errors with LFN (55% correct) than with SFN (92.5%
correct) in an elicited imitation task. The same pattern was also noticed in Broca’s
aphasia (Lee 2007). In an elicited production task, Korean speakers with Broca’s
aphasia showed a dissociation between the preserved SFN and the impaired LFN
(90% vs. 3 % correct). In contrast, these studies found no significant differences
between the two negation forms in comprehension.
Little has been reported in literature on how negation is processed in Korean in
real time. The very few online studies to date have examined the processing of LFN
without context (Kim 2007; Nam 2016) and found no evidence for immediate
processing of negation in Korean. For example, Nam (2016) found greater P600
effects for false LFN (e.g., chimtay-nun kakwu-ey sokha-ci anh-nun-ta ‘A bed
doesn’t belong to the furniture category’) than true LFN (e.g., sikyey-nun kakwu-ey
sokha-ci anh-nun-ta ‘A clock doesn’t belong to the furniture category’). Meanwhile,
for lexical negatives, greater N400 was observed for true negatives (e.g., napi-nun
kkoli-ka eps-ta ‘A butterfly doesn’t have a tail’) than for false negatives (e.g.,
holangi-nun kkoli-ka eps-ta ‘A tiger doesn’t have a tail’). These results are in line
with the findings from English, supporting the two-step account. A true negative
sentence elicits N400 (for lexical negatives) or P600 responses (for syntactic
negatives) because participants first construct the semantically implausible affirmative
counterpart (e.g., A butterfly has a tail, A clock belongs to the furniture), and then
shift to the negative representation when encountering the negative marker.
However, none of these studies used any context in their tasks while negation
can be incrementally processed given a felicitous context (e.g., Nieuwland and
Kuperberg 2008). Hence, it is possible that their findings of two-step processing
were due to the absence of a context, as clearly shown in previous studies of
English negation. With this possibility, our eye-tracking experiment set out to
address whether Korean negation is comprehended incrementally given a context, and
thereby to assess the two contrasting accounts of negation processing (i.e., two-step
Incremental processing of negation: Evidence from Korean 211
processing vs. incremental processing). To examine this issue, we tested real-time
processing of LFN within a context.
3. Methods
3.1 Participants
Twenty-four undergraduate students at a university in Seoul participated in this
study (mean age = 23.8 years, 12 males). All were native speakers of Korean and
had less than a year of living experience abroad. The participants had normal or
corrected-to-normal hearing and vision, with no history of neurological, psychological
or linguistic disorders. They received monetary compensation for their participation.
3.2 Stimuli
The experimental design and stimuli of this study was adopted from
Snedeker et al. (2012). There were four experimental lists. Each list consisted of
sixteen trials, half affirmatives and half negatives. Each trial included a set of
pre-recorded auditory stimuli: a context story, an interjection, a critical sentence,
and response prompt (see Figure 1 for an example). Each context story
described an event with a cartoon character (e.g., Eddy) and two pairs of objects
(e.g., two boxes and two envelopes). The character performed an action (e.g.,
opening) on one object from each pair before being interrupted. This created a
neutral discourse context.
Each critical sentence included a sentential subject, a past tense verb or a
past tense verb negated by a long form negation -cianh- ‘not’ (e.g., yel-ess-ta
‘opened’ or yel-cianh-ass-ta ‘didn’t open’), and a direct object which was
composed of han-kay-ui ‘one of’ followed by a target noun (e.g., pongthwu-lul
‘the envelope’). We used LFN as stimuli for two reasons. First, in addition to
the restrictions regarding the use of SFN as described above in section 2, there
is a controversy that SFN is not a syntactic negation but a lexical negation
where an is an affix or an adverb (Ahn 1991; Kim 1996; Park 1990). These
properties of SFN may have an effect on processing that is not comparable to
212 Miseon Lee
English negation processing. Second, previous studies of Korean negation mostly
investigated LFN without context and demonstrated that LFN is comprehended
in two steps. Given these findings, we attempted to examine whether the results
can be replicated in an online task within a context and thereby to test the two
contrasting hypotheses. While Korean is a head-final language with a canonical
SOV order, we used the scrambled order, where the negated verb precedes its
direct object. In the canonical structure as in (1), the polarity information is
available at the sentence-final position. Thus, it is not clear whether LFN is
really processed in two steps (shifting from the affirmative to the negative
representation), or the observed two-step processing simply reflects the
processing of incoming words one by one in order (i.e., preverbal NPs first, and
the negation last). In contrast, the scrambled order allows us to test whether the
polarity information of the verb, rather than the lexical semantics of the target
noun, can guide real-time comprehension of the unfolding sentence. In other
words, by placing the negated verb at a non-final position, it is possible to see
if the polarity information is immediately processed at the verb or is processed
via its affirmative interpretation at the end of a sentence.2
We used sixteen transitive verbs as stimuli. For each verb, we crossed two
objects (e.g., box and envelope) with two polarities (e.g., open and didn’t open), to
construct four possible critical sentences, as in (2).
(2) An example of four critical sentences for yel-ta ‘to open’
a. Eydi-ka yel-ess-eyo han-kay-ui sangca-lul.
Eddy-Nom open-Past-Se one-Qtf-Gen box-Acc
‘Eddy opened one box.’
b. Eydi-ka yel-ci anh-ass-eyo han-kay-ui sangca-lul.
Eddy-Nom open-Nmn not.do-Past-Se one-Qtf-Gen box-Acc
‘Eddy didn’t open one box.’
c. Eydi-ka yel-ess-eyo han-kay-ui pongthwu-lul.
Eddy-Nom open-Past-Se one-Qtf-Gen envelope-Acc
‘Eddy opened one envelope.’
2 As a reviewer pointed out, it should be noted that the scrambled structure may involve a different
processing and/or cognitive mechanism from that of the canonical structure. While this issue is
beyond the scope of this work, it should be examined in future research.
Incremental processing of negation: Evidence from Korean 213
d. Eydi-ka yel-ci anh-ass-eyo han-kay-ui pongthwu-lul.
Eddy-Nom open-Nmn not.do-Past-Se one-Qtf-Gen envelope-Acc
‘Eddy didn’t open one envelope.’
The auditory stimuli were accompanied by visual displays. Each display
consisted of four objects, which were different in kind (e.g., boxes or envelopes)
and in color or state (e.g., red or blue). As shown in Figure 1, for each trial, three
visual displays were presented in sequence reflecting events of the context story.
When an action (e.g., opening) happened to one of the four objects (e.g., an
envelope), the display changed to show the result of that action (Figure 1 (b)).
When the same action happened to the second object (e.g., a box), the display
changed again (Figure 1 (c)), depicting the final state of the four objects.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a) Display 1: Context: It was Eddy’s birthday. Eddy got gift boxes and cards from his
family. He wanted to see what was inside the gift boxes and the cards.
(b) Display 2: Context: Eddy opened the blue envelope and found a message from his mother.
(c) Display 3: Context: He opened the red box and found a wonderful robot. Next, he
was going to open the red envelope and the blue box. But it was time for
him to blow the candles out on his birthday cake. So he decided to open
them later. Interjection: Oh, that’s what happened! Critical sentence: Eddy
didn’t open one envelope. Response prompt: Choose which one it was.
Figure 1. An example of visual and auditory stimuli
(presented in Korean: see Appendix)
Four experimental lists counterbalanced the order of trial presentations and the
target noun. The location of the target image was also counterbalanced across trials.
With this balanced design, each noun and each image served as its own control
across experimental lists.
214 Miseon Lee
3.3 Procedure
Participants’ eye movements were recorded using an SR Research EyeLink II
head-mounted eye-tracker with sampling rate of 500 Hz on a 17" screen (1280 x
1024 pixel resolution). Calibration and validation were conducted at the beginning
of the practice and the experiment sessions and, if necessary, were repeated
several times per session. Participants were instructed to listen to the auditory
stimuli as they were viewing the visual displays on the screen. We measured
participants’ eye-fixations to the four images during the critical sentence and
accuracy of responses.
During testing, participants first completed three practice trials to ensure that
they understood the task. The practice trials had the same design as the test
trials, but the context and critical sentences were all simple affirmative
statements (e.g., Ai-ka phwungsen-ul tul-ko-iss-eyo. ‘A child was holding a
balloon’). After the practice trials, participants completed sixteen test trials. In
each test trial, they heard pre-recorded auditory stimuli while viewing
corresponding visual displays (Figure 1). A male voice told a context story
about the four objects on a display. After each story, a female voice said the
interjection (i.e., “Oh, that’s what happened!”), a critical sentence (e.g., “Eddy
didn’t open one envelope”), and response prompt (e.g., “Choose which one it
was”). Participants then selected one of the four images on the final visual
display by pressing a button on a button box.
3.4 Results
3.4.1 Response data
Participants provided a behavioral response at the end of each trial. They made
no errors in choosing the target image corresponding to the critical sentence.
3.4.2 Eyetracking data
We measured participants’ eye-fixations to the visual images during each critical
Incremental processing of negation: Evidence from Korean 215
sentence. If participants can incrementally process negatives as well as affirmatives,
we expect more looks based on the polarity of the images (i.e., polarity effect).
To assess the processing of the polarity information of the verb, we first
analyzed looks to the affirmative images (e.g., the opened box or the opened
envelope) during five big time regions of critical sentences (Table 1). In this
analysis, we offset each time region by 200 ms from the onset of the relevant
word to account for the time that a participant needs to program and execute a
saccade (Matin et al. 1993).
Time Region Subject Verb Pre-Noun Noun Prompt
ExampleEddy-ka
‘Eddy-nom’
yelesseyo ‘opened’/
yelcianhasseyo ‘didn’t open’
hankayui ‘one’pongthwu-lul
‘envelope-acc’
‘Choose which one it
was.’
Affirmative 458 740 494 525 1472
Negative 482 1010 491 496 1489
Table 1. Mean duration (ms) of time regions for fixation analyses
ANOVAs indicate a main effect of polarity (F(1,23) = 138.586, p = .000)
and an interaction of time region and polarity (F(1,23) = 43.989, p = .000). To
determine when the polarity effect began, we completed additional ANOVAs
within each time region. The results showed that the polarity effect began during
the verb region (F(1,23) = 9.269, p = .006) and remained significant until the
response prompt (p = .000). That is, participants started to look more towards
the affirmative objects (e.g., opened objects) when hearing the affirmative verb
(e.g., yel-ess-eyo ‘opened’) and more towards the negative objects (e.g., closed
objects) when hearing the negative verbs (e.g., yel-cianh-ass-eyo ‘didn’t open’).
This result suggests that the participants were able to rapidly process polarity
information during the verb window and use the information to anticipate the
incoming word. Next we completed a fine-grained analysis to further examine
the starting point of the polarity effect. This analysis of 100 ms time windows
was not offset by 200ms to illustrate real-time processing of sentences. The
results showed that the polarity effect began 400ms after the verb onset (F(1,23)
= 5.335, p = .03), and remained significant until after the end of a critical
sentence, as shown in Figure 2.
216 Miseon Lee
Figure 2. Proportion of looks to the affirmative objects (e.g., opened
objects) during the critical sentences (with Standard Error bars)4
3
4. Discussion
Based on previous findings (Anderson et al. 2010; Autry and Levine 2012;
Huette 2016; Khemlani et al. 2012; Nieuwland and Kuperberg 2008; Nieuwland and
Martin 2012; Orenes et al. 2014, 2016; Snedeker et al. 2012; Tian et al. 2010), we
hypothesized that negation is processed incrementally when presented in a
pragmatically supportive context. To evaluate this hypothesis, we examined the
moment-to-moment eye movements during a scrambled negative sentence in Korean.
If participants looked to the affirmative images upon hearing the negative verb, this
would support a two-step theory of negation processing. Alternatively, if participants
directly looked to the negative images when hearing the negative verb, this would
support the hypothesis of incremental processing of negation.
Our results are fully consistent with the incremental hypothesis. Given a
discourse context, participants made rapid use of the polarity information to predict
3 The vertical lines represent the average onset of the verb (at 0ms) and the average onset of the
final noun. The dashed lien represents the average onset of the verbal affixes.
Incremental processing of negation: Evidence from Korean 217
the likely object upon hearing the verb, as found in English negation (Snedeker et
al. 2012). Fixation analyses revealed a symmetric looking pattern, with eye
movements to the images consistent with the verb polarity occurring during the same
time window for both trial types. In other words, participants looked more towards
the affirmative objects (e.g., opened objects) upon hearing the affirmative verb (e.g.,
yel-ess-eyo ‘opened’). Crucially, when hearing the negative verb (e.g.,
yel-cianh-ass-eyo ‘didn’t open’), they looked more towards the negative objects (e.g.,
closed objects). Their eye movements revealed no processing advantage for
affirmative sentences or shifts in fixation from affirmative objects to negative
objects, contrary to the two-step theory (Kaup et al. 2006, 2007). The polarity effect
began during the verb window, 400 ms after the verb onset when the polarity
information was available. These results indicate that participants were able to
rapidly use the polarity information available from the verb to predict an upcoming
object given a discourse context.
It should be noted that the anticipatory looks to a likely object at the verb are
not attributed to the lexical association between the verb and an upcoming object. In
many cases, listeners can interpret sentences in real time by integrating multiple
constraints (Snedeker and Trueswell 2004). For instance, listeners predict an
upcoming object (e.g., a cake or a bike) on hearing a verb eat or ride, using the
lexical information of the verb together with their world knowledge. However, in the
present design, a visual display contains two kinds of objects, both of which are
semantically related to the verb (e.g., opening boxes and opening envelopes are both
possible). Given this unbiased semantic relatedness between the verb and the objects,
if a simple lexical association between the verb and its expected object drives the
predictive processing (Jackendoff 1997, 2002), participants should look to any object
in the visual display without any preference. Instead, the successful anticipatory
fixation to negative objects upon hearing the negative verb (e.g., unopened objects
for didn’t open) should be the result of rapid use of the verb polarity.
Considering the poor comprehension of negation observed in prior studies
without contexts, the success on the present task strongly hints at the importance of
discourse context in negation processing. Along with the discourse context, the visual
display accompanying a critical sentence may also provide strong clues to the
interpretation of a negative sentence. In fact, visual contexts have been found to have
a continuous and incremental effect on the interpretation of syntactic ambiguity
218 Miseon Lee
(Snedeker and Trueswell 2004; Tanenhaus et al. 1995). In particular, as the two
pairs of objects on display are contrasted to each other in terms of either polarity or
lexical meaning, they could provide a felicitous context to establish listeners’
expectancies regarding the use of negation, as illustrated in prior findings (e.g.,
Hurewitz et al. 2001).
The high response accuracy illustrates that participants were able to eventually
identify the target. The successful target identification supports the idea that online
sentence processing draws on a complex integration of combinatorial and lexical
semantics (Borovsky et al. 2012; Kamide et al. 2003). For instance, upon hearing
yel-cianh-ass-eyo ‘didn’t open,’ participants first identified two potential objects (e.g.,
the closed box and the closed envelope), using the polarity information of the verb.
Then, shortly after hearing the final noun pongthwu-lul ‘an envelope,’ they activated
the lexical meaning of the named object and looked to the named objects (e.g.,
closed and opened envelopes). Yet the lexical semantics of the noun alone is
insufficient to identify the target because two objects correspond to the meaning. The
target (e.g., the closed envelope) is only identified by combining the polarity
information of the verb (i.e., not open) and the lexical information of the noun (i.e.,
envelope).
5. Conclusion
Recent studies of negation comprehension have found that negation can be
incrementally processed in English given a pragmatically supportive context (e.g.,
Nieuwland and Kuperberg 2008). Consistent with these findings, the present study
showed that Korean-speaking adults can incrementally process negation within a
discourse context and comprehend both affirmative and negative sentences equally
fast and accurately. These results contradict a two-step theory of negation
comprehension (Kaup et al. 2006, 2007). Rather, they are consistent with the
long-standing view that felicitous context can aid negation processing by establishing
expectancies for using negation (Wason 1965, 1972). Yet, to better understand the
role of context in the negation processing, it remains to be seen how different types
of context (e.g., discourse context, visual context, lexical associations) interact with
the comprehension of negation. While the discourse context used in the present study
Incremental processing of negation: Evidence from Korean 219
is neutral in that it provides no clues about polarity distinction or target
identification, we could use more informative context where the discourse or visual
scenes provide a stronger clue to trigger the listener’s expectation of the use of
negation. We could also investigate how the same critical sentences are
comprehended in the absence of discourse or visual context.
References
Ahn, Hee-Don. 1991. Light verbs, VP-movement, negation and clausal architecture in Korean
and English. PhD Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Anderson, Sarah, Stephanie Huette, Teenie Matlock, and Michael Spivey. 2010. On the tem-
poral dynamics of negated perceptual simulations. In Fey Parrill, Vera Tobin, and Mark
Turner (eds.), Meaning, Form, and Body, 1-20. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Autry, Kevin S. and William H. Levine. 2012. Activation of negated and non-negated
entities. Journal of Pragmatics 44(11): 1474-1485.
Bloom, Lois. 1970. Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. New
York, NY: The MIT Research Monograph.
Borovsky, Arielle, Jeffrey L. Elman, and Anne Fernald. 2012. Knowing a lot for one’s age:
Vocabulary skill and not age is associated with anticipatory incremental sentence inter-
pretation in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 112(4): 417-436.
Brown-Schmidt, Sarah, Christine Gunlogson, and Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2008. Addressees
distinguish shared from private information when interpreting questions during inter-
active conversation. Cognition 107: 1122-1134.
Cameron-Faulkner, Thea, Elena Lieven, and Anna Theakston. 2007. What part of no do
children not understand? A usage-based account of multiword negation. Journal of Child
Language 34: 251-282.
Carpenter, Patricia A. and Marcel A. Just. 1975. Sentence comprehension: A psycholin-
guistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review 82: 45-73.
Choi, Soonja and David Zubin. 1985. Acquisition of Negation. In Susumo Kuno, John
Whitman, Ik-Hwan Lee, and Young-se Kang (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean
Linguistics I, 135-144. Cambridge: Harvard University Department of Linguistics.
Choo, Miho and Hye-Young Kwak. 2008. Using Korean: A guide to contemporary usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Herbert H. and William Chase. 1972. On the process of comparing sentences against
pictures. Cognitive Psychology 3: 472-517.
Cuccio, Valentina. 2012. Is embodiment all that we need? Insights from the acquisition of
220 Miseon Lee
negation. Biolinguistics 6(3-4): 259-275.
Dale, Rick and Nicholas D. Duran. 2011. The cognitive dynamics of negated sentence
verification. Cognitive Science 35(5): 983-996.
Fischler, Ira, Paul A. Bloom, Donald G. Childers, Salim E. Roucos, and Nathan W. Perry. 1983.
Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology 20: 400-409.
Giora, Rachel, Noga Balaban, Ofer Fein, and Inbar Alkabets. 2004. Negation as positivity
in disguise. In Herbert L. Colston and Albert N. Katz (eds.), Figurative language com-
prehension: Social and cultural influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Keren Aschkenazi, and Inbar Alkabets-Zlozover. 2007. Negation
in context: A functional approach to suppression. Discourse Processes 43: 153-172.
Glenberg, Arthur M., David A. Robertson, Jennifer L. Jansen, and Mina C. Johnson-Glenberg,
1999. Not propositions. Cognitive Systems Research 1(1): 19-33.
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.
Hahn, Kyung-Ja Park. 1981. The development of negation in one Korean child.. PhD
Dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa.
Han, Ho and Myung-Kwan Park. 1995. The Syntax of Negation and its Development in
Child Language. In Janet Fuller, Ho Han, and David Parkinson (eds.), ESCOL ’94,
152-162. CLC Publications, Cornell University.
Hasson, Uri and Sam Glucksberg. 2006. Does understanding negation entail affirmation? An
examination of negated metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1015-1032.
Hobbs, Jerry R., Mark E. Stickel, Douglas E. Appelt, and Paul Martin. 1993. Interpretation
as abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63(1-2): 69-142.
Huette, Stephanie. 2016. Putting context into context: sources of context and a proposed mecha-
nism for linguistic negation. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(8): 1000-1014.
Hurewitz, Felicia, Sarah Brown-Schmidt, Kirsten Thorpe, Lila R. Gleitman, and John C.
Trueswell. 2001. One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog: Factors affecting children’s syntactic
choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29(6):
597-626.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge: The MIT
Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jeon, K. Seon. 2001. Second language acquisition study of Korean negation: Is preverbal
universally easier than postverbal? In Hee-Don Ahn and Nam-Kil Kim (eds.), Selected
Papers from the Twelfth International Conference on Korean Linguistics, 137-149. Seoul,
Korea: Kyungjin Munwhasa.
Just, Marcel A. and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1971. Comprehension of negation with quantification.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10: 244-253.
Just, Marcel A. and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1976. Eye fixations and cognitive processes.
Incremental processing of negation: Evidence from Korean 221
Cognitive Psychology 8: 441-480.
Kamide, Yuki, Gerry T. M. Altmann, and Sarah L. Haywood. 2003. The time-course of pre-
diction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements.
Journal of Memory and Language 49(1): 133-156.
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.
Kaup, Barbara, Jana Lüdtke, and Rolf A. Zwaan. 2006. Processing negated sentences with
contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open mentally closed? Journal of
Pragmatics 38: 1033-1050.
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.
Khemlani, Sangeet, Isabel Orenes, and P. N. Johnson-Laird. 2012. Negation: A theory of its
meaning, representation, and use. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 24: 541-559.
Kim, Jinkyoung. 1996. Negation in Korean: A functional and discourse approach. PhD
Dissertation, University of Florida.
Kim, Jung-Hee. 2007. Differential processing in Korean negation. Working papers in linguis-
tics, University of Hawaii at Manoa 38(1): 1-16.
Kim, Young-Joo. 1997. The Acquisition of Korean. In Dan Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic
Study of Language Acquisition 4: 335-443. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klima, Edward S. and Ursula Bellugi. 1966. Syntactic regularities in the speech of children.
In John Lyons and Roger J. Wales (eds.), Psycholinguistic Papers. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Kounios, John and Phillip J. Holcomb. 1992. Structure and process in semantic memory:
Evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General 121: 459-479.
Lee, Keedong. 1993. Korean grammar on semantic-pragmatic principles. Seoul: Hankwuk
Mwunhwasa.
Lee, Miseon. 2007. Two forms of negation in Korean Broca’s aphasia. Korean Journal of
Linguistics 32(2): 319-335.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lüdtke, Jana and Barbara Kaup. 2006. Context effects when reading negative and affirma-
tive sentences. In Ron Sun and Naomi Miyake (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lüdtke, Jana, Claudia K. Friedrich, Monica De Filippis, and Barbara Kaup. 2008. Event-re-
lated potential correlates of negation in a sentence-picture verification paradigm. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(8): 1355-1370.
MacDonald, Maryellen C. and Marcel A. Just. 1989. Changes in activation levels with negation.
222 Miseon Lee
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15(4): 633-642.
Matin, Ethel, K. C. Shao, and Kenneth R. Boff. 1993. Saccadic overhead: information proc-
essing time with and without saccades. Perception and Psychophysics 53: 372-380.
Mayo, Ruth, Yaacov Schul, and Eugene Burnstein. 2004. ‘‘I am not guilty’’ vs ‘‘I am in-
nocent’’: Successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology 40: 433-449.
McClanahan, Virginia. 1998. Negation in Korean: A matter of volition. Proceedings of 11th
International Conference on Korean Linguistics (ICKL 11), July 6-9, 1998. University of
Hawaii at Manoa.
Nam, Yunju. 2016. An ERP study on the processing of Syntactic and lexical negation in
Korean. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science 27(3): 469-499.
Nieuwland, Mante S. and Andrea E. Martin. 2012. If the real world were irrelevant, so to
speak: The role of propositional truth-value in counterfactual sentence comprehension.
Cognition 122: 102-109.
Nieuwland, Mante S. and Gina R. Kuperberg. 2008. When the truth is not too hard to
handle. Psychological Science 19: 1213.
Orenes, Isabel, David Beltran, and Carlos Santamaria. 2014. How negation is understood:
Evidence from the visual world paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language 74: 36-45.
Orenes, Isabel, Linda Moxey, Christoph Scheepers, and Carlos Santamaría. 2016. Negation
in context: Evidence from the visual world paradigm, The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology 69(6): 1082-1092.
Park, Kabyong. 1990. Negation, verb movement, and light verbs in Korean. In Eung-Jin
Baek (ed.), Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Korean Linguistics,
387-398. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Pea, Roy D. 1980. The development of negation in early child language. In David R.
Olson, Jerome Bruner, and George A. Miller (eds.), The social foundations of language
and thought. New York, NY: Norton New York.
Reuter, Tracy, Roman Feiman, and Jesse Snedeker. 2017. Getting to no: Pragmatic and semantic
factors in two- and three-year- olds’ understanding of negation. Child Development.
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information Structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of
pragmatics. In Jae Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol (eds.), OSUWPL Volume 49: Papers
in Semantics. The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.
Singer, Murray. 2006. Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and
Language 54(4): 574-591.
Snedeker, Jesse and John C. Trueswell. 2004. The developing constraints on parsing deci-
sions: The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence
processing. Cognitive Psychology 49(3): 238-299.
Snedeker, Jesse, Miseon Lee, Tracy Reuter, and Matthew J. Jiang. 2012. Negation in children’s
online language comprehension: Evidence for rapid semantic analysis. Paper presented at the
Incremental processing of negation: Evidence from Korean 223
37th meeting of the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Tian, Ye, Richard Breheny, and Heather J. Ferguson. 2010. Why we simulate negated in-
formation: A dynamic pragmatic account. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
63: 2305-2312.
Wason, Peter Cathcart. 1965. The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior 4: 7-11.
Wason, Peter Cathcart. 1972. In real life negatives are false. Logique et Analyse 15: 17-38.
Wode, Henning. 1977. Four early stages in the development of L1 negation. Journal of
Child Language 4: 7-102.
224 Miseon Lee
Appendix
An example of context stories in Korean
오늘은 에디의 생일이에요. 에디는 가족들에게 선물상자와 카드를 많이 받았
어요. 에디는 그 안에 뭐가 있는지 무 궁 했어요. 그래서 에디는 먼 란
투를 열었어요. 그 안에 엄마의 생일카드가 있었어요. 다음에 빨간 상자를 열었어
요. 그 안에는 멋진 로 이 있었어요. 다음으로 에디는 빨간 투와 란 상자를
열려고 해요. 그런데 이제 생일 이크의 촛불을 꺼야 할 시간이에요. 그래서 에디
는 나 에 열어보기로 해요.
‘It was Eddy’s birthday. Eddy got gift boxes and cards from his family. He
wanted to see what was inside the gift boxes and the cards. Eddy opened the blue
envelope and found a message from his mother. He opened the red box and found
a wonderful robot. Next, he was going to open the red envelope and the blue box.
But it was time for him to blow the candles out on his birthday cake. So he decided
to open them later.’
Miseon Lee
Department of English Language and Literature
Hanyang University
222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Korea
E-mail: [email protected]
Received: 2017. 05. 16.
Revised: 2017. 06. 27.
Accepted: 2017. 06. 27.