Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 30:2 (2023) ► pp.296–329

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

On comprehending adjectival antonyms and negation

Revisiting negation as mitigation in Persian

ORCiD logo with link | Alzahra University
ORCiD logo with link | Eastern Kentucky University
 | Alzahra University
Published online: 11 July 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23001.gol
Abstract
This study explores the extent to which comprehending negated antonyms in Persian involves the mitigation effect, whereby a negated word means less than its antonym. In two mouse-tracking experiments, participants rated sentences containing negated/non-negated scalar (e.g., tall-short) and complementary (e.g., dead-alive) antonymous adjectives on a continuous scale. Their reaction times and mouse movements were recorded by MouseTracker. The analysis of reaction times shows that negated adjectives are processed slower than their affirmative counterparts. Moreover, the analysis of mouse trajectories shows that complementary adjectives are rated further apart, closer to the endpoints of the scale than scalar adjectives. We also found that both complementary and scalar adjectives are mitigated under negation, but the mitigation effect is greater in scalar, rather than complementary, adjectives. The results speak in favor of a particular kind of mitigation effect, so-called negative strengthening, which causes negated antonyms to receive a strong pragmatic interpretation towards the opposite member of the pair.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background of the research
  • 3.Aims, hypotheses and predictions
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Materials
    • 4.2Procedure
    • 4.3Analyses
  • 5.Experiment 1
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Stimuli
    • 5.3Results and discussion
  • 6.Experiment 2
    • 6.1Participants
    • 6.2Stimuli
    • 6.3Results and discussion
  • 7.Exploratory analyses
    • 7.1Combined experiments
    • 7.2Testing the markedness hypothesis
  • 8.Discussion
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Ethics statement
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
References (61)
References
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 671. 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benz, Anton, Carla Bombi & Nicole Gotzner. 2018. Scalar diversity and negative strengthening. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 601. 191–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blochowiak, Joanna & Cristina Grisot. 2018. The pragmatics of descriptive and metalinguistic negation: Experimental data from French. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1989. On Horn’s dilemma: Presupposition and negation. Journal of Linguistics 25(1). 95–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carpenter, Patricia A. & Marcel A. Just. 1975. Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review 82(1). 45–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1996. Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics 25(3). 309–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & William G. Chase. 1972. On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology 3(3). 472–517. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, Herbert L. 1999. “Not good” is “bad,” but “not bad” is not “good”: An analysis of three accounts of negation asymmetry. Discourse Processes 28(3). 237–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, David A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dale, Rick & Nicholas D. Duran. 2011. The cognitive dynamics of negated sentence verification. Cognitive Science 35(5). 983–996. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraenkel, Tamar & Yaacov Schul. 2008. The meaning of negated adjectives. Intercultural Pragmatics 5(4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Charles Clifton & Britta Stolterfoht. 2008. Scale structure: Processing minimum standard and maximum standard scalar adjectives. Cognition 106(1). 299–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freeman, Jonathan B. & Nalini Ambady. 2010. MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods 42(1). 226–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 2006. Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 38(7). 981–1014. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Noga Balaban, Ofer Fein & Inbar Alkabets. 2005. Explicit negation as positivity in disguise. In Herbert L. Colston & Albert N. Katz (eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences, 233–258. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Keren Aschkenazi & Inbar Alkabets. 2007. Negation in context: A functional approach to suppression. Discourse Processes 43(2). 153–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Jonathan Ganzi, Natalie Alkeslassy Levi & Hadas Sabah. 2005. On negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes 39(1). 81–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Thomas. 1978. Negation in language: Pragmatics, function, ontology. On understanding grammar 181. 59–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glenberg, Arthur M., David A. Robertson, Jennifer L. Jansen & Mina C. Johnson-Glenberg. 1999. Not propositions. Cognitive Systems Research 1(1). 19–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golshaie, Ramin & Sara Incera. 2021. Grammatical aspect and mental activation of implied instruments: A mouse-tracking study in Persian. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50(4). 737–755. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gotzner, Nicole & Diana Mazzarella. 2021. Face management and negative strengthening: The role of power Relations, social Distance, and gender. Frontiers in Psychology 121. 602977. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gotzner, Nicole, Stephanie Solt & Anton Benz. 2018. Scalar diversity, negative strengthening, and adjectival semantics. Frontiers in Psychology 91. 1659. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasson, Uri & Sam Glucksberg. 2006. Does understanding negation entail affirmation?: An examination of negated metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics (Special Issue: Processes and Products of Negation) 38(7). 1015–1032. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation (The David Hume Series). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. & Yasuhiko Kato. 2000. Introduction: Negation and polarity at the millennium. In L. Horn & Y. Kato (eds.), Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives, 1–19. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Incera, Sara, Conor T. McLennan, Lisa M. Stronsick & Emily E. Zetzer. 2019. Is tuba masculine or feminine? The timing of grammatical gender. Mind & Language 34(5). 667–680. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Steven. 2002. Antonymy: A corpus-based perspective. London: Routledge. [URL]. (21 June, 2023).
Jones, Steven, M. Lynne Murphy, Carita Paradis & Caroline Willners. 2012. Antonyms in English: Construals, constructions and canonicity (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaup, Barabara, Jana Ludtke & Rolf A. Zwaan. 2005. Effects of negation, truth value, and delay on picture recognition after reading affirmative and negative sentences. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 27(27). [URL]. (18 October, 2021).
Kaup, Barbara, Richard H. Yaxley, Carol J. Madden, Rolf A. Zwaan & Jana Lüdtke. 2007. Experiential simulations of negated text information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60(7). 976–990. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1). 1–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2). 345–381. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khodaparasti, Farajollah. 1997. Persian comprehensive dictionary of synonyms and antonyms [In Persian]. Shiraz: Daneshnameh Fars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2011. Pragmatic strengthening and semantic change: The conventionalizing of conversational implicature. In Werner Hüllen & Rainer Schulze (eds.), Understanding the lexicon: Meaning, sense and world knowledge in lexical semantics, 110–124. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kostić, Nataša. 2017. Adjectival antonyms in discourse: A corpus study of scalar and complementary antonyms. Folia Linguistica 51(3). 587–610. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Negated antonyms: Creating and filling the gap. In Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, 163–177. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne & Keith Lehrer. 1982. Antonymy. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(4). 483–501. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loebner, Sebastian. 2013. Understanding semantics (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lozano, Luis M., Eduardo García-Cueto & José Muñiz. 2008. Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology 4(2). 73–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lüdtke, Jana & Barbara Kaup. 2006. Context effects when reading negative and affirmative sentences. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1735–1740.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maciuszek, Jozef. 2008. Processing negation in the context of adjectival antonymy. Psychology of Language and Communication 121. 17–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayo, Ruth, Yaacov Schul & Eugene Burnstein. 2004. “I am not guilty” vs “I am innocent”: Successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40(4). 433–449. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana & Nicole Gotzner. 2021. The polarity asymmetry of negative strengthening: Dissociating adjectival polarity from face-threatening potential. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 6(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2003. Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy and other paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noh, Eun-Ju, Hyeree Choo & Sungryong Koh. 2013. Processing metalinguistic negation: Evidence from eye-tracking experiments. Journal of Pragmatics 571. 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics 12(1). 47–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita & Caroline Willners. 2006. Antonymy and negation: The boundedness hypothesis. Journal of Pragmatics 38(7). 1051–1080. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (4.1.1) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Rivera-Garrido, Noelia, M. P. Ramos-Sosa, Michela Accerenzi & Pablo Brañas-Garza. 2022. Continuous and binary sets of responses differ in the field. Scientific Reports 12(1). 14376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rotstein, Carmen & Yoad Winter. 2004. Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 12(3). 259–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas, Steven Verheyen & Benjamin Spector. 2017. Asymmetric inference towards the antonym: Experiments into the polarity and morphology of negated adjectives. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics. 2(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solt, Stephanie. 2019. Adjective meaning and scales. In Chris Cummins & Napoleon Katsos (eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics, 263–282. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spivey, Michael J., Marc Grosjean & Günther Knoblich. 2005. Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(29). 10393–10398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Syrett, Kristen, Evan Bradley, Christopher Kennedy & Jeffrey Lidz. 2006. Shifting standards: Children’s understanding of gradable adjectives. In Kamil Ud Deen, Jun Nomura, Barbara Schulz & Bonnie D. Schwarz (eds.), Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition – North America (GALANA), 353–364. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tian, Ye & Richard Breheny. 2018. Pragmatics and negative sentence processing. In Chris Cummins & Napoleon Katsos (eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental pragmatics, 195–207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2012. Pragmatics and language change. In Keith Allan & Kasia Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 549–565. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Tiel, Bob, Emiel Van Miltenburg, Natalia Zevakhina & Bart Geurts. 2016. Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics 33(1). 137–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. 1961. Response to affirmative and negative binary statements. British Journal of Psychology 521. 133–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weicker, Merle & Petra Schulz. 2018. Is clean the same as not dirty? On the understanding of absolute gradable adjectives. In Anne B. Bertonini & Maxwell J. Kaplan (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 790–802. Somerville, MA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue