| Abstract: | A well-established finding in the simulation literature is that participants simulate the positive argument of negation soon after reading a negative sentence, prior to simulating a scene consistent with the negated sentence (Kaup, Lüdtke, & Zwaan, 2006 Kaup, B., Lüdtke, J. and Zwaan, R. A. 2006. Processing negated sentences with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open mentally closed?. Journal of Pragmatics, 38: 1033–1050. Crossref], Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar]; Kaup, Yaxley, Madden, Zwaan, & Lüdtke, 2007 Kaup, B., Yaxley, R. H., Madden, C. J., Zwaan, R. A. and Lüdtke, J. 2007. Experiential simulations of negated text information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60: 976–990. Taylor & Francis Online], Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar]). One interpretation of this finding is that negation requires two steps to process: first represent what is being negated then “reject” that in favour of a representation of a negation-consistent state of affairs (Kaup et al., 2007 Kaup, B., Yaxley, R. H., Madden, C. J., Zwaan, R. A. and Lüdtke, J. 2007. Experiential simulations of negated text information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60: 976–990. Taylor & Francis Online], Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar]). In this paper we argue that this finding with negative sentences could be a by-product of the dynamic way that language is interpreted relative to a common ground and not the way that negation is represented. We present a study based on Kaup et al. (2007) Kaup, B., Yaxley, R. H., Madden, C. J., Zwaan, R. A. and Lüdtke, J. 2007. Experiential simulations of negated text information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60: 976–990. Taylor & Francis Online], Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar] that tests the competing accounts. Our results suggest that some negative sentences are not processed in two steps, but provide support for the alternative, dynamic account. |
