2016 | 14 | 3 | 203-220
Article title

Cognitive processing of verbal quantifiers in the context of affirmative and negative sentences: A Croatian study

Title variants
Languages of publication
Studies from English and German have found differences in the processing of affirmative and negative sentences. However, little attention has been given to quantifiers that form negations. A picture-sentence verification task was used to investigate the processing of different types of quantifiers in Croatian: universal quantifiers in affirmative sentences (e.g. all), non-universal quantifiers in compositional negations (e.g. not all), null quantifiers in negative concord (e.g. none) and relative disproportionate quantifiers in both affirmative and negative sentences (e.g. some). The results showed that non-universal and null quantifiers, as well as negations were processed significantly slower compared to affirmative sentences, which is in line with previous findings supporting the two-step model. The results also confirmed that more complex tasks require a longer reaction time. A significant difference in the processing of same-polarity sentences with first-order quantifiers was observed: sentences with null quantifiers were processed faster and more accurately than sentences with disproportional and non-universal quantifiers. A difference in reaction time was also found in affirmatives with different quantifiers: sentences with universal quantifiers were processed significantly faster and more accurately compared to sentences with relative disproportionate quantifiers. These findings indicate that the processing of quantifiers follows after the processing of affirmative information. In the context of the two-step model, the processing of quantifiers occurs in the second step, along with negations.
Physical description
  • University of Zagreb
  • University of Zagreb; University of Rijeka
  • Baric, E., Hudecek, L., Koharovic, N., Loncaric, M., Lukenda, M. Mamic, M., Mihaljevic, M., Saric, LJ., Svacko, V., Vukojevic, L., Zecevic, V. and M. Zagar. 1999. Hrvatski jezični savjetnik. Zagreb: Pergamet, Skolska knjiga.
  • Beukema, F. 1999. Five ways of saying no: the development of sentential negation in English in a Government and Binding Perspective. In I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, G. Tottie and W. van der Wurff (eds.), Negation in the History of English, 9-27. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Bott, L. and I. A Noveck. 2004. Some utterances are under informative: The onset and time course of scalar implicatures. Journal of Memory and Language 51. 437-457.
  • Burusic, J. 1999. Kakve kategorije rabimo u upitnicima i skalama procjena? Društvena istraživanja 8. 137-152.
  • Carpenter, P. A. and M. A. Just. 1975. Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review 82. 45–73.
  • Cheng, C. M. and H. J. Huang. 1980. The process of verifying affirmative and negative sentences against pictures. Memory and Cognition 8. 573-583.
  • Clark, H. H. and W. G. Chase. 1972. On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology 3. 472-517.
  • Coles-White, J. 2004. Negative concord in child African American English: Implications for specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47. 212-222.
  • De Clercq, K., Haegeman, L. and T. Lohndal. 2012. Medial adjunct PPs in English: Implications for the syntax of sentential negation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35. 5-26.
  • Dik, S.C. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part I: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Eckert, P. 2004. Adolescent language. In E. Finegan and J.R. Rickford (eds.), Language in the USA: themes for the twenty-first century, 58-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fitts, P. M. 1954. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology 47. 381–391.
  • Fitts, P. M. and J. R. Peterson. 1964. Information capacity of discrete motor responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology 67. 103–112.
  • Gennari, S. P. and M. C. MacDonald. 2006. Acquisition of Negation and Quantification: Insights From Adult Production and Comprehension. Language Acquisition 13. 125-168.
  • Geurts, B. 2003. Reasoning with quantifiers. Cognition 86. 223-251.
  • Geurts, B., Katsos, N., Cummins, C., Moons, J. and L. Noordman. 2010. Scalar quantifiers: Logic, acquisition, and processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 25.130-148.
  • Glass, A. L. and K. Holyoak. 1974. The effect of all and some on reaction time for semantic decisions. Memory and Cognition 2. 436-440.
  • Horn, L. 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
  • Hurewitz, F., Papafragou, A., Gleitman, L. and R. Gelman. 2006. Asymmetries in the Acquisition of Numbers and Quantifiers. Language, Learning and Development 2. 77-96.
  • Hunt, L., Politzer-Ahles, S., Gibson, L., Minai, U. and R. Fiorentino. 2013. Pragmatic inferences modulate N400 during sentence comprehension: Evidence from picture–sentence verification. Neuroscience Letters 534. 246-251.
  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1999. Deductive reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology 50. 109-135.
  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. 2008. Mental Models and Deductive Reasoning. In L. Rips and J. Adler (eds.), Reasoning: Studies in Human Inference and Its Foundations, 206-222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Just, M. A. and P. A.Carpenter. 1971. Comprehension of negation with quantification. Journal of verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10. 244-253.
  • Kallel, A. 2011. The Loss of Negative Concord in Standard English: A Case of Lexical Reanalysis. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Kaup, B., Lüdtke, J., and R. A. Zwaan. 2005. Effects of negation, truth value, and delay on picture recognition after reading affirmative and negative sentences. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou and M. Bucciarelli (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1114-1119. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Kaup, B., Lüdtke, J. and R. 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, B., Yaxley, R. H., Madden, C. J., Zwaan, R. A. and J. Lüdtke. 2007. Experimental simulations of negated text information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60. 976-990.
  • Kaup, B., Zwaan, R. A. and J. Lüdtke. 2007. The experiential view of language comprehension: How is negation represented? In F. Schmalhofer and C. A. Perfetti (eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes, 255-288. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Klima, E. S. 1964. Negation in English. In J. Fodor and J. Katz (eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Knoeferle, P., Urbach, T. P. and M. Kutas. 2009. Is incremental semantic interpretation related to end-of-sentence verification? Evidence from correlation analyses. In N. Taatgen, H. van Rijn, L. Schomaker and J. Nerbonne (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1127-1132. Amsterdam: Cognitive Science Society, Inc.
  • Kordic, S. 2004. Kroatisch-Serbisch: ein Lehrbuch für Fortgeschrittene mit Grammatik. Hamburg: Buske.
  • Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, volume II. Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive meanings - the theory of universalized conversational implicatures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Margolin, S. J. and L. Abrams. 2009. Not may not be too difficult: The effects of negative on older adults’ sentence comprehension. Educational Gerontology 35. 308-322.
  • McMillan, C. T., Clark, R., Moore, P., Devita, C. and M. Grossman. 2005. Neural basis for universalized quantifier comprehension. Neuropsychologia 43. 1729-1737.
  • Menac, A. 1953. O upotrebi dvostruke negacije s glagolskim pridjevom trpnim. Jezik: časopis za kulturu hrvatskoga književnog jezika 1. 18-22.
  • Merin, A. 2005. Proportion Quantifier Interpretations of Indefinites and Endocentric Relevance Relations. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 19. ,147-186.
  • Meyer, D. E. 1970. On the representation and retrieval of stored semantic information. Cognitive Psychology 1. 242-300.
  • Newstad, S. E., Pollard, P. and D. Riezebos. 1987. The effect of set size on the interpretation of quantifiers used in rating scales. Applied Ergonomics 18. 178-182.
  • Noveck, I. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition 78. 165−188.
  • Noveck, I. A. and A. Posada. 2003.Characterizing the time course of an implicature: an evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 85. 203-210.
  • Noveck, I. A. and D. Sperber. 2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’. In N. Burton-Roberts (ed.), Advances in Pragmatics, 184-212. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
  • Noveck, I. A. 2009. Meaning and inference linked to negation: An experimental pragmatic approach. In U. Sauerland and K. Yatsushiro (eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: from experiment to theory, 113-123. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Rips, L. J. 1975. Quantification and semantic memory. Cognitive Psychology 7. 307-340.
  • Schmidt, J. R. and V. A. Thompson. 2008. “At least one” problem with “some” formal reasoning paradigms. Memory and Cognition 36. 217-229.
  • Shetreet, E., Chierchia, G. and N. Gaab. 2014. When Some is Not Every: Dissociating Scalar Implicature Generation and Mismatch. Human Brain Mapping 35. 1503-1514.
  • Spychalska, M. 2009. From Inference to Meaning. Experimental Study on Reasoning with Quantifiers Some and Most. In N. Bezhanishvili, S. Löbner, K. Schwabe and L. Spada (eds.), Logic, Language, and Computation, 283-300. 8th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation, TbiLLC 2009, Bakuriani, Georgia, September 2009. Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Spychalska, M. 2011. Processing sentences with negated predicates: the role of opposites. D. Lassiter (ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd ESSLLI Student Session, Ljubljana, 193-199.
  • Szymanik, J. and M. Zajenkowski. 2010. Comprehension of Simple Quantifiers: Empirical Evaluation of a Computational Model. Cognitive Science 34. 521-532.
  • Van der Wouden, T. and F. Zwarts. 1993. A semantic analysis of negative concord. In U. Lahiri and A. Z. Wyner (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory III, 202-219. Ithaca: Cornell University.
  • Van Dijk, T.A. and W. Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
  • Wolfram, W. 2004. Social varieties of American English. In E. Finegan and J. R. Rickford (eds.), Language in the USA: themes for the twenty-first century, 58-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Zovko Dinkovic, I. 2013. Negation in language. Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada.
  • Zwaan, R. A. 1999. Situation Models: The Mental Leap Into Imagined Worlds. Current directions in psychological science 8. 15-18.
  • Zwaan, R. A. and C. J. Madden. 2004. Updating Situation models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30. 283-288.
  • Zwaan, R. A. and C. J. Madden. 2005. Embodied sentence comprehension. In D. Pecher and R. A. Zwaan (eds.), The grounding of cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Zwaan, R. A. and G. A. Radvansky. 1998. Situation Models in Language Comprehension and Memory. Psychological Bulletin 123. 162-185.
  • Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A. and R. H. Yaxley. 2002. Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science 13. 168-171.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.