Abstract
Embodied models of language understanding propose a close association between language comprehension and sensorimotor processes. Specifically, they suggest that meaning representation is grounded in modal experiences. Converging evidence suggests that words automatically activate spatial processing. For example, words such as ‘sky’ (‘ground’) facilitate motor and visual processing associated with upper (lower) space. However, very little is known regarding the influence of linguistic operators such as negation on these language–space associations. If these associations play a crucial role for language understanding beyond the word level, one would expect linguistic operators to automatically influence or modify these language–space associations. Participants read sentences describing an event implying an upward or a downward motion in an affirmative or negated version (e.g. The granny looks to the sky/ground vs. The granny does not look to the sky/ground). Subsequently, participants responded with an upward or downward arm movement according to the colour of a dot on the screen. The results showed that the motion direction implied in the sentences influenced subsequent spatially directed motor responses. For affirmative sentences, arm movements were faster if they matched the movement direction implied in the sentence. This language–space association was modified by the negation operator. Our results show that linguistic operators—such as negation—automatically modify language–space associations. Thus, language–space associations seem to reflect language processes beyond pure word-based activations.
References
Barsalou LW (1999) Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behav Brain Sci 22:637–660
Bartoli E et al (2013) The disembodiment effect of negation: negating action-related sentences attenuates their interference on congruent upper limb movements. J Neurophysiol 109:1782–1792
Bergen BK, Lindsay S, Matlock T, Narayanan S (2007) Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cogn Sci 31:733–764
Binder JR, Desai RH (2011) The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends Cogn Sci 15:527–536
Chasteen AL, Burdzy DC, Pratt J (2010) Thinking of God moves attention. Neuropsychologia 48:627–630
Deutsch R, Kordts-Freudinger R, Gawronski B, Strack F (2009) Fast and fragile: a new look at the automaticity of negation processing. Exp Psychol 56:434–446
Dudschig C, Lachmair M, de la Vega I, De Filippis M, Kaup B (2012) Do task-irrelevant direction-associated motion verbs affect action planning? Evidence from a Stroop paradigm. Memory & Cognition 40:1081–1094
Dudschig C, Souman J, Lachmair M, de la Vega I, Kaup B (2013) Reading “sun” and looking up: the influence of language on saccadic eye movements in the vertical dimension. PLoS ONE 8(2):e56872
Dudschig C, de la Vega I, Kaup B (2014) Embodiment and second-language: automatic activation of motor responses during processing spatially associated L2 words and emotion L2 words in a vertical Stroop paradigm. Brain Lang 132:14–21
Dudschig C, de la Vega I, Kaup B (2015) What’s up? Emotion-specific activation of vertical space during language processing. Acta Psychol 156:143–155
Dunn BM, Kamide Y, Scheepers C (2014) Hearing “moon” and looking up: word-related spatial associations facilitate saccades to congruent locations. Proc Cogn Sci Meet
Estes Z, Verges M, Barsalou LW (2008) Head up, foot down object words orient attention to the objects’ typical location. Psychol Sci 19:93–97
Glenberg AM, Kaschak MP (2002) Grounding language in action. Psychon Bull Rev 9:558–565
Kaup B, Lüdtke J, Zwaan RA (2006) Processing negated sentences with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open mentally closed? J Pragmat 38:1033–1050
Kaup B, De Filippis M, Lachmair M, de la Vega I, Dudschig C (2012) When up-words meet down-sentences: evidence for word-or sentence-based compatibility effects? Cogn Process 13:203–207
Lachmair M et al (2011) Root versus roof: automatic activation of location information during word processing. Psychon Bull Rev 18:1180–1188
Loftus GR, Masson ME (1994) Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychon Bull Rev 1:476–490
Masson ME, Bub DN, Lavelle H (2013) Dynamic evocation of hand action representations during sentence comprehension. J Exp Psychol Gen 142:742–762
Mayo R, Schul Y, Burnstein E (2004) “I am not guilty” vs “I am innocent”: successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. J Exp Soc Psychol 40:433–449
Mayo R, Schul Y, Rosenthal M (2014) If you negate, you may forget: negated repetitions impair memory compared with affirmative repetitions. J Exp Psychol Gen 143:1541–1552
Meier BP, Robinson MD (2004) Why the sunny side is up associations between affect and vertical position. Psychol Sci 15:243–247
Raposo A, Moss HE, Stamatakis EA, Tyler LK (2009) Modulation of motor and premotor cortices by actions, action words and action sentences. Neuropsychologia 47:388–396
Zwaan RA, Yaxley RH (2003) Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments. Psychon Bull Rev 10:954–958
Zwaan RA, Stanfield RA, Yaxley RH (2002) Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychol Sci 13:168–171
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dudschig, C., de la Vega, I. & Kaup, B. To fly or not to fly? The automatic influence of negation on language–space associations. Cogn Process 16 (Suppl 1), 203–207 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0700-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0700-2