Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32036569›Full record

ArticleJournal of psycholinguistic research2020

Modulating "Surprise" with Syntax: A Study on Negative Sentences and Eye-Movement Recording.

Matteo Greco, Paolo Canal, Valentina Bambini, Andrea Moro

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psycholinguistic research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matteo GrecoCenter for Neurocognition, Epistemology and Theoretical Syntax (NETS), Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS Pavia (University School for Advanced Studies IUSS Pavia), Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100, Pavia, Italy. matteo.greco@iusspavia.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6144-8015
Paolo CanalCenter for Neurocognition, Epistemology and Theoretical Syntax (NETS), Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS Pavia (University School for Advanced Studies IUSS Pavia), Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100, Pavia, Italy.
Valentina BambiniCenter for Neurocognition, Epistemology and Theoretical Syntax (NETS), Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS Pavia (University School for Advanced Studies IUSS Pavia), Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100, Pavia, Italy.
Andrea MoroCenter for Neurocognition, Epistemology and Theoretical Syntax (NETS), Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS Pavia (University School for Advanced Studies IUSS Pavia), Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100, Pavia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work focuses on a particular case of negative sentences, the Surprise Negation sentences (SNEGs). SNEGs belong to the class of expletive negation sentences, i.e., they are affirmative in meaning but involve a clausal negation. A clear example is offered by Italian: 'Enonmi è scesa dal treno Maria?!' (let. 'and not CLITIC.to_me is got off-the train Mary' = 'The surprise was that Maria got off the train!'). From a theoretical point of view, the interpretation of SNEGs as affirmative can be derived from their specific syntactic and semantic structure. Here we offer an implementation of the visual world paradigm to test how SNEGs are interpreted. Participants listened to affirmative, negative or expletive negative clauses while four objects (two relevant-either expected or unexpected-and two unrelated) were shown on the screen and their eye movements were recorded. Growth Curve Analysis showed that the fixation patterns to the relevant objects were very similar for affirmative and expletive negative sentences, while striking differences were observed between negative and affirmative sentences. These results showed that negation does play a different role in the mental representation of a sentence, depending on its syntactic derivation. Moreover, we also found that, compared to affirmative sentences, SNEGs require higher processing efforts due to both their syntactic complexity and pragmatic integration, with slower response time and lower accuracy.

Indexed as

Eye MovementsLanguageReaction TimeReadingHumansItalyExpletive negationEye movementsNegationSurprise effectSyntax–Pragmatics interfaceVisual world paradigm

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.