Negative polarity illusions are robust with both ‘ever’ and ‘any’ (when linear position is held constant)

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Dave Kush , Mechelle Wu , Amman Khurana
{"title":"Negative polarity illusions are robust with both ‘ever’ and ‘any’ (when linear position is held constant)","authors":"Dave Kush ,&nbsp;Mechelle Wu ,&nbsp;Amman Khurana","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Many studies have used linguistic illusions to probe the representations and mechanisms used during incremental language comprehension. A crucial component of this research program is mapping out when illusions occur and when they do not. To this end, we investigate the generality of a linguistic illusion observed with negative polarity items (NPIs). Most previous work has only investigated the illusion using a single NPI, <em>ever</em> (or its analogue in other languages), but all models of the illusion phenomenon implicitly predict that illusions should generalize across different NPIs. In apparent contradiction to this prediction Parker and Phillips (2016) found reliable illusions with <em>ever</em>, but not with the previously untested NPI <em>any</em>. In their original paper, the authors suggested that the asymmetry stemmed from differences in the linear position of the two NPIs in their test items. However, the authors did not establish the basic empirical generalization that <em>any</em> is, in fact, susceptible to the illusion when the confound of linear position is factored out. As such, their findings are equally compatible with the hypothesis that there is fine-grained lexical variation in inherent susceptibility to the illusion, which would have serious implications for all theories of the phenomenon. To settle the empirical record, we conducted a higher-power study comparing <em>ever</em> and <em>any</em> using items adapted from Parker and Phillips (2016) such that the two NPIs occupied the same ordinal position in their test sentences. We find comparable illusions for both NPIs, a welcome result for all candidate theories of the phenomenon and consistent with the distance-based explanation for its absence in Parker and Phillips (2016).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"266 ","pages":"Article 106295"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027725002355","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many studies have used linguistic illusions to probe the representations and mechanisms used during incremental language comprehension. A crucial component of this research program is mapping out when illusions occur and when they do not. To this end, we investigate the generality of a linguistic illusion observed with negative polarity items (NPIs). Most previous work has only investigated the illusion using a single NPI, ever (or its analogue in other languages), but all models of the illusion phenomenon implicitly predict that illusions should generalize across different NPIs. In apparent contradiction to this prediction Parker and Phillips (2016) found reliable illusions with ever, but not with the previously untested NPI any. In their original paper, the authors suggested that the asymmetry stemmed from differences in the linear position of the two NPIs in their test items. However, the authors did not establish the basic empirical generalization that any is, in fact, susceptible to the illusion when the confound of linear position is factored out. As such, their findings are equally compatible with the hypothesis that there is fine-grained lexical variation in inherent susceptibility to the illusion, which would have serious implications for all theories of the phenomenon. To settle the empirical record, we conducted a higher-power study comparing ever and any using items adapted from Parker and Phillips (2016) such that the two NPIs occupied the same ordinal position in their test sentences. We find comparable illusions for both NPIs, a welcome result for all candidate theories of the phenomenon and consistent with the distance-based explanation for its absence in Parker and Phillips (2016).
负极性错觉对“永远”和“任意”都是稳健的(当线性位置保持不变时)。
许多研究利用语言错觉来探讨增量语言理解过程中的表征和机制。这项研究计划的一个关键组成部分是绘制出何时产生幻觉,何时不产生幻觉。为此,我们研究了用负极性项目(npi)观察到的语言错觉的普遍性。大多数先前的工作只使用单一的NPI(或其他语言中的类似物)来研究错觉,但错觉现象的所有模型都隐含地预测错觉应该在不同的NPI中推广。与这一预测明显矛盾的是,帕克和菲利普斯(2016)发现了可靠的幻觉,但没有发现以前未经测试的NPI。在他们的原始论文中,作者认为这种不对称源于两个npi在他们的测试项目中的线性位置的差异。然而,作者并没有建立一个基本的经验概括,即当线性位置的混淆因素被排除在外时,任何人实际上都容易受到错觉的影响。因此,他们的发现同样与一种假设相一致,即在对错觉的固有易感性中存在细微的词汇变化,这将对该现象的所有理论产生严重影响。为了解决经验记录,我们进行了一项更高功率的研究,比较了帕克和菲利普斯(2016)改编的任何使用项目,使两个npi在测试句子中占据相同的顺序位置。我们发现两种npi都存在类似的错觉,这对该现象的所有候选理论来说都是一个受欢迎的结果,并且与Parker和Phillips(2016)对npi缺失的基于距离的解释一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信