{"title":"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)。","authors":"Dave Kush , Mechelle Wu , 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":"{\"title\":\"Negative polarity illusions are robust with both ‘ever’ and ‘any’ (when linear position is held constant)\",\"authors\":\"Dave Kush , Mechelle Wu , 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}","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}
Negative polarity illusions are robust with both ‘ever’ and ‘any’ (when linear position is held constant)
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).
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.