Search

Is negation more difficult to process than affirmation? If it is, does processing negation in a second language (L2) compound the difficulty compared to the first language (L1)? This article addresses the issues of difficulties in processing different types of negation in the L1 and L2 by looking at the differences in the ways in which comprehenders anticipate upcoming visual information during sentence processing. Using a blank-screen paradigm, we recorded eye fixations of Croatian native speakers and Croatian learners of English while they were anticipating matching or mismatching pictures to sentences with various types of negation in L1 (Croatian) and L2 (English). Using a between-group design, we manipulated sentence polarity (affirmative vs. negative), negation type (sentential vs. negative quantifier) within both L1 Croatian and L2 English so that we could observe potential anticipation effects varying as a function of the two predictors. In line with previous studies, affirmation in the L1 was easier to process than negation, and participants were able to anticipate sentence-picture matches in both the L1 and the L2 group. In contrast with our prediction, anticipatory looks did not significantly vary across negation types in Croatian based on the number of structural cues. In L2 English, learners exhibited prediction ability across negation types. These findings go against the view that comprehension in L2 comes with a reduced ability to generate expectations, and they highlight the robustness of mental simulations in both L1 and L2 negation processing., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Vanek, Matić Škorić, Košutar, Matějka and Stone.)

Research on first language (L1) attrition typically focuses on immigrant populations in their second language (L2) environment, yet we know comparably little about L1 attrition in the L1 setting. This study used two lexical tasks to test L1 attrition, a time-sensitive word decision task and a video retelling. Chinese teachers of English vs. Chinese teachers of other subjects (N = 25/group) were recruited at a secondary school in China. The aim was to provide an exploratory basis of the L2 influence on L1 lexical attrition in the L1 environment, both on the level of lexical comprehension and production. Mixed-effects models were used to analyse multiple measures including response accuracy and reaction times in comprehension, and lexical diversity, density, sophistication, and accuracy in production. The results showed Chinese teachers' L1 lexical attrition in the form of longer response times to high-frequency Chinese words compared to non-English Chinese teachers, and the use of significantly fewer sophisticated words in their retellings. Also, teachers of English were faster and more accurate in decisions about Chinese borrowings from English, suggesting L2-driven influence on their mental lexicon. Considering participants' background information, analyses showed that increased L2 exposure and frequency of use can predict L1 lexical attrition., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

How do comprehenders process negative statements such as The fish is not jumping out of the water? Opinions vary. Some argue for two steps, namely that processing starts off with the representation of the positive/illusory [fish jumping out of the water] and then shifts to the (f)actual. To test this idea, we measured fixations on the factual (fish not jumping) versus the illusory (fish jumping) during auditory processing of negation and affirmation. We tested speakers of English (single-cued negation) and Croatian (double-cued negation) and focused on anticipatory fixations in the absence of pictures to indicate the strength of mental simulations. Our findings contribute to negation processing research in two ways. First, dominant anticipatory fixations on the factual suggest a direct rather than a two-step process. Second, time-sensitive insights from two languages call for a finer-grained account of negation processing with negation-specific support of inferences of the factual over the illusory., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: This study examines how negation is processed in a nonverbal context (e.g., when assessing ▲ ≠ ▲) by speakers of a truth-based system like Mandarin and a polarity-based system like English. In a truth-based system, negation may take longer to process because it is typically attached to the negation as a whole (it is not true that triangle does not equal triangle), whereas in polarity-based systems, negation is processed relatively faster because it is attached to just the equation symbol (triangle does not equal triangle), which is processed relatively faster. Our hypothesis was that negation processing routines previously observed for verbal contexts, namely that speakers of Mandarin get slowed down more when processing negative stimuli than positive stimuli compared to speakers of English, also extend to contexts when language use is not obligatory., Methods: To test this, we asked participants to agree/disagree with equations comprising simple shapes and positive '=' or negative '≠' equation symbols. English speakers showed a response-time advantage over Mandarin speakers in negation conditions. In a separate experiment, we also tested the contribution of equation symbols '≠'/'=' to the cognitive demands by asking participants to judge shape sameness in symbol-free trials, such as ▲ ■. This comparison allowed us to test whether crosslinguistic differences arise not because of shape congruence judgement but arguably due to negation attachment., Results and Discussion: The effect of the '≠' symbol on shape congruence was language-specific, speeding up English speakers but slowing down Mandarin speakers when the two shapes differed. These findings suggest language-specific processing of negation in negative equations, interpreted as novel support for linguistic relativity., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Vanek and Zhang.)

Recent research shows that speakers of most languages find smells difficult to abstract and name. Can verbal labels enhance the human capacity to learn smell categories? Few studies have examined how verbal labeling might affect non-visual cognitive processes, and thus far very little is known about word-assisted odor category learning. To address these gaps, we tested whether different types of training change learning gains in odor categorization. After four intensive days of training to categorize odors that were co-presented with arbitrary verbal labels, people who learned odor categories with odor-label pairs that were more consistent were significantly more accurate than people with the same perceptual experience but who had odor-label pairs that were less consistent. Both groups' accuracy scores improved, but the learning curves differed. The context of consistent linguistic cuing supported an increase in correct responses from the third day of training. However, inconsistent linguistic cuing delayed the start of approximating to target odor categorization until after the fourth day. These results show that associations formed between odors and novel verbal labels facilitate the formation of odor categories. We interpret this as showing a causal link between language and olfactory perceptual processing in supporting categorization., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

We report a case of radiotherapy-enhanced aminoglutethimide skin toxicity in a patient with metastatic breast cancer. This patient was started on aminoglutethimide 6 days prior to radiation therapy, for painful bone metastasis. On day 7 of radiation therapy, she developed an extensive erythematous maculopapular rash over her face, trunk, and extremities. The rash was confluent over the radiation ports, both anteriorly and posteriorly. Aminoglutethimide was discontinued until completion of radiotherapy, and the rash resolved. Concomitant irradiation apparently enhanced the skin toxicity of aminoglutethimide or possibly aminoglutethimide had a radiosensitizing role in this patient.