Negative sentences are generally more cognitively demanding than affirmative ones. The contextual approach suggests that this additional cost can be modulated by pragmatic factors such as contextual informativity, specifically modeled via Question Under Discussion (QUD) accommodation in the Dynamic Pragmatic (DP) account. This study investigates how linguistic context and individual socio-cognitive ability (SCA) interact to shape the use of negation markers (i.e., negators). We examine the two most common negators in Mandarin Chinese, bu and mei, whose usage is associated with two linguistic features: (a) temporal Boundedness, indicating whether an event occurs in a specific time frame (e.g., yesterday vs. every day) and (b) the protagonist’s Volition, indicating whether the protagonist performs the denoted action intentionally or not (e.g., insist vs. have to). These features can co-occur in conflict, favoring different negators, and we exploit such cases to examine how contextual cues are weighed in negator use. We hypothesize that negator choice depends on which feature better addresses the negation-related QUD in a given context. Additionally, since evaluating Volition requires understanding others’ intentions, which is a core component of SCA, (c) individual differences in SCA may affect context-sensitivity to Volition. Results of our timed questionnaire show that temporal Boundedness was the primary factor in negator choice, while Volition exerted a stronger influence in unbounded contexts and among higher-SCA individuals. Response-time data further revealed greater processing effort when integrating volition prior to the ultimate decision. These findings highlight the dynamic interactions between linguistic context and individual cognitive variability in language use.
AbbuhlR.GassS.MackeyA. (2013). Experimental research design. Research Methods in Linguistics, 1, 116–134.
2.
AlbuE.TsaregorodtsevaO.KaupB. (2021). Contrary to expectations: Does context influence the processing cost associated with negation?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50, 1215–1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09799-8
3.
ApperlyI. A. (2012). What is ‘theory of mind’? Concepts, cognitive processes and individual differences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(5), 825–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.676055
4.
ArunachalamS. (2013). Experimental methods for linguists. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(4), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12021
5.
BakshR. A.AbrahamsS.AuyeungB.MacPhersonS. E. (2018). The Edinburgh Social Cognition Test (ESCoT): Examining the effects of age on a new measure of theory of mind and social norm understanding. PLoS One, 13(4), Article e0195818. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195818
Baron-CohenS.WheelwrightS.SkinnerR.MartinJ.ClubleyE. (2001). The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017455213300
10.
BlasiD. E.HenrichJ.AdamouE.KemmererD.MajidA. (2022). Over-reliance on English hinders cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(12), 1153–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.09.015
11.
Bornkessel-SchlesewskyI.SchlesewskyM. (2016). The importance of linguistic typology for the neurobiology of language. Linguistic Typology, 20(3), 615–621. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0032
12.
ChenS. F.ChenL. C. L. (2017). On the syntactic, semantic and discourse-pragmatic features of modern mandarin negators ‘Bù’ and ‘Méi’ and their pedagogical implications. University System of Taiwan Working Paper in Linguistics, 9, 189–202.
13.
ChenX. R. (2023). Investigating the effects of sentential context and individual context-sensitivity in the choice between negators bu and mei in Mandarin [Thesis, National Chengchi University]. National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertation in Taiwan.
CuttingA. L.DunnJ. (1999). Theory of mind, emotion understanding, language, and family background: Individual differences and interrelations. Child Development, 70(4), 853–865. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00061
17.
DaiY. J. (2000). 试论现代汉语的否定范畴 [A study on the category of negation in modern Chinese]. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 3, 45–49.
DarleyE. J.KentC.KazaninaN. (2020). A ‘no’ with a trace of ‘yes’: A mouse-tracking study of negative sentence processing. Cognition, 198, Article 104084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104084
DudschigC.KaupB. (2018). How does ‘not left’ become ‘right’? Electrophysiological evidence for a dynamic conflict-bound negation processing account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(5), 716–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000481
22.
DudschigC.KaupB.LiuM.SchwabJ. (2021). The processing of negation and polarity: An overview. Journal of Psycholinguistic, 50(6), 1199–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09817-9
23.
DudschigC.KaupB.SvaldiJ.GulewitschM. D. (2021). Negation processing in children with ADHD: The generic problem of using negation in instructions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50(6), 1309–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09789-w
24.
FengW.YuH.ZhouX. (2021). Understanding particularized and generalized conversational implicatures: Is theory-of-mind necessary?Brain and Language, 212, Article 104878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104878
FischlerI.BloomP. A.ChildersD. G.RoucosS. E.PerryN. W. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20(4), 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1983.tb00920.x
HappéF. G. (1997). Central coherence and theory of mind in autism: Reading homographs in context. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1997.tb00721.x
31.
HappéF. G.CookJ. L.BirdG. (2017). The structure of social cognition: In(ter)dependence of sociocognitive processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044046
32.
HassonU.GlucksbergS. (2006). Does understanding negation entail affirmation?: An examination of negated metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1015–1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.12.005
33.
HendersonL. M.ClarkeP. J.SnowlingM. J. (2011). Accessing and selecting word meaning in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(9), 964–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02393.x
HornL. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press.
36.
HowardJ. H. (1975). The attentional demands of negation in a memory-scanning task. Memory & Cognition, 3(3), 319–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212918
37.
HowardP. L.LiversedgeS. P.BensonV. (2017). Investigating the use of world knowledge during on-line comprehension in adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 47(7), 2039–2053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3129-x
38.
HsiehC. L. (2006). The semantic categorization of Chinese modal expressions: A corpus-based analysis. Studies in Chinese Linguistics, 1, 45–63.
JolliffeT.Baron-CohenS. (1999). The strange stories test: A replication with high-functioning adults with autism or Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29, 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023082928366
41.
KaiserE. (2013). Experimental paradigms in psycholinguistics. In PodesvaR. J.SharmaD. (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 135–168). Cambridge University Press.
42.
KalandadzeT.NorburyC.NærlandT.NæssK. A. B. (2018). Figurative language comprehension in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analytic review. Autism, 22(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316668652
43.
KaupB.LudtkeJ.ZwaanR. A. (2005). Effects of negation, truth value, and delay on picture recognition after reading affirmative and negative sentences. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 27(27), 1114–1119. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/19s068vb
44.
KaupB.YaxleyR. H.MaddenC. J.ZwaanR. A.LüdtkeJ. (2007). Experiential simulations of negated text information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(7), 976–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600823512
45.
KeatingG. D.JegerskiJ. (2015). Experimental designs in sentence processing research: A methodological review and user’s guide. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000187
46.
LaiY. Y. (2024). Contextual modulation of the neural network underlying the processing of compositional nontransparent meaning. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 72, Article 101202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2024.101202.
47.
LaiY. Y.LaiH. L. (2023). Impact of social cognitive propensity on the processing of nontransparent sentential meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 205, 33–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.014.
48.
LaiY. Y.SakaiH.MakuuchiM. (2023). Neural underpinnings of processing combinatorial unstated meaning and the influence of individual cognitive style. Cerebral Cortex, 33(18), 10013–10027. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhad261.
49.
LauW. Y. P.GauS. S. F.ChiuY. N.WuY. Y.ChouW. J.LiuS. K.ChouM. C. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.08.005
50.
LenthR.PiaskowskiJ. (2025). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 2.0.1. https://rvlenth.github.io/emmeans/
51.
LiC. N.ThompsonS. A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar (Vol. 3). University of California Press.
52.
LiT. G. (2003). The usage of ‘Bu’ and ‘Meiyou’ and time restriction. Chinese Language Learning, 2, 1–7.
53.
LiY. (1992). ‘不’的否定意义 [The negation meaning of ‘bu’]. Language Teaching Linguistic Studies, 2, 61–70.
54.
LinJ. W. (2002). On temporal reference in modern Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 3(1), 1–25.
LuS. X. (2007). 现代汉语八百词 [Eight hundred words of modern Chinese] (Re. ed.). The Commercial Press.
57.
LüdtkeJ.FriedrichC. K.De FilippisM.KaupB. (2008). Event-related potential correlates of negation in a sentence–picture verification paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(8), 1355–1370. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20093
58.
LundströmS.ChangZ.RåstamM.GillbergC.LarssonH.AnckarsäterH.LichtensteinP. (2012). Autism spectrum disorders and autisticlike traits: similar etiology in the extreme end and the normal variation. Archives of general psychiatry, 69(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.144
59.
MitchellD. C. (2004). On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical review. In CarreirasM.CliftonC. E. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP and beyond (pp. 15–32). Psychology Press.
60.
MizunoK.TanakaM.YamagutiK.KajimotoO.KuratsuneH.WatanabeY. (2011). Mental fatigue caused by prolonged cognitive load associated with sympathetic hyperactivity. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 7, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-7-17
61.
ModyM.BelliveauJ. W. (2013). Speech and language impairments in autism: Insights from behavior and neuroimaging. North American Journal of Medicine and Science, 5(3), 157. https://doi.org/10.7156/v5i3p157
62.
NieR. F. (2001). The semantic features and meanings of time on two negatives: bu and meiyou. Chinese Language Learning, 1, 21–27.
63.
NieuwlandM. S.DitmanT.KuperbergG. R. (2010). On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 324–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005
64.
NieuwlandM. S.KuperbergG. R. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1213–1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02226.x
65.
PanH.LeeP. P. L.HuangC. R. (2016). Negation. In HuangC. R.ShiD. (Eds.), A reference grammar of Chinese. Reference grammars (pp. 143–168). Cambridge University Press.
66.
PradoJ.NoveckI. A. (2006). How reaction time measures elucidate the matching bias and the way negations are processed. Thinking & Reasoning, 12(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780500371241
67.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
68.
RobertsC. (2006). Context in dynamic interpretation. In HornL. R.WardG. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 197–220). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch9
69.
RobertsC. (2012). Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6
70.
RonaiE.XiangM. (2021). Pragmatic inferences are QUD-sensitive: An experimental study. Journal of Linguistics, 57(4), 841–870. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000389
71.
RuzichE.AllisonC.SmithP.WatsonP.AuyeungB.RingH.Baron-CohenS. (2015). Measuring autistic traits in the general population: A systematic review of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) in a nonclinical population sample of 6,900 typical adult males and females. Molecular Autism, 6(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/2040-2392-6-2
72.
SatoS.VanekN. (2023). Contrasting online and offline measures: Examples from experimental research on linguistic relativity. In ZuffereyS.GygaxP. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of experimental linguistics (pp. 217–234). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003392972
ShiY. Z. (2001). Symmetry and asymmetry between affirmation and negation. Beijing Language and Culture University Press.
75.
SingmannH.BolkerB.WestfallJ.AustF.Ben-ShacharM. S. (2023). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments (R Package Version 1.3-0) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex
76.
StewartG. R.WallaceG. L.CottamM.CharltonR. A. (2020). Theory of mind performance in younger and older adults with elevated autistic traits. Autism Research, 13(5), 751–762. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2206
TengS. H. (1974). Verb classification and its pedagogical extensions. Journal of the Chinese Teachers Association, 9, 84–92.
79.
TengS. H.WangP. C.ChenC. H.HuangK. Y. (2015). A course in contemporary Chinese (Textbook 1). Linking Publishing.
80.
TettamantiM.ManentiR.Della RosaP. A.FaliniA.PeraniD.CappaS. F.MoroA. (2008). Negation in the brain: Modulating action representations. Neuroimage, 43(2), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.08.004
81.
ThurberC.Tager-FlusbergH. (1993). Pauses in the narratives produced by autistic, mentally retarded, and normal children as an index of cognitive demand. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23(2), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01046222
82.
TianY.BrehenyR. (2016). A dynamic pragmatic view of negation processing. In LarrivéeP.LeeC. (Eds.), Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 21–45). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17464-8_2
83.
TianY.BrehenyR. (2019). Negation. In CumminsC.KatsosN. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics (pp. 195–207). Oxford University Press.
84.
TianY.BrehenyR.FergusonH. (2010). Why we simulate negated information: A dynamic pragmatic account. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(12), 2305–2312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.525712
85.
TianY.FergusonH.BrehenyR. (2016). Processing negation without context—Why and when we represent the positive argument. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(5), 683–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1140214
86.
WangX. (2007). A cognitive semantic analysis of ‘bu’ and ‘meiyou’. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 4, 26–33.
XiangM.GroveJ.GiannakidouA. (2016). Semantic and pragmatic processes in the comprehension of negation: An event related potential study of negative polarity sensitivity. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 38, 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.11.001
90.
XiangM.KramerA.NordmeyerA. E. (2020). An informativity-based account of negation complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(10), 1857–1867. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000851
91.
XiaoR.McEneryT. (2008). Negation in Chinese: A corpus-based study. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 36(2), 274–330.
92.
YangX.MinaiU.FiorentinoR. (2018). Context-sensitivity and individual differences in the derivation of scalar implicature. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1720. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01720
93.
ZhangM.PiñangoM.DeoA. (2022). Word-meaning variation in English have-sentences: The impact of cognitive versus social factors on individuals’ linguistic context-sensitivity. Language, 98(1), 123–156. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0088
94.
ZhouP.CrainS.ThorntonR. (2014). Lexical aspect and the use of negation by Mandarin-speaking children. In ChuC.-Y.CoughlinC. E.PregoB. L.MinaiU.TremblayA. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 5th conference on generative approaches to language acquisition North America (GALANA 2012) (pp. 150–156). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
