Cognitive Processing

, Volume 16, Supplement 1, pp 203–207 | Cite as

To fly or not to fly? The automatic influence of negation on language–space associations

  • Carolin DudschigEmail author
  • Irmgard de la Vega
  • Barbara Kaup
Short Report


Embodied models of language understanding propose a close association between language comprehension and sensorimotor processes. Specifically, they suggest that meaning representation is grounded in modal experiences. Converging evidence suggests that words automatically activate spatial processing. For example, words such as ‘sky’ (‘ground’) facilitate motor and visual processing associated with upper (lower) space. However, very little is known regarding the influence of linguistic operators such as negation on these language–space associations. If these associations play a crucial role for language understanding beyond the word level, one would expect linguistic operators to automatically influence or modify these language–space associations. Participants read sentences describing an event implying an upward or a downward motion in an affirmative or negated version (e.g. The granny looks to the sky/ground vs. The granny does not look to the sky/ground). Subsequently, participants responded with an upward or downward arm movement according to the colour of a dot on the screen. The results showed that the motion direction implied in the sentences influenced subsequent spatially directed motor responses. For affirmative sentences, arm movements were faster if they matched the movement direction implied in the sentence. This language–space association was modified by the negation operator. Our results show that linguistic operators—such as negation—automatically modify language–space associations. Thus, language–space associations seem to reflect language processes beyond pure word-based activations.


Language Negation Sentences Embodiment Vertical space 


  1. Barsalou LW (1999) Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behav Brain Sci 22:637–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartoli E et al (2013) The disembodiment effect of negation: negating action-related sentences attenuates their interference on congruent upper limb movements. J Neurophysiol 109:1782–1792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergen BK, Lindsay S, Matlock T, Narayanan S (2007) Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cogn Sci 31:733–764CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Binder JR, Desai RH (2011) The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends Cogn Sci 15:527–536PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chasteen AL, Burdzy DC, Pratt J (2010) Thinking of God moves attention. Neuropsychologia 48:627–630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutsch R, Kordts-Freudinger R, Gawronski B, Strack F (2009) Fast and fragile: a new look at the automaticity of negation processing. Exp Psychol 56:434–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dudschig C, Lachmair M, de la Vega I, De Filippis M, Kaup B (2012) Do task-irrelevant direction-associated motion verbs affect action planning? Evidence from a Stroop paradigm. Memory & Cognition 40:1081–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dudschig C, Souman J, Lachmair M, de la Vega I, Kaup B (2013) Reading “sun” and looking up: the influence of language on saccadic eye movements in the vertical dimension. PLoS ONE 8(2):e56872PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dudschig C, de la Vega I, Kaup B (2014) Embodiment and second-language: automatic activation of motor responses during processing spatially associated L2 words and emotion L2 words in a vertical Stroop paradigm. Brain Lang 132:14–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dudschig C, de la Vega I, Kaup B (2015) What’s up? Emotion-specific activation of vertical space during language processing. Acta Psychol 156:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunn BM, Kamide Y, Scheepers C (2014) Hearing “moon” and looking up: word-related spatial associations facilitate saccades to congruent locations. Proc Cogn Sci MeetGoogle Scholar
  12. Estes Z, Verges M, Barsalou LW (2008) Head up, foot down object words orient attention to the objects’ typical location. Psychol Sci 19:93–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Glenberg AM, Kaschak MP (2002) Grounding language in action. Psychon Bull Rev 9:558–565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaup B, Lüdtke J, Zwaan RA (2006) Processing negated sentences with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open mentally closed? J Pragmat 38:1033–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaup B, De Filippis M, Lachmair M, de la Vega I, Dudschig C (2012) When up-words meet down-sentences: evidence for word-or sentence-based compatibility effects? Cogn Process 13:203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lachmair M et al (2011) Root versus roof: automatic activation of location information during word processing. Psychon Bull Rev 18:1180–1188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Loftus GR, Masson ME (1994) Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychon Bull Rev 1:476–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Masson ME, Bub DN, Lavelle H (2013) Dynamic evocation of hand action representations during sentence comprehension. J Exp Psychol Gen 142:742–762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mayo R, Schul Y, Burnstein E (2004) “I am not guilty” vs “I am innocent”: successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. J Exp Soc Psychol 40:433–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayo R, Schul Y, Rosenthal M (2014) If you negate, you may forget: negated repetitions impair memory compared with affirmative repetitions. J Exp Psychol Gen 143:1541–1552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Meier BP, Robinson MD (2004) Why the sunny side is up associations between affect and vertical position. Psychol Sci 15:243–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Raposo A, Moss HE, Stamatakis EA, Tyler LK (2009) Modulation of motor and premotor cortices by actions, action words and action sentences. Neuropsychologia 47:388–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Zwaan RA, Yaxley RH (2003) Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments. Psychon Bull Rev 10:954–958CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Zwaan RA, Stanfield RA, Yaxley RH (2002) Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychol Sci 13:168–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolin Dudschig
    • 1
    Email author
  • Irmgard de la Vega
    • 1
  • Barbara Kaup
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations