@article{MazzarellaGotzner2021,
  author    = {Mazzarella, Diana and Gotzner, Nicole},
  title     = {The polarity asymmetry of negative strengthening},
  series = {Glossa : a journal of general linguistics},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Glossa : a journal of general linguistics},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Open Library of Humanities},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {2397-1835},
  doi       = {10.5334/gjgl.1342},
  pages     = {17},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {The interpretation of negated antonyms is characterised by a polarity asymmetry: the negation of a positive polarity antonym (X is not interesting) is more likely to be strengthened to convey its opposite ('X is uninteresting') than the negation of a negative polarity antonym (X is not uninteresting to convey that 'X is interesting') is. A classical explanation of this asymmetry relies on face-management. Since the predication of a negative polarity antonym (X is uninteresting) is potentially face-threatening in most contexts, the negation of the corresponding positive polarity antonym (X is not interesting) is more likely to be interpreted as an indirect strategy to minimise face-threat while getting the message across. We present two experimental studies in which we test the predictions of this explanation. In contrast with it, our results show that adjectival polarity, but not face-threatening potential, appears to be responsible for the asymmetric interpretation of negated antonyms.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GotznerRomoli2022,
  author    = {Gotzner, Nicole and Romoli, Jacopo},
  title     = {Meaning and alternatives},
  series = {Annual review of linguistics},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Annual review of linguistics},
  publisher = {Annual Reviews},
  address   = {Palo Alto},
  issn      = {2333-9691},
  doi       = {10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-012013},
  pages     = {213 -- 234},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Alternatives and competition in language are pervasive at all levels of linguistic analysis. More specifically, alternatives have been argued to play a prominent role in an ever-growing class of phenomena in the investigation of natural language meaning. In this article, we focus on scalar implicatures, as they are arguably the most paradigmatic case of an alternative-based phenomenon. We first review the main challenge for theories of alternatives, the so-called symmetry problem, and we briefly discuss how it has shaped the different approaches to alternatives. We then turn to two more recent challenges concerning scalar diversity and the inferences of sentences with multiple scalars. Finally, we describe several related alternative-based phenomena and recent conceptual approaches to alternatives. As we discuss, while important progress has been made, much more work is needed both on the theoretical side and on understanding the empirical landscape better.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GotznerSpalek2022,
  author    = {Gotzner, Nicole and Spalek, Katharina},
  title     = {Expectations about upcoming discourse referents},
  series = {International review of pragmatics : IRP},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {International review of pragmatics : IRP},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Brill},
  address   = {Leiden},
  issn      = {1877-3095},
  doi       = {10.1163/18773109-01401003},
  pages     = {77 -- 94},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {In the current study, we explore how different information-structural devices affect which referents conversational partners expect in the upcoming discourse. Our main research question is how pitch accents (H*, L+H*) and focus particles (German nur `only' and auch 'also') affect speakers' choices to mention focused referents, previously mentioned alternatives or new, inferable alternatives. Participants in our experiment were presented with short discourses involving two referents and were asked to orally produce two sentences that continue the story. An analysis of speakers' continuations showed that participants were most likely to mention a contextual alternative in the condition with only and the L+H* conditions, followed by H* conditions. In the condition with also, in turn, participants mentioned both the focused/accented referent and the contextual alternative. Our findings highlight the importance of information structure for discourse management and suggest that speakers take activated alternatives to be relevant for an unfolding discourse.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{GotznerMazzarella2020,
  author    = {Gotzner, Nicole and Mazzarella, Diana},
  title     = {Face Management and Negative Strengthening: The Role of Power Relations, Social Distance, and Gender},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-54390},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-543907},
  pages     = {1 -- 13},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Negated gradable adjectives often convey an interpretation that is stronger than their literal meaning, which is referred to as 'negative strengthening.' For example, a sentence like 'John is not kind' may give rise to the inference that John is rather mean. Crucially, negation is more likely to be pragmatically strengthened in the case of positive adjectives ('not kind' to mean rather mean) than negative adjectives ('not mean' to mean rather kind). A classical explanation of this polarity asymmetry is based on politeness, specifically on the potential face threat of bare negative adjectives (Horn, 1989; Brown and Levinson, 1987). This paper presents the results of two experiments investigating the role of face management in negative strengthening. We show that negative strengthening of positive and negative adjectives interacts differently with the social variables of power, social distance, and gender.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GotznerMazzarella2020,
  author    = {Gotzner, Nicole and Mazzarella, Diana},
  title     = {Face Management and Negative Strengthening},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne, Schweiz},
  issn      = {1664-042X},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.602977},
  pages     = {1 -- 13},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Negated gradable adjectives often convey an interpretation that is stronger than their literal meaning, which is referred to as 'negative strengthening.' For example, a sentence like 'John is not kind' may give rise to the inference that John is rather mean. Crucially, negation is more likely to be pragmatically strengthened in the case of positive adjectives ('not kind' to mean rather mean) than negative adjectives ('not mean' to mean rather kind). A classical explanation of this polarity asymmetry is based on politeness, specifically on the potential face threat of bare negative adjectives (Horn, 1989; Brown and Levinson, 1987). This paper presents the results of two experiments investigating the role of face management in negative strengthening. We show that negative strengthening of positive and negative adjectives interacts differently with the social variables of power, social distance, and gender.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GotznerWartenburgerSpalek2016,
  author    = {Gotzner, Nicole and Wartenburger, Isabell and Spalek, Katharina},
  title     = {The impact of focus particles on the recognition and rejection of contrastive alternatives},
  series = {Language and cognition : an interdisciplinary journal of language and cognitive science},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Language and cognition : an interdisciplinary journal of language and cognitive science},
  publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {1866-9808},
  doi       = {10.1017/langcog.2015.25},
  pages     = {59 -- 95},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {The semantics of focus particles like only requires a set of alternatives (Rooth, 1992). In two experiments, we investigated the impact of such particles on the retrieval of alternatives that are mentioned in the prior context or unmentioned. The first experiment used a probe recognition task and showed that focus particles interfere with the recognition of mentioned alternatives and the rejection of unmentioned alternatives relative to a condition without a particle. A second lexical decision experiment demonstrated priming effects for mentioned and unmentioned alternatives (compared with an unrelated condition) while focus particles caused additional interference effects. Overall, our results indicate that focus particles trigger an active search for alternatives and lead to a competition between mentioned alternatives, unmentioned alternatives, and the focused element.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{GotznerWartenburgerSpalek2016,
  author    = {Gotzner, Nicole and Wartenburger, Isabell and Spalek, Katharina},
  title     = {The impact of focus particles on the recognition and rejection of contrastive alternatives},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {517},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-41342},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-413420},
  pages     = {37},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {The semantics of focus particles like only requires a set of alternatives (Rooth, 1992). In two experiments, we investigated the impact of such particles on the retrieval of alternatives that are mentioned in the prior context or unmentioned. The first experiment used a probe recognition task and showed that focus particles interfere with the recognition of mentioned alternatives and the rejection of unmentioned alternatives relative to a condition without a particle. A second lexical decision experiment demonstrated priming effects for mentioned and unmentioned alternatives (compared with an unrelated condition) while focus particles caused additional interference effects. Overall, our results indicate that focus particles trigger an active search for alternatives and lead to a competition between mentioned alternatives, unmentioned alternatives, and the focused element.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SpalekGotznerWartenburger2014,
  author    = {Spalek, Katharina and Gotzner, Nicole and Wartenburger, Isabell},
  title     = {Not only the apples},
  series = {Journal of memory and language : JML},
  volume    = {70},
  journal   = {Journal of memory and language : JML},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {San Diego},
  issn      = {0749-596X},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.001},
  pages     = {68 -- 84},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Focus sensitive particles highlight the relevance of contextual alternatives for the interpretation of a sentence. Two experiments tested whether this leads to better encoding and therefore, ultimately, better recall of focus alternatives. Participants were presented with auditory stimuli that introduced a set of elements ("context sentence") and continued in three different versions: the critical sentences either contained the exclusive particle nur ("only"), the inclusive particle sogar ("even"), or no particle (control condition). After being exposed to blocks of ten trials, participants were asked to recall the elements in the context sentence. The results show that both particles enhanced memory performance for the alternatives to the focused element, relative to the control condition. The results support the assumption that information-structural alternatives are better encoded in memory in the presence of a focus sensitive particle.},
  language  = {en}
}