Linda M. Moxey

Communicating quantities: a review of psycholinguistic evidence of how expressions determine perspectives

The way in which information about proportions, amounts, frequencies, probabilities, degrees of confidence, and risk is portrayed in natural language is not neutral, but reflects presuppositions and assumed norms. In this paper we present a review of evidence in support of this position. We show that the choice of expressions for communication depends in a systematic way on the kinds of inferences communicators draw. We go on to discuss the consequences of this for attribution phenomena, aspects of reasoning, the portrayal of uncertainty, and responses to questionnaires. We also suggest that communicator preferences for using language rather than numbers may have to do with human reasoning being argument-based, rather than with a preference for vagueness, as has been commonly claimed.

Strengthening handover communication in pediatric cardiac intensive care

Objective:  To evaluate knowledge transfer and perceptions using a structured handover process for the postoperative pediatric cardiac patient being admitted to intensive care. The hypothesis being that knowledge transfer could be optimized by the implementation of this handover structure.

Attentional focusing with quantifiers in production and comprehension.

There is a very large number of quantifiers in English, so many that it seems impossible that the only information that they convey is about amounts. Building on the earlier work of Moxey and Sanford (1987), we report three experiments showing that positive and negative quantifiers focus on different subsets of the logical possibilities that quantifiers allow semantically. Experiments 1 and 2 feature a continuation task with quantifiers that span a full range of denotations (from near 0% to near 100%) and show that the effect is not restricted to quantifiers denoting small amounts. This enables a distinction to be made between generalization and complement set focus proper. The focus effects extend to comprehension, as shown by a self-paced reading study (Experiment 3). It is noted that the focus effects obtained are compatible with findings from earlier work by Just and Carpenter (1971), which used a verification paradigm, and in fact these effects constitute a direct test of inferences Just and Carpenter made about mechanisms of encoding negative quantifiers. A related but different explanation is put forward to explain the present data. The experiments show a quantifier function beyond the simple denotation of amount.

Perspective in Statements of Quantity, with Implications for Consumer Psychology

We demonstrate that presentation of information about quantities, whether expressed in natural language or by using numbers, induces a perspective that influences subsequent processing. Experiment 1 shows this to be true for natural language quantifiers, with negative and positive expressions inducing different perspectives. In Experiment 2, we examined the application of this idea to the specific case of perspectives induced by describing products as containing x% fat or as being x% fat free. We found that the percentage-fat description appears to induce a perspective that is sensitive to the level of fat being depicted, with products being judged as less healthy at higher amounts of fat. However, this effect was lessened (Experiment 2) or eliminated (Experiment 3) with the percentage-fat-free description. The experiments suggest the fat-free perspective blocks access to assumptions about healthy fat levels.

A unified account of quantifer perspective effects in discourse

Positive and negative quantifiers induce two very different perspectives in comprehenders—perspectives that have strong applications to rhetoric and communication. These are briefly reviewed. A potential mechanism, based on earlier work, is introduced, resting on the idea that negatively quantified sentences (like Not all of the boys went to the party) may be given interpretations that both consist of an asserted amount, and a supposition of a greater amount. This account, the supposition-denial theory, is proposed as a unifying mechanism that explains the variety of perspective effects. Straightforward predictions from this account are tested in three studies. In particular, we found that a linguistic index of denial almost perfectly predicted the incidence of particular kinds of focus effects (Study 1 and 3). We also show that the observed perspectives set up by negative quantifiers depend upon the whole quantified sentence being processed, not just the quantifier (Study 2). This is consistent with the denial aspect being central to perspective. We discuss how positive quantifiers may also be treated within the framework, leading to independently confirmed predictions. Finally, we discuss the relation of our account to current work in pragmatics and semantics.

New Perspectives on the Expression of Quantity

The expression of quantity is central to many acts of communication, both formal and casual. Expressions of quantity, whether in numbers and percentages or in language, are used to convey information about frequency, certainty, risk, and degrees of association. It has typically been supposed that the many linguistic expressions that convey quantities are merely vague ways of indicating information that would be better conveyed by numbers and percentages, whenever possible. However, we show that such a view is too simplistic and is misleading. Language expressions can be more informative than numerical information alone. Language expressions carry built-in perspectives that affect the inferences and decisions made by listeners and readers. We also show that information presented through numbers (e.g., the depiction of fat content of foods) is not necessarily neutral, but also induces perspective. Failure to recognize effects of perspective may have led to some false conclusions about how people attribute causation.

Perception problems of the verbal scale

Many forensic scientists use a verbal scale to describe the significance or weight to be attached to their opinion. Although there is a considerable amount of work in the field of psychology regarding peoples perception of quantitative descriptors such as those used in the verbal scale, there has been no published work relating to the use of such descriptors in a forensic context. Our aim was to assess the extent to which the verbal expressions used by the expert in court are perceived and the extent to which they are differentiated by potential jurors. Four hundred volunteers were asked to indicate the level of strength they perceived from the use of the verbal scale characters within excerpts from purported expert witness statements. Although preliminary, these results show that there are serious misunderstandings of the verbal scale. It does not achieve the purpose for which it was created. The terms used are unlikely to be understood properly by lay people and it would appear that they are actually misunderstood.

Processing causals and diagnostics in discourse

Diagnostic statements (e.g., It is raining because the streets are wet) take longer to read than causal statements (e.g., The streets are wet because it is raining). The authors present 4 experiments investigating this phenomenon. In Experiment 1, a reading-time study, the authors demonstrate that this difficulty is reversed when a more complex mental model is cued through the use of phrases like John thinks that and John says that. Experiment 2 shows that the use of a modal construction (e.g., Perhaps it is raining because the streets are wet) makes the processing of diagnostics as easy as processing causals but does not disadvantage causals. The authors explain the pattern of results by proposing that readers build the simplest possible discourse representation during interpretation and that readers adopt a specific pattern of semantic interpretation. These proposals are tested and verified in Experiments 3 and 4.

Quantifiers and Discourse Processing

Quantifiers are ubiquitous in natural language and, in addition to providing information about quantity, they serve important discourse functions. We outline several theoretical accounts of the functions that quantifiers perform in a discourse and the factors governing their interpretation, focusing on two specific topics that have received substantial attention from researchers working in linguistics and psychology. The first topic concerns the interpretation of pronominal anaphora in different quantification contexts, and we review evidence showing that the focusing effects of positive and negative quantifiers license different patterns of pronominal reference. The second topic concerns the interpretation of quantifiers that function as anaphors in a discourse, and we consider recent experimental evidence in relation to two current and highly influential theories of semantic interpretation.

On-line effects of what is expected on the resolution of plural pronouns

According to Presupposition Denial Theory, complement set reference is reference to a shortfall set which can be implied by a negative quantifier. In support of this, Moxey (2006) showed that participants produce plural pronominal reference to the complement set when a character is introduced who expects more than the amount denoted by a positive quantifier. It is not clear however whether the existence of a shortfall influences on-line comprehension. In this paper, we report four experiments measuring the eye movements of participants while they read short passages of text. In each experiment, we manipulate focus on the shortfall by introducing an expected amount before the quantified set. Our results suggest that eye movements are indeed influenced by the existence of a shortfall whether the shortfall is implied by the quantifier, or by the expectations of a salient character. This is consistent with the predictions of Presupposition Denial Theory.