From ‘No, she does’ to ‘Yes, she does’: Negation processing in negative yes–no questions by Chinese users of English

In response to negative yes–no questions (e.g., Doesn’t she like cats?), typical English answers (Yes, she does/No, she doesn’t) peculiarly vary from those in Mandarin (No, she does/Yes, she doesn’t). What are the processing consequences of these markedly different conventionalized linguistic responses to achieve the same communicative goals? And if English and Mandarin speakers process negative questions differently, to what extent does processing change in Mandarin–English sequential bilinguals? Two experiments addressed these questions. Mandarin–English bilinguals, English and Mandarin monolinguals (N = 40/group) were tested in a production experiment (Expt. 1). The task was to formulate answers to positive/negative yes–no questions. The same participants were also tested in a comprehension experiment (Expt. 2), in which they had to answer positive/negative questions with time-measured yes/no button presses. In both Expt. 1 and Expt. 2, English and Mandarin speakers showed language-specific yes/no answers to negative questions. Also, in both experiments, English speakers showed a reaction-time advantage over Mandarin speakers in negation conditions. Bilingual’s performance was in-between that of the L1 and L2 baseline. These findings are suggestive of language-specific processing of negative questions. They also signal that the ways in which bilinguals process negative questions are susceptible to restructuring driven by the second language.

Representing Polar Questions

Although the linguistic properties of polar questions have been extensively studied, comparatively little is known about how polar questions are processed in real time. In this paper, we report on three eye-tracking experiments on the processing of positive and negative polar questions in English and French. Our results show that in the early stages, participants pay attention to both positive and negative states of affairs for both positive and negative questions. In the late stages, positive and certain negative polar questions were associated with a bias for the positive state, and this bias appears to be pragmatic in nature. We suggest that different biases in mental representations reflect the hearer’s reasoning about the speaker’s purposes of enquiry.

From “No, she does” to “Yes, she does”: Negation processing in negative yes–no questions by Mandarin speakers of English

In response to negative yes–no questions (e.g., Doesn’t she like cats?), typical English answers (Yes, she does/No, she doesn’t) peculiarly vary from those in Mandarin (No, she does/Yes, she doesn’t). What are the processing consequences of these markedly different conventionalized linguistic responses to achieve the same communicative goals? And if English and Mandarin speakers process negative questions differently, to what extent does processing change in Mandarin–English sequential bilinguals? Two experiments addressed these questions. Mandarin–English bilinguals, English and Mandarin monolinguals (N = 40/group) were tested in a production experiment (Expt. 1). The task was to formulate answers to positive/negative yes–no questions. The same participants were also tested in a comprehension experiment (Expt. 2), in which they had to answer positive/negative questions with time-measured yes/no button presses. In both Expt. 1 and Expt. 2, English and Mandarin speakers showed language-specific yes/no answers to negative questions. Also, in both experiments, English speakers showed a reaction-time advantage over Mandarin speakers in negation conditions. Bilingual’s performance was in-between that of the L1 and L2 baseline. These findings are suggestive of language-specific processing of negative questions. They also signal that the ways in which bilinguals process negative questions are susceptible to restructuring driven by the second language.

The interrelationship between confidence and correctness in a multiple-choice assessment: pointing out misconceptions and assuring valuable questions

Introduction The aim of this study was to better understand the interfaces of being correct or incorrect and confident or unconfident; aiming to point out misconceptions and assure valuable questions. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted using a convenience sample of second-year dental students (n = 29) attending a preclinical endodontics course. Students answered 20 multiple-choice questions (“basic” or “moderate” level) on endodontics, all of which were followed by one confidence question (scale). Our two research questions were: (1) How was the students’ performance, considering correctness, misconceptions, and level of confidence? (2) Were the questions valuable, appropriate and friendly, and which ones led to misconceptions? Four situations arouse from the interrelationship between question correctness and confidence level: (1st) correct and confident, (2nd) correct and unconfident, (3rd) incorrect and confident (misconception) and (4th) incorrect and unconfident. Statistical analysis (α = 5%) considered the interaction between (a) students’ performance with misconceptions and confidence; (b) question’s difficulty with correctness and confidence; and (c) misconceptions with clinical and negative questions. Results Students had 92.5% of correctness and 84.6% of confidence level. Nine students were responsible for the 12 misconceptions. Students who had more misconceptions had lower correctness (P < 0.001). High achieving students had low confidence in their incorrect responses (P = 0.047). ‘Moderate’ questions had more incorrectness (P < 0.05) and less confidence (P = 0.02) than ‘basic’. All questions were considered valuable [for example, the ones that presented images or required a mental picture of a clinical scenario, since they induced less misconception (P = 0.007)]. There was no difference in misconceptions between negative questions and other questions (P = 0.96). Conclusion Preclinical endodontic students were highly correct and very confident in their responses. Students who had more misconceptions had also the lowest performance in the assessment. Questions were valuable; but some will worth further improvement for the future. A multiple-choice assessment, when combined with confidence questions, provided helpful information regarding misconceptions and questions value.

What Does the Public Want to Know About The COVID-19 Pandemic? A Systematic Analysis of Questions Asked in The Internet

Background Quora is a popular question and answer (Q&A) website that enables people to connect with others and clear their doubts about the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). In this study, we analysed the content, type and quality of Q&As in Quora regarding this pandemic, and compared the information with that on World Health Organization (WHO) website. Methods We conducted a systematic search to include 964 questions in Quora. The tone of the question was categorized as either positive (questions with a primary intent to obtain information), negative (questions which represent panic or are related to misconception/false information) or ambivalent. The two most helpful answers of each question were graded for accuracy, authority, popularity, readability, and relevancy. Results 462 (48%) questions were classified as positive, while 391 (41%) were negative. Number of views were higher for negative questions (11421 vs 7300, p=0.004). Majority of the questions were on social impact (N=217, 23%), followed by politics (N=122, 13%) and disease management (N=96, 10%). Positive questions had more accurate, but less popular answers (p<0.05). Information related to 229 (28%) questions were present on WHO website, while partial information was present for 103 (11%) questions. Discussion Higher views with negative questions suggest that false and panic promoting information is more likely to get public attention. A substantial amount of questions was related to the present and future effects of COVID-19 on social and personal lives of the users which were not readily available on official health websites.

French polar response particles and neg movement

I present new data from European French involving embedded polar response particles (a.k.a. yes/no particles) in response to negative questions and develop a novel proposal which integrates the insights of previous analyses (e.g. Holmberg in Lingua 128:31–50, 2013; Roelofsen and Farkas in Language 91(2):359–414, 2015). The main puzzle has to do with the interpretation of non ‘no’ (bare or followed by a clause), which may assert its antecedent or the negation of its antecedent. It is shown that the meaning of non-responses varies as a function of the scope of negation with respect to various operators in its antecedent. Polar response particles in French are analyzed as the spell-out of a Polarity head which has moved from a lower position. The various interpretations of polar response particles are modelled as being constrained by the interaction between the necessity of the movement of the Polarity head and a constraint on scope preservation. The ramifications of this proposal for related phenomena (e.g. ‘low negation’ in English, N-word responses) are then discussed.

Answering negative questions in Russian

In colloquial Russian answers “yes” and “no” to negative polar questions can either stand for confirmation or contradiction of the proposition of a question. This paper contains an experimental research of correlation between the choice of “yes” or “no” response particle and the way of expressing negation and the presence of li particle in a question and also of comprehension of the short “yes” answer. The results showed that there are several competing strategies for answering negative polar questions and acceptability judgments of possible answers in Russian, meanwhile the correlation with the presence of li particle in a question was approved.

The syntax and semantics of negative questions and answers in Korean and English

Differences in Korean and English negative polarity questions (NPQs) are revealed by the interpretation of simple yes-no answers to them. Yes-no answers to NPQs have seemingly unpredictable interpretations (Claus et al. 2017, Holmberg 2013, Kim 2017, Krifka 2017, Kramer & Rawlins 2009, Ladd 1981, Sudo 2013). However, one clearly observable fact is that yes-no answers to English and Korean NPQs can have opposite interpretations. This study: (i) compares the interpretation of positive and negative polarity questions (PPQs and NPQs) in English and Korean; (ii) examines the structure of negation in each language and its interaction with NPQs; and (iii) reports on an online experiment which gathered native speaker interpretations of NPQs in each language under context-free conditions.

Affirmatives in Early Modern English

This study examines the affirmatives yes, yea and ay in Early Modern English, more specifically in the period 1560 to 1760. Affirmatives have an obvious role as responses to yes/no questions in dialogues, and so this study demanded the kind of dialogical material provided by the Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. I examine the meanings and contexts of usage of each affirmative: their distribution across time and text-types, their collocates and their occurrence after positive and negative questions. The results challenge a number of issues and claims in the literature, including when the “Germanic pattern” (involving yes and yea after positive or negative questions) dissolved, whether yea or ay were dialectal, and the timing of the rise of ay and the fall of yea.

Head movement and allomorphy in children's negative questions

English-speaking preschoolers occasionally produce negative questions with a ‘doubled’ auxiliary (e.g. Why did you didn’t know?). These 2AuxQs apparently involve a failure to raise [NEG n’t] to C (cf. Why didn’t you know?). I analyze 2AuxQs as the product of two independent errors: a planning error (raising T-to-C without raising Neg-to-T first) and an allomorphy error (overgeneralization of ‑n’t). The planning error results from lack of practice: serial head-movement is relatively uncommon in English, and true Neg-to-T-to-C may be rarer than appearances suggest. In e.g. Why don’t we play, ok?, -n’t is not interpreted within TP—and strikingly, 2AuxQs are unattested here.