How Much Are “Many People” on Facebook? Interpretations of Vague Quantifiers in Online and Offline Contexts

In an increasingly interconnected world, many people handle large parts of their communication online, often via social networking sites (SNS). In contrast to face-to-face communication, messages on SNS are accessible by potentially unknown and large audiences. However, it is an open question what users actually perceive as a large audience, or else as many people in SNS contexts. Exploring this question from a psycholinguistic perspective, we investigated the meaning of vague quantifiers such as “few” or “many” with regard to audiences in different contexts in two experiments. In Experiment 1, participants assigned numbers to quantifiers describing audiences in online versus offline and private versus public contexts. In Experiment 2, including the same items as Experiment 1, participants rated the appropriateness of specific numbers of people that were described by a quantifier. Our results show, for example, that people assigned larger numbers to quantifiers for online than for offline contexts. This was also true when access to the information was supposed to be restricted which implies a (scalar) change of privacy expectations.

Not Very Powerful

Several guidelines on how to construct questionnaire items exist, even though the literature lacks empirical evidence for their effectiveness. To investigate whether the addition of negations and vague quantifiers worsens the psychometric properties of an established questionnaire, 872 participants completed one version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) – the German original, a negated version, a version with vague quantifiers or a version with both negations and vague quantifiers. Reliability estimates, item-total correlations, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model fit, and fit to the Partial Credit Model (PCM) were compared among the four conditions. No PANAS version was clearly superior as no systematic pattern in the psychometric properties was found. Our findings question the general applicability of the guidelines of item construction as well as the effectiveness of widely used statistical analyses assessing the quality of scales. The results should encourage researchers to put a stronger focus on careful item construction as relying on psychometric properties might not be sufficient to develop valid questionnaires.

Paucal Quantifiers and Diminutive Morphology in the Light of Numeralization: The Case of Polish garść ‘handful’ and garstka ‘handful.dim’

While the attachment of diminutive morphology to concrete nouns, gradable adjectives and adverbs, as well as interjections has already received a well-merited share of attention in Polish, diminutivization of vague quantifiers remains empirically understudied. The present paper takes a first step towards filling in this gap by reporting on a corpus-based investigation of the numeralized partitive garść ‘handful’ and its diminutive variant Garstka ‘handful.dim’. The results of a collocational analysis of both forms corroborate the hypothesis that diminutivization further enhances scalar implications inherent in the base ‘small size’ item, as reflected in the diminutive form’s significantly higher frequency of quantifier attestations. Apart from exhibiting a substantially greater proportion of quantifier uses, the latter element displays an overwhelming predilection for animate N2-collocates, which suggests that diminutivization may not only intensify a paucal quantifier’s expressivity but also lead to conspicuous changes in its distributional profile.

Can’t Make it Better nor Worse

Some of the most popular psychological questionnaires violate general rules of item construction: precise, positively keyed items without negations, multiple aspects of content, absolute statements, or vague quantifiers. To investigate if following these rules results in more desirable psychometric properties, 1,733 participants completed online either the original NEO Five-Factor Inventory, an “improved” version whose items follow the rules of item construction, or a “deteriorated” version whose items strongly violate these rules. We compared reliability estimates, item-total correlations, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model fit, and fit to the partial credit model between the three versions. Neither of the manipulations resulted in considerable or consistent effects on any of the psychometric indices. Our results question the ability of standard analyses in test construction to distinguish good items from bad ones, as well as the effectiveness of general rules of item construction. To increase the reproducibility of psychological science, more focus should be laid on improving psychological measures.

Forms and functions of vague language in academic journal article abstracts

This paper reports on an exploratory investigation of the IMRaD moves (Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion) which show the degree of informativeness in terms of referential explicitness of academic texts and of use of vague language in academic journal abstracts published in 2010 and 2011. The areas of research these articles focus on are: language and linguistics, literature and cultural studies. The analysis of the data, based on an existing analytical framework (Cutting, 2012), revealed that authors use vague language (e.g.: ‘general nouns’, ‘hedging devices’ and ‘vague quantifiers’) and that the abstracts mostly consist of the introduction and discussion moves. Results of research into the writing of article abstracts may benefit both novice academic text writers and academics guiding their work.

Discourse variation of vague language: vague quantifiers in spoken and written Lithuanian

Vagueness is a controversial issue, which was long stigmatised by both researchers and laypeople and largely neglected in linguistics until the publication of Channell’s (1994) study, which demonstrated that vague language (VL) is a multi-faceted phenomenon of high pragmatic importance. The present study focuses on one of the most central categories of VL in Lithuanian, i.e. vague quantifiers, which can be defined as non-numerical expressions used for referring to quantities, e.g. daug (“a lot”), mažai (“little/few”), keletas (“several”), or šiek tiek (“a little bit”). The meaning of quantifiers frequently encodes some evaluative content concerning the significance of a quantity. The evaluative function is an important and intended speaker’s message, expressed by choosing a vague expression, and is lost if reformulated into a precise expression. A systematic account of this pragmatic category has not been carried out yet in Lithuanian, and the vast majority of research on vague quantifiers focuses mainly on English with only very few exceptions. VL is omnipresent and is used in all discourse types, but to a different extent and for different purposes; therefore, this investigation has a two-fold aim: (a) to determine the distribution of quantifiers in different discourses including spoken interaction and a variety of written texts (i.e. academic texts, newspapers and magazines, publicist texts, administrative texts, and fiction); and (b) to overview when and why vague quantifiers are prioritized over precise numerical references. The data for this investigation has been obtained from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (tekstynas.vdu.lt), which is a reference corpus comprising over 140 mln words; it represents five major discourse types analysed in this paper. The present analysis has been carried out within the framework of corpus linguistics, pragmatics, variationist sociolinguistics, and discourse analysis; it is primarily quantitative, but to explain some dominant tendencies in the results, it also deals with some qualitative aspects. The findings obtained from spoken and written discourse have revealed that quantifiers are distributed very unevenly in the two modes of language; the results have also shown some dramatic differences in the use of quantifiers in different written texts. Their distribution and functions depend on the formality of quantifiers and their semantic type. Multal quantifiers (i.e. those referring to large quantities) are emphatic, whereas paucal quantifiers (i.e. those referring to small quantities) are mainly used for mitigation and are more prone to soften the effect of negatively loaded lexemes. Importantly, quantifiers are used for persuasion since they evaluate a quantity and convey the speaker’s interpretation of its significance. They can be important in discourse structuring, in shaping interpersonal relationships, and as a face-saving strategy. Due to the large variety of communicative functions that quantifiers can perform, they are an important category in second language teaching and should be adequately dealt with in lexicography.

Sometimes Means Some of the Time: Residents' Overlapping Responses to Vague Quantifiers on the ACGME-I Resident Survey

ABSTRACT Background Vague quantifiers used in the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–International (ACGME-I) resident survey are open to interpretation, raising concerns about the validity of survey scores. Residency programs may be unduly cited if survey responses are affected by differing judgments of vague quantifiers. Objective Through investigating frequency judgment overlap, we assessed the validity of vague quantifiers by quantifying variation in residents' frequency judgment of the following response options: never, rarely, sometimes, very often, and extremely often. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of residents in 2 ACGME-I accredited institutions in Singapore. Participants assigned a frequency judgment to response options in 8 questions in the ACGME-I Resident Survey. Overlap in frequency judgment was computed using the minimum and maximum frequency judgment for each response option. This was ascertained to have occurred when the maximum frequency of the preceding category exceeded the minimum frequency of the downstream categories. The percentage of participants whose frequency judgment overlapped was computed. Results Of 652 residents, 289 (44%) responded; after exclusions of incomplete and careless responses, 119 responses (18%) were included in the study. Frequency judgment overlap was more frequent for vague quantifiers that are adjacent, ranging from 11% to 50% for questions in faculty, evaluation, and resources domains. The percentage of frequency judgment overlap was greatest for duty hour questions, with an overlap between 21% and 47% for adjacent categories. Conclusions Residents demonstrated wide variation in frequency judgment of vague quantifiers, especially on the duty hour questions in the ACGME-I resident survey.