46
RECALL FOR ANSWERS TO "CONDUCIVE"
QUESTIONS*
SAMUEL FILLENBAUM
Carolina
University of North
The phrasing of a question may reveal presumptions as to its answer. In the case
of negative Yes-No questions a grammatical analysis suggests that neg + some
questions are biased to a " Yes " reply, while neg + any questions are biased to a
No" reply. There are data indicating that, indeed, listeners predominantly believe
that the questioner expects a positive answer in the first case, and a negative answer
in the second case. The present study was carried out to discover whether such" conducive presumptions in questions may systematically bias recall of their answers, and
to determine the locus or loci of such an effect.
It was found that recall was
systematically biased by question format, the results indicating a significant effect of
question format at time of recall test, and also suggesting an independent effect as a
fiinction of question format at time of original presentation of the information. Some
comments are made on the implications of these findings.
"
"
Simple questions of a Yes-No type may be phrased in various ways. While it has
been suggested that these phrasings may be only stylistic variants (see Lees, 1960) it
is also possible that the particular version or phrasing of a question may be of consequence, indicating, for example, something as to the questioner’s expectations concerning
the answer, that a question may have &dquo; conducive &dquo; properties (Bolinger, 1957, 1960).
Livant (1964) argues that various question forms cannot be treated as stylistic variants
since, for negative questions in particular, there are substantial differences in the
expectations of questioners as a function of the use of &dquo; some &dquo; vs. &dquo; any &dquo;. Livant
presents data which show that confronted with a question in the format neg -f- some
(e.g. Don’t you have some matches ?) subjects predominantly believe that the questioner
expects a positive answer whereas a question in the format neg + any (e.g. Don’t you
have any matches ?) is predominantly regarded as indicating that the questioner expects
&dquo; No &dquo; as an answer. Partly in terms of such data Livant argues against the (early)
transformationalist treatment of questions and suggests that semantic decision rules
may have to be introduced into the transformational component of the grammar and
that it may be necessary to include pragmatic considerations in the formulation of
grammatical rules for questions. In a discussion of interrogatives, particularly negative
questions, Katz and Postal (1964) note that tag, negative and emphatic questions may
be related in that they not only ask for information but also indicate something as to
the questioner’s beliefs regarding the topic of the question. However, they explicitly
refrain from giving any account of such questions. Most recently Bever (1965) has
* This work was carried out with support from PHS research grant MH 10006 from the
National Institute of Mental Health.
Downloaded from las.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
47
suggested &dquo; that negative questions
are derived from tag questions appended to statements.&dquo; Thus the statement He does have some matches may be tagged doesn’t he
implying that there is an underlying He does have some matches, doesn’t he have some
matches ? If the affirmative statement is now deleted this becomes Doesn’t he have
some matches ? to which an affirmative answer is expected because it is known
intuitively that an affirmative statement has been deleted. In terms of analogous
considerations a person will know that the deleted statement must have been negative
when confronted with Doesn’t he have any matches?’ A grammatical analysis along
these lines avoids Livant’s criticisms, and, indeed, the results he obtained are just the
results to be expected if subjects are sensitive and responsive to structural grammatical
relations of the sort postulated by Bever.
If we accept (1) the above grammatical analysis (Bever) and (2) the expectation data
(Livant) and consider (1) as providing some sort of an account of (2) we are led to
ask the obvious question of psycholinguistic interest, namely, what difference may all
the above make in other performances ? Consider a memorial task, will recall of
answers to such biased question be systematically affected ?
For example, if a
positively biased question (neg + some) is in fact answered &dquo; No &dquo; will there be any
&dquo;
systematic drift to Yes &dquo; in recall, and conversely ? It will be the purpose of this
study, after replicating Livant’s expectation data, to determine (1) whether or not
there is such a bias in recall, and (2) if there is such a bias to discover if it is associated
with question format at time of original presentation, at time of recall test, or both,
i.e. to determine the locus of the effect. While the obvious hypothesis might be that
the bias should be a retrieval effect, a person using the format of the question, at that
time, as an aid when unsure of the answer, it would be of considerable interest if it
could be shown that question format at time of original presentation of information
can also bias recall, for this might guide some speculations as to ways in which
information of this kind may be entered and held in memory.
METHOD
Replication of Livant’s expectation data
Livant’s procedures in constructing questions and instructing subjects were closely
followed. There were basically four question types representing all combinations of
[pos/neg] with [some/any] with eight replications for each type, embodying different
auxiliary verbs, main verbs and nouns. Thus there were 32 different questions obtained
by taking all possible combinations in the following scheme: [Did/Have] + [pos/neg]
+ you + [see/find] + [some/any] + [stones/water]. Thus one gets Didn’t
1
The write?- asked some subjects to match simple negative questiotts using "some" and "any"
with statements with appended tag questions. Of the 15 subjects 12 matched "Didn’t he
eat some cookies ? " with " He did eat some cookies, didn’t he?", and " Didn’t he eat any
cookies ? " with " He didn’t eat any cookies, did he?" For what they are worth these results
are clearly consistent with Bever’s analysis.
Downloaded from las.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
48
you see some stones ?, Have you found any water ?, etc.2 These questions were read
in randomized order to subjects who were told to regard each as addressed to them
&dquo;
and asked to indicate in each case whether the speaker expected as answer Yes &dquo; or
&dquo; No &dquo;, or had no expectations either way. They were asked to express their judgments
in terms of a five point scale going from + + (strongly expect &dquo; Yes &dquo;) through
+, 0,
an
-
to - -
introductory
(strongly expect &dquo; No &dquo;).
in psychology.
There
were
23
subjects, students taking
course
Recall study
While our interest is in negative questions, both negative and positive questions
were constructed with &dquo; some &dquo; and &dquo; any &dquo; respectively, yielding four question types.
This was done so as to have a balanced list employing both positive and negative
questions, and to permit an analysis of format effect at original presentation with
varying test presentation, and format effect at test presentation with varying original
presentation. There was a total of 32 items with half the questions of each type being
answered Yes, half No. Two sets of items were made up differing only in that items
answered positively in Set 1 were answered negatively in Set 2, and vice versa ; this
was done to control for possible biases stemming from the specific content of any item.
Each question was formed on the scheme: Did + [pos/neg] + pronoun + Verb +
[some/any] + Noun. The verb and noun combination was different for each item,
and the pronoun was either &dquo; he &dquo;, &dquo; she &dquo;, or &dquo; they &dquo;. This procedure yielded items
like &dquo; Did he date any girls ? &dquo;, &dquo; Didn’t she cook some soup ? &dquo; etc. In the original
presentation each question was presented with its answer, and then immediately
repeated, thus we might have: &dquo; Did he date any girls ? Yes, he did. Did he date
&dquo;I
The 32 items were randomized and put on tape at the
any girls ? Yes, he did ?
2 is one respect in which the present study differs from that of Livant. He actually used
There
a total of 48 sentences. In addition to the 32 used here he also had sentences where, under
"
negation, the determiner was stressed yielding e.g. Didn’t you see any stones?" As this
study does not attempt to deal with matters of stress these 16 sentences were omitted.
answer was always phrased in this fashion rather than as a simple Yes or No in order
minimize any possibility of ambiguity. For example given " Didn’t she eat any cookies ?
"
Yes
" some people might understand the Yes to mean Yes, she didn’t eat cookies" rather
"
In
a
she
did
eat
cookies."
than the intended
subsidiary study the writer emptied the
Yes,
carefully prepared contents of his purse and wallet before some subjects and then asked
them a series of questions about his assets, requiring them to answer each question in full
sentence form. All four question types were included, and for each the situation provided an
instance requiring an affirmative answer and an instance requiring a negative answer. On
the whole the answers were as expected, indicating general agreement on the intended and
there was occasional difficulty with the negative questions, e.g.
anticipated answers. However,
"
Doesn’t F have some $5 bills?" and in fact there were none in
when the question was:
"
sight, about 10% of the subjects gave as answers something like Yes, he has no $5 bills ".
In order to minimize the chances that the possible ambiguity of an item might lead to subject
confusion an answer format involving pronoun and auxiliary verb (with or without negative
marking as appropriate) as well as Yes or No was therefore adopted.
The
3
to
Downloaded from las.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
49
of about 10 sec. per item (where item here refers to question and answer said
At time of test the questions only were presented, once each in a new randomization, with subjects requested to answer each Yes or No. The questions were
presented at a rate of about one every 5 sec.’
The subjects were all students in an introductory psychology course and were run
in large groups ranging in size from about 40 to 60.6 They were told that they would
be participating in a brief memory experiment, that they would hear a recording of
a series of utterances, and that each utterance would consist of a question followed by
an answer and would be repeated twice in a row. They were asked to listen very
carefully since immediately afterward they would be given questions only, and required
to answer each Yes or No depending on the answer in the original presentation. It
was stressed that if not sure of the answer they should nevertheless make their best
guess, omitting no items.
Experiment 1. In this study question format was the same at original presentation
and at time of test. Since there were four question types and half the questions of
each type were answered positively, half negatively, there were eight classes of items
with four replications in each class for the total of 32 questions. Three groups of
subjects were run, two groups using Set 1 and one group using Set 2 of the materials.
For the first group of subjects run on Set 1, at time of test the tape recorder was
mistakenly stopped after only 32 questions (i.e. after only 28 of the questions had been
played since the first four questions were fillers). Consequently the results for these
subjects are based on only (the first) three replications per item class ; this item set
will be called 1A. There were 45 subjects using Set 1A, 54 subjects using Set 1, and
42 subjects using Set 2.
Experiment 2. In this study question format at original presentation and at test
were independently varied i.e. every format at original presentation was paired with
every format at test. With four different formats this yields 16 combinations, and
since half the questions in each format were answered positively, half negatively at
original presentation, there result 32 item classes, each class being represented by one
item. One group of subjects was run using Set 1 (N=78), and one using Set 2 (N=99).
Data analysis. Although there is information on all four question types our principal
interest will be in a comparison of results for neg + some questions (to be called
type C) with results for neg + any questions (to be called type D) as this study is
concerned with negative conducive questions and both Bever’s grammatical analysis and
Livant’s expectation data concern C questions (where there is a positive bias) and D
questions (where there is a negative bias). As question presentation was balanced with
an equal number of questions of each type actually answered Yes and No we may
examine the preponderance of Yes over No answers in recall, or rather the relative
rate
twice).
4
Actually there were
start of the list, two
36 items. At original presentation two of the filler items came
the end. On test the four filler items all came at the start.
at
Thus in Experiment 2
5
two
groups of subjects
were
actually
run
for each item
Downloaded from las.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
set.
at
the
50
TABLE 1
Judgments
of
questioner expectations*
* The first figures are those obtained in this study, the figures in brackets
figures from Livant’s study.
are
the
corresponding
preponderance of Yes over No for type C versus type D. For each subject we may
compare the difference between the number of Yes and No responses in the C condition
with that in the D condition. If there is a bias in recall as a result of question format
then the preponderance of Yes over No recalls should be greater in C than in D, since
in C the bias should be positive whereas in D it should be negative. As there is a
clear directional prediction the significance tests will be one tailed. In the case of
Experiment 1 we may simply compare the results in the C condition with those in D
since format at original presentation and at test was always the same. In the case of
Experiment 2 there will be two sorts of comparisons. First we may compare recall
results for C and D conditions at original presentation (all possible formats occurring
at time of test). Then we may compare recall results for C and D conditions at test
(all possible formats occurring at time of original presentation).
z
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
Livant
study
subjects’ expectations may be found in Table 1 which also
for
Livant’s
data
presents
comparison. Inspection of this table shows that (a) on the
whole our data and those of Livant are in good agreement, (b) in the case of affumative
or positive questions a substantial proportion of the responses (always over 400/ó)
indicate no systematic expectation as to an answer whereas this is not true for negative
questions (where the highest corresponding figure is 13~%), and most relevant (c) neg +
some questions characteristically yield a preponderance of Yes expectations whereas
neg -f- any questions characteristically yield an even larger preponderance of No
expectations.
Replication of
Data with
regard
to
Downloaded from las.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
51
TABLE 2
Relative
* p <
** p <
preponderance
0.05 (one tailed
0.01 (one tailed
of YES
over
NO recalls:
C(neg
+
some)
vs.
D
(neg
-1-
any)
test)
test)
Recall
study
The principal results of the two recall studies may be found in Table 2.
With regard to Experiment 1 it can be seen that for all three sets of materials there is
a relative preponderance of Yes over No recalls when the C condition is contrasted
with the D condition ; these results are consistent with hypothesis. While the difference
is significant (p < 0.01 in each case) for Sets 1 and 1A, it does not reach significance in
the case of Set 2. With regard to Experiment 2 again it may be seen for each of
the four contrasts that there is a relative preponderance of Yes over No recalls when
the C condition is compared with D condition. With regard to format on original
presentation the effect is significant (p < 0.05) for Set 1 but does not reach significance
for Set 2, while with regard to format at time of test the effect is significant for both
sets (with p < 0.05 and p <
0.01 for Sets 1 and 2 respectively). It may be seen that
in the case of Set 2 the format effect while in the right direction was not significant
in Experiment 1 but was highly significant in Experiment 2 when question format at
time of test is considered.
Above we have presented the results for negative questions in &dquo; some &dquo; and &dquo; any &dquo;.
One might perhaps argue that the results represent simply the effect of a &dquo; some &dquo; vs.
&dquo; any &dquo; contrast. However, an examination of the results for positive questions in
&dquo;
some &dquo; and &dquo; any &dquo; reveals that this interpretation is not tenable. In the case of
Experiment 1 we do indeed find that there is a relative preponderance of Yes over No
recalls when pos -1- some items are contrasted with pos -i- any items,. The effect
although considerably less than that for negative questions reaches significance for Set
1 (p < 0.01) and for Set 1A (p < 0.05) ; it is not significant for Set 2. In the
case of Experiment 2, considering format at original presentation and contrasting
Downloaded from las.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
52
pos -I- some items with pos -I- any items, we find that for Set 1 there is a slight
relative preponderance of Yes over No recalls while for Set 2 there is a slight relative
preponderance of No over Yes recalls ; in neither case does the effect approach
significance. If for the second experiment we consider question format at time of
test, again contrasting pos -f- some with pos -t- any items, we find that for Set 1 there
is a significant relative preponderance of Yes over No recalls (p < 0.01) whereas for
Set 2 there is a significant relative preponderance of No over Yes recalls (p < 0.01).
Thus in the case of Experiment 2 it is clear that there is no consistent effect for positive
affirmative questions as a function of the &dquo; some &dquo; vs. &dquo; any &dquo; contrast. Consequently
the generally consistent results obtained with negative questions (in each of the seven
comparisons there was a relative preponderance of Yes over No recalls when neg +
some items were contrasted with neg + any items) cannot be interpreted as simply
&dquo;
&dquo;
reflecting the effect of a some &dquo; vs. any &dquo; contrast. On this matter one final pointwhile as argued earlier, there is reason grounded in linguistic analysis for expecting a
&dquo;
some &dquo; vs. &dquo; any &dquo; effect for negative questions there is no such basis for expecting
a comparable effect for positive questions.
or
Although not completely satisfactory with regard to the size of the effect the results
negative questions in some &dquo; and any &dquo; are internally consistent and in line with
hypothesis. They indicate (1) that there is an effect as a function of question format
at time of recall (see particularly Experiment 2), and also suggest (2) that there may be
an additional independent effect as a function of question format at the time of
original presentation of information (the results are in appropriate direction for both
sets but only reach significance for Set 1). The interpretation of (1), as suggested
earlier, may be quite straightforward. If at time of recall the subject is unsure of
the correct answer he may use the format of the question as a guide, and insofar as
it is a systematically deceptive or biased guide results of the sort obtained are to be
expected. The interpretation of (2), which is perhaps more interesting because it may
suggest something as to the ways such information is processed, is more difficult.
Consider the task which is posed to the subject. He is presented with a series of
questions, each with a positive or negative answer. But the answer is always in a
reduced or elliptical form e.g. &dquo; Yes, he did &dquo; No, they didn’t &dquo;, etc.; not e.g. Yes,
he did date some girls.&dquo; Thus the subject cannot simply enter or store each answer,
for if he did only this he would not know what it is the answer to, and everything
would blend into a confused mess (remember that the subject must deal with over 30
such items). So the subject, if he is to carry out the task, must somehow amalgamate
information in the question with the answer. Assuming that he has properly understood the item (each item was read twice and there was something of the order of
10 sec. for dealing with it) he might have entered it in memory as a question answered
affirmatively or negatively, or he might have transformed it into some form of the
appropriate affirmative or negative statement completely dropping all information as
to question format. Our data would seem to argue against the latter possibility as
the characteristic information processing strategy, for if this had been the strategy then
it is hard to conceive how original question format could possibly have any biasing
for
&dquo;
&dquo;
&dquo;
Downloaded from las.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
&dquo;
53
effect
recall6 On the other hand if the subject attempted to store the question
its answer affirmative or negative as appropriate, and if the question and this
marker could be held to some extent independent of each other, then if the marker
were forgotten the subject might still use information regarding the original question
format as a (biased) guide in reconstructing the answer. To summarize, if question
format at time of original presentation has a systematic biasing effect on recall this
must be because somehow it influences the way in which the information is entered or
stored in memory, and thus the biasing effects on recall cannot be merely retrieval effects.
Where does all this leave us ? The results of the present study indicate that
conducive presumptions in questions may be important in systematically biasing recall
for their answers, and suggest something as to the possible locus or loci of the effect.
Given a characterization of some grammatical facts or relations, i.e. a description of
part of linguistic competence, studies of the sort here represented can determine
whether this is reflected in some linguistically dependent performances. But if this
turns out to be the case, they characteristically have little to say as to the how of it,
i.e. with regard to the processing strategies or mechanisms which mediate the effect.
To be of interest and significance a psycholinguistic study should not only demonstrate
that some linguistic distinction has behavioural reality, but also should be sufficiently
specified as to permit some hypotheses as to the mechanisms mediating the effect, i.e.
hypotheses about the performance model (cf. Wales and Marshall, 1966). Thus, with
regard to the particular content area of the present study, we need to determine not
only whether other sorts of question presumptions have performance consequences (see
&dquo;
particularly Katz and Postal, 1964, on presuppositions and possible answers to
questions &dquo;) but more we must design our experiments so as to yield information about
the ways in which such consequences might come about, i.e. so as to elucidate the
nature of the processing involved.
on
marking
REFERENCES
BEVER, T. (1965). In Annual Report, Center for Cognitive Studies, Harvard University.
BOLINGER, D. L. (1957). Interrogative Structures of American English (American Dialect
Society, University of Alabama).
BOLINGER, D. L. (1960). Linguistic science and linguistic engineering, Word, 16, 374.
KATZ, J. J. and POSTAL, P. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions
(Cambridge, Mass.).
LEES, R. B. (1960). Review of D. L. Bolinger, Interrogative Structures of American English.
Word, 16, 119.
LIVANT, W. P. (1964). Sentences without kernels ? A study of a family of questions in
English (unpublished manuscript).
WALES, R. J. and MARSHALL, J. C. (1966). The organization of linguistic performance. In
J. Lyons and R. J. Wales (Eds), Psycholinguistic Papers (Edinburgh), 29.
6 there may be
Obviously
strategies, and our results
substantial individual
reflect the relative
may
differences in such information processing
frequency of use of particular strategies.
Downloaded from las.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016