Nissen Vanda, Meuter Renata F I
School of Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Front Psychol. 2023 Jun 16;14:1179341. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1179341. eCollection 2023.
To explore how English epistemic adverbs, as used in health communication, are understood by speakers depending on their first language (L1) and language context.
We used an online dissimilarity rating task with paired doctors' opinions which differed only with respect to the embedded epistemic adverbs (e.g., This treatment has side effects vs. This treatment has side effects). In order to evaluate the possible effect of one's L1, we compared the ratings of English-speaking monolinguals and Russian-English bilinguals in Australia (Study 1). To evaluate the impact of language context, we compared the ratings of Russian-English bilinguals in Australia and Russia (Study 2). The data were interpreted using classical multidimensional scaling (C-MDS) analysis, complemented by cultural consensus analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis.
The C-MDS analyses returned statistically acceptable results. Intragroup consensus was evident for all speaker groups. They all clustered the high confidence adverbs () and the hearsay adverbs () similarly. Effects of L1 were seen: for example, unlike the monolinguals, the Russian bilinguals did not include with the high confidence adverbs (Study 1). An effect of context was also evident: Russian-English bilinguals in Australia most resembled the monolinguals in their understanding of epistemic adverbs. The way Russian-based bilinguals clustered epistemic adverbs reflected a less nuanced understanding (Study 2).
The subtle differences in how adverbs of likelihood and doubt are understood in health communication suggest extra care is needed when conveying risk and uncertainty to patients from diverse linguistic and/or cultural backgrounds to ensure mutual understanding and mitigate against miscommunication. The impact of L1 and language context on one's understanding highlights the need to explore more widely how epistemic adverbs are understood by diverse populations and, in doing so, improve healthcare communication practices.
探讨在健康交流中使用的英语认知副词，说话者如何根据其母语（L1）和语言环境来理解。
我们使用了一个在线差异评级任务，其中包含成对的医生意见，这些意见仅在嵌入的认知副词方面有所不同（例如，这种治疗有副作用与这种治疗可能有副作用）。为了评估母语的可能影响，我们比较了澳大利亚的英语单语者和俄英双语者的评级（研究1）。为了评估语言环境的影响，我们比较了澳大利亚和俄罗斯的俄英双语者的评级（研究2）。使用经典多维标度（C-MDS）分析对数据进行解释，并辅以文化共识分析和层次聚类分析。
C-MDS分析得出了统计学上可接受的结果。所有说话者群体内部都存在明显的共识。他们对高置信度副词（）和传闻副词（）的聚类方式相似。观察到了母语的影响：例如，与单语者不同，俄罗斯双语者没有将与高置信度副词归为一类（研究1）。语境的影响也很明显：澳大利亚的俄英双语者在认知副词的理解上最类似于单语者。以俄语为基础的双语者对认知副词的聚类方式反映出理解不够细致入微（研究2）。
在健康交流中对可能性和怀疑副词理解的细微差异表明，当向来自不同语言和/或文化背景的患者传达风险和不确定性时，需要格外小心，以确保相互理解并减少误解。母语和语言环境对理解的影响凸显了更广泛地探索不同人群如何理解认知副词的必要性，并以此改进医疗保健交流实践。
