Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation:
Haihao
Languages
Copyright:
Article
Positivity Bias and Cultural Dierences in Acquiring Haihao in
Chinese as a Second Language
Chun‑Yin Doris Chen * and Pin‑Yu Ruby Lu
*
Abstract:
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
Keywords:
1. Introduction
haihao
haihao
haihao
Languages 20249
Languages 20249
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
2. Previous Studies of Haihao in Mandarin Chinese
haihao
hai hao
hai
hai
hai hai hai
hai hai hai
haihao
hai
hao
hao
Languages 20249
hai hao
haihao
hai hao
haihao
haihao
hai hao hen
hai hao haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
hai hao
haihao
haihao
haihao
3. Empirical Studies of Chinese Polysemous Words Acquisition
3.1. Prototypicality
Languages 20249
shang
da
3.2. L1 Semantics Transfer
daodiwh
haihao
3.3. Contextual Hints
Languages 20249
haihao
haihao
4. Research Design
4.1. Participants
4.2. Tasks and Materials
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
Languages 20249
Haihao
haihao
hai hao
Haihao
qingchu jide
haihao
Haihao
haihao
zhongji lanjiezhan
Ultimate Interception Station
haihao
puputongtong
haihao
haihao
Haihao
Haihao
hao haihao
Haihao
set in
rotdecaymalaise despair haihao
Languages 20249
taida
haihao luandiao
luandiao haihao
Haihao
haihao
haihao
dou bu tai shou
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
Languages 20249
Table 1.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
4.2.2. The Evaluation Task
This study employed an evaluation judgement task designed with two distinct
versions: Evaluation Judgment Task-I (EJT-I) and Evaluation Judgment Task-II (EJT-II).
EJT-I included weak hints, promoting a more unbiased interpretation, while EJT-II
featured strong contextual hints to guide participants more directly. The dual-version task
was specifically crafted to ensure comprehensive and unbiased data collection. Each
version of the task revolved around narratives involving the main characters Rosie and
Jennie, which were created by the researchers. Both versions unfolded through eight
scenarios per task, with each scenario corresponding to one of four types of evaluative
haihao identified in the study: low positive, average, low negative, or negative. Participants
answered questions related to each scenario. In EJT-I, participants were asked to interpret
haihao using only weak saliency hints, while in EJT-II, scenarios provided strong saliency
hints to assist with evaluations. Overall, the evaluation task consisted of twenty questions:
eight with weak saliency hints and two filler questions in EJT-I, and eight with strong
saliency hints and two filler questions in EJT-II. To enhance clarity and reduce ambiguity,
images accompanied each test item.
In the experiment, each participant saw animations created by Microsoft Office
PowerPoint 2021 on a computer screen while listening to a recorded story containing the
test items. After presenting the story, the experimenter asked the participants a question
and required them to select an answer. An example question from EJT-I is given in Table 1,
while an example question from EJT-II is presented in Table 2.
Table 1. An Example Question of EJT-I.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Scene 1
J
ennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
“Jennie asked, “Is that movie good?””
Scene 2
M
icke
y
shuo: “Qishi haihao yeh, qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
“Mickey said: “Actually, it’s not good. The plot is very unexciting”.”
Scene 3
Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
“Would Mickey want to watch the movie again?”
Table 2. An Example Question of EJT-II.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Scene 1
J
ennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
“Jennie asked, “Is that movie good?””
Scene 2
M
ickey kandao yiban jiu shuizhaole, ta shuo: “Qishi haihao yeh,
qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
“Mickey fell asleep halfway through watching it, he said:
“Actually, it’s not good. The plot is very unexciting”.”
Scene 3 Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
Jennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
4.2.2. The Evaluation Task
This study employed an evaluation judgement task designed with two distinct
versions: Evaluation Judgment Task-I (EJT-I) and Evaluation Judgment Task-II (EJT-II).
EJT-I included weak hints, promoting a more unbiased interpretation, while EJT-II
featured strong contextual hints to guide participants more directly. The dual-version task
was specifically crafted to ensure comprehensive and unbiased data collection. Each
version of the task revolved around narratives involving the main characters Rosie and
Jennie, which were created by the researchers. Both versions unfolded through eight
scenarios per task, with each scenario corresponding to one of four types of evaluative
haihao identified in the study: low positive, average, low negative, or negative. Participants
answered questions related to each scenario. In EJT-I, participants were asked to interpret
haihao using only weak saliency hints, while in EJT-II, scenarios provided strong saliency
hints to assist with evaluations. Overall, the evaluation task consisted of twenty questions:
eight with weak saliency hints and two filler questions in EJT-I, and eight with strong
saliency hints and two filler questions in EJT-II. To enhance clarity and reduce ambiguity,
images accompanied each test item.
In the experiment, each participant saw animations created by Microsoft Office
PowerPoint 2021 on a computer screen while listening to a recorded story containing the
test items. After presenting the story, the experimenter asked the participants a question
and required them to select an answer. An example question from EJT-I is given in Table 1,
while an example question from EJT-II is presented in Table 2.
Table 1. An Example Question of EJT-I.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Scene 1
J
ennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
“Jennie asked, “Is that movie good?””
Scene 2
M
icke
y
shuo: “Qishi haihao yeh, qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
“Mickey said: “Actually, it’s not good. The plot is very unexciting”.”
Scene 3
Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
“Would Mickey want to watch the movie again?”
Table 2. An Example Question of EJT-II.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Scene 1
J
ennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
“Jennie asked, “Is that movie good?””
Scene 2
M
ickey kandao yiban jiu shuizhaole, ta shuo: “Qishi haihao yeh,
qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
“Mickey fell asleep halfway through watching it, he said:
“Actually, it’s not good. The plot is very unexciting”.”
Scene 3 Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
Mickey shuo“Qishi haihao yeh, qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
4.2.2. The Evaluation Task
This study employed an evaluation judgement task designed with two distinct
versions: Evaluation Judgment Task-I (EJT-I) and Evaluation Judgment Task-II (EJT-II).
EJT-I included weak hints, promoting a more unbiased interpretation, while EJT-II
featured strong contextual hints to guide participants more directly. The dual-version task
was specifically crafted to ensure comprehensive and unbiased data collection. Each
version of the task revolved around narratives involving the main characters Rosie and
Jennie, which were created by the researchers. Both versions unfolded through eight
scenarios per task, with each scenario corresponding to one of four types of evaluative
haihao identified in the study: low positive, average, low negative, or negative. Participants
answered questions related to each scenario. In EJT-I, participants were asked to interpret
haihao using only weak saliency hints, while in EJT-II, scenarios provided strong saliency
hints to assist with evaluations. Overall, the evaluation task consisted of twenty questions:
eight with weak saliency hints and two filler questions in EJT-I, and eight with strong
saliency hints and two filler questions in EJT-II. To enhance clarity and reduce ambiguity,
images accompanied each test item.
In the experiment, each participant saw animations created by Microsoft Office
PowerPoint 2021 on a computer screen while listening to a recorded story containing the
test items. After presenting the story, the experimenter asked the participants a question
and required them to select an answer. An example question from EJT-I is given in Table 1,
while an example question from EJT-II is presented in Table 2.
Table 1. An Example Question of EJT-I.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Scene 1
J
ennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
“Jennie asked, “Is that movie good?””
Scene 2
M
icke
y
shuo: “Qishi haihao yeh, qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
“Mickey said: “Actually, it’s not good. The plot is very unexciting”.”
Scene 3
Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
“Would Mickey want to watch the movie again?”
Table 2. An Example Question of EJT-II.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Scene 1
J
ennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
“Jennie asked, “Is that movie good?””
Scene 2
M
ickey kandao yiban jiu shuizhaole, ta shuo: “Qishi haihao yeh,
qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
“Mickey fell asleep halfway through watching it, he said:
“Actually, it’s not good. The plot is very unexciting”.”
Scene 3 Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
Table 2.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
4.2.2. The Evaluation Task
This study employed an evaluation judgement task designed with two distinct
versions: Evaluation Judgment Task-I (EJT-I) and Evaluation Judgment Task-II (EJT-II).
EJT-I included weak hints, promoting a more unbiased interpretation, while EJT-II
featured strong contextual hints to guide participants more directly. The dual-version task
was specifically crafted to ensure comprehensive and unbiased data collection. Each
version of the task revolved around narratives involving the main characters Rosie and
Jennie, which were created by the researchers. Both versions unfolded through eight
scenarios per task, with each scenario corresponding to one of four types of evaluative
haihao identified in the study: low positive, average, low negative, or negative. Participants
answered questions related to each scenario. In EJT-I, participants were asked to interpret
haihao using only weak saliency hints, while in EJT-II, scenarios provided strong saliency
hints to assist with evaluations. Overall, the evaluation task consisted of twenty questions:
eight with weak saliency hints and two filler questions in EJT-I, and eight with strong
saliency hints and two filler questions in EJT-II. To enhance clarity and reduce ambiguity,
images accompanied each test item.
In the experiment, each participant saw animations created by Microsoft Office
PowerPoint 2021 on a computer screen while listening to a recorded story containing the
test items. After presenting the story, the experimenter asked the participants a question
and required them to select an answer. An example question from EJT-I is given in Table 1,
while an example question from EJT-II is presented in Table 2.
Table 1. An Example Question of EJT-I.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Scene 1
J
ennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
“Jennie asked, “Is that movie good?””
Scene 2
M
icke
y
shuo: “Qishi haihao yeh, qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
“Mickey said: “Actually, it’s not good. The plot is very unexciting”.”
Scene 3 Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
“Would Mickey want to watch the movie again?”
Table 2. An Example Question of EJT-II.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Scene 1
J
ennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
“Jennie asked, “Is that movie good?””
Scene 2
M
ickey kandao yiban jiu shuizhaole, ta shuo: “Qishi haihao yeh,
qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
“Mickey fell asleep halfway through watching it, he said:
“Actually, it’s not good. The plot is very unexciting”.”
Scene 3 Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
Jennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
4.2.2. The Evaluation Task
This study employed an evaluation judgement task designed with two distinct
versions: Evaluation Judgment Task-I (EJT-I) and Evaluation Judgment Task-II (EJT-II).
EJT-I included weak hints, promoting a more unbiased interpretation, while EJT-II
featured strong contextual hints to guide participants more directly. The dual-version task
was specifically crafted to ensure comprehensive and unbiased data collection. Each
version of the task revolved around narratives involving the main characters Rosie and
Jennie, which were created by the researchers. Both versions unfolded through eight
scenarios per task, with each scenario corresponding to one of four types of evaluative
haihao identified in the study: low positive, average, low negative, or negative. Participants
answered questions related to each scenario. In EJT-I, participants were asked to interpret
haihao using only weak saliency hints, while in EJT-II, scenarios provided strong saliency
hints to assist with evaluations. Overall, the evaluation task consisted of twenty questions:
eight with weak saliency hints and two filler questions in EJT-I, and eight with strong
saliency hints and two filler questions in EJT-II. To enhance clarity and reduce ambiguity,
images accompanied each test item.
In the experiment, each participant saw animations created by Microsoft Office
PowerPoint 2021 on a computer screen while listening to a recorded story containing the
test items. After presenting the story, the experimenter asked the participants a question
and required them to select an answer. An example question from EJT-I is given in Table 1,
while an example question from EJT-II is presented in Table 2.
Table 1. An Example Question of EJT-I.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Scene 1
J
ennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
“Jennie asked, “Is that movie good?””
Scene 2
M
icke
y
shuo: “Qishi haihao yeh, qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
“Mickey said: “Actually, it’s not good. The plot is very unexciting”.”
Scene 3
Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
“Would Mickey want to watch the movie again?”
Table 2. An Example Question of EJT-II.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Scene 1
J
ennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
“Jennie asked, “Is that movie good?””
Scene 2
M
ickey kandao yiban jiu shuizhaole, ta shuo: “Qishi haihao yeh,
qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
“Mickey fell asleep halfway through watching it, he said:
“Actually, it’s not good. The plot is very unexciting”.”
Scene 3 Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
Mickey kandao yiban jiu shuizhaole, ta shuo: “Qishi haihao
yeh, qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
Languages 2024, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
4.2.2. The Evaluation Task
This study employed an evaluation judgement task designed with two distinct
versions: Evaluation Judgment Task-I (EJT-I) and Evaluation Judgment Task-II (EJT-II).
EJT-I included weak hints, promoting a more unbiased interpretation, while EJT-II
featured strong contextual hints to guide participants more directly. The dual-version task
was specifically crafted to ensure comprehensive and unbiased data collection. Each
version of the task revolved around narratives involving the main characters Rosie and
Jennie, which were created by the researchers. Both versions unfolded through eight
scenarios per task, with each scenario corresponding to one of four types of evaluative
haihao identified in the study: low positive, average, low negative, or negative. Participants
answered questions related to each scenario. In EJT-I, participants were asked to interpret
haihao using only weak saliency hints, while in EJT-II, scenarios provided strong saliency
hints to assist with evaluations. Overall, the evaluation task consisted of twenty questions:
eight with weak saliency hints and two filler questions in EJT-I, and eight with strong
saliency hints and two filler questions in EJT-II. To enhance clarity and reduce ambiguity,
images accompanied each test item.
In the experiment, each participant saw animations created by Microsoft Office
PowerPoint 2021 on a computer screen while listening to a recorded story containing the
test items. After presenting the story, the experimenter asked the participants a question
and required them to select an answer. An example question from EJT-I is given in Table 1,
while an example question from EJT-II is presented in Table 2.
Table 1. An Example Question of EJT-I.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Scene 1
J
ennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
“Jennie asked, “Is that movie good?””
Scene 2
M
icke
y
shuo: “Qishi haihao yeh, qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
“Mickey said: “Actually, it’s not good. The plot is very unexciting”.”
Scene 3
Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
“Would Mickey want to watch the movie again?”
Table 2. An Example Question of EJT-II.
The Participants Saw: The Participants Heard:
Scene 1
J
ennie wen: “Nabu dianying shibushi hen haokan ya?”
“Jennie asked, “Is that movie good?””
Scene 2
M
ickey kandao yiban jiu shuizhaole, ta shuo: “Qishi haihao yeh,
qingjie hen bu jingcai”.
“Mickey fell asleep halfway through watching it, he said:
“Actually, it’s not good. The plot is very unexciting”.”
Scene 3 Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
Qingwen Mickey hui xiang zai kanyici nabu dianying ma?
4.3. Procedure
haihao
haihao
Languages 20249
chi
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Type Eect
haihao
Table 3.
Type
Group
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
f%f%f%f%
haihao haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao p
haihao
haihao
chi
haihao p
chi
p
P
haihao
haihao
p
haihao
Languages 20249
Table 4. Haihao
Group Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
×−
×−
Notes p p
p p
p
p p p
haihao
p
p
haihao
p p p
p
haihao
p p
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
Languages 20249
Table 5.
Type Group Option A Option B Option C Option D
f%f%f%f%
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
Languages 20249
haihao
haihao haihao
haihao
haihao
5.2. Saliency Eect
Table 6.
Hints Type
Group
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
f%f%f%f%
haihao haihao
haihao
haihao
p
haihao
Languages 20249
Table 7. p
Type
Group Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
×−
Notes p p
p
p
p ×−
haihao
p
p
p
haihao
p
haihao p
p
haihao haihao
haihao
haihao
hen hen
shihhe hen youchengjiougan
hen
haihao
hen
hen hao hen
gao
hen
Languages 20249
haihao
hen
hen
haihao
bu bu taishou
haihao
bu
bu
bu
bu
bu jingcai
bu jingcai
bu taishou tai
bu
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
6. Conclusions
haihao
haihao
Languages 20249
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
haihao
Languages 20249
Author Contributions:
Funding:
Institutional Review Board Statement:
Informed Consent Statement:
Data Availability Statement:
Conicts of Interest:
Notes
haihao haihao
Haihao
Haihao
Haihao
qixian haihao
luandiao Haihao
qishi haihao
Haihao
Haihao
haihao
haihao haihao
References
Annual Review of Psychology
Cognition
Text‑Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse
hao
Journal of Chinese Language and Computing
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Frontiers in Psychology