Using eye tracking to investigate failure to notice word transpositions in reading

The effect of word transpositions on grammaticality judgements in first and second language sentence reading

This study investigated the cross-language influence of a reader's first language (L1, German) grammar knowledge on the syntactic processing of sentences in their second language (L2, English), using a grammaticality judgement task and comparing results with monolingual L1 English-speakers. In Experiment 1, unbalanced bilinguals (N = 82) read sentences in their L1 German and L2 English that were either grammatical in German but not English, grammatical in English but not German, or ungrammatical in both languages. Sentences were presented in mixed-language blocks. Grammaticality judgements were less accurate and slower for ungrammatical L2 sentences that were grammatical in their literal L1 translation, compared with sentences that were ungrammatical in both languages. Experiment 2 replicated these findings with an independent German-English bilingual sample (N = 78), using monolingual language blocks. In Experiment 3, effects were absent in decision accuracy and weaker in decision latency for monolingual English readers (N = 54). A post hoc validation study with an independent sample of L1 English-speakers (n = 21) provided further evidence that the ungrammatical English sentences with German word order were indeed less natural and grammatically acceptable to L1 English-speakers than the grammatical English sentences. These findings suggest that, consistent with competition models of language comprehension, multiple languages are simultaneously active and can compete during syntactic processing. However, due to the complex nature of cross-language comparisons, the cross-language transfer effects are likely to be driven by multiple interacting factors, of which one is cross-language transfer.

The impact of atypical text presentation on transposed-word effects

When asked to decide if an ungrammatical sequence of words is grammatically correct or not, readers find it more difficult to do so (longer response times (RTs) and more errors) if the ungrammatical sequence is created by transposing two words from a correct sentence (e.g., the white was cat big) compared with matched ungrammatical sequences where transposing two words does not produce a correct sentence (e.g., the white was cat slowly). Here, we provide a further exploration of transposed-word effects when reading unspaced text in Experiment 1, and when reading from right-to-left ("backwards" reading) in Experiment 2. We found significant transposed-word effects in error rates but not in RTs, a pattern previously found in studies using a one-word-at-a-time sequential presentation. We conclude that the absence of transposed-word effects in RTs in the present study and prior work is due to that atypical nature of the way that text was presented. Under the hypothesis that transposed-word effects at least partly reflect a certain amount of parallel word processing during reading, we further suggest that the ability to process words in parallel would require years of exposure to text in its regular format.

The transposed-word effect provides no unequivocal evidence for parallel processing

Studies using a grammaticality decision task have revealed surprising flexibility in the processing of word order during sentence reading in both alphabetic and non-alphabetic scripts. Participants in these studies typically exhibit a transposed-word effect, in which they make more errors and slower correct responses for stimuli that contain a word transposition and are derived from grammatical as compared to ungrammatical base sentences. Some researchers have used this finding to argue that words are encoded in parallel during reading, such that multiple words can be processed simultaneously and might be recognised out of order. This contrasts with an alternative account of the reading process, which argues that words must be encoded serially, one at a time. We examined, in English, whether the transposed-word effect provides evidence for a parallel-processing account, employing the same grammaticality decision task used in previous research and display procedures that either allowed for parallel word encoding or permitted only the serial encoding of words. Our results replicate and extend recent findings by showing that relative word order can be processed flexibly even when parallel processing is not possible (i.e., within displays requiring serial word encoding). Accordingly, while the present findings provide further evidence for flexibility in the processing of relative word order during reading, they add to converging evidence that the transposed-word effect does not provide unequivocal evidence for a parallel-processing account of reading. We consider how the present findings may be accounted for by both serial and parallel accounts of word recognition in reading.

The effect of context on noisy-channel sentence comprehension

The process of sentence comprehension must allow for the possibility of noise in the input, e.g., from speaker error, listener mishearing, or environmental noise. Consequently, semantically implausible sentences such as The girl tossed the apple the boy are often interpreted as a semantically plausible alternative (e.g., The girl tossed the apple to the boy). Previous investigations of noisy-channel comprehension have relied exclusively on paradigms with isolated sentences. Because supportive contexts alter the expectations of possible interpretations, the noisy channel framework predicts that context should encourage more inference in interpreting implausible sentences, relative to null contexts (i.e. a lack of context) or unsupportive contexts. In the present work, we tested this prediction in four types of sentence constructions: two where inference is relatively frequent (double object - prepositional object), and two where inference is rare (active-passive). We found evidence that in the two sentence types that commonly elicit inference, supportive contexts encourage noisy-channel inferences about the intended meaning of implausible sentences more than non-supportive contexts or null contexts. These results suggest that noisy-channel inference may be more pervasive in everyday language processing than previously assumed based on work with isolated sentences.

The transposed word effect is consistent with serial word recognition and varies with reading speed

The scientific study of reading has long been animated by questions of parallel vs. serial processing. Do readers recognize words serially, adding each one sequentially to a representation of the sentence structure? One fascinating phenomenon to emerge from this research is the transposed word effect: when asked to judge whether sentences are grammatical, readers often fail to notice grammatical errors caused by transposing two words. This effect could be evidence that readers recognize multiple words in parallel. Here we provide converging evidence that the transposed word effect is also consistent with serial processing because it occurs robustly when the words in each sentence are presented serially. We further investigated how the effect relates to individual differences in reading speed, to gaze fixation patterns, and to differences in difficulty across sentences. In a pretest, we first measured the natural English reading rate of 37 participants, which varied widely. In a subsequent grammatical decision task, we presented grammatical and ungrammatical sentences in two modes: one with all words presented simultaneously, and the other with single words presented sequentially at each participant's natural rate. Unlike prior studies that used a fixed sequential presentation rate, we found that the magnitude of the transposed word effect was at least as strong in the sequential presentation mode as in the simultaneous mode, for both error rates and response times. Moreover, faster readers were more likely to miss transpositions of words presented sequentially. We argue that these data favor a "noisy channel" model of comprehension in which skilled readers rely on prior knowledge to rapidly infer the meaning of sentences, allowing for apparent errors in spatial or temporal order, even when the individual words are recognized one at a time.

Not all grammar errors are equally noticed: error detection of naturally occurring errors and implications for eye-tracking models of everyday texts

Grammar errors are a natural part of everyday written communication. They are not a uniform group, but vary from morphological errors to ungrammatical word order and involve different types of word classes. In this study, we examine whether some types of naturally occurring errors attract more attention than others during reading, measured by detection rates. Data from 211 Danish high school students were included in the analysis. They each read texts containing different types of errors: syntactic errors (verb-third word order), morphological agreement errors (verb conjugations; gender mismatches in NPs) and orthographic errors. Participants were asked to underline all errors they detected while reading for comprehension. We examined whether there was a link between the type of errors that participants did not detect, the type of errors which they produce themselves (as measured in a subsequent grammar quiz), and the type of errors that are typical of high school students in general (based on error rates in a corpus). If an error is infrequent in production, it may cause a larger surprisal effect and be more attended to. For the three subtypes of grammar errors (V3 word order, verb errors, NP errors), corpus error rates predicted detection rates for most conditions. Yet, frequency was not the only possible explanation, as phonological similarity to the correct form is entangled with error frequency. Explicit grammatical awareness also played a role. The more correct answers participants had in the grammar tasks in the quiz, the more errors they detected. Finally, we found that the more annoyed with language errors participants reported to be, the more errors they detected. Our study did not measure eye movements, but the differences in error detection patterns point to shortcomings of existing eye-tracking models. Understanding the factors that govern attention and reaction to everyday grammar errors is crucial to developing robust eye-tracking processing models which can accommodate non-standard variation. Based on our results, we give our recommendations for current and future processing models.

The transposed-word effect does not require parallel word processing: Failure to notice transpositions with serial presentation of words

Readers sometimes fail to notice word transposition errors, reporting a sentence with two transposed words to be grammatical (the transposed-word effect). It has been suggested that this effect implicates parallel word processing during sentence reading. The current study directly assessed the role of parallel word processing in failure to notice word transposition errors, by comparing error detection under normal sentence presentation conditions and when words are presented serially at 250 ms/word. Extending recent results obtained with serial presentation of Chinese sentences (Liu, Li, Cutter, Paterson, & Wang, Cognition 218: 104922, 2022), in Experiment 1 we found a transposed-word effect with serial presentation of English sentences. In Experiment 2, we replicated this finding with task instructions that allowed responding at any time during the presentation of the sentence; this result indicates that the transposed-word effect that appears with serial word presentation is not due to a late process of reconstruction of short-term memory. Thus, parallel word processing is not necessary for a transposed-word effect in English. Like Liu et al. (2022), we did find that the transposed-word effect was statistically larger with parallel presentation than with serial presentation; we consider several explanations as to why this is so.

Transposed-word effects when reading serially

When asked to decide if an ungrammatical sequence of words is grammatically correct or not readers find it more difficult to do so (longer response times (RTs) and more errors) if the ungrammatical sequence is created by transposing two words from a correct sentence (e.g., the white was cat big) compared with a set of matched ungrammatical sequences for which transposing any two words could not produce a correct sentence (e.g., the white was cat slowly). Here, we provide a further exploration of transposed-word effects while imposing serial reading by using rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) in Experiments 1 (respond at the end of the sequence) and 2 (respond as soon as possible—which could be during the sequence). Crucially, in Experiment 3 we compared performance under serial RSVP conditions with parallel presentation of the same stimuli for the same total duration and with the same group of participants. We found robust transposed-word effects in the RSVP conditions tested in all experiments, but only in error rates and not in RTs. This contrasts with the effects found in both errors and RTs in our prior work using parallel presentation, as well as the parallel presentation conditions tested in Experiment 3. We provide a tentative account of why, under conditions that impose a serial word-by-word reading strategy, transposed-word effects are only seen in error rates and not in RTs.

A transposed-word effect on word-in-sequence identification

The present study investigated transposed-word effects in a post-cued word-in-sequence identification experiment. Five horizontally aligned words were simultaneously presented for a brief duration and followed by a backward mask and cue for the position of the word to be identified within the sequence. The five-word sequences could form a grammatically correct sentence (e.g., The boy can run fast), an ungrammatical transposed-word sequence (e.g., The can boy run fast) or an ungrammatical control sequence (e.g., The can get run fast), and the same target word at the same position (e.g., the word 'run') was tested in the three conditions. Consistent with previous studies using a grammatical decision task and a same-different matching task, a transposed-word effect was observed, with word identification being more accurate in transposed-word sequences than in control sequences. Furthermore, here we could show for the first time that word identification was more accurate in correct sentences compared with transposed-word sequences. We suggest that the word identification advantage found for transposed-word sequences compared with ungrammatical control sequences is due to facilitatory feedback to word identities from sentence-level representations, albeit with less strength compared to the feedback provided by correct sentences.

Fast priming of grammatical decisions: repetition and transposed-word priming effects

We used the grammatical decision task to investigate fast priming of written sentence processing. Targets were sequences of 5 words that either formed a grammatically correct sentence or were ungrammatical. Primes were sequences of 5 words and could be the same word sequence as targets, a different sequence of words with a similar syntactic structure, the same sequence with two inner words transposed or the same sequence with two inner words substituted by different words. Prime-word sequences were presented in a larger font size than targets for 200 ms and followed by the target sequence after a 100 ms delay. We found robust repetition priming in grammatical decisions, with same sequence primes leading to faster responses compared with prime sequences containing different words. We also found transposed-word priming effects, with faster responses following a transposed-word prime compared with substituted-word primes. We conclude that fast primed grammatical decisions might offer investigations of written sentence processing what fast primed lexical decisions have offered studies of visual word recognition.

A transposed-word effect across space and time: Evidence from Chinese

A compelling account of the reading process holds that words must be encoded serially, and so recognized strictly one at a time in the order they are encountered. However, this view has been challenged recently, based on evidence showing that readers sometimes fail to notice when adjacent words appear in ungrammatical order. This is argued to show that words are actually encoded in parallel, so that multiple words are processed simultaneously and therefore might be recognized out of order. We tested this account in an experiment in Chinese with 112 skilled readers, employing methods used previously to demonstrate flexible word order processing, and display techniques that allowed or disallowed the parallel encoding of words. The results provided evidence for flexible word order processing even when words must be encoded serially. Accordingly, while word order can be processed flexibly during reading, this need not entail that words are encoded in parallel.