A transposed-word effect in Chinese reading

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.

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.

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.