Why do readers fail to notice word transpositions, omissions, and repetitions? A review of recent evidence and theory.
Most readers have had the experience of initially failing to notice an omission or repetition of a function word, or a transposition of two adjacent words. In the present article, we review recent research investigating this phenomenon. We emphasize that failure to notice such errors is of substanti...
| Publicado en: | Language & Linguistics Compass Vol. 15; no. 7; pp. 1 - 18 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Jul2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=151602864&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 151602864 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 1749818X BDC7 jtl: Language & Linguistics Compass issn: 1749818X maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Jul2021 vid: 15 iid: 7 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 151602864 10.1111/lnc3.12434 ppf: 1 ppct: 17 formats: tig: atl: Why do readers fail to notice word transpositions, omissions, and repetitions? A review of recent evidence and theory. aug: au: Kuan-Jung Huang Staub, Adrian affil: Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA su: Eye movements Parallel processing Evidence Inference (Logic) sug: subj: Eye movements Parallel processing Evidence Inference (Logic) ab: Most readers have had the experience of initially failing to notice an omission or repetition of a function word, or a transposition of two adjacent words. In the present article, we review recent research investigating this phenomenon. We emphasize that failure to notice such errors is of substantial theoretical interest, given what we have learned about how systematically and incrementally readers inspect and process text. We endorse the idea that a process of rational inference may play a critical role, while we cast doubt on the idea that failure to notice errors arises from parallel processing of multiple words. We review a number of recent studies from our own laboratory that have investigated the relationship between eye movements during reading and noticing, or failing to notice, an error. While the conclusions from these studies are broadly consistent with a rational inference account, we find that when readers fail to notice an error, their eye movements generally show no indication that the error was registered at all. On its surface, this finding may be viewed as inconsistent with the idea that the rational inference process that enables readers to overlook errors is genuinely post-perceptual. We suggest a mechanism by which eye movement control models could account for this finding. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y dt: @attributes: year: 2021 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|