English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Speaker-specific processing of anomalous utterances

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons209068

Brehm,  Laurel
Psychology of Language Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Center for Language Science, The Pennsylvania State University;
Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University;

Jackson,  Carrie N.
Psychology of Language Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Department of Germanic & Slavic Languages and Literatures, The Pennsylvania State University;

Miller,  Karen L.
Psychology of Language Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Department of Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese, The Pennsylvania State University ;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)

Brehm_etal_2018.pdf
(Publisher version), 656KB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Brehm, L., Jackson, C. N., & Miller, K. L. (2018). Speaker-specific processing of anomalous utterances. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1747021818765547.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0001-28AF-E
Abstract
Existing work shows that readers often interpret grammatical errors (e.g., The key to the cabinets *were shiny) and sentence-level blends (“without-blend”: Claudia left without her headphones *off) in a non-literal fashion, inferring that a more frequent or more canonical utterance was intended instead. This work examines how interlocutor identity affects the processing and interpretation of anomalous sentences. We presented anomalies in the context of “emails” attributed to various writers in a self-paced reading paradigm and used comprehension questions to probe how sentence interpretation changed based upon properties of the item and properties of the “speaker.” Experiment 1 compared standardised American English speakers to L2 English speakers; Experiment 2 compared the same standardised English speakers to speakers of a non-Standardised American English dialect. Agreement errors and without-blends both led to more non-literal responses than comparable canonical items. For agreement errors, more non-literal interpretations also occurred when sentences were attributed to speakers of Standardised American English than either non-Standardised group. These data suggest that understanding sentences relies on expectations and heuristics about which utterances are likely. These are based upon experience with language, with speaker-specific differences, and upon more general cognitive biases.