Abstract
Two experiments explored reader reaction to written errors that were either typographic or grammatical. Errors were embedded in short texts presented as email responses to a housemate ad. In the first experiment, readers evaluated the writer and message on several dimensions (e.g., Was the writer trustworthy? Did the email flow smoothly?). Those dimensions were divided into a “social” scale (e.g. “This student seems similar to me”) and an “academic” scale (e.g. “This email reads well”). Both kinds of error correlated with lower ratings on the academic scale while only grammatical errors correlated with lower ratings on the social scale. In the second experiment, readers were asked to edit the emails. In Experiment 1, paragraphs with either typographical or grammatical errors were both evaluated more negatively than fully correct paragraphs and the cost was mitigated by high levels of electronic communication, such as texting and using Facebook. In Experiment 2, typos were more likely to be corrected than either homophonous grammatical forms or hypercorrected forms. These results suggest that written errors, when they are salient, contribute to the social meaning of text. Furthermore, this contribution is modulated by at least some characteristics of the reader.
References
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Boland, Julie & Robin Queen. in prep. If you’re house is still available, send me an email: Personality and assessing errors in email messages.Search in Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 2005. Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge10.4324/9780203991695Search in Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2015. Fixing English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139107327Search in Google Scholar
Ghose, Anindya & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis. 2011 Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: Mining text and reviewer characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 23(10). 1498–1512.10.1109/TKDE.2010.188Search in Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Axel Bohmann. 2015. Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language 91.4. Advance online publication10.1353/lan.2015.0062Search in Google Scholar
Hucks, R. J. 2015. Voluntary involuntary disclosure. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Search in Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2005. A Student’s introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815515Search in Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2008. Prescriptivist Science. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=199. May 30, 2008 (accessed 27 June 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, Rosina. 2012. English with an accent. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203348802Search in Google Scholar
McGowan, Kevin B. 2015. Social expectation improves speech perception in noise. Language and Speech. http://las.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/content/early/2015/02/03/0023830914565191 (accessed 7 May 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Milroy, James & Leslie Milroy. 2013. Authority in language: Investigating standard English, 4th ed. Oxford: Routledge.10.4324/9780203124666Search in Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2014. Fear and loathing of the English passive. Language and Communication 37. 60–74.10.1016/j.langcom.2013.08.009Search in Google Scholar
Perales-Escudero, Moisés D. 2011. To split or to not split the split infinitive past and present. Journal of English Linguistics 39(4). 313–334.10.1177/0075424210380726Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2014. The sense of style: The thinking person’s guide to writing in the 21st century. New York: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar
Preston, Denis, 1999. Handbook of perceptual dialectology, Vol. 1. New York: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/z.hpd1Search in Google Scholar
Sanford, Anthony & Ruth Filik, 2007. ‘They’ as a gender-unspecified singular pronoun: Eye tracking reveals a processing cost. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60(2). 171–178.10.1080/17470210600973390Search in Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In R. Clyne, W. Hanks & C. Hofbauer (eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren. 2010. Enregistering internet language. Language in Society 39(4). 457–492.10.1017/S0047404510000412Search in Google Scholar
Stiff, Chris. 2012. Watch what you write: How errors in feedback influence consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Internet Commerce 11(1). 41–67.10.1080/15332861.2012.650988Search in Google Scholar
Williams, Phrarrell, Chris Harris, Robin Thicke Jr., & Al Yankovich. 2014. Word Crimes. Recorded by Weird Al Yankovic. On Mandatory Fun [MP3]. New York: RCA.Search in Google Scholar
Appendix A Transcription (Experiment 1)
The text of the audio recording is given below. Likely grammatical mistake opportunities are identified with boldface type and the potential mistake is given in parentheses.
It’s (its) complicated. I could have (could of) applied to Michigan, or I could have (could of) applied to Ohio State. They’re (their, there) both good schools and I think I would have (would of) gotten into either one. Both my sister and my father went to Michigan, and they’re (their, there) big Michigan fans, but my brother and my mom went to Ohio State, and they’re (their, there) big OSU fans. So it’s (its) kind of a family tradition to go to Michigan, but there’s (theirs) also this rivalry right within my own family. They’re (their, there) all driving me crazy. You know how you’re (your) trying to please both your (you’re) mom and your (you’re) dad, but you’re (your) caught in the middle? Last fall we watched the Michigan/OSU game on television, and my brother was like, “You’re (your) going to OSU, you have to go to Ohio State,” and my sister was like, “No, you’re (your) going to Michigan. He would have (would of) gone there (their) too but he didn’t get accepted.” Good grief. They could have (could of) been a little more supportive, but that’s my family for you. And then I did some soul searching and I said to myself, “Hey, you’re (your) not choosing a school based on its (it’s) football team or where your (you’re) family went.” And I realized that it’s (its) my dream to go to Michigan. Ohio State has its (it’s) pros and cons, but Michigan is a much better school, even if their (there) football team is worse than OSU’s. Academically, it’s (its) the best, and I really like the Psychology Department. I could have (could of) agonized forever, but it felt good to make up my mind. Once I made the decision, both of my parents gave me their (there) support. Even my mom said, “I think you’re (your) going to be really happy there (their).” Thank goodness! I was worried that she would have (would of) been disappointed.
Appendix B Sample email paragraph
There were three versions of each email. One version contained 2–4 grammos (underlined), one version contained 2–4 typos (in boldface), and one version was fully correct (in parentheses).
From Experiment 1 (typos vs grammo)
Hey! My name is Pat and I’m interested in sharing a house with other students who are serious abuot (about) there (their) schoolwork but who also know how to relax and have fun. I like to play tennis and love old school rap. If your (you’re) someone who likes that kind of thing too, maybe we would mkae (make) good housemates.
Appendix C: Editing task (Experiment 2)
Sample paragraph used for the editing task. Typos are in bold; potential and actual grammos are underlined and potential and actual hypos are in italics
My name is Chris and I’m lookign for housemates. It sounds like there’s some common ground between you and I then. I’m a junior and am involved in an awfully lot of different activities. It’s hard to keep them all straight sometimes and I wonder if I should’ve focused more on one or two. Then, my school work wouldn’t of suffered like it did last year. But no big deal – I don’t feel badly about it. I’ve pulled my GPA up and gotten my professors to help my buddy and myself out. Their really hepling us to do better this term. My buddy hangs out with me a lot, but I think you’re going to like both him and me.
Supplemental Material
The online version of this article (DOI: 10.1515/LINGVAN-2015-0011) offers supplementary material, available to authorized users.
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton