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.
Curzan, Anne. 2015. Fixing English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.2010.188)| false
Hinrichs, Lars, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Axel Bohmann. 2015. Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language 91.4. Advance online publication
Hucks, R. J. 2015. Voluntary involuntary disclosure. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2005. A Student’s introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liberman, Mark. 2008. Prescriptivist Science. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=199. May 30, 2008 (accessed 27 June 2015).
Lippi-Green, Rosina. 2012. English with an accent. New York: Routledge.
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).
Milroy, James & Leslie Milroy. 2013. Authority in language: Investigating standard English, 4th ed. Oxford: Routledge.
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2014. Fear and loathing of the English passive. Language and Communication 37. 60–74.
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.
Squires, Lauren. 2010. Enregistering internet language. Language in Society 39(4). 457–492.
Linguistics Vanguard is a new channel for high-quality articles in all major fields of linguistics. Published solely online, the multimodal journal provides an accessible platform supporting both traditional contributions as well as innovative publications featuring interactive content. Linguistics Vanguard publishes concise and up-to-date reports on the state of the art in linguistics as well as cutting-edge research papers.