Validation of strongly presupposed text concepts in reading comprehension: Cleft constructions.

Abstract

Accumulating evidence indicates that readers monitor the congruence and accuracy of text by processes of "validation." Validation is sometimes thwarted by the embedding of inaccuracies in sentence presuppositions (the ideas assumed by the writer to be previously familiar to the reader). However, we previously demonstrated that inaccurate sentence presuppositions inflate reading time (O'Brien & Albrecht's, 1992, "consistency effect") as much as focussed (nonpresupposed) concepts, which favours successful validation of sentence presuppositions (Singer, Solar, & Spear, 2017). Certain theoretical analyses posit that validation is particularly impeded by grammatical constructions that strongly distinguish presupposed and focussed information. Therefore, in 3 experiments, we scrutinized 1 class of such constructions; namely, clefts and pseudoclefts. Subjects read brief texts that presented cleft or pseudocleft target sentences which had critical ideas that either matched or mismatched a text antecedent. Reading time was uniformly inflated by inconsistencies in sentence presuppositions by margins similar to those of focussed text ideas. This indicates that readers effectively scrutinize strongly presupposed concepts. The outcome is discussed with reference to theories that highlight either successful or unsuccessful validation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).