# Constraints on Exchange Edits During Noisy‐Channel Inference

## TL;DR

This study explores how people infer intended meanings in corrupted sentences by testing if they consider word exchanges in different German sentence structures.

## Contribution

The paper introduces new insights into how syntactic structure and task type influence the use of word exchanges in sentence repair.

## Key findings

- Implausible SO and passive sentences rarely led to nonliteral interpretations, unlike OS sentences.
- Word exchanges with function words were considered more often than with nouns.
- Explicit corrections showed frequent use of noun exchanges, suggesting task-dependent priors.

## Abstract

According to the noisy channel framework of sentence processing, communication can succeed even when the input is corrupted because comprehenders rationally infer the speaker's intended meaning based on the prior probability of the literal interpretation and the probability that the input has been corrupted by noise. To test whether and under what conditions comprehenders consider word exchanges as a possible source of corruption, we ran five experiments on processing three types of simple German sentences: subject‐before‐object sentences (SO), object‐before‐subject sentences (OS), and passive sentences. Critical sentences had implausible meanings, but could be “repaired” by exchanging function words or by exchanging nouns. Experiments 1 through 4 presented sentences along with yes‐no questions to probe interpretation. Implausible SO and passive sentences consistently elicited few nonliteral interpretations, whereas many nonliteral interpretations were given to implausible OS sentences. This was true regardless of whether word exchanges had to cross a main verb or an auxiliary, and it was more pronounced if the overall proportion of implausible sentences was low. We conclude that when answering yes‐no questions, word exchanges are considered with function words of the same syntactic category, but not with nouns, and only when they result in a more likely syntactic structure. Experiment 5 showed that when explicitly asked to correct implausible sentences, comprehenders use noun exchanges frequently. We propose that the results for both yes‐no questions and explicit corrections follow if the prior probability assigned to implausible sentences differs between tasks.