1887
image of Crosslinguistic influence on L2 implicature computation for determiners
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores the extent to which L1-Korean L2-English speakers’ L1 influences the computation of conversational implicatures for the definite and demonstrative determiners and in English. Both and denote unique referents, but carries implication of contrast ( ). Following Submaxim 2 of the Gricean Quantity Maxim, using instead of unmarked implicates that the referent is being implicitly contrasted with other members of the same noun. Korean has no equivalent for and the demonstrative ‘that’ is situated on the semantic scale between and . This partial overlap could influence L1-Korean L2-English speakers’ implicature computation even though also carries implication of contrast. Acceptability judgment data indicate that unlike native speakers, L2 speakers did not show sensitivity to infelicitous use of , indicating difficulty computing implicatures. Results are discussed in terms of crosslinguistic influence at the semantics-pragmatics interface in L2 acquisition.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.20004.cho
2021-05-06
2021-08-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agebjörn, A.
    (2021) Swedish noun-phrase structure in Russian-speaking learners: An explorative study of L1 influence and input-frequency effects. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 5(1), 16–29. doi:  10.22599/jesla.70
    https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.70 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahn, D.
    (2017) Definite and demonstrative descriptions: A micro-typology. InM. Yoshitaka Erlewine (Ed.), Proceedings of Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW) in Asia 2017, 1, 33–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahn, D., & Davidson, K.
    (2018) Where pointing matters: English and Korean demonstratives. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), Vol.48.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aissen, J.
    (2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ariel, M.
    (1988) Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24, 65–87. 10.1017/S0022226700011567
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011567 [Google Scholar]
  6. (1990) Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London, UK: Routledge, Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2001) Accessibility theory: An overview. InT. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation, linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp.29–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.8.04ari
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.04ari [Google Scholar]
  8. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (2013) Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63, 68–86. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00738.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x [Google Scholar]
  9. (2017) Acquisition of L2 pragmatics. InS. Lowewn & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp.224–245). New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315676968‑13
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-13 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi:  10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  11. Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A.
    (2007) Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657–689. 10.1007/s11049‑007‑9026‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9026-9 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang, C.
    (2003) A study of the determiner phrase of Spanish, English and Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chang, S.
    (1984) Cisiwa coung [Reference and anaphora, written in Korean]. Hangul, 186, 115–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chang, S. J.
    (2009) Nominal structure and interpretation: On the syntax of the Korean Determiner Phrase. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cho, H.
    (1999) Interpretation and function of the Korean demonstrative ku. Studies in Modern Grammar, 18, 71–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cho, J.
    (2017) The acquisition of different types of definite noun phrases in L2-English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(3), 367–382. 10.1177/1367006916629577
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916629577 [Google Scholar]
  17. Crawley, M.
    (2007) The R book. Chichester, England: Wiley. doi:  10.1002/9780470515075
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470515075 [Google Scholar]
  18. de Hoop, H.
    (2003) On the interpretation of stressed pronouns. InM. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7 (pp.159–172). Konstanz, Germany: University of Konstanz.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dupuy, L., Stateva, P., Andreetta, S., Cheylus, A., Déprez, V., van der Henst, J., Jayez, J., Stepanov, R., & Reboul, A.
    (2019) Pragmatic abilities in bilinguals: The case of scalar implicatures. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 9(2), 314–340. 10.1075/lab.17017.dup
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17017.dup [Google Scholar]
  20. Ebert, K.
    (1971) Zwei formen des bestimmten artikels. InD. Wunderlich (Ed.), Probleme and fortsschritte der transformationsgrammatik (pp.159–74). Munich: Max Hueber.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Grice, P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Studies in syntax: Vol 3: Speech acts (pp.41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R.
    (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307. 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hawkins, J. A.
    (1978) Definiteness and indefiniteness. London, UK: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1991) On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un) grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics, 27(2), 405–442. 10.1017/S0022226700012731
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012731 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hopp, H.
    (2009) The syntax-discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(4), 463–483. 10.1017/S1366728909990253
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990253 [Google Scholar]
  26. Horn, L.
    (1972) On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California Los Angeles, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K.
    (2004) Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition, 12(1), 3–69. 10.1207/s15327817la1201_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ionin, T., Baek, S., Kim, E., Ko, H., & Wexler, K.
    (2012) That’s not so different from the: Definite and demonstrative descriptions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 28(1), 69–101. 10.1177/0267658311432200
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658311432200 [Google Scholar]
  29. Isard, S. D.
    (1975) Changing the contextInE. Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics of natural language (pp.287–296). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511897696.019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511897696.019 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kameyama, M.
    (1999) Stressed and unstressed pronouns: Complementary preferences. InP. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp.306–321). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kehler, A., & Ward, G.
    (2006) Referring expressions and conversational implicature. InB. Birner & G. Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp.177–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.80.11keh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.80.11keh [Google Scholar]
  32. Kuznetsova, A., Bruun Brockhoff, P., & Haubo Bojesen Christensen, R.
    (2016) lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0–33. Retrieved fromhttps://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Levinson, S.
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2000) Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Liu, D., & Gleason, J. L.
    (2002) Acquisition of the article the by non-native speakers of English: An analysis of four non-generic uses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(1), 1–26. 10.1017/S0272263102001018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102001018 [Google Scholar]
  36. Maclaran, R.
    (1982) The semantics and pragmatics of the English demonstratives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cornell University, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Miller, D., Giancaspro, D., Iverson, M., Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R.
    (2016) Not just algunos, but indeed unos L2ers can acquire scalar implicatures in L2 Spanish. InA. de la Fuente, E. Valenzuela, & C. Martínez Sanz (Eds) Language acquisition beyond parameters. Studies in honour of Juana M. Liceras (pp.125–145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.51.06mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.51.06mil [Google Scholar]
  38. Nakatani, C.
    (1993) Accenting on pronouns and proper names in spontaneous narrative. InD. House & P. Touati (Eds.), Proceedings of the European speech communication association workshop on prosody (pp.164–167). Lund, Sweden: ESCA.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Plonsky, L., Marsden, E., Crowther, D., Gass, S. M., & Spinner, P.
    (2020) A methodological synthesis and meta-analysis of judgment tasks in second language research. Second Language Research, 36(4), 583–621. 10.1177/0267658319828413
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319828413 [Google Scholar]
  40. Roberts, C.
    (2002) Demonstratives as definites. InK. van Deemter & R. Kibble (Eds.) Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation (pp.89–196). Standford, CA: CSLI Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2003) Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 287–350. 10.1023/A:1024157132393
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393 [Google Scholar]
  42. Robertson, D.
    (2000) Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese learners of English. Second Language Research, 16(2), 135–172. 10.1191/026765800672262975
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765800672262975 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schwarz, F.
    (2009) Two types of definites in natural language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusettes Amherst, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2013) Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(10), 534–559. 10.1111/lnc3.12048
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12048 [Google Scholar]
  45. Slabakova, R.
    (2010) Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 120(10), 2444–2462. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  46. Snape, N.
    (2008) Resetting the Nominal Mapping Parameter in L2 English: Definite article use and the count-mass distinction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(1), 63–79. 10.1017/S1366728907003215
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728907003215 [Google Scholar]
  47. Snape, N., & Hosoi, H.
    (2018) Acquisition of scalar implicatures: Evidence from adult Japanese L2 learners of English. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(2), 163–192. 10.1075/lab.18010.sna
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18010.sna [Google Scholar]
  48. Sorace, A.
    (2003) Near-nativeness. InC. Doughty & M. Long (Eds), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.130–151). Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch6
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch6 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2011) Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33. 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
  50. Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F.
    (2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22(3), 339–368. 10.1191/0267658306sr271oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr271oa [Google Scholar]
  51. Spinner, P., & Gass, S.
    (2019) Using judgments in second language research. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315463377
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315463377 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C., & Cecchetto, C.
    (2016) Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 34(1), 307–344. 10.1007/s11049‑015‑9286‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9286-8 [Google Scholar]
  53. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.
    (2017) Second language pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wike, E. L., & Church, J.
    (1976) Comments on Clark’s “The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 249–255. 10.1016/0022‑5371(76)90023‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5371(76)90023-2 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.20004.cho
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.20004.cho
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error