1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
  4. Volume 9, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The experimental literature on the pragmatic abilities of bilinguals is rather sparse. The only study investigating adult second language (L2) learners (Slabakova, 2010) found an increase of pragmatic responses in that population relative to monolinguals. The results of studies on early bilingual children are unclear, some finding a significant increase in pragmatic responses in early bilingual children (preschoolers) relative to monolinguals (Siegal et al., 2007), while another (Antoniou and Katsos, 2017), testing school children, does not. We tested adult French L2 learners of English and Spanish (in their two languages) as well as French monolingual controls in Experiment 1 and Italian-Slovenian early bilingual children (in both languages) and Slovenian monolingual controls in Experiment 2. Our results were similar to those of Antoniou and Katsos (2017) in early bilingual children, but different from those of Siegal et al. (2007). We found no pragmatic bias in adult L2 leaners relative to adult monolinguals.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17017.dup
2018-01-16
2024-10-05

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lab.17017.dup
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antoniou, K., & Katsos, N.
    (2017) The effect of childhood multilingualism and bilectalism on implicatures understanding. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1–47. doi:  10.1017/S014271641600045X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641600045X [Google Scholar]
  2. Barner, D., Brooks, N., & Bale, A.
    (2011) Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition, 118, 84–93. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–8. Retrieved fromCRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bialystok, E.
    (1988) Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental Psychology, 24, 560–567. doi:  10.1037/0012‑1649.24.4.560
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.560 [Google Scholar]
  5. (1993) Metalinguistic awareness: “The development of children’s representations of language”. InC. Pratt, A. Garton (eds), Systems of representation in children: development and use (pp.211–233). London: Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (1999) Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child Development, 70, 636–644. doi:  10.1111/1467‑8624.00046
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00046 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2010 Bilingualism. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Cognitive science, 1, 559–572.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2011) Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 229–235. doi:  10.1037/a0025406
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025406 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Green, D. & Gollan, T.
    (2009) Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10, 89–129. doi:  10.1177/1529100610387084
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610387084 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bialystok, E., Craik, F. & Luk, G.
    (2012) Bilingualism: consequences for the mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16/4, 240–250. doi:  10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F., & Yang, S.
    (2010) Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 525–531. doi:  10.1017/S1366728909990423
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990423 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bott, L., Bailey, T. M., & Grodner, D.
    (2012) Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 123–142. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A.
    (2004) Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 437–457. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  14. Braine, M. D. S., & Rumain, B.
    (1981) Development of comprehension of “Or”: Evidence for a sequence of competencies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 46–70. doi:  10.1016/0022‑0965(81)90003‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(81)90003-5 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chemla, E., & Spector, B.
    (2011) Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 28, 359–400. doi:  10.1093/jos/ffq023
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq023 [Google Scholar]
  16. Costa, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
    (2014) How does the bilingual experience sculpt the brain?Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 336–345. doi:  10.1038/nrn3709
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3709 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cromdal, J.
    (1999) Childhood bilingualism and metalinguistic skills: Analysis and control in young Swedish-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 1–20. doi:  10.1017/S0142716499001010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716499001010 [Google Scholar]
  18. Degen, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (2011) Making inferences: the case of scalar implicatures processing. InL. Carlson, C. Holscher, and T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.3299–3304). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M.
    (1981) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Feeney, A., Scrafton, S., Duckworth, A., & Handley, S. J.
    (2004) The story of some: Everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58/2, 121–132. doi:  10.1037/h0085792
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085792 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fernández, E. M.
    (2003) Bilingual Sentence Processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish, InLanguage Acquisition and Language Disorders, Vol.29, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/lald.29
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.29 [Google Scholar]
  22. Foppolo, F., & Guasti, M. T.
    (2012) Scalar implicatures in child language: give children a chance. Language Learning and Development, 8, 365–394. doi:  10.1080/15475441.2011.626386
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.626386 [Google Scholar]
  23. Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E., & Paradis, J.
    (1995) Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 22, 611–631. doi:  10.1017/S0305000900009971
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900009971 [Google Scholar]
  24. Grice, P.
    (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Grodner, D. J., Klein, N. M., Carbary, K. M., and Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (2010) “Some,” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition, 116, 42–55. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gualmini, A., Crain, S., Meroni, L., Chierchia, G., & Guasti, M. T.
    (2001) At the semantics/pragmatics interface in child language. InR. Hastings, B. Jackson, and Z. Zvolensky (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT XI), (231–247). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Guasti, M. T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo, F., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L.
    (2005) Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20:5, 667–696. doi:  10.1080/01690960444000250
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000250 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hilbe, J. M.
    (2009) Logistic Regression Models. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall, CRC Texts in Statistical Science. 10.1201/9781420075779
     https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420075779 [Google Scholar]
  29. Horn, L. R.
    (2004) Implicature. InL. R. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (3–28). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P.
    (2008) Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biometrical Journal, 50/3, 346–363. doi:  10.1002/bimj.200810425
     https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810425 [Google Scholar]
  31. Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J.
    (2009) Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 376–415. doi:  10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Katsos, N., & Bishop, D. V. M.
    (2011) Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicatures. Cognition, 120, 67–81. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015 [Google Scholar]
  33. Levinson, S. C.
    (2000) Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Language, Speech, and Communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Noveck, I. A.
    (2001) When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition, 78, 165–188. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00114‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 [Google Scholar]
  35. Noveck, I. A., & Posada, A.
    (2003) Characterizing the time course of an implicature. Brain and Language, 85, 203–210. doi:  10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00053‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00053-1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Noveck, I. A., & Sperber, D.
    (2007) The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’. InN. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Advances in Pragmatics (pp.184–212). Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_10
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_10 [Google Scholar]
  37. Oller, D., Pearson, B., & Cobo-Lewis, A.
    (2007) Profile effects in early bilingual language and literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 191–230. doi:  10.1017/S0142716407070117
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070117 [Google Scholar]
  38. Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J.
    (2003) Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86, 253–282. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00179‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8 [Google Scholar]
  39. Papafragou, A., & Tantalou, N.
    (2004) Children’s computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition, 12/1, 71–82. doi:  10.1207/s15327817la1201_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la1201_3 [Google Scholar]
  40. Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I. A., Politzer, G., & Bastide, A.
    (2007) A developmental investigation of processing costs in implicature production. Language Acquisition, 14/4, 347–375. doi:  10.1080/10489220701600457
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220701600457 [Google Scholar]
  41. Siegal, M., Matsuo, A., Pond, C., & Otsu, Y.
    (2007) Bilingualism and cognitive development: Evidence from scalar implicatures. InY. Otsu (Ed.), Proceedings from the Eight Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Siegal, M., Iozzi, L., & Surian, L.
    (2009) Bilingualism and conversational understanding in young children. Cognition, 110, 115–122. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  43. Siegal, M., Surian, L., Matsuo, A., Geraci, A., Iozzi, L., Okumura, Y., & Itakura, S.
    (2010) Bilingualism accentuates children’s conversational understanding. PloS One, 5:2, e9004. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0009004
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009004 [Google Scholar]
  44. Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A.
    (2014) Scalar inferences in 5-year-olds: the role of alternatives. InProceedings of the 38th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Slabakova, R.
    (2010) Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 120, 2444–2462. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Stateva, P., Déprez, V., Dupuy, L., Reboul, A., & Stepanov, A.
    (in preparation) Proportional modifiers and semantic universals.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Stella, G., Pizzoli, C., & Tressoldi, P. E.
    (2000) PPVT-R, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Torino: Omega Edizioni.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17017.dup
Loading
Pragmatic abilities in bilinguals
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9, 314 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17017.dup
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17017.dup
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17017.dup
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): bilingualism; early bilingualism; L2 learners; quantifiers; scalar implicature

Most Cited

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