1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
  4. Volume 14, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 14, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study sets out to investigate second language (L2) speakers’ derivation of pragmatic inferences and tolerance of violations of informativeness in two types of inferences, i.e., ad hoc implicatures and contrastive inference. The results of a graded judgment task revealed that pragmatic tolerance is inference-specific: L2 speakers were overly tolerant of underinformative statements in ad hoc implicatures than in contrastive inference. In addition, L2 speakers were found to be more relaxed with overinformativeness than underinformativeness in contrastive inference. The fact that L2 speakers tend to be redundant (overinformative) than ambiguous (underinformative) is further discussed with the Pragmatic Principles Violation Hypothesis (Lozano, 2016). This study hopes to contribute to a more find-grained understanding of L2 speakers’ abilities of deriving pragmatic inferences.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.21064.fen
2022-06-09
2024-10-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lab.21064.fen
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernandez-Solera, S., Frazier, L., & Clifton, C.
    (2002) Null vs. overt pronouns and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish. Journal of Italian Linguistics, 14(2), 151–169.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Antoniou, K., & Katsos, N.
    (2017) The effect of childhood multilingualism and bilectalism on implicature understand. Applied Psycholinguistics, 381, 787–833. 10.1017/S014271641600045X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641600045X [Google Scholar]
  3. Antoniou, K., Veenstra, A., Kissine, M., & Katsos, N.
    (2019) How does childhood bilingualism and bi-dialectalism affect the interpretation and processing of pragmatic meanings?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 186–203. 10.1017/S1366728918001189
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918001189 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arts, A.
    (2004) Overspecification in instructive texts. Doctoral dissertation, Tillburg University.
  5. Barner, D., Brooks, N., & Bale, A.
    (2011) Accessing the unsaid: the role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition, 118(1), 84–93. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E.
    (2001) The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism Development Disorder, 311, 5–17. 10.1023/A:1005653411471
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005653411471 [Google Scholar]
  7. Barr, D., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H.
    (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 681, 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bel, A., & Garcia-Alcaraz, E.
    (2015) Subject pronouns in the L2 Spanish of Moroccan Arabic speakers. InT. Judy and S. Perpinan (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish in understudied language pairings (pp. 201–232). John Benjamins. 10.1075/ihll.3.08bel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.3.08bel [Google Scholar]
  9. Bel, A., Sagarra, N., Cominguez, J. P., & Garcia-Alcaraz, E.
    (2016) Transfer and proficiency effects in L2 processing of subject anaphora. Lingua, 1841, 134–159. 10.1016/j.lingua.2016.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Belke, E.
    (2006) Visual determinants of preferred adjective order. Visual Cognition, 141, 261–294. 10.1080/13506280500260484
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280500260484 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bott, L., Bailey, T. M., & Grodner, D.
    (2012) Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of Memory and Language, 661, 123–142. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bott, L. & Noveck, I. A.
    (2004) Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course o scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 511, 437–457. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Breheny, R., Ferguson, H. J., & Katsos, N.
    (2013) Investigating the timecourse of accessing conversational implicatures during incremental sentence interpretation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(4), 443–467. 10.1080/01690965.2011.649040
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.649040 [Google Scholar]
  14. Breheny, R., Katsos, N., & Williams, J. N.
    (2006) Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100(3), 434–463. 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  15. Carston, R.
    (1998) Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. InR. Carston and S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp. 179–236). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.37.11car
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.11car [Google Scholar]
  16. Chierchia, G.
    (2006) Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 371, 535–90. 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B.
    (2012) Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. InP. Portner, C. Maienborn, & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 2297–2331). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Christensen, R. H. B.
    (2019) Ordinal: Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2019, 12–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Clements, M., & Domínguez, L.
    (2017) Reexamining the acquisition of null subject pronouns in a second language: Focus on referential and pragmatic constraints. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(1), 33–62. 10.1075/lab.14012.cle
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.14012.cle [Google Scholar]
  20. Contemori, C., & Dussias, P. E.
    (2016) Referential choice in a second language: Evidence for a listener-oriented approach. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(10), 1257–1272. 10.1080/23273798.2016.1220604
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1220604 [Google Scholar]
  21. Crosthwaite, P.
    (2014) Definite discourse-new reference in L1 and L2: A study of bridging in Mandarin, Korean, and English. Language Learning, 64(3), 456–492. 10.1111/lang.12062
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12062 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cunnings, I., Fotiadou, G., & Tsimpli, I. M.
    (2017) Anaphora resolution and reanalysis during L2 sentence processing: Evidence from the visual world paradigm. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 391, 621–652. 10.1017/S0272263116000292
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000292 [Google Scholar]
  23. Davies, C., & Katsos, N.
    (2010) Over-informative children: Production/comprehension asymmetry or tolerance to pragmatic violations?Lingua, 1201, 1956–1972. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  24. Degen, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (2011) Making inference: The case of scalar implicature processing. InL. A. Carlson, C. Holscher & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 3299–3304.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2015) Processing scalar implicature: A constraint-based approach. Cognitive science, 39(4), 667–710. 10.1111/cogs.12171
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12171 [Google Scholar]
  26. Donaldson, B.
    (2012) Syntax and discourse in near-native French: clefts and focus. Language Learning621, 902–930. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00701.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00701.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Ekiert, M.
    (2010) Linguistic effects on thinking for writing: The case of articles in L2 English. InZ. Han & T. Cadierno (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in SLA: Thinking for speaking (pp. 125–153). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847692788‑008
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692788-008 [Google Scholar]
  28. Engelhardt, P. E., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferreira, F.
    (2006) Do speakers and listeners observe the Gricean maxim of quantity?Journal of Memory and Language, 541, 554–573. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  29. Engelhardt, P. E., Demiral, S. B., & Ferreira, F.
    (2011) Over-specified referring expressions impair comprehension: An ERP study. Brain and Cognition, 771, 304–314. 10.1016/j.bandc.2011.07.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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. 10.1037/h0085792
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085792 [Google Scholar]
  31. Feng, S.
    (under review). L2 speakers’ tolerance of pragmatic violations in interpreting scalar implicatures.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Foppolo, F., Mazzaggio, G., Panzeri, F., & Surian, L.
    (2020) Scalar and ad hoc pragmatic inferences in children: guess which one is easier. Journal of Child Language, 48(2), 350–372. 10.1017/S030500092000032X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500092000032X [Google Scholar]
  33. Grice, P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (Eds.), The logic of grammar (pp. 64–75). Encino, CA: Dickenson.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 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, 201, 667–696. 10.1080/01690960444000250
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000250 [Google Scholar]
  36. Horn, L.
    (1972) On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Bloomington, USA.
  37. Horowitz, A. C., Schneider, R. M., & Frank, M. C.
    (2018) The trouble with quantifiers: Exploring children’s deficits in scalar implicature. Children Development, 89(6), e572–e593. 10.1111/cdev.13014
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13014 [Google Scholar]
  38. Huang, C. -T James
    (1987) Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. InE. Reuland (Ed.), Between syntax and semantics (pp. 63–85). Taylor & Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J.
    (2009) Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 581, 376–415. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Jegerski, J., Van Patten, B., & Keating, G. D.
    (2011) Cross-linguistic variation and the acquisition of pronominal reference in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 27(4), 481–507. 10.1177/0267658311406033
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658311406033 [Google Scholar]
  41. Judy, T.
    (2015) Knowledge and processing of subject-related discourse properties in L2 near-native speakers of Spanish, L1 Farsi. InT. Judy & S. Perpinan (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish in understudied language pairings (pp. 169–199). John Benjamins. 10.1075/ihll.3.07jud
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.3.07jud [Google Scholar]
  42. Katsos, N., & Bishop, D. V. M.
    (2011) Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition, 120(1), 67–81. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kronmuller, E., Morisseau, T., & Noveck, I.
    (2014) Show me the pragmatic contribution: A developmental investigation of contrastive inference. Journal of Child Language, 411, 985–1014. 10.1017/S0305000913000263
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000263 [Google Scholar]
  44. Levinson, S.
    (2000) Presumptive Meanings. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Liddell, T. M., & Kruschke, J. K.
    (2018) Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 791, 328–348. 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lozano, C.
    (2009) Selective deficits at the syntax-discourse interface: Evidence from the CEDEL2 corpus. InY.-I. Leung, N. Snape & M. Sharwood-Smith (Eds.), Representational deficits in second language acquisition (pp. 127–166). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.47.09loz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.47.09loz [Google Scholar]
  47. (2016) Pragmatic principles in anaphora resolution at the syntax-discourse interface: Advanced English learners of Spanish in the CEDEL2 corpus. InM. Alonso-Ramos (Ed.), Studies in corpus linguistics (Vol.781, pp. 235–265). John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. (2018) The development of anaphora resolution at the syntax-discourse interface: Pronominal subjects in Greek learners of Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(2), 411–430. 10.1007/s10936‑017‑9541‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9541-8 [Google Scholar]
  49. Maes, A., Arts, A., & Noordman, L.
    (2004) Reference management in instructive discourse. Discourse Processes, 371, 117–144. 10.1207/s15326950dp3702_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3702_3 [Google Scholar]
  50. 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. Language Acquisition Beyond Parameters, 511, 125–145. 10.1075/sibil.51.06mil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.51.06mil [Google Scholar]
  51. Mitkovska, L., & Bužarovska, E.
    (2018) Subject pronoun (non)realization in the English learner language of Macedonian speakers. Second Language Research, 341, 463–485. 10.1177/0267658317747925
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317747925 [Google Scholar]
  52. National College English Syllabus for Non-English Majors
    National College English Syllabus for Non-English Majors (1999) Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Nieuwland, M. S., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R.
    (2010) On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 631, 324–346. 10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  54. Noveck, I. A.
    (2001) When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition, 781, 165–188. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00114‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 [Google Scholar]
  55. Noveck, I. A., & Posada, A.
    (2003) Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language, 85(2), 203–210. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00053‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00053-1 [Google Scholar]
  56. Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J.
    (2003) Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition, 861, 253–282. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00179‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00179-8 [Google Scholar]
  57. Paul, W., Lu, Y., & Lee, T. H.
    (2019) Existential and locative constructions in mandarin Chinese. Linguistic Review, 37(2), 231–267. 10.1515/tlr‑2019‑2043
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2043 [Google Scholar]
  58. Pechman, T.
    (1989) Incremental speech production and referential overspecification. Linguistics, 271, 89–110. 10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.89
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.89 [Google Scholar]
  59. Quesada, T., & Lozano, C.
    (2020) Which factors determine the choice of referential expressions in L2 English discourse? New evidence from the COREFL corpus. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(5), 959–986. 10.1017/S0272263120000224
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000224 [Google Scholar]
  60. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Rothman, J.
    (2009) Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences?: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 411, 951–973. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  62. Ryan, J.
    (2015) Overexplicit referent tracking in L2 English: Strategy, avoidance, or myth?Language Learning, 65(4), 824–859. 10.1111/lang.12139
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12139 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sedivy, J. C.
    (2007) Implicature during real time conversation: A view from language processing research. Philosophy Compass, 21, 475–496. 10.1111/j.1747‑9991.2007.00082.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00082.x [Google Scholar]
  64. Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N.
    (1999) Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 701, 19–47. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00025‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00025-6 [Google Scholar]
  65. Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A.
    (2016) Children’s derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance. Cognition, 1531, 6–18. 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  66. Slabakova, R.
    (2010) Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 1201, 2444–2462. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  67. Snape, N., & Hosoi, H.
    (2018) Acquisition of scalar implicatures: Evidence from adult Japanese L2 learners of English. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 81, 163–92. 10.1075/lab.18010.sna
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18010.sna [Google Scholar]
  68. Sonnenschein, S.
    (1982) The effects of redundant communications on listeners: When more is less. Child Development, 53(3), 717–729. 10.2307/1129385
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1129385 [Google Scholar]
  69. Sorace, A.
    (2011) Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–35. 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
  70. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1986/1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.)Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Stiller, A., Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C.
    (2015) Ad-hoc implicature in preschool children. Language Learning and Development, 111, 176–190. 10.1080/15475441.2014.927328
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2014.927328 [Google Scholar]
  72. Su, Y. E.
    (2013) Scalar implicatures and downward entailment in child mandarin. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 22(2), 167–187. 10.1007/s10831‑012‑9101‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-012-9101-z [Google Scholar]
  73. Tieu, L., Romoli, J., Zhou, P., & Crain, S.
    (2016) Children’s knowledge of free choice inferences and scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 33(2), 269–298. 10.1093/jos/ffv001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv001 [Google Scholar]
  74. Veenstra, A., Hollebrandse, B., & Katsos, N.
    (2017) Why some children accept under-informative utterances. Lack of competence or pragmatic tolerance?Pragmatic & Cognition, 24(2), 297–313. 10.1075/pc.00003.vee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00003.vee [Google Scholar]
  75. Wilson, E., & Katsos, N.
    (2021) Pragmatic, linguistic and cognitive factors in young children’s development of quantity, relevance and word learning inferences. Journal of Child Language, 1–28. 10.1017/S0305000921000453
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000921000453 [Google Scholar]
  76. Yang, X., Minai, U., & Fiorentino, R.
    (2018) Context-sensitivity and individual differences in the derivation of scalar implicature. Frontiers in Psychology, 91, Article 1720. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01720
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01720 [Google Scholar]
  77. Yoon, E. J., & Frank, M. C.
    (2019) The role of salience in young children’s processing of ad hoc implicatures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1861, 99–116. 10.1016/j.jecp.2019.04.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  78. Yuan, B.
    (1995) Acquisition of base-generated topics by English-speaking learners of Chinese. Language Learning, 45(4), 567–603. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1995.tb00455.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00455.x [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.21064.fen
Loading
L2 tolerance of pragmatic violations of informativeness
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 14, 147 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.21064.fen
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.21064.fen
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.21064.fen
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ad hoc implicatures; contrastive inference; overinformative; pragmatic tolerance; underinformative

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