Cover not available
Article published In:
Applied Pragmatics
Vol. 3:2 (2021) ► pp.136–162

Comprehending implied meaning

The combined effects of L2 proficiency, length of residence, and interaction

| Georgetown University

This study investigated the extent to which proficiency, length of residence, and intensity of interaction in a target language affect L2 learners’ pragmatic ability in comprehending conversational implicature and indirect speech acts. 68 participants, 38 L1 English and 30 L2 English users, completed two measures: a pragmatic listening test measuring implied meaning comprehension and a language contact profile survey identifying length of residence and intensity of L2 interaction. The standard multiple regression analysis revealed a significant relationship between implied meaning comprehension and learners’ proficiency, length of residence, and intensity of interaction. Together, these factors explained a significant amount of the variance in learners’ overall comprehension ability, with proficiency being the strongest predictor, followed by intensity of interaction, then length of residence. Findings also showed that while it was more challenging for the less proficient learners to comprehend conversational implicature than indirect speech acts, there was no significant difference between the two types for the higher proficiency group. Further analysis of the L2 interaction types indicated a significant, moderate relationship between the time spent speaking and learners’ implied meaning comprehension. These findings offer pedagogical and methodological implications for L2 pragmatic development.

Keywords: L2 pragmatic competence, implicature, indirect speech acts, proficiency, length of residence, intensity of interaction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Implicature
    • 2.2Proficiency
    • 2.3Length of residence
    • 2.4Intensity of L2 interaction
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Instruments
      • 3.2.1Pragmatic listening test
      • 3.2.2Surveys
    • 3.3Procedure and data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Factors predicting L2 implied meaning comprehension
    • 4.2The effects of implicature types on L2 implied meaning comprehension
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion, limitations, and implications
  • References
Published online: 6 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.19008.sag
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M. T.
(2011) Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction, and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 347–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouton, L. F.
(1988) A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 7(2), 183–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992) The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically – Without being explicitly taught? In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning: Vol 3, (pp. 53–65). University of Illinois.Google Scholar
(1994a) Conversational implicature in second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(2), 157–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994b) Can NNS Skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. 51, pp. 89–109). University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, M., & Liddicoat, A.
(2002) The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 19–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N.
(2018) Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutting, J.
(2008) Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students (2nd ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar
Dewey, D. P.
(2017) Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges. System, 711, 49–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eslami, Z. R., & Ahn, S. J.
(2014) Motivation, amount of interaction, length of residence, and ESL learners’ pragmatic competence. Applied Research on English Language, 3(1), 9–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freed, B., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D.
(2004) Context of learning and second language fluency in French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 277–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, P.
(2004a) Developmental differences in speech act recognition: A pragmatic awareness study. Language Awareness, 13(2), 96–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004b) Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan, (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, R. R.
(1984) Recent psycholinguistic research on figurative language. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 4331, 137–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.
(2011) Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(3), 229–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R.
(2002) Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kim, J., & Lantolf, J.
(2018) Developing conceptual understanding of sarcasm in L2 English through explicit instruction. Language Teaching Research, 22(2), 208–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N.
(2016) Learner-learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 42–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Köylü, Y.
(2018) Comprehension of conversational implicatures in English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(3), 373–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A.
(1999) Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumura, S.
(2003) Modeling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 465–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niezgoda, K., & Roever, C.
(2001) Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of the learning environment? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63–79). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearson Education
(2015) Longman dictionary of contemporary English (6th ed.). Pearson. [URL]
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
(2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Ghanbar, H.
(2018) Multiple regression in L2 research: A methodological synthesis and guide to interpreting R2 values. The Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 713–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roever, C.
(2005) Testing ESL pragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based assessment battery. Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Testing implicature under operational conditions. In S. J. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 43–64). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roever, C., Wang, S., & Brophy, S.
(2014) Learner background factors and learning of second language pragmatics. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(4), 377–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sağdıç, A.
(2019) From researchers to L2 classrooms: Teaching pragmatics through collaborative tasks. In S. Anwaruddin (Ed.), Knowledge mobilization in TESOL: Connecting research and practice (pp. 113–127). Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sağdıç, A., & Reagan, D.
2021). “I have a question”: A corpus-based analysis of target discourse in office hour interactions. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long Eds. The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching Cambridge University Press
Sánchez-Hernandez, A., & Alcón-Soler, E.
(2019) Pragmatic gains in the study abroad context: Learners’ experiences and recognition of pragmatic routines. Journal of Pragmatics, 1461, 54–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(1993) Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J.
(1969) Speech acts. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N.
(2005) Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 313–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58(1), 33–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Corpus-informed assessment of comprehension of conversational implicatures in L2 English. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 738–749. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience on pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61(3), 904–939. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.
(2017) Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, J.
(1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 41, 91–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995) Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Longman.Google Scholar
Xiao, F.
(2015) Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 557–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar