Cover not available
Article published In:
Applied Pragmatics
Vol. 2:2 (2020) ► pp.121–147

The contributions of proficiency, exposure, and working memory capacity to second language learners’ comprehension of indirect speech

| Universidad de Los Andes – Táchira
| Louisiana State University
Pragmatic inferencing necessary to interpret indirect speech can be problematic for second language (L2) learners and could be influenced by factors such as L2 proficiency and L2 exposure as well as the difficulty of inference to be made (e.g., conventional vs. nonconventional inference) – particularly difficult inferences could tax working memory capacity. The comprehension of direct speech (acceptances and refusals), conventional indirect speech (acceptances and refusals – some with introductory phrases), and nonconventional indirect speech (opinions) was measured in adult Spanish-English bilinguals (n = 58) and native English speakers (n = 38). L2 speakers generally performed worse than native speakers and were influenced by inference difficulty. They more accurately and quickly comprehended direct speech than nonconventional indirect speech, and most conventional indirect speech items fell between these extremes. L2 proficiency was found to be a strong predictor of both conventional and nonconventional inferencing, with L2 exposure also having some impact. Importantly, L1 working memory capacity was shown to independently contribute to L2 learners’ accuracy on one type of conventional and one type of nonconventional inference. Thus, some pragmatic inferencing may require both enough skill to process the second language and enough working memory capacity to make the inference.
Keywords: conversational implicature, indirect speech, pragmatic inferencing, second language proficiency, second language exposure, working memory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1L2 proficiency
    • 2.2L2 exposure
    • 2.3Difficulty of inference
    • 2.4Working memory capacity
  • 3.Hypotheses
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Stimuli
      • 4.2.1Pragmatic listening task
      • 4.2.2Picture naming task
      • 4.2.3Working memory task
    • 4.3Procedure
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Pragmatic listening task
      • 5.1.1Accuracy
      • 5.1.2Reaction times
    • 5.2Picture naming task
    • 5.3Working memory task
    • 5.4Correlations
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion and implications
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
Published online: 17 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.19013.per
References (41)
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M. (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
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognise pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barron, A. (2007). ‘Ah no honestly we’re okay’: Learning to upgrade in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 129–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, D. Andersen, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55–74). Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bella, S. (2011). Mitigation and politeness in Greek invitation refusals: Effects of length of residence in the target community and intensity of interaction on non-native speakers’ performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1718–1740. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Developing the ability to refuse: A cross-sectional study of Greek FL refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 611, 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouton, L. F. (1994). Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(2), 157–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cherry, K. E., & Park, D. C. (1993). Individual difference and contextual variables influence spatial memory in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 8(4), 517–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Destruel, E., & Donaldson, B. (2017). Second language acquisition of pragmatic inferences: Evidence from the French c’est-cleft. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(3), 703–732. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devlin, A. M. (2019). The interaction between duration of study abroad, diversity of loci of learning and sociopragmatic variation patterns: A comparative study. Journal of Pragmatics, 1461, 121–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engel de Abreu, P. M. J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2012). Executive and phonological processes in second-language acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 974–986. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2002). Refusals in Spanish and English: A cross-cultural study of politeness strategies among speakers of Mexican Spanish, American English, and American learners of Spanish as a foreign language (Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
(2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54(4), 587–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, P. (2004). Developmental differences in speech act recognition: A pragmatic awareness study. Language Awareness, 13(2), 96–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1981). Your wish is my command: Convention and context in interpreting indirect requests. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 20(4), 431–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3, Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harrington, M. (1992). Working memory capacity as a constraint on L2 development. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 123–135). North Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holtgraves, T. (1999). Comprehending indirect replies: When and how are their conveyed meanings activated? Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 519–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Köylu, Y. (2018). Comprehension of conversational implicatures in L2 English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(3), 373–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lundell, F. F., & Erman, B. (2012). High-level requests: A study of long residency L2 users of English and French and native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 441, 756–775. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Alternatives to the Critical Period Hypothesis: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 381–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 303–325). Newbury House.Google Scholar
Roever, C. (2006). Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing, 23(2), 229–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56(2), 269–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szekely, A., Jacobsen, T., D’Amico, S., Devescovi, A., Andonova, E., Herron, D., & ... Bates, E. (2004). A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(2), 247–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language. 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
(2008b). Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 558–576. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008c). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic comprehension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 423–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008d). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58(1), 33–71. 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
Taguchi, N., Gomez-Laich, M. P., & Arrufat-Marques, M. (2016). Comprehension of indirect meaning in Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 49(4), 677–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Liu, Y. (2013). Comprehension of conversational implicature in L2 Chinese. Pragmatics & Cognition, 21(1), 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., Xiao, F., & Li, S. (2016). Effects of intercultural competence and social contact on speech act production in a Chinese study abroad context. Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 775–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tromp, J., Hagoort, P., & Meyer, A. S. (2016). Pupillometry reveals increased pupil size during indirect request comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(6), 1093–1108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, J., & Leseman, P. (2016). How do verbal short-term memory and working memory relate to the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar? A comparison between first and second language learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1411, 65–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, W., Case, R. E., & Wang, Y. (2009). Pragmatic and grammatical competence, length of residence, and overall L2 proficiency. System, 37(2), 205–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamanaka, J. E. (2003). Effect of proficiency and length of residence on the pragmatic comprehension of Japanese ESL learners. Second Language Studies, 22(1), 107–175.Google Scholar