Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 9:2 (2019) ► pp.314–340

Pragmatic abilities in bilinguals

The case of scalar implicatures

| Institute for Cognitive Sciences - Marc Jeannerod (ISC-MJ UMR 5304, CNRS – University Lyon 1), France
| Center for Cognitive Science of Language, University of Nova Gorica, Slovenia
| Center for Cognitive Science of Language, University of Nova Gorica, Slovenia
| Institute for Cognitive Sciences - Marc Jeannerod (ISC-MJ UMR 5304, CNRS – University Lyon 1), France
| Institute for Cognitive Sciences - Marc Jeannerod (ISC-MJ UMR 5304, CNRS – University Lyon 1), France
| Institute for Cognitive Sciences - Marc Jeannerod (ISC-MJ UMR 5304, CNRS – University Lyon 1), France
| Institute for Cognitive Sciences - Marc Jeannerod (ISC-MJ UMR 5304, CNRS – University Lyon 1), France
| Center for Cognitive Science of Language, University of Nova Gorica, Slovenia
ORCID logo | Institute for Cognitive Sciences - Marc Jeannerod (ISC-MJ UMR 5304, CNRS – University Lyon 1), France
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.
Keywords: scalar implicature, quantifiers, bilingualism, early bilingualism, L2 learners
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Grice’s theory of implicature
    • 1.2Experimental approaches to scalar implicatures in monolinguals
    • 1.3Experimental work on pragmatic implicatures in multilingual speakers
      • 1.3.1Scalar implicatures in L2 learners
      • 1.3.2Implicatures in early bilingual children
  • 2.The current experiments
  • 3.Experiment 1a
    • 3.1Method
      • 3.1.1Participants
      • 3.1.2Design and materials
      • 3.1.3Procedure
    • 3.2Results and discussion
      • 3.2.1Data treatment and exclusion criteria
        • Response Analysis
  • 4.Experiment 1b
    • 4.1Method
      • 4.1.1Participants
      • 4.1.2Design
      • 4.1.3Materials and procedure
    • 4.2Results and discussion
      • 4.2.1Data treatment and exclusion criteria
        • Response Analysis
  • 5.Experiment 2
    • 5.1Method
      • 5.1.1Participants and inclusion criteria
      • 5.1.2Design and materials
      • 5.1.3Procedure
    • 5.2Results and discussion
  • 6.General discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 January 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17017.dup
References (48)
References
Antoniou, K., & Katsos, N. (2017). The effect of childhood multilingualism and bilectalism on implicatures understanding. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barner, D., Brooks, N., & Bale, A. (2011). Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition, 1181, 84–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 from [URL].
Bialystok, E. (1988). Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental Psychology, 241, 560–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Metalinguistic awareness: “The development of children’s representations of language”. In C. Pratt, A. Garton (eds), Systems of representation in children: development and use (pp. 211–233). London: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
(1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child Development, 701, 636–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Bilingualism. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Cognitive science, 11, 559–572.Google Scholar
(2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 651, 229–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Green, D. & Gollan, T. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 101, 89–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: consequences for the mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16/4, 240–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F., & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 131, 525–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bott, L., Bailey, T. M., & Grodner, D. (2012). Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of Memory and Language, 661, 123–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 511, 437–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S., & Rumain, B. (1981). Development of comprehension of “Or”: Evidence for a sequence of competencies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 311, 46–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chemla, E., & Spector, B. (2011). Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 281, 359–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2014). How does the bilingual experience sculpt the brain? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 151, 336–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cromdal, J. (1999). Childhood bilingualism and metalinguistic skills: Analysis and control in young Swedish-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 201, 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degen, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2011) Making inferences: the case of scalar implicatures processing. In L. 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
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández, E. M. (2003). Bilingual Sentence Processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish, In Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, Vol.291, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foppolo, F., & Guasti, M. T. (2012). Scalar implicatures in child language: give children a chance. Language Learning and Development, 81, 365–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E., & Paradis, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 221, 611–631. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
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, 1161, 42–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gualmini, A., Crain, S., Meroni, L., Chierchia, G., & Guasti, M. T. (2001). At the semantics/pragmatics interface in child language. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, and Z. Zvolensky (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT XI), (231–247). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Hilbe, J. M. (2009). Logistic Regression Models. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall, CRC Texts in Statistical Science. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In L. R. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (3–28). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biometrical Journal, 50/3, 346–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 581, 376–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katsos, N., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2011). Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicatures. Cognition, 1201, 67–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Language, Speech, and Communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicatures. Cognition, 781, 165–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. A., & Posada, A. (2003). Characterizing the time course of an implicature. Brain and Language, 851, 203–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. A., & Sperber, D. (2007). The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Advances in Pragmatics (pp. 184–212). Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oller, D., Pearson, B., & Cobo-Lewis, A. (2007). Profile effects in early bilingual language and literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 281, 191–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition, 861, 253–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A., & Tantalou, N. (2004). Children’s computation of implicatures. Language Acquisition, 12/1, 71–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Siegal, M., Matsuo, A., Pond, C., & Otsu, Y. (2007). Bilingualism and cognitive development: Evidence from scalar implicatures. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), Proceedings from the Eight Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Siegal, M., Iozzi, L., & Surian, L. (2009). Bilingualism and conversational understanding in young children. Cognition, 1101, 115–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. (2014). Scalar inferences in 5-year-olds: the role of alternatives. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2010) Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 1201, 2444–2462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stateva, P., Déprez, V., Dupuy, L., Reboul, A., & Stepanov, A. (in preparation) Proportional modifiers and semantic universals.
Stella, G., Pizzoli, C., & Tressoldi, P. E. (2000). PPVT-R, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Torino: Omega Edizioni.Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Geiss, Miriam, Maria F Ferin, Theo Marinis & Tanja Kupisch
2024. Rhetorical question comprehension by Italian–German bilingual children. Second Language Research 40:2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Nehls, Paul N., Kodai Aramaki & Tomohiro Fujii
2023. Is a quantifier mismatch a problem for L1 Japanese learners of English?. Linguistics Beyond and Within (LingBaW) 9 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Cho, Jacee
2022. Crosslinguistic influence on L2 implicature computation for determiners. Journal of Second Language Studies 5:1 ► pp. 86 ff. DOI logo
Feng, Shuo
2022. The computation and suspension of presuppositions by L1-Mandarin Chinese L2-English speakers. Second Language Research 38:4 ► pp. 737 ff. DOI logo
Khorsheed, Ahmed, Sabariah Md. Rashid, Vahid Nimehchisalem, Lee Geok Imm, Jessica Price, Camilo R. Ronderos & Claudia Felser
2022. What second-language speakers can tell us about pragmatic processing. PLOS ONE 17:2 ► pp. e0263724 ff. DOI logo
Starr, Glenn & Jacee Cho
2022. QUD sensitivity in the computation of scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition 29:2 ► pp. 182 ff. DOI logo
ANTONIOU, KYRIAKOS & EMMANOUELA MILAKI
2021. Irony Comprehension in Bidialectal Speakers. The Modern Language Journal 105:3 ► pp. 697 ff. DOI logo
Mazzaggio, Greta, Daniele Panizza & Luca Surian
2021. On the interpretation of scalar implicatures in first and second language. Journal of Pragmatics 171 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Stateva, Penka, Sara Andreetta, Anne Reboul & Arthur Stepanov
2021. Bilingual Children’s Use of the ‘Maximize Presupposition’ Principle. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1 DOI logo
Kecskes, Istvan
2019. English as a Lingua Franca, DOI logo
Fekete, István, Petra Schulz & Esther Ruigendijk
2018. Exhaustivity in single bare <i>wh</i>-questions: A differential-analysis of exhaustivity. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 DOI logo
Snape, Neal & Hironobu Hosoi
2018. Acquisition of scalar implicatures. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:2 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.