Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism: Online-First Articles

Scalar diversity in L2 French speakers

Pragmatic inferences in adjective scales

ORCID logo | The University of Iowa
ORCID logo | The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
While scalar inferences associated with some have featured in most of the past investigations into L2 implicature derivation, this study examines acquisition of pragmatic inferences licensed by adjective pairs (e.g., <intelligent, brilliant>, <dirty, filthy>). Previous work has focused mainly on direct scalar implicatures where an utterance containing a weak scalar term implicates the negation of the stronger. This work extends the investigation to include focus on two additional inference types: indirect scalar implicatures, where not brilliant conveys intelligent, and negative strengthening, a type of manner implicature where not brilliant results in a rather dumb interpretation. Using an inference-judgment paradigm, we test the interplay of these three inference types in adjectival scales for French speakers and L2 French learners and find that response behavior is modulated by the availability of alternative meanings for each participant group. L2 learners demonstrated familiarity with direct and indirect scalar implicature but lack awareness of negative strengthening. We interpret these results by highlighting the role of processing complexity as well as pragmatic competence and proficiency. Overall, this study makes an empirical contribution to the field of L2 acquisition and adds to building a more encompassing understanding of mechanisms that are often assumed to be universal in language acquisition.
Keywords: scalar implicatures, inferences, diversity, second language acquisition, French
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background literature
    • 2.1Adjective scales: Inferences and diversity
    • 2.2Empirical landscape on L2 acquisition of implicatures
  • 3.The present study
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials and procedure
    • 3.3Data preparation and analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Task 1: Direct scalar implicatures
    • 4.2Task 2: Indirect scalar implicatures
    • 4.3Task 3: Negative strengthening
    • 4.4Statistical analysis
  • 5.General discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Data availability
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 16 December 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.24020.des
References (37)
References
Baker, R., Doran, R., McNabb, Y., Larson, M., & Ward, G. (2009). On the Non-Unified Nature of Scalar Implicature: An Empirical Investigation. International Review of Pragmatics, 1 (2), 211–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beltrama, A., & Xiang, M. (2013). Is good better than excellent? An experimental investigation on scalar implicatures and gradable adjectives. In E. Chemla, V. Homer & G. Winterstein (Eds), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17 1, (pp. 81–98).Google Scholar
Benz, A., Bombi, C., & Gotzner, N. (2018). Scalar diversity and negative strengthening. In U. Sauerland, & S. Solt (Eds). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, Vol. 11, (pp. 191–204). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, L. (1985). Dialogue games. Springer eBooks. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, J. (2024). Scalar implicatures in adult L2 learners: A self-paced reading study. Second Language Research, 02676583221134058. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, C., & Rohde, H. (2015). Evoking Context with Contrastive Stress: Effects on Pragmatic Enrichment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 1. [URL]. DOI logo
Doran, R., Ward, G., McNabb, Y., Larson, M., & Baker, R. E. (2012). A novel paradigm for distinguishing between what is said and what is implicated. Language, 881, 124–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dupuy, L., Stateva, P., Andreetta, S., Cheylus, A., Déprez, V., Henst, J.-B. van der, Jayez, J., Stepanov, A., & Reboul, A. (2019). Pragmatic abilities in bilinguals: The case of scalar implicatures. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 9 (2), 314–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feng, S., & Cho, J. (2019). Asymmetries between direct and indirect scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gotzner, N., Solt, S., & Benz, A. (2018). Scalar diversity, negative strengthening, and adjectival semantics. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English (Ph.D. dissertation). University of California Los Angeles.
Huang, Y. T., Spelke, E., & Snedeker, J. (2013). What exactly do numbers mean? Language Learning and Development, 9 (2), 105–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30 (1), 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81 (2), 345–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khorsheed, A., Rashid, S. M., Nimehchisalem, V., Imm, L. G., Price, J., & Ronderos, C. R. (2022). What second-language speakers can tell us about pragmatic processing. PLOS ONE, 17 (2): e0263724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics (1st ed.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leffel, T., Cremers, A., Gotzner, N., & Romoli, J. (2019). Vagueness in implicature: The case of modified adjectives. Journal of Semantics, 36 (2), 317–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Y. (2016). Processing of scalar inferences by Mandarin learners of English: An online measure. PloS One, 11 (1): e0145494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzaggio, G., Panizza, D., & Surian, L. (2021). On the interpretation of scalar implicatures in first and second language. Journal of Pragmatics, 171 1, 62–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meister, I. G., Buelte, D., Sparing, R., & Boroojerdi, B. (2007). A repetition suppression effect lasting several days within the semantic network. Experimental Brain Research, 183 (3), 371–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. In A. Alba de la Fuente, E. Valenzuela, & C. Martínez Sanz (Eds.), Language Acquisition Beyond Parameters: Studies in honour of Juana M. Liceras (pp. 125–145). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pankratz, E., & Tiel, B. V. (2021). The role of relevance for scalar diversity: A usage-based approach. Language and Cognition, 13 (4), 562–594. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics- pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86 (3), 253–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rotstein, C., & Winter, Y. (2004). Total Adjectives vs. Partial Adjectives: Scale Structure and Higher-Order Modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12 (3), 259–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2010). Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 120 1, 2444–2462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smeets, L., & Meroni, L. (2020). Stress or context for the computation of scalar implicatures. In P. Guijarro-Fuentes & C. Suárez-Gómez (Eds.), New Trends in Language Acquisition Within the Generative Perspective (pp. 313–331). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snape, N. & Hosoi, H. (2018). Acquisition of scalar implicatures: Evidence from adult Japanese L2 learners of English. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8 1, 163–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solt, S. (2011). Notes on the comparison class. In R. Nouwen, R. van Rooij, U. Sauerland, & H.-C. Schmitz (Eds.), Vagueness in Communication (pp. 189–206). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1 (1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Syrett, K., Austin, J., Sanchez, L., Germak, C., Lingwall, A., Perez-Cortes, S., Arias-Amaya, A., & Baker, H. (2016). The influence of conversational context and the developing lexicon on the calculation of scalar implicatures: Insights from Spanish–English bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7 (2), 230–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research: “closing” the gap. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 (3), 339–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Tiel, B., van Miltenburg, E., Zevakhina, N., & Geurts, B. (2016). Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics, 33 (1), 137–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar