Asymmetries Between Direct and Indirect Scalar Implicatures in Second Language Acquisition

Abstract

A direct scalar implicature (DSI) arises when a sentence with a weaker term like sometimes implies the negation of the stronger alternative always (e.g., John sometimes (∼ not always) drinks coffee). A reverse implicature, often referred to as indirect scalar implicature (ISI), arises when the stronger term is under negation and implicates the weaker alternative (e.g., John doesn’t always (∼ sometimes) drink coffee). Recent research suggests that English-speaking adults and children behave differently in interpreting these two types of SI ( Cremers and Chemla, 2014 ; Bill et al., 2016 ). However, little attention has been paid to how these two types of SI are processed in a non-native, or second language (L2). By using a covered box paradigm, this study examines how these two types of SI are computed and suspended in a second language by measuring the visible vs. covered picture selection percentage as well as response times (RTs) taken for the selection. Data collected from 26 native speakers of English to 24 L1-Chinese L2-English learners showed that unlike native speakers, L2 speakers showed asymmetries in their generation and suspension of DSI and ISI. That is, L2 speakers computed DSI more often than ISI, but they suspended ISI more frequently than DSI. Furthermore, our RT data suggested that L2 speakers suspended ISI not only more frequently but also significantly faster than DSI. Regarding the asymmetrical behavior among L2 speakers, we consider the number of alternative meanings involved in DSI vs. ISI suspension and different routes to the suspension of SI.

The Role of Alternatives in Language

“…For example, De Neys and Schaeken (2007) show that participants compute fewer scalar implicatures when they are under a higher processing load (e.g., Bott and Noveck, 2004;Marty et al, 2013), which might be a result of the strengthened meaning not actually being activated. Feng and Cho (2019) RT demonstrate that nonnative speakers in contrast to native speakers do not compute indirect scalar implicatures (e.g., not always → sometimes), which might be due to working memory limitations or insufficient linguistic competence in L2. An explanation in terms of linguistic competence would be compatible with findings for children, for whom it has been shown that they do not compute implicatures if they do not know the linguistic expressions denoting the relevant alternatives, which is often the case for quantifiers (e.g., Barner et al, 2011;Horowitz et al, 2018), or if they do not perceive an alternative as relevant (Skordos and Papafragou, 2016).…”

“…Nordmeyer and Frank, 2014). Feng and Cho (2019) RT compared direct and indirect scalar implicatures (sometimes → not always; not always → sometimes) for native speakers of English and L2 English learners with a covered box paradigm. Participants were presented with a visible picture and an invisible one (the covered box) and chose either, depending on the meaning they assign to a sentence they hear.…”

The computation and suspension of presuppositions by L1-Mandarin Chinese L2-English speakers

“…However, the scalar inference can be cancelled in Speaker B's utterance in (7)(8). By employing a covered-box experiment, Feng and Cho (2019) examined L1-Chinese L2-English speakers' computation and suspension of the scalar expressions sometimes and not always. They found that L2 speakers computed and suspended the inference of sometimes at a native-like level; however, the inference of not always posed difficulties to L2 speakers, especially the suspension of not always which involved calculation and processing alternative meanings.…”

“…Other studies challenging the Interface Hypothesis have suggested that linguistic properties at external interfaces, especially at the syntax–discourse interface, are acquirable by L2 learners to a native-like level, despite possible delays (Destruel and Donaldson, 2017; Ivanov, 2012; Rothman, 2009). Since the first publication investigating L2 acquisition of scalar implicatures at a new interface, namely, the semantics–pragmatics interface (Slabakova, 2010), several attempts have been made to suggest that computing scalar implicatures is not a problem for L2 speakers (Feng and Cho, 2019; Lieberman, 2009; Miller, et al, 2016; Slabakova, 2010; Snape and Hosoi, 2018). In fact, L2 speakers are more likely to generate scalar inferences than native speakers.…”

On the Variability of Scalar Implicature Computation: Evidence from L2 English Adults

“…There is a large body of work that has focused on how scalar inferences are given rise to before their manifestation in the form of judgment response. Reports are mainly split into two camps; one is placing emphasis on the proposition that sentences with scalar implicatures carry processing costs (e.g., [2,12,18,20,31,35,37,74]), and the other placing emphasis on that pragmatic processing is not associated with any cognitive load (e.g., [3,15,16,47,75]). These results were to a large extent discussed in the light of two psychological theories which envisage opposing views about how logical and pragmatic interpretations unfold prior to their manifestation in the form of a response: the default theory [10] and the relevance theory [11].…”