Comprehension of conversational implicature in L2 Chinese

Abstract

This study examined the ability to comprehend conventional and non-conventional implicatures, and the effect of proficiency and learning context (foreign language learners vs. heritage learners) on comprehension of implicature in L2 Chinese. Participants were three groups of college students of Chinese: elementary-level foreign language learners (n=21), advanced-level foreign language learners (n=25), and advanced-level heritage learners (n=25). They completed a 36-item computer-delivered listening test measuring their ability to comprehend three types of implicature: conventional indirect refusals, conventional indirect opinions, and non-conventional indirect opinions. Comprehension was analyzed for accuracy (scores on a multiple-choice measure) and comprehension speed (average time taken to answer items correctly). There was a significant effect of implicature type on accuracy, but not on comprehension speed. A significant effect of participant group was observed on accuracy, but the effect was mixed on comprehension speed.

Developing a test of L2 Chinese pragmatic comprehension ability

“…First, the assumption that test performance varies according to known factors affecting pragmatic comprehension (Assumption 2) can be supported by demonstrating the well-documented effects of proficiency on pragmatic comprehension (e.g., Roever 2005Roever , 2006Taguchi 2008Taguchi , 2009Taguchi et al 2013). Second, the assumption that the internal structure of the test corresponds to a theoretical view of the construct of pragmatic comprehension ability (Assumption 3) can be backed by three lines of evidence based on theoretical predictions and existing empirical findings: (a) because the three types of implicature are conceptualized to represent different facets of a shared construct, one can expect strong relationships in test performance between them; (b) according to the pragmatics theories reviewed earlier, the varying degrees of conventionality (e.g., with or without conventionalized features) and the different kinds of conventionality (i.e., conventions of language and conventions of use) require different levels of processing effort, leading to variations in test performance; and (c) comprehension of the three types of implicature likely draws on different knowledge, processes, and strategies because of the differences in conventionality (e.g., Taguchi 2008).…”

“…The three distractor types represented common error types reported in previous research (e.g., Taguchi 2008Taguchi , 2009Taguchi et al 2013). …”

“…To this end, scholars can be informed by related interlanguage pragmatics research, notably Taguchi's studies on L2 English ( ), L2 Japanese (2008, and L2 Chinese (Taguchi et al 2013). Of particular relevance is Taguchi et al's (2013) study, which is the only one addressing pragmatic comprehension in L2 Chinese.…”

“…To this end, scholars can be informed by related interlanguage pragmatics research, notably Taguchi's studies on L2 English ( ), L2 Japanese (2008, and L2 Chinese (Taguchi et al 2013). Of particular relevance is Taguchi et al's (2013) study, which is the only one addressing pragmatic comprehension in L2 Chinese. The researchers developed a computerized instrument for assessing the comprehension of implicatures encoded through indirect refusals, conventionalized linguistic forms, and non-conventionalized utterances.…”

“…Finally, previous research exclusively focused on L2 English. Aside from Taguchi et al's (2013) study, which focused on acquisition rather than assessment, little is known about what can be done to assess L2 Chinese pragmatic comprehension ability. To fill these gaps in the literature, this study followed an argument-based approach to test validation (Kane 2013) and examined the soundness of the evaluation and explanation inferences in a validity argument associated with developing a L2 Chinese pragmatic comprehension test.…”