Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T01:39:22.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How does childhood bilingualism and bi-dialectalism affect the interpretation and processing of pragmatic meanings?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2019

Kyriakos Antoniou ,
Alma Veenstra ,
Mikhail Kissine  and
Napoleon Katsos
Kyriakos Antoniou*
Affiliation:
University of Cyprus, Center for Applied Neuroscience Hellenic Open University, School of Humanities
Alma Veenstra
Affiliation:
Université libre de Bruxelles, Center for Research in Linguistics LaDisco University of Cambridge, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics
Mikhail Kissine
Affiliation:
Université libre de Bruxelles, Center for Research in Linguistics LaDisco
Napoleon Katsos
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics
*
Address for correspondence: Kyriakos Antoniou, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent research has reported superior socio-communicative skills in bilingual children. We examined the hypothesis of a bilingual pragmatic advantage by testing bilingual, bi-dialectal and monolingual children on the comprehension and processing of various pragmatic meanings: relevance, scalar, contrastive, manner implicatures, novel metaphors and irony. Pragmatic responses were slower than literal responses to control items. Furthermore, children were least accurate with metaphors and irony. Metaphors and irony were also the most difficult to process; for these meanings, pragmatic responses were slower than literal responses to the same critical items. Finally, pragmatic performance positively correlated with working memory. Despite this variation, we found no bilingual or bi-dialectal advantage over monolinguals in pragmatic responses or speed of pragmatic processing. This was also true despite bilinguals’ and bi-dialectals’ lower vocabularies as measured by formal tests. We conclude that bilingual children exhibit monolingual-like pragmatic interpretation, despite their often-reported weaker language knowledge in the target language.

Keywords

pragmatic processingpragmatic interpretationimplicaturebi-dialectalismbilingualism
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 186 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrés-Roqueta, C and Katsos, N (2017). The Contribution of Grammar, Vocabulary and Theory of Mind in Pragmatic Language Competence in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders. Frontiers in psychology 8, 996.Google Scholar
Antoniou, K (in press). Multilingual pragmatics: Implicature comprehension in adult L2 learners and multilingual children. In Taguchi, N (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics and Second Language Acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Antoniou, K, Cummins, C and Katsos, N (2016) Why only some adults reject under-informative utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 99, 78–95.10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.001Google Scholar
Antoniou, K, Grohmann, K, Kambanaros, M and Katsos, N (2016) The effect of childhood bilectalism and multilingualism on executive control. Cognition 149, 18–30.10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.002Google Scholar
Antoniou, K and Katsos, N (2017) The effect of childhood multilingualism and bilectalism on implicature understanding. Applied Psycholinguistics 38, 787–833.Google Scholar
Apperly, IA, Riggs, KJ, Simpson, A, Chiavarino, C and Samson, D (2006) Is belief reasoning automatic? Psychological Science 17, 841–844.Google Scholar
Barac, R, Bialystok, E, Castro, DC and Sanchez, M (2014) The cognitive development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.08.004Google Scholar
Barr, DJ, Levy, R, Scheepers, C and Tily, HJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68, 255–278.Google Scholar
Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S (2015) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1–48.10.18637/jss.v067.i01Google Scholar
Bialystok, E (2017) The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological bulletin 143, 233.10.1037/bul0000099Google Scholar
Bialystok, E, Luk, G, Peets, KF and Yang, S (2010) Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13, 525–531.Google Scholar
Blom, E, Boerma, T, Bosma, E, Cornips, L and Everaert, E (2017) Cognitive advantages of bilingual children in different sociolinguistic contexts. Frontiers in Psychology 8, 552.10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00552Google Scholar
Boyce, W, Torsheim, T, Currie, C and Zambon, A (2006) The family affluence scale as a measure of national wealth: validation of an adolescent self-report measure. Social indicators research 78, 473–487.10.1007/s11205-005-1607-6Google Scholar
Bolker, BM, Brooks, ME, Clark, CJ, Geange, SW, Poulsen, JR, Stevens, MHH and White, JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in ecology & evolution 24, 127–135.10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008Google Scholar
Bott, L and Noveck, IA (2004) Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of memory and language 51, 437–457.10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006Google Scholar
Breheny, R (2006) Communication and folk psychology. Mind & Language 21(1), 74–107.10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00307.xGoogle Scholar
Breheny, R, Ferguson, HJ and Katsos, N (2013) Taking the epistemic step: Toward a model of on-line access to conversational implicatures. Cognition 126, 423–440.10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.012Google Scholar
Breheny, R, Katsos, N and Williams, J (2006) Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100, 434–463.10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.003Google Scholar
Carlson, SM (2003) Executive function in context: Development, measurement, theory, and experience. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 68, 138–151.10.1111/j.1540-5834.2003.06803012.xGoogle Scholar
Carlson, SM and Meltzoff, AN (2008) Bilingual experience and executive functioning in young children. Developmental science 11, 282–298.10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00675.xGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, DL and Chiappe, P (2007) The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 56, 172–188.10.1016/j.jml.2006.11.006Google Scholar
Clahsen, H and Felser, C (2006a) Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 107–126.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H and Felser, C (2006b) How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Science 10, 564–570.10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.002Google Scholar
Cohen, J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Costa, A and Sebastián-Gallés, N (2014) How does the bilingual experience sculpt the brain? Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 15, 336.Google Scholar
De Neys, W and Schaeken, W (2007) When people are more logical under cognitive load: dual task impact on scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology 54, 128–33.Google Scholar
Deliens, G, Antoniou, K, Clin, E, Ostashchenko, E and Kissine, M (2018) Context, facial expression and prosody in irony processing. Journal of Memory and Language 99, 35–48.10.1016/j.jml.2017.10.001Google Scholar
Dong, Y and Li, P (2015) The cognitive science of bilingualism. Language and Linguistics Compass 9, 1–13.10.1111/lnc3.12099Google Scholar
Dunn, LM, Dunn, LM and Schlichting, JEPT (2005) Peabody picture vocabulary test-III-NL. Harcourt Test Publishers.Google Scholar
Ellefson, MR, Shapiro, LR and Chater, N (2006) Asymmetrical switch costs in children. Cognitive Development 21, 108–130.Google Scholar
Faul, F, Erdfelder, E, Lang, A-G and Buchner, A (2007) G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39, 175–191.10.3758/BF03193146Google Scholar
Filippova, E (2014) Irony production and understanding. In Matthews, D (ed.), Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition, pp. 261–278. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Foucart, A, Garcia, X, Ayguasanosa, M, Thierry, G, Martin, C and Costa, A (2015) Does the speaker matter? Online processing of semantic and pragmatic information in L2 speech comprehension. Neuropsychologia 75, 291–303.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.06.027Google Scholar
Garraffa, M, Beveridge, M and Sorace, A (2015) Linguistic and Cognitive Skills in Sardinian–Italian Bilingual Children. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1898.10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01898Google Scholar
Giora, R, Givoni, S and Fein, O (2015) Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol 30, 290–31310.1080/10926488.2015.1074804Google Scholar
Green, DW and Abutalebi, J (2013) Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25, 515–530.10.1080/20445911.2013.796377Google Scholar
Grice, HP (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grodner, D and Sedivy, J (2011) The effects of speaker-specific information on pragmatic inferences. In Pearlmutter, N & Gibson, E. (Eds.), The processing and acquisition of reference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grohmann, KK and Kambanaros, M (2016) The Gradience of Multilingualism in Typical and Impaired Language Development: Positioning Bilectalism within Comparative Bilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology 7, 37.10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00037Google Scholar
Hammer, CS, Hoff, E, Uchikoshi, Y, Gillanders, C, Castro, DC and Sandilos, LE (2014) The language and literacy development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29, 715–733.10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.008Google Scholar
Horn, LR (1972) On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, LAGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T, Bretz, F, Westfall, P, Heiberger, RM, Schuetzenmeister, A, Scheibe, S and Hothorn, MT (2016) Package ‘multcomp’. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Project for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Huang, Y and Snedeker, J (2009a) On-line interpretation of scalar quantifiers: insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology 58, 376–415.Google Scholar
Huang, YT and Snedeker, J (2009b) Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in 5-year-olds: Evidence from real-time spoken language comprehension. Developmental psychology 45, 1723.10.1037/a0016704Google Scholar
Katsos, N, Cummins, C, Ezeizabarrena, MJ, Gavarró, A, Kraljević, JK, Hrzica, G, Grohmann, KK, Skordi, A, de López, KJ, Sundahl, L, van Hout, A, Hollebrandse, B, Overweg, J, Faber, M, van Koert, M, Smith, N, Vija, M, Zupping, S, Kunnari, S, Morisseau, T, Rusieshvili, M, Yatsushiro, K, Fengler, A, Varlokosta, S, Konstantzou, K, Farby, S, Guasti, MT, Vernice, M, Okabe, R, Isobe, M, Crosthwaite, P, Hong, Y, Balčiūnienė, I, Nizar, YMA, Grech, H, Gatt, D, Cheong, WN, Asbjørnsen, A, von Koss Torkildsen, J, Haman, E, Miękisz, A, Gagarina, N, Puzanova, J, Anđelković, D, Savić, M, Jošić, S, Slanćová, D, Kapalková, S, Barberán, T and Özge, D (2016) Cross-linguistic patterns in the acquisition of quantifiers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 9244–9249.Google Scholar
Katsos, N, Roqueta, CA, Estevan, RAC and Cummins, C (2011) Are children with Specific Language Impairment competent with the pragmatics and logic of quantification?. Cognition 119, 43–57.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I (2015) How does pragmatic competence develop in bilinguals?. International Journal of Multilingualism 12, 419–434.Google Scholar
Kort, W, Schittekatte, M and Compaan, E (2008) CELF-4-NL: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-vierde-editie. Amsterdam: Pearson Assessment and Information B.V.Google Scholar
Kowatch, K, Whalen, JM and Pexman, PM (2013) Irony comprehension in action: A new test of processing for verbal irony. Discourse Processes 50, 301–315.Google Scholar
Kirk, NW, Fiala, L, Scott-Brown, KC and Kempe, V (2014) No evidence for reduced Simon cost in elderly bilinguals and bidialectals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 26, 640–648.Google Scholar
Kissine, M (2013) From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511842191Google Scholar
Kissine, M (2016) Pragmatics as metacognitive control. Frontiers in psychology 6, 2057.Google Scholar
Kronmüller, E, Morisseau, T and Noveck, IA (2014) Show me the pragmatic contribution: a developmental investigation of contrastive inference. Journal of child language 41, 985–1014.Google Scholar
Levinson, SC (2016) Turn-taking in human communication–origins and implications for language processing. Trends in cognitive sciences 20, 6–14.10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010Google Scholar
Levinson, SC (2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Google Scholar
Liberman, Z, Woodward, AL, Keysar, B and Kinzler, KD (2017) Exposure to multiple languages enhances communication skills in infancy. Developmental science 20.Google Scholar
Lin, S, Keysar, B and Epley, N (2010) Reflexively mindblind: using theory of mind to interpret behavior requires effortful attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46, 551–556.10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.019Google Scholar
Marty, PP and Chemla, E (2013) Scalar implicatures: working memory and a comparison with only. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 403. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00403Google Scholar
Marty, P, Chemla, E and Spector, B (2013) Interpreting numerals and scalar items under memory load. Lingua 133, 152–163.10.1016/j.lingua.2013.03.006Google Scholar
Mashal, N (2013) The role of working memory in the comprehension of unfamiliar and familiar metaphors. Language and Cognition 5, 409–436.10.1515/langcog-2013-0024Google Scholar
Miyake, A, Friedman, NP, Emerson, MJ, Witzki, AH, Howerter, A and Wager, TD (2000) The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive psychology 41, 49–100.10.1006/cogp.1999.0734Google Scholar
Mueller, ST and Piper, BJ (2014) The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) and PEBL test battery. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 222, 250–259.10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.10.024Google Scholar
Paap, KR, Johnson, HA and Sawi, O (2015) Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances. Cortex 69, 265–278.Google Scholar
Paradis, J (2011) Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1, 213–237.10.1075/lab.1.3.01parGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J, Emmerzael, K and Duncan, TS (2010) Assessment of English language learners: Using parent report on first language development. Journal of communication disorders 43, 474–497.Google Scholar
Prince, EF (1982) Grice and universality: A reappraisal. Ms., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Psychology Software Tools, Inc. [E-Prime 2.0]. (2012) Retrieved from https://www.pstnet.com.Google Scholar
Recanati, F (2002) Does linguistic communication rest on inference?. Mind & Language 17, 105–126.Google Scholar
Roberts, L and Felser, C (2011) Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 32, 299–331.10.1017/S0142716410000421Google Scholar
Roberts, L, Gullberg, M and Indefrey, P (2008) Online pronoun resolution in L2 dis- course. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30, 333–357.Google Scholar
Ross, J and Melinger, A (2017) Bilingual advantage, bidialectal advantage or neither? Comparing performance across three tests of executive function in middle childhood. Developmental science 20.Google Scholar
RStudio Team (2016) RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/.Google Scholar
Rubio-Fernandez, P (2007) Suppression in metaphor interpretation: differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics 24, 345–371.Google Scholar
Rueda, MR, Fan, J, McCandliss, BD, Halparin, JD, Gruber, DB, Lercari, LP and Posner, MI (2004) Development of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia 42, 1029–1040.Google Scholar
Rushton, JP, Brainerd, CJ and Pressley, M (1983) Behavioral development and construct validity: The principle of aggregation. Psychological bulletin 94, 18.Google Scholar
Schneider, D, Lam, R, Bayliss, A.P. and Dux, PE (2012) Cognitive load disrupts implicit theory-of-mind processing. Psychological Science 23, 842–847.Google Scholar
Semel, EM, Wiig, EH, Secord, WA and Kort, W (2008) CELF® 4 NL: Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals: Nederlandse versie. Pearson.Google Scholar
Siegal, M, Iozzi, L and Surian, L (2009) Bilingualism and conversational understanding in young children. Cognition 110, 115–122.Google Scholar
Siegal, M, Matsuo, A, Pond, C and Otsu, Y (2007) Bilingualism and cognitive development: Evidence from scalar implicatures Proceedings of the Eighth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, pp. 265–280. Tokyo, Japan: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Siegal, M and Surian, L (2007) Conversational understanding in young children. In Hoff, E. & Shatz, M. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development, pp. 304–323. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Siegal, M, Surian, L, Matsuo, A, Geraci, A, Iozzi, L, Okumura, Y and Itakura, S (2010) Bilingualism Accentuates Children's Conversational Understanding. PLoS ONE 5(2): e9004. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009004Google Scholar
Slabakova, R (2010) Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua 120, 2444–2462.Google Scholar
Sperber, D and Wilson, D (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D and Wilson, D (2002) Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language 17, 3–23.10.1111/1468-0017.00186Google Scholar
Spotorno, N and Noveck, IA (2014) When is irony effortful? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143, 1649.Google Scholar
Stivers, T, Enfield, NJ, Brown, P, Englert, C, Hayashi, M, Heinemann, T, Hoymann, G, Rossano, F, de Ruiter, JP, Yoon, KE and Levinson, SC (2009) Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 10587–10592.10.1073/pnas.0903616106Google Scholar
Syrett, K, Austin, J, Sanchez, L, Germak, C, Lingwall, A, Perez-Cortes, S, Arias-Amaya, A and Baker, H (2016) The influence of conversational context and the developing lexicon on the calculation of scalar implicatures. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7, 230–264.10.1075/lab.14019.syrGoogle Scholar
Syrett, K, Lingwall, A, Perez-Cortes, S, Austin, J, Sánchez, L, Baker, H, Germak, C and Arias-Amaya, A (2017) Differences between Spanish monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual children in their calculation of entailment-based scalar implicatures. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2.Google Scholar
Thordardottir, E (2011) The relationship between bilingual exposure and vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism 15, 426–445.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M (2008) Origins of Human Communication. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001Google Scholar
Veenstra, A, Antoniou, K, Katsos, N and Kissine, M (2018) Resisting attraction: Individual differences in executive control are associated with subject-verb agreement errors in production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.Google Scholar
Waggoner, JE and Palermo, DS (1989) Betty is a bouncing bubble: Children's comprehension of emotion-descriptive metaphors. Developmental psychology 25, 152.10.1037/0012-1649.25.1.152Google Scholar
Wilson, D and Sperber, D (2003) Relevance theory. In: Ward, G. & Horn, L (Eds.). Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 607–632. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Sci.Google Scholar
Yow, WQ and Markman, EM (2011) Bilingualism and children's use of paralinguistic cues to interpret emotion in speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14, 562–569.Google Scholar
Yow, WQ and Markman, EM (2015) A bilingual advantage in how children integrate multiple cues to understand a speaker's referential intent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18, 391–399.10.1017/S1366728914000133Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Antoniou et al. supplementary material

Appendices SA-SB

Download Antoniou et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 569.8 KB