Investigating second language (L2) learners’ acquisition of scalar implicatures
Insights from scalar diversity
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21630779 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Chao Sun (0000-0001-6395-8687, Peking University), Shuo Feng (0000-0002-3276-7586, Peking University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Pages | 1-22 |
| Publication date | 2025-12-11 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Language Acquisition (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1048-9223 • E-ISSN: 1532-7817 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/10489223.2025.2585078 |
| OpenAlex | W4417237076 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 35 |
Scalar diversity, the phenomenon that different scalar expressions give rise to scalar implicatures (SI) at different rates, is well established in native speakers, but much less is known about it in second language (L2) SI derivation. This study investigates whether first language (L1)-Chinese–L2-English learners exhibit scalar diversity, how their patterns compare to native English speakers, and whether perceived distance between scale mates contributes to L2 diversity in the same way as in native speakers. Experiment 1 used an inference task to measure SI rates for 43 lexical scales and compared learners’ responses with native speakers. Experiment 2 measured learners’ perceived distance between scale mates for the same lexical scales and compared them with native ratings. Results showed that L2 learners exhibit scalar diversity, with SI rates varying considerably across lexical scales, and their rank ordering of scales largely aligns with that of native speakers. At the same time, our findings reveal divergences: variations in learners’ SI rates are partly explained by structural properties such as semantic distance, though to a lesser extent compared to native speakers, and differences in SI rates between the two groups follow a heterogeneous rather than uniform pattern across scales. Proficiency and differences in perceived scale structure, reflected in distance ratings by L2 learners and native speakers, are potential contributors to learners’ divergence from native speakers in SI behavior. These findings are discussed in relation to the Interface Hypothesis, which holds that both processing limitations and representational differences contribute to the challenges observed in phenomena at the external interface
Computational linguistics · Language acquisition · Second language · Second-language acquisition · Theoretical linguistics · Categorization, perception, and language · EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning · Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Quantity Implicatures
Presumptive Meanings
Processing Scalar Implicature
How Large a Vocabulary is Needed For Reading and Listening?
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Scalar Diversity
Scales and inferences
The role of relevance for scalar diversity
Scalar diversity and second-language processing of scalar inferences
Why second-language speakers sometimes, but not always, derive scalar inferences like first-language speakers
What could have been said? Alternatives and variability in pragmatic inferences
Acquisition of scalar implicatures
Pragmatic abilities in bilinguals
The role of Alternatives in the interpretation of scalars and numbers
A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test
Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian
Scalar implicatures in adult L2 learners
A bidirectional study in L2 acquisition of pragmatics
Pinning down the concept of "interface" in bilingualism
Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development
Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition
On the interpretation of scalar implicatures in first and second language
Second language acquisition at the interfaces
A novel experimental paradigm for distinguishing between what is said and what is implicated
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |