Online and Offline Measures in L2 Pragmatics: Rethinking Interpretation, Processing, and Tolerance
Main Article Content
Keywords
L2 pragmatics, online measures, offline measures, scalar implicature, processing efficiency
Abstract
Research in second language (L2) pragmatics increasingly relies on both online and offline measures to assess learners’ pragmatic competence. Yet these measures are often treated as broadly interchangeable, despite capturing different aspects of pragmatic performance. Offline tasks such as acceptability judgement tasks and discourse completion tasks primarily reflect learners’ final interpretive outcomes, whereas online measures such as self-paced reading and eye-tracking provide access to real-time processing dynamics. This paper argues that treating these measures as equivalent indices of the same underlying ability is theoretically unwarranted. Drawing on recent experimental evidence from L2 scalar implicature research, it argues that offline target-like performance does not entail native-like online processing: L2 learners may reach pragmatically appropriate interpretations through slower, more effortful, and more explicitly inferential routes than native speakers. The paper further suggests that offline judgements may be shaped not only by interpretive success, but also by individual differences in pragmatic tolerance, that is, learners’ tolerance for underinformative or pragmatically sub-optimal utterances, regardless of whether the relevant inference has actually been computed. To address these issues, the paper distinguishes three constructs that current research often conflates: interpretive success, processing efficiency, and pragmatic tolerance. A more differentiated account of what online and offline measures actually capture is therefore necessary for both accurate theoretical interpretation and more principled research design in L2 pragmatics.
References
- [1] Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
- [2] Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 215–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009955
- [3] Bialystok, E. (1993). Metalinguistic awareness: The development of children’s representations of language. In C. Pratt & A. F. Garton (Eds.), Systems of representation in children: Development and use (pp. 211–233). London, UK: Wiley.
- [4] Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
- [5] Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
- [6] Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge.
- [7] Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3), 437–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006
- [8] Roever, C. (2010). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 27(4), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210361476
- [9] Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 90–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.90
- [10] Bialystok, E. (1993). Metalinguistic awareness: The development of children’s representations of language. In C. Pratt & A. F. Garton (Eds.), Systems of representation in children: Development and use (pp. 211–233). London, UK: Wiley.
- [11] Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- [12] Slabakova, R. (2010). Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 120(10), 2444–2462.
- [13] Degen, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2016). Availability of alternatives and the processing of scalar implicatures: A visual world eye-tracking study. Cognitive Psychology, 87, 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.05.001
- [14] Katsos, N., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2011). Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness. Cognition, 120(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.015
- [15] Roever, C. (2006). Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing, 23(2), 229–256. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt329oa
- [16] Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- [17] Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In J. Jegerski & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics (pp. 20–49). New York, NY: Routledge.
- [18] Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 376–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001
- [19] DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- [20] Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.4.369
- [21] Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492
- [22] Foppolo, F., Guasti, M. T., & Chierchia, G. (2012). Scalar implicatures in child language: Give children a chance. Language Learning and Development, 8(4), 365–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.626386
- [23] Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000018
Article Sidebar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.