Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T22:25:36.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comprehension process of second language indirect requests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Satomi Takahashi  and
Herbert L. Roitblat
Satomi Takahashi
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii, Manoa
Herbert L. Roitblat*
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii, Manoa
*
Herbert L. Roitblat, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2430 Campus Road, Honolulu, H1 96822
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the comprehension of English conventional indirect requests by native English speakers and Japanese learners of English. Subjects read stories inducing either a conventional or a literal interpretation of a priming sentence. Reading speeds did not vary as a function of the interpretation. Subsequent target sentences that paraphrased either the literal or the conventional interpretation of the prime sentence were read more quickly when they paraphrased a conventional interpretation of the sentence than when they paraphrased a literal interpretation. Target sentences were also read more quickly if they paraphrased the interpretation induced by the context than if they did not match. The results suggest that both native and nonnative speakers process both meanings of an ambiguous conventional request.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , October 1994 , pp. 475 - 506
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

REFERENCES

Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of Hebrew second language learners. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29–59.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics (pp. 37–70). Norwood, NJ: Albex.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics (pp. 123–154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics. Nor-wood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bobrow, S., & Bell, S. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory and Cognition. 1, 343–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430–477.Google Scholar
Clark, H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 14, 56–72.Google Scholar
Clark, H., & Schunk, C. (1980). Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition, 8, 111–143.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S., Strage, A., Lampert, M., & Bell, N. (1987). Understanding requests. Linguistics, 25, 107–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1979). Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. Discourse Processes, 2, 1–10.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory and Cognition, 8, 449–456.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1982). A critical examination of the contribution of literal meaning to understanding nonliteral discourse. Text, 1–3, 9–27.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1983). Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9. 524–533.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1985). On the process of understanding idioms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14, (5), 465–472.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1986). Skating on thin ice: Literal meaning and understanding idioms in conversation. Discourse Processes, 9, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, D., & Lakoff, G. (1971). Conversational postulates. Papers from the seventh regional meetings of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Also in Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 83–106). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic. (Originally circulated as unpublished ms., 1968.)Google Scholar
Hoffman, R. R. (1984). Recent psycholinguistic research on figurative language. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 433, 137–166.Google Scholar
Janus, R. A., & Bever, T. G. (1985). Processing of metaphoric language: An investigation of the three-stage model of metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14, 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kageyama, T., & Tamori, K. (1975–1976). Japanese whimperatives. Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 4, 13–53.Google Scholar
Kasper, G., (1984). Pragmatic comprehension in learner–native speaker discourse. Language Learning, 34, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S. (1977). Eigo-ken ni okeru keigo (Honorifics in English-speaking countries). In Ohno, S. & Shibata, T. (Eds.), Iwanami Koza: Nihongo 4 (pp. 301–331). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1980). Explorations in semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lehtonen, J., & Sajavaara, K. (1983). Acceptability and ambiguity in native and second language message processing. In Ringbom, H. (Ed.), Psycholinguistics and foreign language learning. Turku: Abo Akademi.Google Scholar
Marcum, K. L. (1986). Teaching to enhance acquisition of pragmatic competence. WATESOL Working Papers, 3, 38–49.Google Scholar
McPartland-Fairman, P. (1990, 03). The processing of ambiguities. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234.Google Scholar
Michaelis, K. (1992). National and regional target language variation in English requests. Unpublished scholarly paper, Department of English as a Second Language, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Mueller, R. A., & Gibbs, R. W. (1987). Processing idioms with multiple meanings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 63–81.Google Scholar
Munro, A. (1977). Speech act understanding in context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Munro, A. (1979). Indirect speech acts are not strictly conventional. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 353–356.Google Scholar
National Language Research Institute. (Ed.). (1992). Keigo kyoiku no kihon mondai [The basic issues in teaching Japanese honorific usage]. Tokyo: Ministry of Finance Press.Google Scholar
Ortony, A., Schallert, D., Reynolds, R., & Antos, S. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollio, H. R., Fabrizi, M. S., Sills, A., & Smith, M. K. (1984). Need metaphoric comprehension take longer than literal comprehension? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 195–214.Google Scholar
Reeder, K., & Wakefield, J. (1987). The development of young children's speech act comprehension: How much language is necessary? Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 1–18.Google Scholar
Sato, C. J. (1989). A nonstandard approach to standard English. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 259–282.Google Scholar
Schraw, G., Trathen, W., Reynolds, R. E., & Lapan, R. T. (1988). Preferences for idioms: Restrictions due to lexicalization and familiarity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 413–424.Google Scholar
Schweigert, W. A., & Moates, D. R. (1988). Familiar idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 281–296.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Swinney, D., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 523–534.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. (1987). A contrastive study of indirectness exemplified in L1 directive speech acts performed by Americans and Japanese. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. (1990). Exploring the comprehension process of nonliteral utterances and some implications for automaticity. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 9 (2), 67–97.Google Scholar