Towards an encompassing view on L1 and L2 interface variability: a cognitive pragmatic
perspective
In this talk we will contribute data that indirectly suggests support for different approaches to
the description of the particular characteristics of L2 processing: the shallow structure
hypothesis Clahsen & Felser (2006), and for similar reasons, acquisition-by-processing
perspectives such as those adopted by Van Patten (1996), which both emphasise the L2er’s
tendency to rely more heavily on lexico-semantic and pragmatic cues than on syntax; and on
the other hand, the Interface Hypothesis (IH) (Sorace & Filiaci 2006; Sorace 2011), which
argues that the locus of difficulty and vulnerability in an L2 lies at the interfaces of different
linguistic domains.
Our data is related to the ability to interpret effects on sentence meaning of
indicative/subjunctive mood contrasts in Spanish conditional and concessive constructions,
measured through a 30-item multiple-choice interpretation task completed by L1 French
(n=49) and L1 English (n=40) adult learners at B2 and C1 CEFR proficiency levels in formal
learning contexts, as well as a native European Spanish control group (n=35).
Mood interpretation in these environments requires identifying and relating contextual
assumptions that licence one among several possible interpretations. As predicted by the IH,
results show that integrating linguistic and discourse-pragmatic information is problematic for
L2ers. No significant differences were found between the learner groups, nor among the
proficiency levels. Our data also suggest the pre-eminence of lexico-semantic and pragmatic
cues, in consonance with Van Patten and Clahsen & Felsers’ postulates. Nonetheless,
integrating information from different domains is also problematic for native speakers; in the
items tested, L1 speakers occasionally showed greater variation than the L2ers.
To offer a coherent description of the variation attested in the different groups, we will discuss
the advantages of adopting a perspective on the interaction of syntax, semantics, contextual
assumptions and processing capacities based on cognitive pragmatics and, more specifically,
on Sperber & Wilson’s (1986/1995) Relevance Theory.
References
Clahsen, H. & Felser, C. 2006. How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in
Cognitive Sciences 10 (12): 564-570.
Sorace, A. & Filiaci, F. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second
Language Research: 339-368.
Sorace, A. 2011.Pinning down the concept of "interface" in bilingualism.Linguistic Approaches
to Bilingualism: 1-33.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.1986/1995.Relevance: Communication and Cognition.Oxford:
Blackwell.
VanPatten, B. 1996. Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and
Research.Norwood, NJ, EEUU: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. 2004.Processing Instruction: Theory, Research and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ,
EEUU: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. 2007. “Input processing in adult SLA”, en B. VanPatten y J. Williams (eds.),
Theories in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ, EEUU: Erlbaum. Págs. 115-135.