Generalizaciones sobre las clases sémanticas de los antecedentes en cada

A univariate between subjects ANOVA was done to compare group performance on the size judgement task, measuring working memory capacity in English. Linking between words was analyzed. A main effect of group was found F(2, 102) = 21.51, p < .001. Results of a post- hoc Tukey test showed that the NES (M = 30.37) had better working memory than both the SEBL (M = 24.18) and SEBS (M = 23.42), which did not differ from each other. SEB groups did not differ from each other in the size judgement task in Spanish either.

A correlation analysis was done to determine the relationship of the PLT accuracy with working memory capacity (WM). For all groups together, one significant correlation was found between comprehension of indirect refusals with upgraders and WM capacity in English (r = .21,

p < .05). This means that there is a positive association between these two variables; thus, high

WM capacity, represents better comprehension of indirect refusals with upgraders. Analyzing groups separately, in the NES, comprehension of implicatures showed a significant relationship with WM capacity (r = .34, p < .05). No relationship was shown for SEBL. In the case of SEBS, there is a significant relationship between working memory in English (r = .40, p < .05) and

69

comprehension of indirect refusals with upgraders. This means that higher WM capacity, the better comprehension of this type of refusals.

3.4.4.3. External variables, lexical access speed and working memory capacity

A correlation analysis was also done, with SEB speakers only, to determine the relation between the speed of lexical access and the individual difference variables, such as: age, self- rated fluency in both languages, hours of exposure to both languages, and amount of daily use of both languages. Results show that in the SEBL group, significant negative correlations occurred between the age of exposure to English and the lexical access speed of high frequency items (r = -.36, p < .05). This means that the older their age of exposure to their L2, the faster lexical access speed. Another important correlation for this group is between their self-rated English listening skills and high frequency (r = .36, p < .05) and low frequency (r = .37, p < .05) items. Thus, the higher they rated themselves in their English listening skills, they slower they are to access lexicon of high and low frequency. In the SEBS group, there were significant negative correlations between their self-rating of English and the lexical access speed of high frequency items (r = -.42, p < .05) and of medium frequency items (r = -.43, p < .05). There were also significant negative correlations for this group between their self-rated English speaking skills and the speed of lexical access for high frequency items (r = -.37, p < .05) and of medium frequency items (r = -.53, p < .01). Their self-rated writing skills in English negatively correlated in a significant way with the speed of lexical access for high frequency items (r = -.45, p < .01). All these negative correlations with self-rated scores for their general English, speaking and writing skills, show that the higher they rated themselves, the faster they are to access lexicon of high and medium frequency.

70

Similarly, working memory capacity in Spanish and English was correlated with some self-reported external variables for SEB. Significant correlations were found for WM in Spanish (r = .36, p < .01) and English (r = .48, p < .01) and the self-rating of their English speaking skills. Likewise, WM in Spanish (r = .30, p < .05) and English (r = .29, p < .05) was significantly correlated with their self-rating of their English listening skills. This means that both the higher they self-rated their English listening and speaking skills, the higher their working memory scores were in both languages.

3.5. Summary

As seen, results demonstrate that the variables analyzed in this study are predictors of pragmatic performance in bilinguals in general. Firstly, groups were divided according to the length of stay in the L2 environment. The study showed that, in the whole pragmatic comprehension task, length of stay in the L2 environment affects pragmatic comprehension. SEBS behaved differently than SEBL who behaved closer to NES. Length of stay also affected speed of comprehension according to groups. Native speakers were significantly faster than both groups of SEB.

In addition, type of refusal affected pragmatic performance and speed of comprehension. In general, direct refusals and indirect refusals with upgraders were the easiest and fastest type of refusals to comprehend. Type of refusal performance varied according to the group division. That is, for direct refusals and indirect refusals with upgraders all three groups behaved the same, no difference in comprehension was found, but in the more difficult refusal types, groups started to differ. In the indirect refusals with downgraders and in the implicatures, NES differed from the SEBS, but not from the SEBL, which provides evidence that the difficulty of a refusal— which in this case is determined by its indirectness—affects its comprehension in SEBS. There

71

was a relationship between pragmatic comprehension and politeness systems especially when analyzing groups separately. Pragmatic production also differed under the various politeness systems and types of refusals; also based on politeness system itself.

Cognitively, there was a difference in speed of lexical access between NES and SEB. Speed lexical access was fastest for NES followed by both groups of SEB who were not different from each other. Similarly, frequency of items in the task made a difference for speed of lexical access. Working memory had a relationship with pragmatic comprehension especially for the NES and the SEBS who relied on their memory capacity to perform the exercise. Similarly, from external variables, it was found that in SEB their higher self-rating of English skills had to do with their faster lexical access speed, and their higher rating in their listening and speaking skills, their higher working memory.

72

CHAPTER FOUR