Cited by 96Phonetics and Phonology ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismCategorization, perception, and language

Two ways to listen: do L2-dominant bilinguals perceive stop voicing according to language mode?

Open access
Antoniou, Mark, Tyler, Michael D., Best, Catherine T.·2012·Journal of Phonetics

Abstract

How listeners categorize two phones predicts the success with which they will discriminate the given phonetic distinction. In the case of bilinguals, such perceptual patterns could reveal whether the listener's two phonological systems are integrated or separate. This is of particular interest when a given contrast is realized differently in each language, as is the case with Greek and English stop-voicing distinctions. We had Greek-English early sequential bilinguals and Greek and English monolinguals (baselines) categorize, rate, and discriminate stop-voicing contrasts in each language. All communication with each group of bilinguals occurred solely in one language mode, Greek or English. The monolingual groups showed the expected native-language constraints, each perceiving their native contrast more accurately than the opposing nonnative contrast. Bilinguals' category-goodness ratings for the same physical stimuli differed, consistent with their language mode, yet their discrimination performance was unaffected by language mode and biased toward their dominant language (English). We conclude that bilinguals integrate both languages in a common phonetic space that is swayed by their long-term dominant language environment for discrimination, but that they selectively attend to language-specific phonetic information for phonologically motivated judgments (category-goodness ratings).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.wocn.2012.05.005

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A bilingual is a single (dominant-language) listener with respect to discrimination, but behaves more like a monolingual of the activated language with respect to discrimination judgments.

    ““The results suggest that a bilingual is a single (dominant-language) listener with respect to discrimination, but behaves more like a monolingual of the activated language with respect to discrimination judgments.””

    From Plasticity, Variability and Age in Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism (2018) · cites this paper as Antoniou et al., 2012

    The General Discussion supports the first clause: bilinguals behaved as single dominant-language listeners in discrimination. But it says they behaved more like monolinguals of the activated language in categorization judgments, not discrimination judgments. Experiment 1 likewise reports no language-mode effect on discrimination. (LLM, conf=0.92)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Best CT Rovee-Collier C Lipsitt LP Learning to perceive the sound pattern of English Advances in infancy research 1994 Vol. 9 217 304
  2. Flege JE Ohala JJ Hasegawa Y Ohala M Granville D Bailey A The relation between L2 production and perception Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetics Sciences 1999 Department of Linguistics, University of California at Berkeley Berkeley 1273 1276
  3. Grosjean F Studying bilinguals 2008 New York Oxford University Press
  4. Peterson GE Lehiste I Duration of syllable nuclei in English Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1960 32 693 703
  5. Romaine S Bilingualism 1989 Oxford Blackwell Publishing
  6. Strange W Elenius K Branderud P Phonetics of second-language acquisition: Past, present, future Proceedings of the ICPHS 1995 95 Arne Stombergs Stockholm 76 83

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Antoniou, M., Tyler, M. D., & Best, C. T.
Affiliations
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
  • Haskins Laboratories (US)
Corresponding author
Antoniou, Mark
Venue
Journal of Phonetics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
582-594
ISSN
0095-4470 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073994583
Cited by
96
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3
FWCI
6.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Phonetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (F32DC000403, R01DC000403)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
stop voicing, language mode, phonetic discrimination, phonetic classification, phonological integration, phonetic space

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review