CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 307Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentPhonetics and Phonology Research

Chinese–English Bilinguals Reading English Hear Chinese

Open access
Wu, Yan Jing, Thierry, Guillaume·2010·The Journal of Neuroscience
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.1602-10.2010PMC PMC6632379
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Bilingual individuals have been shown to access their native language while reading in or listening to their other language. However, it is unknown what type of mental representation (e.g., sound or spelling) they retrieve. Here, using event-related brain potentials, we demonstrate unconscious access to the sound form of Chinese words when advanced Chinese–English bilinguals read or listen to English words. Participants were asked to decide whether or not English words presented in pairs were related in meaning; they were unaware of the fact that some of the unrelated word pairs concealed either a sound or a spelling repetition in their Chinese translations. Whereas spelling repetition in Chinese translations had no effect, concealed sound repetition significantly modulated event-related brain potentials. These results suggest that processing second language activates the sound, but not the spelling, of native language translations.

Verified 2026-10-06 · 10 references not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using ERPs, this study shows that advanced Chinese–English bilinguals unconsciously access the sound, but not the spelling, of Chinese translations when reading or listening to English words. This cross-language phonological activation appeared in N400 modulation despite no behavioral awareness.

Key findings

  • In reading, hidden sound repetition in Chinese translations reduced N400 amplitude in Chinese–English bilinguals between 310 and 420 ms (all p < 0.01), whereas hidden spelling repetition had no effect (p > 0.1); the condition-by-group interaction was F(1,28) = 3.91, p < 0.05.
  • In listening, the same qualitative pattern occurred: implicit sound repetition reduced mean ERP amplitude between 360 and 450 ms (all p < 0.05), spelling repetition had no effect, and the condition-by-group interaction was F(1,28) = 4.17, p < 0.05.
  • Behavioral data showed no cross-language interactions in bilinguals: semantic relatedness affected reaction times in reading (F(3,42) = 18.38, p < 0.001) and listening (F(3,42) = 23.98, p < 0.001), but Chinese spelling or sound repetition did not (all p > 0.1).
  • Native English controls showed no effect of hidden Chinese repetition, while native Chinese controls showed explicit sound-repetition effects and, in reading only, a spelling-repetition effect.

Methods

  • Ninety participants took part: 30 native English speakers, 30 native Chinese speakers, and 30 Chinese–English bilinguals. Bilinguals were first exposed to English at age 12, had IELTS scores of 6 or 6.5, and had lived in the United Kingdom for a mean of 21.3 ± 3.25 months; groups were matched for age 20–27, education, and right-handedness.
  • Participants performed an implicit priming semantic-relatedness task with 180 word pairs presented in two blocks of 90. English words were presented visually or auditorily; unrelated pairs concealed either sound or spelling repetition in their Chinese translations. Participants judged whether the second word was related in meaning to the first and were debriefed afterward.
  • ERP data were recorded from 64 Ag/AgCl electrodes. Analyses used repeated-measures ANOVA with semantic relatedness, character repetition, electrode, and group, with Greenhouse–Geisser correction where applicable, plus pairwise millisecond-by-millisecond comparisons significant at p < 0.05 for >30 ms over at least six clustered electrodes.

Limitations

  • The paper does not include a dedicated limitations section; it states that future studies with different language combinations and levels of proficiency will shed more light on the conclusions.
  • Evident from the design: participants were advanced Chinese–English bilinguals (IELTS 6/6.5; mean 21.3 months in the UK), so findings may not generalize to other proficiency levels or language pairs.
  • Evident from the design: the dissociation relies on Chinese having no systematic spelling–sound correspondence; the same sound-versus-spelling separation may not hold for alphabetic bilingual pairs with strong orthographic and phonological overlap.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.1602-10.2010

Cites

31 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 20 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    When comparing word pairs with spelling repetition in Chinese translations with unrelated word pairs, no difference was found in either Chinese-English bilinguals or Chinese control participants.

    “When comparing word pairs that featured a spelling repetition in Chinese translations with unrelated word pairs, no difference was found in either Chinese-English bilinguals or Chinese control participants (all values of p Ͼ 0.1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In English control participants, no effect of repetition in Chinese was found whether through spelling or sound repetition.

    “No effect of repetition in Chinese was found in this group whether through spelling or sound repetition (all values of p Ͼ 0.1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the listening experiment, English control participants and Chinese-English bilinguals displayed the effect of semantic relatedness on reaction times.

    “English control participants (F (3,42) ϭ 9.02; p Ͻ 0.001) and Chinese-English bilinguals (F (3,42) ϭ 23.98; p Ͻ 0.001) all displayed the effect by semantic relatedness on reaction times.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the listening experiment, no effects of repetition in Chinese were observed in either English controls or Chinese-English bilinguals.

    “No effects of repetition in Chinese were observed in either of the two groups (all values of p Ͼ 0.1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the reading experiment, no effects were found for spelling repetition via translation in L1 in Chinese-English bilinguals.

    “However, no effects were found for spelling repetition via translation in L1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The N400 modulation was of greater magnitude and lasted longer for semantic relatedness than implicit sound repetition.

    “The N400 modulation was of greater magnitude and lasted longer for semantic relatedness than implicit sound repetition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Chinese-English bilinguals and Chinese control participants showed the same pattern of semantic effect as native English controls.

    “The Chinese-English bilinguals (F (3,42) ϭ 5.23; p Ͻ 0.05) and Chinese control participants (F (3,42) ϭ 12.77; p Ͻ 0.001) showed the same pattern of semantic effect (all values of p Ͻ 0.05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Chinese control participants who read Chinese words showed a priming effect of explicit sound repetition very similar in magnitude and duration to that found in Chinese-English bilinguals reading English words, but smaller and less durable than the semantic priming effects.

    “Chinese control participants who read Chinese words showed a priming effect of explicit sound repetition very similar in magnitude and duration to that found in Chinese-English bilinguals reading English words, but smaller and less durable than the semantic priming effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The authors found evidence for the activation of L1 sound forms but not spelling representations in both the listening and the reading experiments.

    “because we found evidence for the activation of L1 sound forms but not spelling representations in both the listening and the reading experiments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were controlled for age, level of education, and handedness across groups.

    “Participants were controlled for age (20 -27 years), level of education (undergraduate and master students), and handedness (right) across groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    When bilingual individuals read or listen to their second language, they spontaneously access native language phonology but not orthography.

    “In the present study, for the first time, we specify the nature of native language information-orthography or phonology-that is spontaneously accessed when bilingual individuals read or listen to their second language.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “The finding that bilingual participants activate the sound, but not the spelling, of translations in their native language specifies the nature of cross-language interaction in bilinguals and provides a framework to interpret functional neuroimaging of language in the brain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Testing participants exclusively in English prevented artificial coactivation of Chinese.

    “Although the relatedness judgment task guaranteed access to meaning, testing participants exclusively in English prevented artificial coactivation of Chinese.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The ERP priming profile is consistent with the classical N400 known to index semantic integration, and with phonological and orthographic priming during word comprehension.

    “This ERP priming profile is consistent with that of the classical N400 known to index semantic integration (Kutas andHillyard, 1980, 1984), but also phonological and orthographic priming during word comprehension (Grainger et al., 2006;Holcomb and Grainger, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kutas andHillyard, 1980, 1984

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Grainger et al., 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Holcomb and Grainger, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In all conditions, participants generated >96% corrected translations, and there were no significant differences between conditions.

    “In all conditions, participants generated Ͼ96% corrected translations, and there were no significant differences between conditions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Previous studies have failed to fully dissociate spelling and sound because of the intrinsic links between spelling and sound in alphabetic writing systems.

    “Although previous studies have failed to fully dissociate these two factors because of the intrinsic links between spelling and sound in alphabetic writing systems”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    There were no significant differences in the number of phonemes in pairwise comparisons between conditions in the listening experiment.

    “There were no significant differences in the number of phonemes in pairwise comparisons between conditions (all values of p Ͻ 0.1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Eye blinks were mathematically corrected, and remaining artifacts were manually dismissed.

    “Eye blinks were mathematically corrected, and remaining artifacts were manually dismissed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Interactions involving the electrode factor were controlled by using within-condition vector normalization.

    “Interactions involving the electrode factor were controlled by using within-condition vector normalization (McCarthy and Wood, 1985).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McCarthy and Wood, 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Lexical access in Chinese spontaneously activates phonological codes and interferes with semantic decision processes.

    “which suggests that lexical access in Chinese spontaneously activates phonological codes and that it interferes with semantic decision processes (Frost, 1998).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Frost, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Despite an overall increase in response latency and error rates compared with native English participants, Chinese-English bilinguals displayed a native-like pattern of performance without obvious signs of L1 activation when processing L2 words.

    “However, despite an overall increase in response latency and error rates compared with native English participants, Chinese-English bilinguals displayed a “native-like” pattern of performance without obvious signs of L1 activation when processing L2 words.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    No English word had more than 11 letters and all Chinese translations featured two Chinese characters, to avoid possible eye movements during the reading experiment.

    “To avoid possible eye movements during the reading experiment, no English word had Ͼ11 letters and all Chinese translations featured two Chinese characters.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    No word was repeated in either of the studies.

    “No word was repeated in either of the studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Processing second language activates the sound, but not the spelling, of native language translations.

    “These results suggest that processing second language activates the sound, but not the spelling, of native language translations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Using words from two languages in the same experiment creates an artificial bilingual context, in which bilinguals are likely to activate lexical information from both their languages in parallel.

    “One drawback of previous studies is that using words from two languages in the same experiment creates an artificial bilingual context, in which bilinguals are likely to activate lexical information from both their languages in parallel (Grosjean, 1998).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Grosjean, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The relatedness judgment task guaranteed access to meaning.

    “Although the relatedness judgment task guaranteed access to meaning, testing participants exclusively in English prevented artificial coactivation of Chinese.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Any effect of spelling and/or sound repetition in Chinese would reveal implicit access to the native language during second language processing.

    “Any effect of spelling and/or sound repetition in Chinese would then reveal implicit access to the native language during second language processing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The sound of words plays an important role in visual word recognition.

    “Motivated by the theoretical viewpoint that the sound of words plays an important role in visual word recognition (Frost, 1998;Jared et al., 1999), a few studies have attempted to determine the magnitude of phonological activation in L1 during L2 word processing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Frost, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jared et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Response sides were fully counterbalanced between blocks and participants.

    “Response sides were fully counterbalanced between blocks and participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    There was a minimum of 30 valid epochs per condition in every subject.

    “There was a minimum of 30 valid epochs per condition in every subject.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The 180 word pairs used were controlled across experimental conditions for lexical frequency, word concreteness, average numbers of letters and phonemes, and the level of semantic relatedness.

    “The 180 word pairs used were controlled across experimental conditions for lexical frequency, word concreteness, average numbers of letters and phonemes (Coltheart, 1981), and the level of semantic relatedness as rated by independent groups of native English and Chinese speakers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Coltheart, 1981

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The evidence of cross-language interactions reported here implies that language-specific cortical activations extend well beyond the level of conceptual processing because the processing of second language words appears to automatically trigger activation of native language representations at lexical and possibly sublexical levels.

    “The evidence of cross-language interactions reported here implies that “language-specific” cortical activations extend well beyond the level of conceptual processing because the processing of second language words appears to automatically trigger activation of native language representations at lexical and possibly sublexical levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The Chinese translations concealed fully dissociated spelling and sound repetitions, allowing independent manipulation of the two factors.

    “The present study solved this problem by concealing fully dissociated spelling and sound repetitions in Chinese translations while orienting participants to the meaning of words presented exclusively in English.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Functional neuroimaging studies have often reported activation in shared or partially overlapping brain regions when comparing native with second language processing.

    “Functional neuroimaging studies have often reported activation in shared or partially overlapping brain regions when comparing native with second language processing (Kim et al., 1997;Chee et al., 2000Chee et al., , 2003;;Tan et al., 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kim et al., 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Chee et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Tan et al., 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The finding that bilingual participants activate the sound, but not the spelling, of translations in their native language specifies the nature of cross-language interaction in bilinguals and provides a framework to interpret functional neuroimaging of language in the brain.

    “The finding that bilingual participants activate the sound, but not the spelling, of translations in their native language specifies the nature of cross-language interaction in bilinguals and provides a framework to interpret functional neuroimaging of language in the brain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The dissociation between access to spelling and sound representations in the native language provides a new interpretational basis to explain inconsistencies in previous studies of bilingual language comprehension and affords a novel perspective on neuroimaging evidence.

    “The dissociation between access to spelling and sound representations in the native language established here not only provides a new interpretational basis to explain inconsistencies in previous studies of bilingual language comprehension but also affords a novel perspective on neuroimaging evidence that studies that mixed these two factors could not shed light on.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
30 of 30

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The nature of the information (spelling, sound, or meaning) accessed during cross-language activation is undetermined.

    “Although evidence of nontarget language activation has been found during reading (Dijkstra et al., 1999(Dijkstra et al., , 2000b)), listening (Spivey and Marian, 1999), and speech production (Colome, 2001;Jared and Kroll, 2001;Jared and Szucs, 2002), the nature of the information (e.g., spelling, sound, or meaning) that is accessed is undetermined.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Chinese features no systematic correspondence between spelling and sound.

    “Chinese, unlike English and other alphabetic languages, features no systematic correspondence between spelling and sound, and vice versa.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The repetition effect in native Chinese control participants can serve as a guideline to interpret effects in the bilingual group.

    “We used the repetition effect in the latter group as a guideline to interpret effects in the bilingual group.”
3 of 3

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Discussion overlooks a behavioral effect of spelling repetition

    Minor

    The discussion says spelling repetition had no effect in native Chinese controls' behavioral results. The reading results report significantly fewer errors for spelling-repetition pairs than for unrelated pairs.

  • Discussion claims faster semantic responses in Chinese controls

    Minor

    The discussion says semantically related pairs produced faster reaction times in both control groups. The reading results explicitly say that the Chinese controls' reaction-time effect was not due to faster responses to semantically related pairs.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G.
Affiliations
Bangor University (GB)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Society for Neuroscience
Published
2010-06-02
Volume
30
Issue
22
Pages
7646-7651
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
DOI
10.1523/jneurosci.1602-10.2010
PMC
PMC6632379
OpenAlex
W2047310668
Semantic Scholar
32b4f200a4d7c9ca473c4301b0207537b03e1e85
Cited by
307
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 20
FWCI
8.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/E024556/1)
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (209704)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
Chinese-English bilinguals, second language reading, event-related potentials, word recognition, semantic relatedness judgment, cross-linguistic interference
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Hearing, Humans, Language Tests, Male, Phonetics, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Reading, Semantics, Translations, Vocabulary, Multilingualism, Comprehension, Asian People, Young Adult

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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