Is There a Bilingual Advantage in Implicit and Explicit Phonetic Imitation?

IF 2.2
Melissa Paquette-Smith, Jessamyn Schertz
{"title":"Is There a Bilingual Advantage in Implicit and Explicit Phonetic Imitation?","authors":"Melissa Paquette-Smith, Jessamyn Schertz","doi":"10.1044/2025_JSLHR-25-00035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>There are a number of reasons to predict that early bilinguals might have better imitation abilities than monolinguals; however, evidence for a bilingual advantage in phonetic imitation is mixed. In the current study, we attempt to reconcile these disparate findings by testing Spanish-English bilinguals' and English monolinguals' imitation of word-initial voice onset time (VOT) across two types of imitation tasks (implicit: word repetition and explicit: word imitation).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In both tasks, participants heard English /p/-initial words manipulated to have canonical, shortened, or lengthened VOT. They were asked to repeat each word they heard, either with or without explicit instructions to imitate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, the explicit task elicited more imitation than the implicit task. In the explicit task, both groups converged to both lengthened and shortened VOTs, whereas in the implicit task, both groups converged to lengthened VOTs but not to shortened VOTs. Importantly, we did not observe differences in degree of imitation between monolinguals and bilinguals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found no evidence of a bilingual advantage in either implicit or explicit imitation. However, the two tasks elicited different patterns of results, with more imitation in the explicit task than in the implicit task, in terms of the degree of imitation (for lengthened VOT) and the presence/absence of imitation (for shortened VOT). In summary, the implicit versus explicit nature of the task cannot account for the mixed evidence for a bilingual advantage in imitation found in previous studies; more work is necessary to uncover which factors might underlie these discrepancies.</p>","PeriodicalId":520690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR","volume":" ","pages":"4263-4274"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_JSLHR-25-00035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: There are a number of reasons to predict that early bilinguals might have better imitation abilities than monolinguals; however, evidence for a bilingual advantage in phonetic imitation is mixed. In the current study, we attempt to reconcile these disparate findings by testing Spanish-English bilinguals' and English monolinguals' imitation of word-initial voice onset time (VOT) across two types of imitation tasks (implicit: word repetition and explicit: word imitation).

Method: In both tasks, participants heard English /p/-initial words manipulated to have canonical, shortened, or lengthened VOT. They were asked to repeat each word they heard, either with or without explicit instructions to imitate.

Results: Overall, the explicit task elicited more imitation than the implicit task. In the explicit task, both groups converged to both lengthened and shortened VOTs, whereas in the implicit task, both groups converged to lengthened VOTs but not to shortened VOTs. Importantly, we did not observe differences in degree of imitation between monolinguals and bilinguals.

Conclusions: This study found no evidence of a bilingual advantage in either implicit or explicit imitation. However, the two tasks elicited different patterns of results, with more imitation in the explicit task than in the implicit task, in terms of the degree of imitation (for lengthened VOT) and the presence/absence of imitation (for shortened VOT). In summary, the implicit versus explicit nature of the task cannot account for the mixed evidence for a bilingual advantage in imitation found in previous studies; more work is necessary to uncover which factors might underlie these discrepancies.

内隐和外显语音模仿是否存在双语优势?
目的:有很多理由可以预测,早期双语者可能比单语者有更好的模仿能力;然而,双语优势在语音模仿方面的证据是混杂的。在当前的研究中,我们试图通过测试西班牙-英语双语者和英语单语者在两种类型的模仿任务(内隐:单词重复和外显:单词模仿)中对单词初始语音开始时间(VOT)的模仿来调和这些不同的发现。方法:在这两个任务中,参与者都听到了英语/p/开头的单词,这些单词被操纵成标准的、缩短的或延长的VOT。他们被要求重复他们听到的每个单词,有或没有明确的模仿指示。结果:总体而言,外显任务比内隐任务更容易引起模仿。在显式任务中,两组都趋同于加长和缩短的投票点,而在隐式任务中,两组都趋同于加长投票点而不趋同于缩短投票点。重要的是,我们没有观察到单语者和双语者在模仿程度上的差异。结论:本研究没有发现在内隐或外显模仿中双语优势的证据。然而,这两个任务引发的结果模式不同,在模仿程度(延长VOT)和模仿存在/不存在(缩短VOT)方面,显性任务的模仿多于隐性任务。总之,任务的内隐和外显性质不能解释先前研究中发现的双语模仿优势的混合证据;需要做更多的工作来揭示哪些因素可能导致这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信