Language Contact Within the Speaker: Phonetic Variation and Crosslinguistic Influence.
Khia A Johnson, Molly Babel
PMID 37522157WHAT IT FOUND
Early Cantonese-English bilinguals produce English stops with less voicing and more unreleased endings than monolinguals.
This reflects systematic influence from Cantonese phonology, where these sounds are strictly voiceless and unreleased. The pattern persists in spontaneous speech regardless of recent language switching.
Key findings
01Bilinguals produced English voiced stops (/b d g/) with a lower proportion of voicing during closure compared to monolingual speakers, consistent with the voiceless unaspirated series in Cantonese.
02Bilinguals were significantly more likely to produce English word-final stops (/t k/) as unreleased (clear closure, no burst) compared to monolingual speakers.
03These phonetic differences were stable and did not depend on immediate language switching or interview order, suggesting they are a codified feature of this bilingual variety rather than temporary interference.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study only examined the influence of Cantonese on English, not the reverse, so it cannot fully characterize mutual influence. The local monolingual control group (Vancouver) also showed low release rates, complicating the comparison with the non-local group. The analysis was restricted to spontaneous speech, so findings may not generalize to formal or read speech tasks. The sample size was relatively small (34 bilinguals), and the participants were all high-proficiency, university-aged speakers.
Declared interests
The authors disclosed funding from Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada's Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and a UBC Public Scholars Initiative Award. No other conflicts of interest were reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the lack of significant difference in 'release rates' between bilinguals and local monolinguals as evidence that Cantonese influence is absent. The key finding is in the specific 'unreleased' category, where bilinguals differed significantly from both monolingual groups. Ignoring this distinction misses the phonological shift toward Cantonese-like patterns.