Is there an interlanguage speech credibility benefit?

Open access


Some (though not all) previous studies have documented the interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit (ISIB), i.e. the greater intelligibility of non-native (relative to native) speech to non-native listeners as compared to native listeners. Moreover, some studies (again not all) found that native listeners consider foreign-accented statements as less truthful than native-sounding ones. We join these two lines of research, asking whether foreign-accented statements sound more credible to non-native than to native listeners and whether difficult-to-process (less comprehensible) utterances are less credible. In two experiments we measure the intelligibility, comprehensibility and credibility of native and foreign-accented statements for native listeners and non-native listeners matched or mismatched in L1 with non-native talkers. We find an ISIB in both matched and mismatched non-native listeners, and an analogous matched comprehensibility benefit. However, we obtain no evidence of an interlanguage speech credibility benefit. Instead, both matched and mismatched non-native listeners tend to trust native statements more (i.e. statements produced by their target-language models). For native listeners, we do not confirm the tendency to mistrust non-native statements, but we do find a moderate correlation between the comprehensibility and credibility of foreign-accented utterances, giving limited support to the hypothesis that decreased perceptual fluency leads to decreased credibility.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • BENT T. and BRADLOW A.R. 2003. The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America vol. 114 no. 3 pp. 1600-1610.

  • BOERSMA P. and WEENINK D. 2015. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.05 [Accessed 8 November 2015] Available at:

  • CARGILE A.C. 1997. Attitudes toward Chinese-accented speech. An investigation in two contexts. Journal of Language and Social Psychology vol. 16 no. 4 pp. 434-443.

  • DA SILVA C.S. and LEACH A.M. 2013. Detecting deception in second‐language speakers. Legal and Criminological Psychology vol. 18 no. 1 pp. 115-127.

  • EVANS J.R. and MICHAEL S.W. 2014. Detecting deception in non‐native English speakers. Applied Cognitive Psychology vol. 28 no.2 pp. 226-237.

  • EVANS J.R. MICHAEL S.W. MEISSNER C.A. and BRANDON S.E. 2013. Validating a new assessment method for deception detection: Introducing a Psychologically Based Credibility Assessment Tool. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition vol. 2 no.1 pp. 33-41.

  • FERGUSON M.J. and ZAYAS V. 2009. Automatic evaluation. Current Directions in Psychological Science vol. 18 no. 6 pp. 362-366.

  • FRUMKIN L. 2007. Influences of accent and ethnic background on perceptions of eyewitness testimony. Psychology Crime & Law vol. 13 no. 3 pp. 317-331.

  • GLUSZEK A. and DOVIDIO J.F. 2010. The way they speak: a social psychological perspective on the stigma of non-native accents in communication. Personality and Social Psychology Review vol 14 no. 2 pp. 214-237.

  • HAYES-HARB R. SMITH B.L. BENT T. and BRADLOW A.R. 2008. The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit for native speakers of Mandarin: Production and perception of English wordfinal voicing contrasts. Journal of Phonetics vol. 36 no. 4 pp. 664-679.

  • HONGYAN W. and van HEUVEN V.J. 2007. Quantifying the interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes pp. 1729-1732.

  • KINZLER K.D. DUPOUX E. and SPELKE E.S. 2007. The native language of social cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences vol. 104 no. 30 pp. 12577-12580.

  • KINZLER K.D. SHUTTS K. DEJESUS J. and SPELKE E.S. 2009. Accent trumps race in guiding children’s social preferences. Social Cognition vol. 27 no. 4 pp. 623-634.

  • LAMBERT W.E. HODGSON R.C. GARDNER R.C. and FILLENBAUM S. 1960. Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology vol. 60 no. 1 pp. 44-51.

  • LECUMBERRI M.L.G. COOKE M. and CUTLER A. 2010. Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: A review. Speech Communication vol. 52 no. 11 pp. 864-886.

  • LEV-ARI S. and KEYSAR B. 2010. Why don’t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology vol. 46 no. 6 pp. 1093-1096.

  • MAJOR R.C. FITZMAURICE S.F. BUNTA F. and BALASUBRAMANIAN C. 2002. The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly vol. 36 no. 2 pp. 173-190.

  • MULAC A. HANLEY T.D. and PRIGGE D.Y. 1974. Effects of phonological speech foreignness upon three dimensions of attitude of selected American listeners. Quarterly Journal of Speech vol. 60 no. 4 pp. 411-420.

  • MUNRO M.J. and DERWING T.M. 1995. Processing time accent and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech vol. 38 no. 3 pp. 289-306.

  • MUNRO M.J. and DERWING T.M. 1999. Foreign accent comprehensibility and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning vol. 49 no. 1 pp. 285-310.

  • MUNRO M.J. DERWING T.M. and MORTON S.L. 2006. The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition vol. 28 no. 1 pp. 111-131.

  • PINET M. and IVERSON P. 2010. Talker-listener accent interactions in speech-in-noise recognition: Effects of prosodic manipulation as a function of language experience. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America vol. 128 no. 3 pp. 1357-1365.

  • PISKE T. MACKAY I.R. and FLEGE J.E. 2001. Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics vol. 29 no. 2 pp. 191-215.

  • REBER R. and SCHWARZ N. 1999. Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition vol. 8 no. 3 pp. 338-342.

  • ROGERS C.L. DALBY J. and NISHI K. 2004. Effects of noise and proficiency on intelligibility of Chinese-accented English. Language and Speech vol. 47 no. 2 pp. 139-154.

  • ŠIMÁČKOVÁ Š. and PODLIPSKÝ V.J. 2012. Pronunciation skills of an interpreter. In: J. Zehnalová O. Molnár and M. Kubánek eds. Teaching translation and interpreting skills in the 21st century. Olomouc: Palacký University Olomouc pp. 139-149.

  • SMITH B.L. HAYES-HARB R. BRUSS M. and HARKER A. 2009. Production and perception of voicing and devoicing in similar German and English word pairs by native speakers of German. Journal of Phonetics vol. 37 no. 3 pp. 257-275.

  • SMITH L.E. and RAFIQZAD K. 1979. English for cross-cultural communication: The question of intelligibility. TESOL Quarterly vol. 13 no. 3 pp. 371-380.

  • SONG J. 2011. The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit for experienced nonnative listeners: Perception of English lexical stress produced by Korean native speakers. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Hong Kong pp. 1882-1885.

  • SOUZA A.L. 2012. Modality-specific effects of processing fluency on cognitive judgments. (Doctoral dissertation University of Texas at Austin).

  • SOUZA A.L. BYERS-HEINLEIN K. and POULIN-DUBOIS D. 2013. Bilingual and monolingual children prefer native-accented speakers. Frontiers in Psychology vol. 4 article no. 953.

  • STIBBARD R.M. and LEE J.I. 2006. Evidence against the mismatched interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit hypothesis. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America vol. 120 no. 1 pp. 433-442.

  • van WIJNGAARDEN S.J. 2001. Intelligibility of native and non-native Dutch speech. Speech Communication vol. 35 no. 1 pp. 103-113.

  • van WIJNGAARDEN S.J. STEENEKEN H.J. and HOUTGAST T. 2002. Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America vol. 111 no. 4 pp. 1906-1916.

  • XIE X. and FOWLER C.A. 2013. Listening with a foreign-accent: The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit in Mandarin speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics vol. 41 no. 5 pp. 369-378.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 872 293 5
PDF Downloads 716 195 7