foreign accent

(Credit: OneSideProFoto/Shutterstock)

Told Not to Copy an Australian Accent, Americans Largely Stopped

In A Nutshell

  • Americans told to avoid copying an Australian speaker showed no clear shift toward her accent.
  • Told to imitate her, they shifted on all five sounds measured.
  • With no instructions, only one sound crept in: the dropped R.
  • Only single words were tested, so real conversations remain untested.

Spend a few days around someone with a different accent, and some of their pronunciations can rub off. Speech science often treats that as something the brain does on its own, whether anyone wants it to or not. A new study of 136 American adults found that a simple instruction can stop it. People who heard an Australian woman and were then told to say words their own way showed no clear shift toward her accent.

One sound still came through. Participants given no instructions at all drifted toward the Australian habit of dropping R’s in words like “near.” That change was one nobody asked for, and participants may not have realized they were making it.

Kathryn Campbell-Kibler and Cynthia Clopper of Ohio State University reported the work in Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology. Their study put a basic question to an old assumption: is copying an accent a reflex, or something people can steer? The answer was mostly the second.

Accent Mimicry Switched On and Off With Simple Instructions

Volunteers were visitors to an American science museum. Of 236 who signed up, 136 made the final analysis after exclusions for speech or hearing disorders, unfinished questionnaires, recording problems, and a few other reasons. The group included 68 men, 64 women, 1 nonbinary person, and 3 who did not report a gender, with an average age of 33. Of the 136, 115 identified as white.

Each person first read a list of words off a screen, giving researchers a baseline of their natural speech. Next, each heard a college-educated Australian woman in her 20s say the same words and repeated them right after her, a setup called word shadowing. Researchers picked Australian English partly because Americans generally view it favorably.

Only the instructions changed. Forty-two people were told to “try to imitate the speaker as closely as possible.” Fifty-one were told to say each word the way they normally would, not the way she did. Forty-three got no guidance.

Researchers then measured the exact sounds in nearly 11,000 recordings: four vowel sounds, found in words like “bath,” “trap,” “kit,” and “price,” plus the R in words like “near.” Australian English tends to drop that R, while American English typically pronounces it.

When asked to imitate, participants shifted toward the Australian pronunciation on all five features, most sharply on the R and the “bath” vowel. Those told to avoid copying her showed no clear shift toward her on any feature. On the “kit” vowel, they moved a bit away from her pronunciation, a result the authors consider possibly a fluke.

That outcome conflicts with an earlier study that used the same recording, in which volunteers still copied the speaker when asked not to. The authors could not pin down why. One clue is that the earlier volunteers were told they were in a dialect identification study and heard several speakers, which may have focused their attention on accent features.

Among those told to imitate, individual choices varied widely on the R. Some participants copied the dropped sound much more than others did.

Accent Imitation Study Infographic
A new study finds picking up an accent is less automatic than scientists assumed, as people stopped copying on request. (Image by StudyFinds)

Accent Mimicry Crept In Through the Dropped R Sound

Among the 43 people given no instructions, only one feature clearly changed: the dropped R. The vowels held steady.

Afterward, participants were asked what they noticed about how the woman spoke. The R and the “bath” vowel were named most often, by 22 people (16%) and 21 people (15%). Written comments included “she didn’t pronounce r’s.” In an analysis added after the main results, and in need of confirmation, those who named one of these sounds tended to copy it more, whether told to imitate or given no instructions.

Well-Known Sounds Drew the Most Accent Copying

Why would the R slip through when the vowels did not? Both the R and the “bath” vowel are well-known markers of how American listeners hear other dialects, the authors note. That recognition may make a sound likelier to get copied, though only the R crossed that line when nobody asked.

A second explanation is possible. Because shadowing involves no conversation partner, some participants may have copied the R on purpose, for their own amusement, in what the authors describe as a deliberate but unrequested choice to play with language. The study could not tell the two explanations apart.

If recognizable sounds do the most sneaking, the accent someone brings home from a long trip could depend partly on which pronunciations already stand out to them. That is speculation. The study tested single words read aloud, not conversations.

A separate look at gender, also run after the main results, found women shifted their speech more than men did. The authors said what it means is unclear and noted that broad gender categories do not translate neatly to speech behavior.

In this lab task, people held more control over accent copying than speech scientists often assume. A reflex does not take orders, and this one did, with a single recognizable sound still creeping in when nobody said a word.


Paper Notes

Limitations

Volunteers came from a single American science museum, and 100 of 236 original participants were excluded for reasons such as incomplete questionnaires, self-reported speech or hearing disorders, and recording problems, which may shape who ended up in the final sample. That sample was mostly white (115 of 136) with an average age of 33, so results may not carry over to other groups. Participants repeated isolated words after a recording of one Australian woman, with no conversation involved, so the study does not show how much control people have over accent copying in real exchanges. It also did not measure whether participants were aware of their own imitation; the questionnaire asked what they noticed about the speaker. The analyses of noticed sounds and gender were exploratory, added after the main results. The authors also called the “kit” vowel result, in which people told to avoid imitation moved away from the speaker, possibly a fluke without support from other studies. Finally, an earlier study by Walker and Campbell-Kibler (2015) found imitation even when participants were asked to avoid it, and the authors could not pinpoint why the two studies differed.

Funding and Disclosures

Acknowledgments in the paper thank nine individuals for their work on the project but list no funding source or grant. The authors state they have no competing interests.

Publication Details

This article is based on “Deliberative control in cross-dialect phonetic imitation” by Kathryn Campbell-Kibler and Cynthia G. Clopper, both of the Department of Linguistics at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. It was published in Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, volume 17, issue 1 (2026), pages 1 to 19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/labphon.24504. The journal is a peer-reviewed open access publication of the Open Library of Humanities, and the paper is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. Data and analysis code are available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/4tqgh/. The earlier study discussed in the article is Walker, A., & Campbell-Kibler, K. (2015), “Repeat what after whom? Exploring variable selectivity in a cross-dialectal shadowing task,” Frontiers in Psychology, volume 6, article 546, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00546.

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor