Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:43:31.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clicking behavior as a possible speaker discriminant in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2013

Erica Gold ,
Peter French  and
Philip Harrison
Erica Gold
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of Yorkerica.gold@york.ac.uk
Peter French
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York & JP French Associates, Forensic Speech and Acoustics Laboratory, Yorkpeter.french@jpfrench.com
Philip Harrison
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York & JP French Associates, Forensic Speech and Acoustics Laboratory, Yorkphilip.harrison@jpfrench.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the potential of frequency of clicking (the production of velaric ingressive stops) as a possible basis for discriminating among speakers of English by forensic phoneticians. From analyses of clicking behavior among 100 young male speakers of Standard Southern British English (SSBE) recorded in two interactional tasks, it concludes that, contrary to the view of some forensic practitioners, the majority of speakers – of this language variety at least – do not vary sufficiently from one another in their rates of clicking for this feature to serve as a reliable discriminator. Further, speakers are generally not stable in their clicking behavior, either within or across interactions, and their rates of clicking may vary through accommodation to the click rates of their interlocutors. In view of these findings, it is suggested that the mere comparison of clicking rates across questioned and known recordings is unlikely to be of assistance to forensic phoneticians in the majority of forensic speaker comparison cases.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 43 , Issue 3: Non-pulmonic sounds in European languages , December 2013 , pp. 339 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © International Phonetic Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abercrombie, David. 1967. Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Ball, Martin J. 1989. Phonetics for speech pathology. London: Whurr.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, Daniel. 2012. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1.35). http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 12 October 2012).Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foulkes, Paul & French, Peter. 2012. Forensic phonetic speaker comparison. In Solan, Lawrence & Tiersma, Peter (eds.), Oxford handbook of language and law, 557–572. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
French, Peter. 1994. An overview of forensic phonetics with particular reference to speaker identification. Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 1 (2), 197–206.Google Scholar
French, Peter, Nolan, Francis, Foulkes, Paul, Harrison, Philip & McDougall, Kirsty. 2010. The UK position statement on forensic speaker comparison: A rejoinder to Rose and Morrison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 17 (1), 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Peter & Stevens, Louisa. 2013. Forensic speech science. In Jones, Mark & Knight, Rachael-Anne (eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to phonetics, 183–197. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15 (2), 87–105.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard & Ogay, Tania. 2007. Communication accommodation theory. In Whaley, Bryan B. & Samter, Wendy (eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars, 293–310. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gimson, A. C. 1970. An introduction to the pronunciation of English, 2nd edn.London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Gold, Erica & French, Peter. 2011. International practices in phonetic speaker comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 18 (2), 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Künzel, Hermann. 1995. Field procedures in forensic speaker recognition. In Lewis, Jack Windsor (ed.), Studies in general and English phonetics: Essays in honour of Professor J. D. O'Connor, 68–84. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morrison, Geoffrey. 2009. Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift. Science and Justice 49, 298–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nolan, Francis, McDougall, Kirsty, de Jong, Gea & Hudson, Toby. 2009. The DyViS database: Style-controlled recordings of 100 homogeneous speakers for forensic phonetic research. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 16 (1), 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard. 2013. Clicks and percussives in English conversation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43 (3), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Phil. 2002. Forensic speaker identification. London: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, Carolyn A., Giles, Howard & LePoire, Beth. 2001. Communication accommodation theory. In Robinson, W. Peter & Giles, Howard (eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology, 34–51. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1981. Linguistic accommodation: Sociolinguistic observations on a sociopsychological theory. In Hendrick, Roberta, Mase, Carrie & Miller, Mary Frances (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior, 218–237. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Wright, Melissa. 2007. Clicks as markers of new sequences in English conversation. 16th International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVI), Saarbrücken, 1069–1072.Google Scholar
Wright, Melissa. 2011a. On clicks in English talk-in-interaction. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41 (2), 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Melissa. 2011b. The phonetics–interaction interface in the initiation of closings in everyday English telephone calls. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (4), 1080–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar