The two articles of the week provided an interesting amount of insight and foundational knowledge with regards to phonetics and phonology.
I have been noticing lately, in everyday interactions as well as in academic (and Ling 1) settings, the things that make voice and language normal. It has been sparked by a number of questions and observations. Why, if given all the correct letter/syllable sounds, why does something like Siri still sound so distinctly not-normal? Why, when a certain uncommon (or less normal) form of voice or pronunciation is demonstrated in class, is does it cause students to laugh or need to comment? What are the subtle differences that can make it so apparent that person is speaking a language that is not their first, despite being technically correct? Why does a film scene invoke dread at the sound of voices merely whispering?
Gussenhoven and Kenstowicz both provided me a solid understanding of some of the basic phenomena and mechanisms of speech, and the big and small things that put together create voice and communication that are normal.
A big example comes from the idea discussed by Gussenhoven of the “left-dominant” syllabic stress of most English words. This becomes suddenly apparent when witnessing an impersonation of the speech patterns of another language, often carrying comedic or exaggerated effect (such as uniform, quick syllabic stress of a Spanish accent or the inversion of most left-dominant stresses and pitches in basic words used to parody French speakers). While the words, the grammar and pronunciation are effective (we clearly understand them), it is these subtle differences that tip us off that someone’ speaking is not following these phonological and phonetic rules, and thus is not “normal.”
This also got me thinking about the other ways in which the concepts discussed, when manipulated outside of the norm, can affect people. Not only can these alterations be seen is comical or ridiculous, but they can sound anywhere from “sexy” (the signature vocal fry of Kim Kardashian), to inexperienced in a language (the misguided interchanging of a flapped “t” as in “bottom” and an aspirated “t” as in “top”, as emphasized by Kenstowicz), or even intense, secretive, or scary (the many uses of whispering and breathy voice in the horror genre alone can attest to this).
With the basics and terms explained clearly in the two readings, it becomes easier and more effective to being identifying what exactly these common, if subtle, changes in voice and speech construction are, and why they have the effects they do on us as both the speakers and the listeners.
I'm glad you used the phrase "technically correct" to contrast with "normal." So interesting how the things that make a language sounds "normal" are difficult to describe explicitly but are immediately recognizable. Loved the discussion @ the end about manipulation of sounds to create different effects!
ReplyDeleteInteresting point you bring up regarding alterations to "normal" speech patterns
ReplyDeleteproducing different effects! Deviation from what is considered normal makes us all as English speakers unique, carrying our own influences of educational and geographical past - and yet some seemingly automatically generate a non-neutral reaction. I do wonder, what is inherently "sexy" in Kim K's vocal fry, as opposed to an immigrant's "inexperienced" accent? Why are so many Americans (myself included) drawn to the "properness" of the British accent? Great points brought up!
I wonder if Kim Kardashian's "sexy" vocal fry or a "proper" British accent really are assigned those attributes "inherently". While most of the paper's material discusses rules in a language learned inherently, these seem a bit different to me. If no one ever told or indicated an American English speaking child that British accents are more proper, would they eventually describe them as proper and be drawn to them anyway?
ReplyDeleteI also find perceptions of voices as sexy or proper or inexperienced. Personally, I find Kim Kardashian's vocal fry to sound annoying rather than sexy. In general, I have found that people from Oregon (like myself) tend to dislike Californian accents and drawn-out vowel sounds. I think the fact that different groups of people interpret accents or a vocal fry differently indicates that those sounds do not inherently indicate those attributes, but are a product of environmental and social associations we make with the kinds of people that produce those sounds. For example, maybe the fact that Kim K is known as sexy makes it so that we interpret her vocal fry as such. Or similarly, the fact that English people are known to be more "proper" than Americans makes us think that their accents are also more proper.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have a friend who says the thing he finds most attractive about someone else is their voice. I'd never thought about it, but definitely became more conscious about someone's voice "color", so to speak. Some of these are particularities are likely caught by the phonetician's toolkit, but I imagine others are too subtle and too human.
ReplyDeleteI also find it interesting that a host of cultural associations complicate these discussions. I was surprised to hear that breathiness, in some Eastern European languages, conveys a sense of intimacy and camaraderie, for example.
Riley, I think it's really interesting what you are saying about how certain voices can sound "sexy" or "creepy." It probably does have to do with the amount of vocalization or free variation in pronouncing sounds, but I also believe it may have something to do with expectation? Kim Kardashian's voice may fit a sexy stereotype, but what defines those sounds as "sexy." We must keep track of the vocal qualities of different personalities in our own lives and then apply those personalities (in a way) to the new voices we here. Just some thoughts
ReplyDelete