Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Vocal Fry' Creeping Into US Speech

Posted by timothy on from the how-totally-bizarre dept.

sciencehabit writes "A curious vocal pattern has crept into the speech of young adult women who speak American English: low, creaky vibrations, also called vocal fry. Pop singers, such as Britney Spears, slip vocal fry into their music as a way to reach low notes and add style. Now, a new study of young women in New York state shows that the same guttural vibration — once considered a speech disorder — has become a language fad."

14 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing new by InsightIn140Bytes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Language changes over time. It always has, it always will. Of course the old people will always be grumpy how current generation of kids can't behave or talk correctly. They always have, they always will.

    1. Re:Nothing new by drooling-dog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And there will always be touchy, defensive people of all ages who perceive criticism behind every simple observation.

    2. Re:Nothing new by wanzeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. This is why it seems like a waste of time to obsess over "proper" English. Words are like clothes, you mix and match and there isn't any right answer.

      As for the article, I have easily noticed this in well over 34 women at my college, but only in a certain subset of people. Namely, those who want to sound like pop singers. It's the same class of people who tan. So I have my doubts about it creeping into American English in general.

      Also, who scanned the article and thought, "Futurama is influencing American speech!?"

    3. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My only complaint is that "vocal fry" is a stupid name for it. It is very obviously a croak, and people have been doing it for generations.

    4. Re:Nothing new by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You might want to talk to the women who are currently bemoaning the preponderance of emo and metro 'men' hoping to become girlfriends-with-a-penis. Gender roles are being shaken up all over the joint.

      If anything, among the privileged of the world, the lack of feminism in male attire was the exception for awhile, rather than the rule. Womens' high fashion was based around clothing that was designed for form instead of function, and definitely fails at allowing women to work while wearing it. Privileged mens' fashion followed a similar pattern with hosiery, ornamentation, even high heels, until within the last couple-hundred years, when it switched to what we attribute as business attire. Womens' clothing everyday clothing evolved into ornamentation on semi-practical clothing, and now some mens' fashion is following suit.

      It's actually been this way for some time though. Look at the disco attire of the seventies- that certainly was not a masculine way to dress.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Nothing new by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Yup. This is why it seems like a waste of time to obsess over "proper" English. Words are like clothes, you mix and match and there isn't any right answer."

      I don't obsess over it, but exceptionally sloppy speech is not a plus during job interviews. The purpose of speech is to communicate, and if you can only speak "trailer" or "ghetto" then I'll place you (or not) appropriately.

      It's fine to be able to SWITCH between speaking styles to suit your audience. That's different than having an accent that's a self-inflicted speech impediment.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:Nothing new by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "the accent in North America has changed far less, and thus remains closer to how Elizabethan English would have been spoken"

      [Citation needed]

      As a canadian, I hate how americans speak english. I strongly doubt that americans followed the british more naturally. If anything, it would be canadians becuase we were closer to the brits historically. Americans would have wanted to differentiate their speech, what with the wars and all that.

      But of course I don't have anything to back this up any more than you do. Since there are no recordings from back then, I would judge it very difficult to know how someones accent would have sounded.

      --
      -
    7. Re:Nothing new by datavirtue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Brooklyn accent....now THAT is annoying.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    8. Re:Nothing new by JDevers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Closer British ties would actually imply that Canadian English would have evolved with British English. American English without those ties would have had a more pronounced island effect.

  2. vocal Fry? by zill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    vocal fry

    I came in expecting an article about the Fry's "shut up and take my money" meme. Boy was I disappointed.

  3. "Study of 34 female speakers" by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Surely on a college campus, you can find more than 34 females to do a study on? I would imagine they spent 10-20 times the amount of time writing about their "findings" than they did surveying for data. Is this normal? A study like this wouldn't be terribly time consuming; I would hope for a sample of at least 100 samples, preferably from more than one region (cities/metro areas like London have at least 7 distinct dialects).
     
    It's interesting (I can think of at least two people I know who do this vocal fry) but such a small sample size seems like a poor subject to waste time writing a paper on without doing another hour's worth of research.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  4. Isn't this a normal US-vocal thing? "registeRRRs" by Barryke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When i hear the example voice ( http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/vocalfryshort.mp3 ) speak -prior to their example- i hear the same sound in her normal speech. Note the R / H usage:

    registeRRRRRs.
    piCHHHHHes.
    tHis.

    I know some would call this just pronouncing part of a word, but i clearly hear the same exact thing, and also, if i (as an euopean) try to pronounce these words with those sounds, i only succeed when i "vocal fry" as heared in the example.

    I find these URRRRRR sounds in the middle of words make people sound not so smart (ppl that rather be lazy / hippies) just like how the french sound as if they can't find their words with their constant EUGHHHHHH groan in spoken language.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
  5. Re:Maybe it is from by odirex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Absolutely. 'Vocal fry' is a lazy/relaxed way of using the vocal cords. When you have a hang-over or smoked a ton of weed the night before, you'll almost always talk that way in the morning. I'm a singer and in all my training I've heard vocal fry is actually good for you to relax the vocal cords. TFA's statement that"Chances of vocal damage are very minimal" implies that there is a chance when there is none at all.

  6. Spoken like a true child by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Just out of diapers little boy?

    Last time I checked, people of all ages get grumpy about any sort of change, and only idiots believe it's only "the old people" who do so.