'Vocal Fry' Creeping Into US Speech

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."

Comments

Nothing new

[InsightIn140Bytes]

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.

Re:Nothing new

[Kelson]

The article isn't about old people being grumpy about the change, or about change in general. The article is about the change itself.

"Language changes" isn't new, but "This language is changing in this way" is.

Re:Nothing new

[drooling-dog]

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

Re:Nothing new

[wanzeo]

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!?"

Re:Nothing new

[Slashdot Assistant]

Yeah, and well rehearsed "duck face" poses used whenever a camera comes out. Really, if this becomes the common theme for women, I'd be hanging on to heterosexuality by my finger nails.

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Nothing new

[fractoid]

There was an eloquent and impassioned talk given by Stephen Fry (in fact, one could argue it was Vocal, by Fry) that discussed this very thing. Here it is. It's one of the few things that's transcended the "that's nice" and "oh, cool" barriers and actually changed the way I think about language. Anyone I work with can attest to the fact that I no longer correct "less problems" to "fewer", or "should of" to "should have".

Re:Nothing new

[TWX]

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.

Re:Nothing new

[couchslug]

"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.

Re:Nothing new

[hey!]

I once worked with an Arab guy who grew up in the USA who went back to Bahrain for a year during high school. He went to an exclusive public school, and when his British educated teacher had him stand to read Shakespeare, after the teacher heard a few lines the teacher ordered him to sit down, saying, "your accent is offensive to my ears."

The irony is that while North American and British English have diverged over the centuries, the accent in North America has changed far less, and thus remains closer to how Elizabethan English would have been spoken. In the eighteenth century, visitors to the American colonies remarked on how "correctly" English was spoken by all classes, even slaves. In the early 19th centuries the shifts in pronunciation which characterize "correct" ("Oxford" or "received") pronunciation were decried by language purists in England.

I once read a complaint by an English reviewer of George C. Scott's performance as Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol". The reviewer was put off by Scott's American accent. However if we take the story to occur around 1840, and Scrooge to be about 60 and not a native Londoner, the difference between Scrooge's accent and that of younger characters like Bob Cratchit would have been rather accurate.

Re:Nothing new

[Compaqt]

But your company doesn't send out correspondence to clients saying "should of", does it?

Re:Nothing new

[MasaMuneCyrus]

This. More specifically, I have heard that the "Southern Bell" accent is the closest accent to the original, proper 18th century English, and that "ain't" was a desirable word by the upper class.

For those not familiar, the Southern Bell accent is the kind of accent you might here from upper class white folk in the Deep South. It's almost gone, now, but maybe still exists sparsely. Most commonly, you hear it in movies set in the old South.

Re:Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall reading a piece by Michael Montgomery (the linguistics professor, not the football player) explaining that this has never actually been true.

I believe it was in a book called "Language Myths", an interesting read if you're into that sort of thing.

Disclaimer: IANALA (I am not a linguistic anthropologist)

Re:Nothing new

[Belial6]

I agree with you in principal, and your comment would apply to the first emo and metro men. Today, there is nothing taboo about emo or metro. Just like having tattoos is no longer taboo.

In support of your comment... Clearly there are many people are confused about what a 'Real Man' is. It is actually really simple.

Real Men have penises.

Re:Nothing new

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes, "obsessing" is overreaction. However, there is value in there being an established baseline of what is "correct". That baseline will change over time, but if some effort is not made to maintain it, it will become difficult for people from different areas and economic classes to communicate. One of the things that facilitated the traditional economic mobility of the U.S. was the fact that our schools taught everyone to follow the same rules of speech and writing. For the most part, those who failed to learn to speak "correct" english were also those without sufficient ambition to improve their economic lot in life.

Re:Nothing new

[wagnerrp]

Singers are musicians, using their voice as their instrument. The basis of any display of musical talent is ones ability to control their instrument. When they have such a warble in their voice, when they can't hold a god damned note, they are showing themselves to be nothing more than a rank amateur. If they are intentionally adding a warble to their voice, out of some misguided belief that the variation in their voice makes them sound better or more emotional, then they are a lost cause.

Re:Nothing new

[smisle]

Words are like clothes, you mix and match and there isn't any right answer.

Yup, but, just as with clothes, there are certainly WRONG answers

Re:Nothing new

[xaxa]

I once worked with an Arab guy who grew up in the USA who went back to Bahrain for a year during high school. He went to an exclusive public school, and when his British educated teacher had him stand to read Shakespeare, after the teacher heard a few lines the teacher ordered him to sit down, saying, "your accent is offensive to my ears."

Some American accents really do irritate some British people.

It's one particular American accent. The closest I can find on Youtube is this girl. The annoying bit is that the last word of every phrase is drawn out. "Hey everybody----, it's Winifred------, [can't understand] make this video for her-----, [...] I thought it was like perfect----, 'cause, she was like----, ...".

That teacher sounds awful though. I would never ask someone to stop talking because of their accent (unless I can't understand). That's as bad as throwing someone out of class for having the wrong colour skin or something.

The irony is that while North American and British English have diverged over the centuries, the accent in North America has changed far less, and thus remains closer to how Elizabethan English would have been spoken.

People from the North of England are supposedly more difficult for Americans to understand, yet their accent is closer to American. Cheryl Cole apparently had trouble on some TV show.

Re:Nothing new

[PPH]

The irony is that while North American and British English have diverged over the centuries, the accent in North America has changed far less, and thus remains closer to how Elizabethan English would have been spoken.

I've heard both sides of this argument. And since there's no way of comparing today's speech to that spoken in Elizabethan England, that may never be settled.

But what we can do is to compare today's British and American speech patterns to those from the dawn of the sound recording age. Now, I can't speak for the British, but American accents have changed drastically. So unless something pulled our (American) accents back towards those of 17th century Britain, it doesn't seem likely.

To confuse the issue further, the vocabulary and grammar that people use in many English speaking countries was that of the King James bible. One of the most widely circulated printed works in the world. And in many walks of life, one of the only things many people would ever read. So its possible that the grammatical adherence to this 'standard' of English might have something to say about various cultures exposure to newer and more varied written material.

Re:Nothing new

[hey!]

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

[Citation needed]

OK, here (O'Conner and Kellerman ) you go.

----
Works Cited

O'Conner, Patricia T., and Stewart Kellerman. Origins Of The Specious, Myths And Misconceptions Of The English Language. Random House Inc, 2009.

Re:Nothing new

[CrankinOut]

Actually, you know, I was, like, reading your note when, um, I realized, you know, that you confused vocal patterns with, like, language, you know what I mean.

Re:Nothing new

[hey!]

This isn't like speculating on the transition between Middle English and modern English. That happened in an era before printing or widespread literacy, and surviving documents from the 15th C are extremely rare. The split between British and American pronunciation started in the mid 1700s and went on through the mid 1800s. We have tons of evidence from the writings of contemporary observers about when and how the changes took place. I actually think that this evidence is *stronger* than the evidence from the early days of recording, since you had to speak in an unnatural cadence and loudness to be heard clearly, and it is highly likely that the pronunciation used was affected and exaggerated. I doubt Teddy Roosevelt talked to his family the way he sounds on recordings. Barack Obama sounds quite different giving a speech than giving an interview, so if you used his recorded speeches as evidence of how Americans normally talk you'd be led astray.

So what were the complaints of the language purists of the early 1800s? Young Lord Byron was castigated by older critics for making rhymes that are now quite valid in modern RP but not in American English. Educated Britons complained of the loss of syllables in "necessary" and "secretary" ("neces-sree" and "secre-tree"), characterizing it as sloppy, lower-class speech. This process of the sloppy becoming the gold standard is still going on today. I suspect that in a hundred years' time Estuary English will supplant the Oxford/BBC/Received Pronunciation as the "correct" dialect.

As for Shakespeare, one can use evidence like rhyme choices, but English poets of yore were rather loose with their interpretation of rhyme. I think it's fairly safe to say that nobody is walking around speaking *exactly* the dialect of 17th C. London. Both Standard American English and RP share a common root in 18th C. English, but RP is more different from the common ancestor dialect than SAE. Nonetheless it's a fair guess that both dialects would sound strange in Elizabethan ears.

Re:Nothing new

[datavirtue]

People? I thought it was only my wife.

Re:Nothing new

[datavirtue]

Brooklyn accent....now THAT is annoying.

Re:Nothing new

[icebike]

the only differences in terms of spoken English are related to the slang they use.
 

Not true.
First, all English speakers, (by this I assume you mean British English) do not speak the same or have the same accents, the accents are markedly different from different areas.

The most noticeable thing to a Midwestern American is the way the swallow the tail end of words, in extreme cases to the point where it becomes an exercise just to understand them. (Wo = what, or "Shu Up and le me go" from the Ting Tings).

Its far more than just the slang. And its quite regional in nature.

Re:Nothing new

[Random Destruction]

A self-professed pedant who uses the non-word "irregardless"? Turn in your card, it's time to retire.

Re:Nothing new

[VanessaE]

My husband is from Brooklyn, you insensitive clod!

Re:Nothing new

[ancienthart]

Having a stupid accent is a conscious decision.

No, no it really isn't. I notice that if I spend more than one week with a particular group of people on and off, I start using their speech patterns, including pronunciation, tonality, etc. Every now and again, I cringe over something that I've unconsciously mimicked. Getting rid of a stupid accent is the conscious decision, and not an easy one.
There's a reason people suggest full immersion language learning.

Re:Nothing new

[mldi]

<quote> Having a stupid accent is a conscious decision. </quote> No, no it really isn't. I notice that if I spend more than one week with a particular group of people on and off, I start using their speech patterns, including pronunciation, tonality, etc. Every now and again, I cringe over something that I've unconsciously mimicked. Getting rid of a stupid accent is the conscious decision, and not an easy one. There's a reason people suggest full immersion language learning.

This. I have a couple of relatives that grew up in the exact same area with the exact same accents, but 10-20 years later their accents now reflect where they moved to (Kansas, Georgia, South Carolina). Though their accents aren't as heavy as the average joe from the area, it still clearly isn't what it used to be.

At the same time, I moved someone only a few hours or so away from where I grew up. My coworkers occasionally make fun of my accent, while I didn't notice a difference. I finally visited home again after a year, and I immediately knew what my coworkers were making fun of.

On a similar topic, is that some kind of phenomenon? Where you don't notice your own accent?

Re:Nothing new

[Paul1969]

This is typical of all emigrant populations. They tend to "freeze" their language in the form it had at the time of the main emigration. Thus Canadian French is very close to Seventeenth Century European French.
Personal note: My family is of Finnish descent. All 4 grandparents were immigrants to the US. My parents are both fluent in the language of the "Old Country." I can only say a few basic phrases, but my kid sister made the effort to pick up a fair amount from our parents.
When she made a trip to Finland a few years back, her speech caused some amusement to native Finns. They were surprised to hear a young woman talking like a "mummu" (grandmother).

Re:Nothing new

[JDevers]

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.

Just what we need

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

It's early in the morning. I just woke up, so my sarcasm glands need emptying. Just what we need, millions of girls who sound like Britney Spears. There.

Re:Just what we need

[sFurbo]

So, if your sarcasm gland needed emptying, it WAS just what you needed. Which means that your comment wasn't sarcasm. But then it wasn't just what you needed, so it must have been sarcasm. Are you by any chance from descended from Cretans?

Re:Just what we need

[Slashdot Assistant]

The verbal tics I mentioned are from urban culture and California and the south. You want me to list examples of every type of verbal tic for every "race"? That would be clumsily verbose, and I assumed from those two examples it was clear that anyone who wasn't a cock would be able to understand that this isn't racism. Disposing of eye contact in some situations is in fact a good idea. America's a big place, so I don't want to generalize here. Typically eye contact is important, because without it the speaker can appear nervous or insincere. However, just try employing the same level of eye contact you would with typically Japanese that you would with a Texan. How does that work out for you?

Small talk too varies depending on culture. Finns traditionally have fewer social niceties than one would expect in the UK. Nordics in general tend to be more straight to the point. Spanish speak quickly and articulate more with their bodies than northern Europeans would. Have you never listened to Italians or Spanish and thought that they're having an argument, when in fact it's just a discussion? Irish tend to invade body space more than Danish would, as another example.

Communications training is something I've done for over ten years, so I'm pretty confident here in suggesting that anyone who thinks I'm ignorant can go royally fuck themselves.

It's pointless to hire someone whose language (verbal or body) are not appropriate to the job. If hiring for a job that requires moderate technical ability, it's far easier to fix the technical shortcomings than it is to remedy communication issues.

Does the same language employed on an Ealing market stall work for a Norwegian looking for financial advice? Perhaps, but it's in fringe cases. It's more likely to be jarring and distracting to have someone near enough finishing each sentence with "all right?" or "not a bother". There we go, now we have English and Irish added to the list. Does that satisfy your need for a united nations of examples?

When communicating, it's important to ensure that the take away point is clear in the reader's mind. You are a reactionary cock, using reactionary straw man bullshit in lieu of having any experience or the ability to offer insight in to what is in fact a very interesting field of study.

Re:Just what we need

[garyebickford]

Are you by any chance from descended from Cretans?

No, probably Goedel. :)

Re:Just what we need

[theArtificial]

It's still racist to imply that people who use those ticks are less educated than those that don't. Linguistic profiling is one of the last forms of racism that's generally accepted by main stream society and I'm not surprised that some idiot decided to mod me down for pointing it out.

You keep saying it's racist, speech has nothing to do with race! It's an absurd argument you're making that an individuals speech is ethnically based. Guess that means Obama can't ever speak English properly because he's black? How does that work for Eminem? LOL is he a race-bater for rapping?

If one talks like an idiot then don't be surprised if people perceive them as an idiot. Why is this so hard to grasp? There is nothing racist about that you bigot.

Re:Just what we need

[datavirtue]

You can't talk to us that way, your ID# isn't low enough. Go fuck yourself.

vocal Fry?

[zill]

vocal fry

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

Re:vocal Fry?

[bunratty]

/squints Can't tell if speech disorder or latest fad.

"Study of 34 female speakers"

[Hadlock]

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.

Re:"Study of 34 female speakers"

[Anonymous Coward]

With 34 subjects the error in the confidence interval for the proportion is roughly +/- 0.17. They had about 2/3 of their subjects use this vocal pattern. Seems like they can claim that the lower bound is 49% which may be all they needed to make their point. Plus they had to have two speech experts evaluate each sample. It may not be so easy to just sit and listen for a couple of minutes to make a consistent decision as to whether or not the subjects were regularly using this vocal pattern in their speech habits.

As for the backgrounds of the students they do not provide a geographical range in the article. It is not in the abstract of the paper either. Without reading the paper it is not clear what kind of backgrounds the students came from. If they all came from the same college then that is a bigger issue than the sample size and is clearly not a "random sample."

Re:"Study of 34 female speakers"

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, there is an entire field of study called "statistics" that can be used to assess whether a difference of a certain magnitude is real given a sample of a certain size. And, as a phonetician myself, I can tell you that performing these kinds of measurements on speech recordings in a rigorous, controlled, and reproducible way can take a fair amount of time. Finally, they probably did run more than 34 subjects, but had to throw out various subjects who were not native speakers or were male or so on (often, experimenters are not allowed to discriminate on these grounds when advertising for subjects)

Re:"Study of 34 female speakers"

[SteveFoerster]

Surely on a college campus, you can find more than 34 females to do a study on?

Come on guys, no one took the bait on this one?

Re:"Study of 34 female speakers"

[snemarch]

You included your dog in the survey? You sick, sick person!

Re:"Study of 34 female speakers"

[gzipped_tar]

As a fellow /.er has posted above, this statement works if the error is purely statistical, that is to say no significant contribution of systematic bias.

Re:"Study of 34 female speakers"

[Hadlock]

You win the prize for "low content post of the day" and it's not even lunch time yet.

Re:"Study of 34 female speakers"

[PPH]

Surely on a college campus, you can find more than 34 females to do a study on?

Who's first language isn't Mandarin? I doubt it.

Re:"Study of 34 female speakers"

[martin-boundary]

With 34 subjects the error in the confidence interval for the proportion is roughly +/- 0.17. They had about 2/3 of their subjects use this vocal pattern. Seems like they can claim that the lower bound is 49% which may be all they needed to make their point.

There is a highly unwarranted assumption here that the proportion sought is constant across the whole US population.

So this argument is really saying: if the trend occurs in the exact same proportion everywhere among all females in the US, then it's enough to look at 34 females at a single university to estimate the global proportion.

Of course this is nonsense. The bolded assumption is highly suspect. There are pockets of culture in the US all over, and in each such pocket, the proportion would be very different (eg among the Amish, expect it to be zero, etc).

So all that their test really shows is that: if the proportion across the one university campus is constant (still suspect), then 34 subjects are enough. But to test the constancy assumption, there's only one way: test close to all the females in that campus anyway, and confirm the proportion across all of them. Repeat for all females in the US.

coming up next

[tverbeek]

Next we'll be hearing autotune in everyday speech.

Re:coming up next

[Dogtanian]

Next we'll be hearing autotune in everyday speech.

Er, I'm not sure that I'd dismiss that possibility *entirely* out of hand. (*) While I'm not sure how Autotune (**) would translate to speech- since it's used for *singing*- the same could be said for this supposed "vocal fry", which started out as a singing technique, and I'm not sure how *that* got transferred to speech. Autotune is pretty damn common, so really, if vocal fry can make the jump, we shouldn't dismiss that Autotune might have *some* effect on speech, even if it's hindered by the fact that most people don't have a box of digital electronics in their voicebox. :-)

Anyway, as for this "vocal fry's" *singing* origins- having checked out what they mean via YouTube- IMHO it sounds less like "a way to reach low notes" and more like what has *always* happened when people *can't* reach those low notes properly, i.e. "it's not shitty singing, it's a vocal technique".... Yeah, right!

Not sure if I have any opinion about vocal fry as a speech pattern, as I haven't heard enough of it to figure out if it's an annoying affectation, just part of the natural mutation of language... or both. ;-)

(*) Then again, what do I know. While I don't- or didn't- hate Autotune misuse (**) per se, as an interesting technique in itself (I've heard some quite good examples), my problem is its overuse *everywhere*. I got bored of it ages ago, and predicted the fad would have died at least a year ago now. Since this clearly hasn't happened, I've also considered the possibility that it may indicate a permanent change in music tastes- and, as if sods' law wanted to prove how out of touch I am- it will probably turn out to be a fad that goes massively out of fashion at some point after all. Or not- as I said, what do I know, I'm way too old for chart music anyway. :-)

(**) As opposed to the original intended purpose of Autotune, which was to simply correct imperfections in singing. Ironically when people talk about "Autotune" now, it's usually to mean the deliberate misuse/overuse of it for effect- and not simple correction- because the latter is so prevalent (and the former should not stand out if done correctly).

Re:coming up next

[SuricouRaven]

Given how autotune technology is advancing both in capabilities and ease of use, this would be quite possible. Not for everyday use - it's hardly practical to carry around an audio rig everywhere - but for public speeches, television appearances, things like that. Perhaps the US President of 2024 will make his inaugral speech though a voice processor that corrects any momentary stalls, stammers or mispronounciations to ensure he sounds absolutly perfect - and even alters his accent to that which his campaign manager determines will make him most popular.

If GWB had that technology, he would have avoided the national snickering about his inability to pronounce 'nuclear' correctly.

Maybe it is from

[Ice Station Zebra]

Brushing their teeth with a bottle of Jack?

Re:Maybe it is from

[odirex]

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.

This too shall pass.

[olsmeister]

Remember the 'valley girl' speech pattern of the 80's? You don't really hear that much anymore. Humans of a common demographic need things like this to identify with each other and distinguish themselves from other groups. It's part of our social nature.

Re:This too shall pass.

[Tink2000]

>You don't really hear that much anymore.

You obviously do not live in a predominately college town. Here in Blacksburg we have a permanent population of around 15,000 and a student population of 35,000. For nine months out of the year, I marvel at how Frank Zappa has pulled off the longest troll in the history of music -- spreading that god-awful dialect all the way out East so that even 30 years after the song, I'm surrounded by what started as an attempt of a daughter to cozy up to her dad by making fun of stupid people from Encino.

If the girls talk like airheads, then the guys here talk like wanna-be thugs. Even at an engineering school, I am subjected daily to "Yeah, but uh, y'know I was like... whaaaaaaat?" But that's a whole other topic. First, let's get rid of the word "like". I am convinced that this generation is so disaffected and removed from everything that nothing is real to them anymore. They don't want a cup of coffee; they ask "can I just get like, a cup of coffee?" They didn't go see the movie 3 times, they saw it "like, 3 times". Nothing is real or concrete to them.

Re:This too shall pass.

[wasme]

If the girls talk like airheads, then the guys here talk like wanna-be thugs. Even at an engineering school, I am subjected daily to "Yeah, but uh, y'know I was like... whaaaaaaat?" But that's a whole other topic. First, let's get rid of the word "like". I am convinced that this generation is so disaffected and removed from everything that nothing is real to them anymore. They don't want a cup of coffee; they ask "can I just get like, a cup of coffee?" They didn't go see the movie 3 times, they saw it "like, 3 times". Nothing is real or concrete to them.

This is not what you think it does. In this context 'like' is being used as a 'filler'. The 'filler like' itself has no meaning, but in a place holder for a pause. Similar to other 'words' such as 'uh' or 'hmm' or 'er'. It does not mean necessarily 'nearly' or 'almost' - although it could mean that too, it depends on context.

What in the world?

[sgt scrub]

Britney Spears got mentioned on /. because of her voice?

Marge Simpson did it first

[Anonymous Coward]

Marge Simpson did it first

Isn't this a normal US-vocal thing? "registeRRRs"

[Barryke]

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.

Mongolian Britney Spears

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if only they learn to sing like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwANedEkqaY

Need a quirky speech style?

[ajlitt]

Why not Zoidberg?

This is new?

[haltline]

I'm 53, I remember girls that sounded like this all my life. And I can jokingly say "For an example of vocal fry head on down to the casino and find an old lady by a slot machine". So, my personal life experience tells me there's nothing new here.

Concerning the comments about people not using proper English: What is important is that words are used properly, that their meanings preserved so that communication can be meaningful. Confucius covered this long ago,

And, yeah, I was hoping for Futurama Fry too :)

"Throat creak"

[Kalvos]

This was identified, defined and named as "throat creak" on alt.usage.english at least 10 years ago, including its first appearance in television commercials of the day.

Phonemic

[tepples]

In some languages, vocal fry is already phonemic, and the same sounds said with or without it are heard as different words.

Re:So that's what it's called

[swalve]

My non professional research indicates that it is a couple of things. One: the less forceful the voice, the more an interested listener has to focus in on what you are saying. People have to lean in to listen. It gives an unsure speaker cues to feel more important. Two, they use it when they are making statements they believe the listener will be uncomfortable with. They believe it lends a sort of sincerity to the speech so that people will be less likely to challenge them.

More worrying

[ougouferay]

Although I have no reason to doubt the validity of your point your post highlights a more worrying trend - the inability to differentiate between how a word is spoken and how it is spelt - "Southern bell" is in fact "Southern belle". It comes from the French word for beauty and has nothing to do with the things you find in churches.

Re:More worrying

[jginspace]

the inability to differentiate between how a word is spoken and how it is spelt ...

You might be in the same club considering you harped on about that and missed:

the kind of accent you might here from upper class