Why we talk about voices as we do

Abstract

The problem of how to characterize voice quality is an endless source of debate and frustration across disciplines. The richness of the vocabulary available to describe voice is overwhelming, but the density of the information conveyed by voice has led some scholars to conclude that language can never adequately specify what we hear. Others have argued that terminology derives from tradition and lacks an empirical basis, so that language-based scales are inadequate a priori. Finally, efforts to link terms to acoustic signal characteristics have had limited success. However, a reconsideration suggests that a few terms appear consistently across studies, disciplines, and eras. These terms align with dimensions that account for acoustic variance in voice across speakers, regardless of gender, language spoken, or the kind of speech sample, and correlate with physical size and arousal across many species. They, thus, may have an evolutionary basis. This suggests talk about voices rests on a bedrock of biology: We have evolved to perceive voices in terms of size/arousal, and these factors structure both voice acoustics and the language we use to describe voices. Such linkages could help integrate studies of physical signals and their meaning, producing a truly interdisciplinary approach to voice.