IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0229960.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The quantitative prevalence of creaky voice (vocal fry) in varieties of English: A systematic review of the literature

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine Dallaston
  • Gerard Docherty

Abstract

Background/aim: It is widely believed that ‘creaky voice’ (‘creak’, ‘vocal fry’, ‘glottal fry’) is increasingly prevalent among some English speakers, particularly among young American women. Motivated by the widespread and cross-disciplinary interest in the phenomenon, this paper offers a systematic review of peer-reviewed research (up to January 2019) on the prevalence of creaky voice in varieties of English. The review aimed to understand whose and what speech has been studied, how creaky voice prevalence has been measured, and what the findings collectively reveal. Method: Literature was located by searching four electronic databases (ProQuest, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science) and the proceedings of two recurrent conferences (‘ICPhS’ and ‘SST’). Studies were included if they reported the prevalence of creaky voice in naturalistic samples of English spoken by vocally-healthy speakers. Reference lists of included studies were cross-checked. Results: Only ten studies meeting inclusion criteria were identified. All studies sampled a small number of speakers and/or short durations of speech. Nine were recent studies of American-English speakers, and many of these sampled young, female, college students. Across the ten studies, creaky voice was detected using three types of methods, and prevalence was calculated using five different formulae. The findings show that prevalence varies across groups, individuals, and contexts. However, the precise nature of this variability remains unclear due to the scarcity and methodological heterogeneity of the research. Conclusions: This paper illustrated the application of systematic literature review methods in sociophonetic research—a field in which such methods are not common. The review found that creaky voice prevalence in English is not well understood, and that widespread claims of its recent increase among young American women have not been empirically confirmed. A number of specific limitations in the existing research are highlighted, which may serve as a guide for future research design.

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine Dallaston & Gerard Docherty, 2020. "The quantitative prevalence of creaky voice (vocal fry) in varieties of English: A systematic review of the literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0229960
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229960
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229960
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229960&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0229960?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rindy C Anderson & Casey A Klofstad & William J Mayew & Mohan Venkatachalam, 2014. "Vocal Fry May Undermine the Success of Young Women in the Labor Market," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-8, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yosh Halberstam, 2019. "Voice at Work," Working Papers tecipa-636, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0229960. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.