A research on “vocal fry”

1 FACULTAD DE FILOLOGÍA GRADO EN ESTUDIOS INGLESES TRABAJO DE FIN DE GRADO CURSO 2023/ 2024 TÍTULO: A research on “vocal fry” 2 AUTOR/A: Leandro Iglesias Lagares TUTOR/A: María Heliodora Cuenca Villarín Fecha: Mayo 2024 Vº Bº del Tutor Firma: Firmado 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0.ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………… 6 1.INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION………………………………………………... 6 2.THEORETICAL BACKGROUND…………………………………………..................... 7 2.1 Definition of Vocal Fry.......................................................................................... 7 2.2 Who is most prone to using Vocal Fry................................................................... 8 2.3 Reactions towards Vocal fry (Men vs Women)..................................................... 9 2.4 Vocal Fry used as a stylistic resource.................................................................... 10 3. METHOD………………………………………………………………….…................... 11 3.1 PRODUCTION TEST…………………………………………………………………. 11 3.1.1 Speech Materials..................................................................................... 11 3.1.2 Participants............................................................................................. 12 3.1.3 Recording Procedure.............................................................................. 12 3.1.4 Acoustic Analysis................................................................................... 13 3.2 PERCEPTION TEST…………………………………………………………… 13 3.2.1 Speech Materials................................................................................................ 13 3.2.2 Participants......................................................................................................... 14 3.2.3 Procedure............................................................................................................ 15 3.2.4 Statistics.............................................................................................................. 15 4. RESULTS…………………………………………………………….………................... 15 4.1 PRODUCTION TEST........................................................................................... 15 4.1.1 GENERAL AMERICAN ENGLISH SPEAKERS................................ 15 4.1.a Female speakers.......................................................................... 15 4.1.b Male speakers.............................................................................. 16 4 4.1.2 BRITISH ENGLISH SPEAKERS.......................................................... 17 4.2.a Female speakers.......................................................................... 17 4.2.b Male speakers.............................................................................. 18 4.1.3 COMPARISON OF RESULTS FOR THE PRODUCTION TEST FOR AMERICAN AND BRITISH SPEAKERS…………………………………………………………………. 18 4.2 PERCEPTION TEST............................................................................................ 19 4.2.1. RATING QUESTION 1........................................................................ 19 4.2.1.a American English Speakers…………………………………. 19 Female Speakers…………………………………………………….. 19 Male Speakers……………………………………………………….. 20 4.2.1.b British English Speakers…………………………………….. 20 Female Speakers…………………………………………………….. 20 Male Speakers……………………………………………………….. 21 4.2.2 RATING QUESTION 2......................................................................... 21 4.2.2.a American English Speakers…………………………………. 21 Female Speakers…………………………………………………….. 21 Male Speakers……………………………………………………….. 22 4.2.2.b British English Speakers…………………………………….. 22 Female Speakers…………………………………………………….. 22 Male Speakers. ……………………………………………………… 23 5. DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………….………........... 23 5.1 PRODUCTION TEST....................................................................................................... 23 5.2 PERCEPTION TEST........................................................................................................ 25 6. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….……….......... 25 5 7. REFERENCES……………………………………………………….…....…................... 28 8. APPENDIXES…………………………………………………………….………........... 30 6 0.ABSTRACT This study aims at examining the type of phonation known as “vocal fry”, how it is produced and who is more prone to using vocal fry in their daily speech. For this study, two tests were carried out; a production test, in which 10 participants were selected according to their variety of English, nationality, and sexuality, in order to see how these factors affect the use of vocal fry; and a perception test, in which samples from the production test were provided to 16 listeners as to give their views and opinions on each sample. The results of the study seem to suggest that vocal fry is more prone in female American English speakers, however, it also points to female British English speakers, and queer people, as they are also prone to making use of this type of phonation in a less severe way. Moreover, variables such as speech rate were also analyzed in this study to see if they are conditioning factors in the use of vocal fry. This study will tackle all these points and will shed light to this interesting type of phonation. 1.INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION The way of speaking of someone gives away information about the individual instantly, and such information could vary from social class to personal traits. Phonetics as a field of study has always been relegated to a second position with regards to its counterparts linguistic areas, such as vocabulary and grammar; due to this, the focus of this study will pay attention to a rare type of phonation such as the vocal fry, which sometimes flies under the radar but it is always around the English-speaking world. Upon previous research, two hypothesis questions were planned for this study. The first hypothesis of the study is that the use of this type of phonation “vocal fry” is mostly found in young women whose origin is that of the United States; meaning that “vocal fry” rarely is found in men, and that age and origin also plays a role in whether “vocal fry” takes place in speech or not. The second hypothesis of the study is that the use of vocal fry has to do with judgement; how vocal fry is used among different communities, such as the LGBTQ+ community, and how this vocal fry is perceived within society. This research will be structured in the following manner; first, the following section will lay out information about this type of phonation, and definitions that have been given to “vocal fry” in the past through research carried out by linguists. Then, it will be followed by a 7 section where information about the material used, as well as the range of participants and information about them, in addition to how their speech was recorded and analyzed. After this, there will be a section with the results obtained and they will be discussed and argued with reliable information. The study will conclude with limitations that have been found while researching, and how this study could be improved for future investigation. This last part will be followed by the references used for this research and an appendix with the different data collected. 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 DEFINITION OF VOCAL FRY When speaking face-to-face with an individual, our voice tends to create sounds that are abnormal in speech apart from the individual´s own way of speaking; one of this abnormal sounds would be the so-called “Vocal fry”. Lesley Wolk et Al (2011) define the term “vocal fry” in their article as “a form of phonation, characterized by a distinct laryngeal vibratory pattern, distinct acoustic features, and a distinct vocal quality” (p.111). Vocal fry was once framed as a speech disorder that might damage the individual´s cords if used extensively; “historically, vocal fry has been classified as part of a clinical voice disorder because it has frequently been associated with abnormal vocal laryngeal outputs” (Lesley Wolk et Al, p.111). However, this has been proved wrong upon research, which led to the dismantle of this myth; in Marissa´s article “Vocal Fry Creeping into U.S Speech”, co-author speech scientist Nassima Abdelli-Beruh of LIU dismantled the myth as it was proved that “the creak is unlikely to damage vocal cords because speakers didn't creak continuously or even at the end of every sentence.” (2011). “In 1968, Hollein et Al. were the first to hypothesize that the vocal fry register might actually be found in normal voice qualities” (Goodline, A., & Johns, A., 2014). The feature is principally characterized as an unusual vibration of the vocal folds; according to Lesley Wolk (2011), “Hollien et Al postulated that similar to falsetto and modal register, vocal fry is characterized by a unique laryngeal vibratory behavior, which results in specific physiological, acoustic, and perceptual characteristics.”, this is also backed up by Marissa Feddensen, who states that vocal fry is “produced by a slow fluttering of the vocal cords. Since the 1960s, vocal fry has been recognized as the lowest of the three vocal registers, which also include falsetto and modal—the usual speaking register” (2011). Marissa also 8 argues in her article that, this vibration of the vocal folds is not continuous, but it is rather produced and arose at the ends of sentences. 2.2 WHO IS MOST PRONE TO USING VOCAL FRY In terms of the use of this type of phonation, vocal fry´s attention is focused mainly on young women , however, not only women are subdued to the use of vocal fry; men can also employ the use of vocal fry, even though it is less frequent “the female gender does not have a monopoly on vocal fry; instead, both women and men employ this style of speaking” (Michael J. Higdon, 2016, pp.211). Vocal fry also more easily perceived in women, hence the trend is associated to women´s speech more than men´s (Lillian Fu & Amishi Chandra, 2021). Several studies have been carried out proving that women are much more prone to talking in this manner than their male counterparts; in all these studies “approximately two-thirds (of the young women) used vocal fry and it was most likely to occur at the end of sentences” (Hornibrook, J et Al, 2018, pp.36). This fact is interesting, as women are seen as more prone to not only using vocal fry, but also other types of linguistic features as they are labelled as “being linguistic innovators (Labov 1990), originating vocal trends and popular slang that later spread to the broader population.” (Goodline, A., & Johns, A., 2014). It is argued that women adopted this particular way of speaking as to resemblance that old way of speaking of men, as vocal fry was more spread throughout men in the 20th century; Yuasa (2010), argues in her article that “Despite the fact that more recent researchers have detected frequent creaky voice usage among female speakers, in general previous researchers of creaky voice have interpreted it as a voice quality of masculinity or authority” (pp.317). Men´s speech are way different than women´s, as their nature is different, as “men typically have bigger larynxes and thus lower fundamental frequencies in their phonation” (Monika Chao & Julia R. S. Bursten, 2021). The use of vocal fry within men speech, is used in order to represent what is conventionally masculine and that sense of leadership and control “This indexical association (that men have lower pitches voices than women) can be recruited to link creaky voice to stances conventionally associated with men, like toughness, at higher orders of indexicality” (Monika Chao & Julia R. S. Bursten, 2021). There have been several studies carried out by linguists in the past, like Henton and Bladon (1988), who “conducted the first large-scale quantitative study of the sociocultural usage of creaky voice, with 80 informants (40 males and 40 females) (Yuasa, 2010), among other linguists who have dedicated their work to the study of vocal fry. 9 Another factor that has been discussed in the adoption of this way of speaking is that influencers and women of high-status from both present and past, use and used to speak in this manner; take for example Kim Kardashian or Mae West, two well-stablished and welloff women from two different times, but both have in common the usage of vocal fry in their speech; John Carney (2012) in his article for the CNBC argued that “this Vocal Fry trend is an instance of Wall Street invading Main Street. Young American women have picked up on a way of talking found in a very small clique of wealthy and powerful women who work in finance. Which isn’t really that surprising... It’s a way of presenting seriousness, intelligence, and determination without sacrificing femininity.”. These types of bussiness and successful women are seen as idols for the young population as the wish of being close to their type of life is connected with the idea of imitation. 2.3 REACTION TOWARDS VOCAL FRY (MEN VS WOMEN) Speech is known to be one of the factors that gives the most information about a person as soon as other individuals encounter them, as it presents background about the individual, such as personality and origin. Speech provokes a reaction on listeners instantly whether it is positive or negative. In this case, vocal fry plays a role in the perception of the Speaker to others when they they listen to their speech. Vocal fry has mixed reactions when it comes to perception, as some studies argue that “young American women who speak with vocal fry are perceived as educated and upwardly mobile, which would imply favorable outcomes in the job market...suggesting vocal fry as a means of communicating seriousness, intelligence, and determination” (Rindy C. Anderson et Al, 2014). However, most of the views on vocal fry, especially on women have been regarded as negative, as in this same article by Rindy C. Anderson et Al, they state that “Others contend that the use of vocal fry is a vocal “fashion trend” that can be off-putting to older generations, in turn damaging the professional image of young women... forwarding that it is not perceived as authoritative or serious, but rather as immature and uneducated”; this also proves the point that older generations tend to reject vocal fry in a greater way than younger generations, as they would feel this creaky voice as strange, due to the fact that they would not listen to it 16 The speech rate is also shown in Figure 1, being fairly close between the Speakers; Speaker 1 had a speech rate of 188 words per minute, close to Speaker 3 which had a speech rate of 184; while Speaker 2 had a total speech rate of 167. Informal Question In this case, shown in Figure 2 in Appendix A, this time vocal fry was found the most in Speaker 1´s speech, with a total of 25 encounters; while Speaker 3 did fry the same number of times that she did when tackling the formal question. Lastly, Speaker 2 did use vocal fry in her speech this time. The speech rate is also shown in Figure 2, being fairly close once again between the speakers; Speaker 1 had a speech rate of 187 words per minute, close to Speaker 2 which had a speech rate of 186; while Speaker 3 had a total speech rate of 159. 4.1.1.b MALE SPEAKERS Formal Question In terms of the answers given for the formal question by the male speakers of American English, neither one of the male speakers used vocal fry in their speech regarding this question, as seen in Figure 3 in Appendix A, there being a massive difference between them and the American female speakers. Their speech rate is also shown in Figure 3, where Speaker 8 registered a higher speech rate than Speaker 7, with 195 and 168 words per minute, respectively. Informal Question Regarding the informal question, Speaker 7 still maintained his speech without the use of vocal fry; while in Speaker 8´s speech, three occurrences of vocal fry were detected throughout his recording, as seen in Figure 4 in Appendix A. 17 Their speech rate is also shown in Figure 4, being fairly similar to those results shown during the formal question; Speaker 8 had a higher speech rate than Speaker 7, being 191, and 175 respectively. 4.1.2 SPEAKERS OF BRITISH ENGLISH 4.1.2.a FEMALE SPEAKERS Formal Question Interestingly, British female speakers also made use of vocal fry in their speech; while Speaker 4 did not produce any examples of vocal fry in hers, Speakers 5 and 6 showed six instances of vocal fry each concerning the answers to the formal question, as seen in Figure 5 in Appendix A. The speech rate is also visible in Figure 5, where they had a lower rate of words per minute than their American counterparts; Speaker 4 displayed the highest speaking rate, being 146; whereas Speaker 6 and Speaker 5 registered 113 and 119 respectively. Informal Question With regard to the informal question, as seen in Figure 6 in Appendix A, Speaker 4 did not present any occurrence of vocal fry in her speech, while illustrations of vocal fry were found in this section in Speakers 5 and 6´s speech, there being the same number for Speaker 5 than the ones found in the answer to the formal question, being six, while Speaker 6 exhibited one less occurrence of vocal fry when tackling this question. The speech rate for the informal question in Figure 6 in Appendix A, shows that they upped their words per minute from the formal to the informal question; Speaker 6 registered then the greatest number of words per minute going up to 151, whereas Speaker 4 raised up to 149, and lastly Speaker 5 raised up to 143. However, their speech rates have been all lower than the ones registered by all the female speakers of American English for both the formal question and the informal question. 18 4.1.2.b MALE SPEAKERS Formal Question With regard to British male speakers within the context of the formal question, seen in Figure 7 in Appendix A, Speaker 9 (straight, 22 years old) did not make use of vocal fry in any of his utterances; while Speaker 10 (queer, 27 years old) did use vocal fry in his utterances, exhibiting two occurrences of vocal fry. As with female speakers, their speech rate was also lower, being for the informal question 129 words per minute counted in Speaker 9´s speech, whereas Speaker 10 did end up with 119 words per minute. Informal Question In the context of the informal questions, Speaker 9 kept his speech without the use of vocal fry, while Speaker 10 increased his use of vocal fry to a total of six, as can be seen in Figure 8 in Appendix A. Their speech rate did increase by a few words in comparison to the formal question, being for the informal question, 132 and 128 words per minute for Speakers 9 and 10 respectively. In spite of this increase, their speech rates have been much lower than the speaking rates registered by all the male speakers of American English. 4.1.3 COMPARISON OF RESULTS FOR THE PRODUCTION TEST FOR AMERICAN AND BRITISH SPEAKERS The next tables in Appendix D, Tables 1-3, summarize the results for the production test. As can be seen in Table 1, between speakers that have registered at least one case of vocal fry, the number of detections of vocal fry have been higher for the informal question 19 than for the formal question for every Speaker, regardless of their gender and variety of English; except for Speaker 6, who has registered one detection less than her respective answer for the formal question. Moreover, it can be seen that male Speakers in this study have not recorded instances of vocal fry in their speech, except for Speaker 8 who happened to be a young transgender male, and Speaker 10, who happened to be a queer male speaker. In addition, female speakers of American English have produced more instances of vocal fry than female speakers of British English; for this reason, the results of this study may point out that the variety of English does indeed affect to the use of vocal fry. Concerning the possible effect of speech rate on vocal fry, as can be observed in Table 2, speech rate seems to not affect in the use of vocal fry as seen on the answers for the formal question; for example, even though Speaker 1 and Speaker 3 have registered the higher number of occurrences of vocal fry in their speech, and their speech rate was also higher than other Speakers; however, Speaker 8, who has registered the highest speech rate of this study has not produced any occurrences of vocal fry during the formal question. In Table 3, once again it can be observed that speech rate does not play a determining factor in the use of vocal fry, if we consider the results for the informal question; Speaker 1 (25 instances of vocal fry and a speech rate of 187 words per minute), Speaker 2 (no instances of vocal fry and a speech rate very close to that of Speaker 1, 186 words per minute), Speaker 3 (25 instances of vocal fry, same as Speaker 1, and a speech rate of 159 words per minute). 4.2 PERCEPTION STUDY This study will focus on the general analysis of the answers to the two first questions concerning judgements of intelligence and reliability. 4.2.1. RESULTS FOR RATING QUESTION 1 4.2.1.a American English Speakers Female Speakers With regards to rating question 1, in Answers towards Speaker 1 mixed reactions can be found in both samples with and without vocal fry, where the response is positive; however, the sample without vocal fry got a slightly more 20 positive reaction than the vocal fry sample. This can be observed in Appendix C, Figures 117 and 118. Speaker 2, got mixed reactions as well, still being overall positive responses towards the sample; nevertheless, the sample without vocal fry got way stronger positive reactions. This is exhibited in Appendix C, Figures 119 and 120. Speaker 3, as well as Speaker 1 and 2, received mixed reactions with a slightly positive reaction, Speaker 3 had very polarizing answers concerning the sample with vocal fry; the sample without vocal fry received fewer polarizing answers. This is in Appendix C, Figures 121-122. Male Speakers For Speaker 7, even though both samples had no vocal fry in it, their reactions were different. Both samples got positive reactions, however, sample in Appendix C, Figure 129, had a much stronger positive feedback from listeners than the sample seen in Figure 130. In the case of Speaker 8, the transgender male, he got polarizing answers in the case of the vocal fry sample, where the answers agreed towards a more neutral view of the sample. The non-vocal fry sample on the other hand, received a stronger opinion that leaned towards the positive side, being agree and strongly agree the most chosen categories. This can be seen in Appendix C, Figures 131-132. 4.2.1.b British English Speakers Female Speakers Speaker 4 received positive reactions in both samples, samples that did not contain vocal fry as she did not make use of this type of phonation. Seen in Appendix C, Figures 123-124. 21 Speaker 5 received mixed reactions in both samples, being fairly similar; more towards a positive reaction. In this case, the sample with vocal fry got a better reaction than the non-vocal fry sample. This data is exhibited in Appendix C, Figures 125-126. Speaker 6 received overall positive reactions towards both of her samples; however, the non-vocal fry sample received a more positive view than the opposed vocal fry sample. This can be seen in Appendix C, Figures 127-128. Male Speakers Both recordings for Speaker 9 got a positive reaction as he did not use vocal fry in his speech, however sample in Appendix C, Figure 135, got a better reaction than sample in Figure 134. Speaker 10 samples´ also received positive reactions, however, the vocal fry sample got a slightly disagree review, while the non-vocal fry sample received no negative reactions; but through percentages, the numbers exhibited in the vocal fry sample are higher than the non-vocal fry sample. All this data is revealed in Appendix C, Figures 136-137. 4.2.2 RESULTS FOR RATING QUESTION 2 4.2.2.a American English Speakers Female Speakers With regards to rating question 2, Speaker 1 got a positive reaction overall in answers that correspond to the vocal fry sample; however, the non-vocal fry sample answers were more positive than the sample that exhibited vocal fry. This is revealed in Appendix C, Figures 138 and 139. Speaker 2 received mixed reactions, but once again the answers were overall positive for the vocal fry sample; whereas in the non-vocal fry sample, the answers received were much more positive than the ones received in the vocal fry sample. This can be seen in Appendix C, Figures 140-141. 22 Speaker 3 got a positive reaction when referring to the vocal fry sample; however, in the non-vocal fry sample, Speaker 3 got mixed reactions that lean more towards a negative reaction, as seen in Appendix C, Figures 142-143. Male Speakers In Appendix C, Figures 150-151, we can see Speaker 7´s results. Speaker 7 did not make use of vocal fry; therefore his two samples were non-vocal fry samples. The answers received for both samples were almost identical, leaning towards a more positive review from the listeners. In the case of Speaker 8, for question 2, he received almost identical answers; both samples received answers leaning towards a more neutral-positive view. This can be seen in Appendix C, Figures 152-153. 4.2.2.b British English Speakers Female Speakers Speaker 4 with regards to the rating question 2, received once again positive reactions from the listeners; equal situation to that of her rating question 1, where no vocal fry is exhibited. This can be observed in Appendix C, Figures 144-145. Speaker 5 received positive reactions in both samples, however, in this rating question, Speaker 5 received a more positive reactions in the non-vocal fry sample; as opposed to her rating question 1 results, as seen in Appendix C, Figures 146-147. Speaker 6 once again received a better response with regards to rating question 2 in the non-vocal fry sample, where no negative responses were recorded, whereas in the vocal fry sample, even though overall it was awarded a positive reaction from the listeners, it got some negative reactions. This is revealed in Appendix C, Figures 148-149 23 Male Speakers Speaker 9, analyzing between both samples and comparing them, the result overall was a positive reaction in both of them, as the percentages were almost equal between the two samples. This can be seen in Appendix C, Figures 154- 155. With regards to Speaker 10´s rating question 2, the non-vocal fry sample received a higher positive review from listeners than the sample containing vocal fry, which leaned towards a more neutral view. This can be seen in Appendix C, Figures 156-157. 5. DISCUSSION 5.1 PRODUCTION TEST The results of this study clearly show that female American speakers do indeed make use of vocal fry more often than their male counterparts; however, this does not imply that their male counterparts do not use the term of vocal fry, but their occurrences of vocal fry are exhibited less remarkably than their female counterparts. This result agrees with Yuasa´s study (2010), where in her article “CREAKY VOICE: A new feminine voice quality for young urban-oriented upwardly mobile American women?”, it is stated that “Men tend not to vocal fry (the mean frequency of usage of this voice quality by American female speakers (residing in California) was higher than those of their male counterparts…The study, which analyzed conversational speech data, confirmed that female speakers utilize creaky voice significantly more than their male counterparts.”. This contrast between female and male speakers of American English and their use of vocal fry, is visually exhibited in Figures 1 to 4 in Appendix A. However, even though it is common for American English speakers to make use of vocal fry to a greater extent, the results of this study reveal that not only American speakers are prone to using vocal fry, but their British counterparts take also part on the use of this type of phonation. In Appendix A, Figures 5 and 6 display the amount of vocal fry exercised by the British female participants in the production test of this study. In Appendix B, some examples of British female participant´s use of vocal fry is represented, such as Figures 89 to 24 93, where spectrograms and waveforms manifest that vocal fry was indeed used in their speech. The speech rate per speaker did not fluctuate as much between participants, being kept fairly similar among them, as seen in Figures 1 to 8 in Appendix A; being the highest speech rate recorded 195 (Speaker 8-global warming), and the lowest 119 (Speakers 5 and 10-global warming). The participants did not fry more even if their speech got faster, showing in this study that speech rate was not a conditional factor for vocal fry to be used more. When given the prompts, the speakers showed a greater attitude towards the topic of “hobby” and also towards the experiencer presented through their speedy and joyful speech, which indicated that they were relaxed while taking part on this study. Because of their relaxed state, participants tend to vocal fry more throughout their speech. Accordingly, the informal question about their favourite hobby registered a higher number of vocal fry than the formal question about global warming, as the Speakers showed insecurity towards the topic. As Stephanie A. Borrie and Christine R. Delfino summarize in their article entitled “Conversational Entrainment of Vocal Fry in Young Adult Female American English Speakers” (2017), “Vocal fry entrainment does occur and, further, it is predictive of communicative efficiency and communicative enjoyment—both, in their own rights, crucial elements of successful human communication”, which correspond to the results found in this study. Vocal fry was exhibited in various participants of this study, but not every single vocal fry was presented in the same manner, even among the same Speakers. For example, in Figures 61 and 62 in Appendix B, show a great difference in the use of vocal fry in the case of Speaker 3, as the vocal fry that appears in Figure 62 is stronger than the one realized in Figure 61. This difference is not only found among themselves, but also among the other speakers as well, which hint at the inter-speaker variability, that is, the individual differences between participants in their employment of vocal fry; for example, Figures 18 and 102 can also be visually perceived, as the vocal fry represented in Figure 18 is stronger than the one represented in Figure 102. Lastly, queer people in this study, which were Speaker 3, Speaker 5, Speaker 8, and Speaker 10, all did make use of vocal fry regardless of their nationality and gender. This suggests that homosexual people tend to use vocal fry to a greater extent than their heterosexual counterparts. Centering this part to the male participants, queer men in this 25 study, both the American and British male speakers (Speakers 8 and 10), made use of vocal fry, meaning that there is a considerable difference between queer men´s speech and heterosexual men´s speech. 5.2 PERCEPTION TEST The results of the perception test showed that, overall, every single non-vocal fry sample got better reactions from the listeners than the vocal fry sample, as the only vocal fry sample that got a better reaction than its opposed vocal fry sample was Speaker 3´s sample with regards to rating question 2; this shows and affirms that vocal fry in nowadays society do see vocal fry in a negative manner, but not with an intense repugnance over this type of phonation, as some articles regard it as “jarring” or “unbearable”. CONCLUSION The purpose of this study was to analyze whether if vocal fry mostly occurred in young women whose origin is that of the United States, being this one of the main hypotheses that motivated this study. The results that were obtained showed that this hypothesis previously mentioned has been proven correct, as the American female participants in the production test were the ones who did use vocal fry the most in their speech in opposition to their male counterparts, and even British counterparts, who, despite some of them making use of vocal fry, they did so in a more restrained manner. However, these results also illustrate the fact that vocal fry is not restricted only to female speakers of American English. Furthermore, another finding in this study is that the LGBTQ+ community tends to use vocal fry regarding of their gender and variety of English they speak, as in this study, speakers that are part from the community (whether they are queer or homosexual), they exhibited vocal fry in their speech (as seen in “Results” from Speakers 4, 8, and 10). Focusing on the male speakers and their heterosexual male counterparts, it is argued that sexuality tends to be a conditioning factor towards the prone use of vocal fry, as in this study, heterosexual male speakers did not make use of vocal fry throughout their speech. However, even though LGBTQ+ Speakers did make use of vocal fry, they made less use of it than the heterosexual female American Speakers in this study, which were, as stated before, the ones 32 Figure 4-Number of detections in American male speakers of vocal fry in informal speech samples, and speech rate (words per minute) FIGURE 5 Figure 5-Number of detections in British female speakers of vocal fry formal speech samples, and speech rate (words per minute) FIGURE 6 33 Figure 6-Number of detections in British female speakers of vocal fry informal speech samples, and speech rate (words per minute) FIGURE 7 Figure 7-Number of detections in British male speakers of vocal fry formal speech samples, and speech rate (words per minute) FIGURE 8 34 Figure 8-Number of detections in British male speakers of vocal fry informal speech samples, and speech rate (words per minute) APPENDIX B FIGURE 9 Figure 9-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 10 Figure 10-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 11 35 Figure 11-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 12 Figure 12-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 13 Figure 13-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 14 36 Figure 14-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 15 Figure 15-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 16 Figure 16-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 17 37 Figure 17-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 18 Figure 18-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 19 Figure 19-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 20 38 Figure 20-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 21 Figure 21-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 22 Figure 22-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 23 39 Figure 23-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 24 Figure 24-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 25 Figure 25-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 26 40 Figure 26-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 27 Figure 27-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 28 Figure 28-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 29 41 Figure 29-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 30 Figure 30-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 31 Figure 31-Exhibit of Speaker 1 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 32 48 Figure 50-Exhibit of Speaker 2 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 51 Figure 51-Exhibit of Speaker 2 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 52 Figure 52-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 53 49 Figure 53-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 54 Figure 54-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 55 Figure 55-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 56 50 Figure 56-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 57 Figure 57-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 58 Figure 58-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 59 51 Figure 59-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 60 Figure 60-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 61 Figure 61-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 62 52 Figure 62-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 63 Figure 63-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 64 Figure 64-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 65 53 Figure 65-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 66 Figure 66-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 67 Figure 67-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 68 54 Figure 68-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 69 Figure 69-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 70 Figure 71-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 72 55 Figure 72-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 73 Figure 73-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 74 Figure 74-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 75 56 Figure 75-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 76 Figure 76-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 77 Figure 77-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 78 57 Figure 78-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 79 Figure 79-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 80 Figure 80-Exhibit of Speaker 3 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 81 64 Figure 99-Exhibit of Speaker 6 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 100 Figure 100-Exhibit of Speaker 6 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 101 Figure 101-Exhibit of Speaker 6 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 102 65 Figure 102-Exhibit of Speaker 6 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 103 Figure 103-Exhibit of Speaker 6 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 104 Figure 104-Exhibit of Speaker 6 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 105 66 Figure 105-Exhibit of Speaker 6 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 106 Figure 106-Exhibit of Speaker 8 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 107 Figure 107-Exhibit of Speaker 8 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 108 67 Figure 108-Exhibit of Speaker 8 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 109 Figure 109-Exhibit of Speaker 10 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 110 Figure 110-Exhibit of Speaker 10 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Global Warming” FIGURE 111 68 Figure 111-Exhibit of Speaker 10 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 112 Figure 112-Exhibit of Speaker 10 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 113 Figure 113-Exhibit of Speaker 10 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 114 69 Figure 114-Exhibit of Speaker 10 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 115 Figure 115-Exhibit of Speaker 10 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” FIGURE 116 Figure 116-Exhibit of Speaker 10 use of vocal fry during the recording of the topic “Hobby” APPENDIX C FIGURE 117 70 Figure 117-General Opinion about question 1 on Speaker 1´s sample with vocal fry FIGURE 118 Figure 118-General Opinion about question 1 on Speaker 1´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 119 71 Figure 119-General Opinion about question 1 on Speaker 2´s sample with vocal fry FIGURE 120 Figure 120-General Opinion about question 1 on Speaker 2´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 121 72 Figure 121-General Opinion about question 1 on Speaker 3´s sample with vocal fry FIGURE 122 Figure 122-General Opinion about question 1 on Speaker 3´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 123 73 Figure 123-General Opinion about question 1 on Speaker 4´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 124 Figure 124-General Opinion about question 1 on Speaker 4´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 125 80 Figure 137-General Opinion about question 1 on Speaker 10´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 138 Figure 138-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 1´s sample with vocal fry FIGURE 139 81 Figure 139-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 1´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 140 Figure 140-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 2´s sample with vocal fry FIGURE 141 82 Figure 141-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 2´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 142 Figure 142-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 3´s sample with vocal fry FIGURE 143 83 Figure 143-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 3´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 144 Figure 144-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 4´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 145 84 Figure 145-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 4´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 146 Figure 146-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 5´s sample with vocal fry FIGURE 147 85 Figure 147-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 5´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 148 Figure 148-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 6´s sample with vocal fry FIGURE 149 86 Figure 149-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 6´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 150 Figure 150-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 7´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 151 87 Figure 151-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 7´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 152 Figure 152-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 8´s sample with vocal fry FIGURE 153 88 Figure 153-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 8´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 154 Figure 154-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 9´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 155 89 Figure 155-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 9´s sample without vocal fry FIGURE 156 Figure 156-General Opinion about question 2 on Speaker 10´s sample with vocal fry FIGURE 157