

Creaky Voice: Another Example of Young Women's Linguistic Ingenuity - snippyhollow
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/creaky-voice-yet-another-example-of-young-womens-linguistic-ingenuity/267046/

======
joezydeco
Creaky voice? That's sooooo 2012. It's all about the creaky-voiced long
alveolar glide with mid front unrounded vowel and glottal stop.

 _"A linguistic dissection of 7 annoying teenage sounds"_

[http://theweek.com/article/index/244460/a-linguistic-
dissect...](http://theweek.com/article/index/244460/a-linguistic-dissection-
of-7-annoying-teenage-sounds)

------
cafard
'"I ne saugh nawiht" in Middle English; "I don't see anything" in Modern
English. Today, one can find it in French, which negates verbs by affixing the
particles ne and pas to either side of the verb, as well as in Afrikaans,
Greek, and a number of Slavic languages. The point: There is nothing
inherently "ignorant" or "stupid" about double negation; judgments about
speech are judgments about the speakers themselves.'

There is nothing inherently English about Greek and a number of Slavic
languages. There ain't nothing much that Afrikaans tells us about the practice
of Modern English (is there, baas?) and only so much light that Middle English
sheds.

~~~
Cushman
Double negation is also a feature of modern English; the point is no one can
claim speakers of Middle English, French, Afrikaans et cetera are ignorant or
unintelligent.

~~~
cafard
Right--although the only speakers of Middle English that I've actually met
were reading Chaucer out loud in a college class. So we've got it out of the
way about them being ignorant or unintelligent.

I don't judge any particular speaker of French or Afrikaans to be ignorant or
unintelligent. I do however judge that while they are speaking French or
Afrikaans they are not speaking English.

~~~
Cushman
I have a sore memory of a recent lengthy debate on the concept of dialects, so
suffice it here to say: It is utterly uncontroversial among linguists that
AAVE, among other dialects which use double negation for emphasis, is a real
English that young black kids grow up and learn to speak properly. It is not
Standard in the sense that it is not used in news or government, and its use
in formal speech will leave one branded ignorant, but it is in all other
respects the relative equal of the English you speak.

If you have criticisms, that's fine, but again, this is the scientific
consensus and not my area of expertise-- I'll have to direct you to Wikipedia.

~~~
leephillips
I'm pretty ignorant about linguists, so, honest question: if AAVE is
considered "equal" to Standard English, why is it called a vernacular?

~~~
Cushman
It's a fuzzy line-- the old adage "a language is a dialect with an army and a
navy" is more or less accurate. If you're the official language of a country
or religion, or are used extensively in business or politics, you get to be
"Standard". If you're only spoken by a sub-national cultural group, or appear
only in "informal" media and popular culture, you're just a dialect. The
distinction itself actually is controversial, see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(linguistics)>

Not that there's anything wrong with having a standard language for business
or politics, as long as you don't think that says something about people who
grew up in the wrong place or class.

~~~
leephillips
I think I get all that. So is there room for the idea of a vernacular that is
not a "real English", to use your term? Or not the "relative equal" of
Standard English? Can there be, or are there in the wild, vernaculars that are
something other than these things?

~~~
Cushman
Absolutely, and I would take jargons as an example. American Legal English is
a kind of English, but it's not "real" in the sense that there are ideas in
English that it can't properly express, and vice versa, and even skilled legal
practitioners frequently make inconsistent mistakes. This is predicted by the
fact that it is learned in adulthood; the language has no native speakers.
Conversely, among languages spoken from birth, we expect and find that they
are internally consistent and of roughly equivalent expressive value.

------
leephillips
I might be deaf to this. I watched the interview with some girl I never heard
of and, although I found her very annoying for several reasons, I couldn't
hear the "creaky voice" thing.

~~~
josephers
Here's another article, and a good voice example:

[http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/12/vocal-fry-
cree...](http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/12/vocal-fry-creeping-
into-us-speec.html)

<http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/vocalfryshort.mp3>

~~~
jkbyc
I hear it in your example but I don't in the interview. Isn't that her normal
voice?

Or is she singing a whole song with vocal fry?
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ThRVUcmSa0> (Dream a Little Dream of Me)

~~~
scott_s
When she first starts talking, it's in how she says "I did, yeah..."

------
JonnieCache
Also fun to try: justifying ones use of "innit" as a general purpose tag with
reference to the french _"n'est-ce pas."_ This drives people up the wall, as
there's no comeback to it, and it invokes the shallow europhilism which the
kind of person who tells me off for saying "innit" typically indulges in
constantly.

~~~
Osmium
Don't disagree with you, but I imagine those people would have less problem
with "isn't it?" vs "innit?"

~~~
JonnieCache
True, but that would overlook the other purpose of linguistic tags like that,
which is to improve the rhythm of speech. The french know all about this.

Plus I just like saying it.

------
bluthru
The author never makes a case for why vocal fry might be warranted.

I personally find vocal fry to be annoying because it's the linguistic version
of slouching. Support your voice properly and clearly speak so the other
person can hear you. Vocal fry is just another manifestation of "I'm cool
because I don't care."

~~~
Cushman
Excuse me, who "warrants" the way _you_ talk?

~~~
defen
If we assume that speakers have conscious control over both their words and
manner of delivery, then the sentence can be read as "what is the _intent_ of
the speaker who uses vocal fry", and not "what external authority has approved
the use of this manner of speech." Your response reads like you were looking
to get offended / pick a fight.

~~~
Cushman
> If we assume that speakers have conscious control over both their words and
> manner of delivery

Whoa, whoa, back up. Why should we assume that? Some level of control, sure.
Nowhere near absolute.

And yeah, I'm offended by anyone who tries to critique the way other people
talk while at the same time going around talking the way _they_ talk all
willy-nilly without concern for who they might be annoying.

It's speech. Everyone has inner thoughts and feelings they want to express. If
they're trying to communicate in good faith, just let it go.

~~~
defen
I can't speak for OP, but you insist on reading it as a criticism, when it
seems to me more of a question in the spirit of scientific inquiry - at what
times does a user of the "vocal fry" consider it appropriate? In the linked
interview with Zooey Deschanel, she's not using it with every word she speaks.
So I think it's natural for someone unfamiliar with this speech pattern to
wonder why it's used in some places and not others. Is that a verboten
question?

~~~
Cushman
If this:

> Vocal fry is just another manifestation of "I'm cool because I don't care."

is in the spirit of scientific inquiry and not a value judgment, then I
probably need to get some fresh air.

------
Shish2k
> Had [old white dudes] been the ones to pioneer these tics, we'd be praising
> them as enriching expansions of the language. We'd be reading The, Like, New
> Yorker

I wasn't aware (and still don't care) which social group started adding "like"
to everything; the reason it bothers me is that it adds noise without adding
signal...

(Though I'm not a linguist; maybe there is some signal there that I'm just not
consciously aware of?)

~~~
Cushman
Personally I've observed many meanings in use. As an adverb it means
"figuratively" or "approximately". As a hedge word it more generally disclaims
that what follows may be inaccurate or metaphorical. It's used in the place of
"to say" or "to impart", filling in for the lack of a word which applies
equally to text messages as to speech, with the implication (since it's a
hedge) that the quoted speech is likely re- or paraphrased. It can be used as
a mild intensifier, as in, "Okay, but, like..."; despite what you may think,
simply adding weight to a phrase can and does alter it semantically. So it's a
very versatile word, and there are other uses I've missed. And of course, it
is used purely as a stall (er, a disfluency), though not heavily outside of a
few dialects.

All of this falls under the linguistic study of "discourse", the way humans
talk in real-world communication with each other. In linguistics, rules of
discourse are real and as important as rules of grammar. Nobody uses only
"approved" words or meanings of words or interactions of words; the ideas
human beings communicate are more complex than that.

Having laid all that out, I'll say something you'll probably find challenging:
the real reason you don't like it is because _you don't know what it means_.
Which is of course the point of it, and the reason to label it as innovation.

------
neilk
If you can't hear it in Zooey Deschanel's voice, a desk clerk with extravagant
vocal fry was a gag in the movie Young Adult. Here's just a part of the scene
(2nd clip on the page)

<http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/young-adult-clips/>

------
btbuildem
Clever, clever article. Anything you say in criticism of it will get you
labelled an Old White Dude.

------
zeteo
I sure hope next generation's NORMs won't speak in creaky voices. This looks a
lot more like another cycle of fashion than true "ingenious" "innovation".
What society-wide improvements in communication does it effect?

------
ceautery
There was a good discussion about this on Language Hat a few months ago:

<http://www.languagehat.com/archives/004914.php>

------
olgeni
> judgments about speech are judgments about the speakers themselves.

And so is "old white dudes".

> When it comes to language, the rules of natural selection apply: Evolve or
> perish.

I demand strong affirmative action for the less privileged languages.

