In previous research, acoustic characteristics of the male voice have been shown to signal various aspects of mate quality and threat potential. But the human voice is also a medium of linguistic communication. The present study explores whether physical and vocal indicators of male mate quality and threat potential are linked to effective communicative behaviors such as vowel differentiation and use of more salient phonetic variants of consonants. We show that physical and vocal indicators of male threat potential, height and formant position, are negatively linked to vowel space size, and that height and levels of circulating testosterone are negatively linked to the use of the aspirated variant of the alveolar stop consonant /t/. Thus, taller, more masculine men display less clarity in their speech and prefer phonetic variants that may be associated with masculine attributes such as toughness. These findings suggest that vocal signals of men’s mate quality and/or dominance are not confined to the realm of voice acoustics but extend to other aspects of communicative behavior, even if this means a trade-off with speech patterns that are considered communicatively advantageous, such as clarity and indexical cues to higher social class.
KeywordsVowel space Allophones Sex differences
- Boersma, P., Weenink, D. (2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program] Version 5316, retrieved May 30, 2012 from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/.
- Fant, G. (1966). A note on vocal tract size factors and non-uniform F-pattern scalings. STL- Quarterly Progress and Status Report, 4, 22–30.Google Scholar
- Fant, G. (1975). Non-uniform vowel normalization. STL-Quarterly Progress and Status Report, 2, 1–19.Google Scholar
- Fitch, T. W. (1994). Vocal tract length perception and the evolution of language. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Brown University.Google Scholar
- Kuhl, P. K., Andruski, J. E., Christovich, I. A., Christovich, L. A., Kozhevnikova, E. V., Ryskina, V. L., Stolyarova, E. I., Sundberg, U., & Lacerda, F. (1997). Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science, 277, 684–686. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5326.684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Macaulay, R. K. S. (1977). Language, social class, and education: A Glasgow study. Edinburgh: The University Press.Google Scholar
- O’Connor, J. J. M., Re, D. E., & Feinberg, D. R. (2011). Voice pitch influences perceptions of sexual infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 64–78.Google Scholar
- Rendall, D., Kollias, S., Ney, C., & Lloyd, P. (2005). Pitch (F0) and formant profiles of human vowels and vowel-like baboon grunts: the role of vocalizer body size and voice-acoustic allometry. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 944–955. doi: 10.1121/1.1848011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sell, A., Bryant, G. A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., Krauss, A., & Gurven, M. (2010). Adaptations in humans for assessing physical strength from the voice. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 277, 3509–3518. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Van Dommelen, W. A., & Moxness, B. H. (1995). Acoustic parameters in speaker height and weight identification: sex-specific behaviour. Language and Speech, 38, 267–287.Google Scholar