Is Zoom viable for sociophonetic research? A comparison of in-person and online recordings for vocalic analysis

References

Adank, Patti, Roel Smits & Roeland Van Hout. 2004. A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116. 3099. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1795335.Search in Google Scholar

Audacity. 2020. Sample rates. Audacity 2.4.2 Manual. Available at: https://manual.audacityteam.org/man/sample_rates.html.Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Bolker Ben & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Search in Google Scholar

Boberg, Charles. 2005. The Canadian shift in Montreal. Language Variation and Change 17(2). 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394505050064.Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2021. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer, version 6.1.42 [Computer program]. Available at: http://www.praat.org/.Search in Google Scholar

Bulgin, James, DeDecker Paul & Jennifer Nycz. 2010. Reliability of formant measurements from lossy compressed audio. Paper presented at British Association of Academic Phoneticians Colloquium, London, 29–31 March.Search in Google Scholar

Calder, Jeremy. 2019a. The fierceness of fronted /s/: Linguistic rhematization through visual transformation. Language in Society 48(1). 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/s004740451800115x.Search in Google Scholar

Calder, Jeremy. 2019b. From sissy to sickening: The indexical landscape of /s/ in SoMa, San Francisco. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 29(3). 332–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12218.Search in Google Scholar

Calder, Jeremy & Rebecca Wheeler. In press. Is Zoom viable for sociophonetic research? A comparison of in-person and online recordings for sibilant analysis. Linguistics Vanguard.10.1515/lingvan-2021-0014Search in Google Scholar

Clarke, Sandra, Elms Ford & Amani Youssef. 1995. The third dialect of English: Some Canadian evidence. Language Variation and Change 7(2). 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394500000995.Search in Google Scholar

DeDecker, Paul. 2016. An evaluation of noise on LPC-based vowel formant estimates: Implications for sociolinguistic data collection. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1). 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0010.Search in Google Scholar

DeDecker, Paul & Jennifer Nycz. 2011. For the record: Which digital media can be used for sociophonetic analysis? University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17(2).Search in Google Scholar

DeDecker, Paul & Jennifer Nycz. 2013. The technology of conducting sociolinguistic interviews. In Christine Mallinson, Becky Childs & Gerard Van Herk (eds.), Data collection in sociolinguistics: Methods and applications, 123–130. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

D’Onofrio, Annette & Jamie Benheim. 2020. Contextualizing reversal: Local dynamics of the Northern Cities shift in a Chicago community. Journal of Sociolinguistics 24(4). 469–491.10.1111/josl.12398Search in Google Scholar

D’Onofrio, Annette, Penelope Eckert, Robert Podesva, Teresa Pratt & Janneke Van Hofwegen. 2016. The low vowels in California’s Central Valley. Publication of the American Dialect Society 101(1). 11–32.10.1215/00031283-3772879Search in Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope. 1989. Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in a high school. New York: Teachers College Press.Search in Google Scholar

ELAN, version 6.0 [Computer program]. 2020. The Language Archive. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Available at: https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan/.Search in Google Scholar

Fabricius, Anne, Dominic Watt & Daniel Ezra Johnson. 2009. A comparison of three speaker-intrinsic vowel formant frequency normalization algorithms for sociophonetics. Language Variation and Change 21(3). 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394509990160.Search in Google Scholar

Freeman, Valerie & Paul DeDecker. 2021. Remote sociophonetic data collection: Vowels and nasalization over video conferencing apps. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 149. 1211. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0003529.Search in Google Scholar

Hagiwara, Robert. 1997. Dialect variation and formant frequency: The American English vowels revisited. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102. 655–658. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.419712.Search in Google Scholar

Hall-Lew, Lauren & Zac Boyd. 2017. Phonetic variation and self-recorded data. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 23(2). 85–95.Search in Google Scholar

Hall-Lew, Lauren & Zac Boyd. 2020. Sociophonetic perspectives on stylistic diversity in speech research. Linguistics Vanguard 6(s1). https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0063.Search in Google Scholar

Hall-Lew, Lauren & Bartlomiej Plichta. 2013. Technological challenges in sociolinguistic data collection. In Christine Mallinson, Becky Childs & Gerard Van Herk (eds.), Data collection in sociolinguistics: Methods and applications, 131–133. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315535258-27Search in Google Scholar

Heffernan, Kevin. 2010. Mumbling is macho: Phonetic distinctiveness in the speech of American radio DJs. American Speech 85(1). 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2010-003.Search in Google Scholar

Hillenbrand, James, Laura A. Getty, Michael J. Clark & Kimberlee Wheeler. 1995. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97. 3099. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.411872.Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1(1). 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006576.Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In John Baugh & Joel Sherzer (eds.), Language in use, 28–53. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William, Sharon Ash & Charles Boberg. 2006. The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110167467Search in Google Scholar

Leemann, Adrian, Marie-José Kolly, Purves Ross, David Britain & Elvira Glaser. 2016. Crowdsourcing language change with smartphone applications. PLoS ONE 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143060.Search in Google Scholar

Leemann, Adrian, Péter Jeszenszky, Carina Steiner, Melanie Studerus & Jan Messerli. 2020. Linguistic fieldwork in a pandemic: Supervised data collection combining smartphone recordings and videoconferencing. Linguistics Vanguard 6(s3). https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0061.Search in Google Scholar

Lobanov, Boris M. 1971. Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49(2b). 606–608. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912396.Search in Google Scholar

Meyerhoff, Miriam, Erik Schleef & Lauren MacKenzie. 2015. Doing sociolinguistics: A practical guide to data collection and analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315723167Search in Google Scholar

Miles-Hercules, Deandre & Lal Zimman. 2019. Normativity in normalization: Methodological challenges in the (automated) analysis of vowels among nonbinary speakers. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 48, Eugene, OR, 12 October.Search in Google Scholar

Podesva, Robert J., Annette D’Onofrio, Janneke Van Hofwegen & Seung Kyung Kim. 2015. Country ideology and the California vowel shift. Language Variation and Change 48. 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/s095439451500006x.Search in Google Scholar

Rosenfelder, Ingrid, Josef Fruehwald, Keelan Evanini, Seyfarth Scott, Kyle Gorman, Hilary Prichard & Jiahong Yuan. 2015. FAVE (Forced alignment and vowel extraction), version 1.1.3. ZENODO.Search in Google Scholar

RStudio Team. 2020. RStudio. Boston, MA: Integrated development for R. RStudio.Search in Google Scholar

Schilling, Natalie. 2013. Sociolinguistic fieldwork (key Topics in sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511980541Search in Google Scholar

Svec, Jan G. & Svante Granqvist. 2010. Guidelines for selecting microphones for human voice production research. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 19. 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0091).Search in Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation (key topics in sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801624Search in Google Scholar

Thomas, Erik R. 2004. Rural Southern white accents. In Bernd Kortmann & Edgar W. Schneider (eds.), A handbook of varieties of English: A multimedia reference tool, 300–324. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197181-022Search in Google Scholar

Thomas, Erik R. & Tyler Kendall. 2007. NORM: The vowel normalization and plotting suite. http://ncslaap.lib.ncsu.edu/tools/norm/ (accessed 15 November 2020).Search in Google Scholar

Titze, Ingo R. & William S. Winholtz. 1993. Effect of microphone type and placement on voice perturbation measurements. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36. 1177–1190. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3606.1177.Search in Google Scholar

Van Hofwegen, Janneke. 2016. A day in the life: What self-recordings reveal about “everyday” language. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV 45), Vancouver, BC, 3–6 November.Search in Google Scholar

Van Hofwegen, Janneke. 2017. The systematicity of style: Investigating the full range of variation in everyday speech. Stanford: Stanford University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Wagner, Madison, Milenkovic Paul, Ray D. Kent & Houri K. Vorperian. 2017. Effects of sampling rate of speech waveform acoustic measurements. Paper presented at Undergraduate Research Symposium, Madison, WI, 13 April.Search in Google Scholar