UCLA

The problem of characterizing voice quality has long caused debate and frustration. The richness of the available descriptive vocabulary is overwhelming, but the density and complexity of the information voices convey lead some to conclude that language can never adequately specify what we hear. Others argue that terminology lacks an empirical basis, so that language-based scales are inadequate a priori. Efforts to provide meaningful instrumental characterizations have also had limited success. Such measures may capture sound patterns but cannot at present explain what characteristics, intentions, or identity listeners attribute to the speaker based on those patterns. However, some terms continually reappear across studies. These terms align with acoustic dimensions accounting for variance across speakers and languages and correlate with size and arousal across species. This suggests that labels for quality rest on a bedrock of biology: We have evolved to perceive voices in terms of size/arousal, and these factors structure both voice acoustics and descriptive language. Such linkages could help integrate studies of signals and their meaning, producing a truly interdisciplinary approach to the study of voice.