Cover not available
Part of
Above and Beyond the Segments: Experimental linguistics and phonetics
Edited by Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller and Ellen van Zanten
[Not in series 189] 2014
► pp. 14–27

Whose voice is that? Challenges in forensic phonetics

In this paper, we explore speaker recognition as a process that is based partly on analysis of phonetic and linguistic features and partly on pattern recognition (Gestalt perception). Central to this paper is the challenge to incorporate the dual nature of speaker recognition in forensic casework. To meet this challenge, we propose the so-called “blind grouping” method. Blind grouping does not require verbal-analytic terminology, but requires the expert to compare anonymised fragments and arrange them into groups based on same-speaker and different-speaker judgements. It allows the forensic expert to use any strategy to reach a result, including pattern recognition and feature analysis. This method is proposed as a supplement to the traditional auditory-acoustic method.

Published online: 10 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.189.02cam
References
Abercrombie, D
(1967) Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, J., & French, P
(1990) Forensic phonetics. London and New York: Pinter.Google Scholar
Bever, T.G
(1975) Cerebral asymmetries in humans are due to the differentiation of two incompatible processes: Holistic and analytic. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 263, 251–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broeders, A.P.A
(2009) De blinde onderzoeker. Trema Tijdschrift voor de Rechterlijke Macht, 6, 237–243.Google Scholar
Cambier-Langeveld, T
(2007) Current methods in forensic speaker identification: Results of a collaborative exercise. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14(2), 223–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cambier-Langeveld, T., & van der Torre, E.J
(2004) Fighting the confirmation bias: blind grouping. Proceedings of IAFPA 13th Annual Conference. Helsinki, Finland, 28–31 July, 2004.
French, P., & Stevens, L
(2013) Forensic speech science. In M.J. Jones & R.-A. Knight (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Phonetics (pp. 183–197), London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gold, E., & French, P
(2011) International practices in forensic speaker comparison. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 18(2), 293–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollien, H
(1990) The acoustics of crime: The new science of forensic phonetics. New York and London: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Köster, O., Jessen, M., Khairi, F., & Eckert, H
(2007) Auditory-perceptual identification of voice quality by expert and non-expert listeners. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences , Saarbrücken, Germany , 6–10 August, 2007 (pp. 1845–1848).
Kreiman, J., & Sidtis, D.
(2011) Foundations of voice studies: An interdisciplinary approach to voice production and perception. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laver, J
(1980) The phonetic description of voice quality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1994) Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nolan, F
(2005) Forensic speaker identification and the phonetic description of voice quality. In W.J. Hardcastle & J. Mackenzie Beck (Eds.), A figure of speech: A festschrift for John Laver (pp. 385–411). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2012) Degrees of freedom in speech production: An argument for native speakers in LADO. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 19(2), 263–289.Google Scholar
Rietveld, A.C.M., & Van Heuven, V.J
(1997) Algemene fonetiek [General phonetics]. Bussum: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Robertson, B., & Vignaux, G.A
(1995) Interpreting evidence: Evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Schiller, N.O., & Köster, O
(1998) The ability of expert witnesses to identify voices: A comparison between trained and untrained listeners. Forensic Linguistics, 5(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Schreuder, M
(2011) Expectancy bias and forensic speaker identification. Presentation at IAFPA 20th Annual Conference . Vienna, Austria, 24–28 July, 2011.
Van Lancker, D., & Canter, G.J
(1982) Impairment of voice and face recognition in patients with hemispheric damage. Brain and Cognition, 1, 185–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, D., & Kreiman, J
(1986) Preservation of familiar speaker recognition but not unfamiliar speaker discrimination in aphasic patients. Clinical Aphasiology, 16, 234–240.Google Scholar
(1987) Unfamiliar voice discrimination and familiar voice recognition are independent and unordered abilities. Neuropsychologia, 25, 829–834. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeulen, J
(2010) Is an evidence line up a remedy for confirmation bias? Presentation at the workshop Forensic Phonetics – Problems, Limitations and Promises. Aarhus, Denmark, 17 September, 2010.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Da Silva, Albuquerque
2019. Explorando os dois lados do cérebro: a percepção holística da fala reversa (PHFR) sob a perspectiva forense. Revista Brasileira de Criminalística 8:1 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Van der Vloed, David & Tina Cambier-Langeveld
2023. How we use automatic speaker comparison in forensic practice. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 29:2 ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.