Visual Representations of Acoustic Data: A Survey and Suggestions

References

• Baken, R., & Orlikoff, R. F. (2000). Clinical measurement of speech and voice (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Singular.
   Google Scholar
• Barthel, H., & Quené, H. (2015, August). Acoustic-phonetic properties of smiling revised—Measurements on a natural video corpus. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow, Scotland. Retrieved from https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ICPHS0337.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). Double sayings of German JA—More observations on their phonetic form and alignment function. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(2), 157–185. doi:10.1080/08351813.2011.567099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betz, E., & Golato, A. (2008). Remembering relevant information and withholding relevant next actions: The German token achja. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 58–98. doi:10.1080/08351810701691164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2017). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E., & Raymond, C. W. (2015). Modular pivots: A resource for extending turns at talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(4), 388–405. doi:10.1080/08351813.2015.1090112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). The prosody of repetition: On quoting and mimicry. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 366–405). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher, H. (1934). Loudness, pitch and the timbre of musical tones and their relation to the intensity, the frequency and the overtone structure. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 6(2), 59–69. doi:10.1121/1.1915704
   Google Scholar
• Golato, A. (2012). German oh: Marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 245–268. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.699253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golato, A., & Fagyal, Z. (2008). Comparing single and double sayings of the German response token ja and the role of prosody: A conversation analytic perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 241–270. doi:10.1080/08351810802237834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorisch, J., Wells, B., & Brown, G. J. (2012). Pitch contour matching and interactional alignment across turns: An acoustic investigation. Language and Speech, 55(1), 57–76. doi:10.1177/0023830911428874
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helasvuo, M. L., Laakso, M., & Sorjonen, M. L. (2004). Searching for words: Syntactic and sequential construction of word search in conversations of Finnish speakers with aphasia. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(1), 1–37. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3701_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellermann, J. (2005). Syntactic and prosodic practices for cohesion in series of three-part sequences in classroom talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(1), 105–130. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A. (2004). Crying: Notes on description, transcription, and interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(3), 251–290. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2007). Crying receipts: Time, empathy, and institutional practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(1), 89–116. doi:10.1080/08351810701331299
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollien, H., Hollien, P. A., & De Jong, G. (1997). Effects of three parameters on speaking fundamental frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102(5), 2984–2992. doi:10.1121/1.420353
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horii, Y. (1975). Some statistical characteristics of voice fundamental frequency. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 18(1), 192–201. doi:10.1121/1.1981923
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, B. (2007). “Everything happened so quickly?” HRT intonation in New Zealand courtrooms. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(2–3), 227–254. doi:10.1080/08351810701354672
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, K. (2003). Acoustic & auditory phonetics (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Kaimaki, M. (2011). Transition relevance and the phonetic design of English call openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(8), 2130–2147. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler, K. J. (2008). “Speech-smile,” “speech-laugh,” “laughter” and their sequencing in dialogic interaction. Phonetica, 65(1–2), 1–18. doi:10.1159/000130013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler, K. J. (2013). From communicative functions to prosodic forms. Phonetica, 70(1–2), 24–65. doi:10.1159/000351415
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreiman, J., & Sidtis, D. (2011). Foundations of voice studies: An interdisciplinary approach to voice production and perception. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lennes, M., Stevanovic, M., Alto, D., & Palo, P. (2015). Comparing pitch distributions using Praat and R. The Phonetician, 111–112, 35–53.
   Google Scholar
• Local, J. (2005). On the interactional and phonetic design of collaborative completions. In W. Hardcastle & J. M. Beck (Eds.), A figure of speech: A festschrift for John Laver (pp. 263–282). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Local, J., & Walker, G. (2012). How phonetic features project more talk. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 42(3), 255–280. doi:10.1017/s0025100312000187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacMartin, C., Coe, J. B., & Adams, C. L. (2014). Treating distressed animals as participants: I know responses in veterinarians’ pet-directed talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(2), 151–174. doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.900219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, R. W. (2001). Americans’ talk to dogs: Similarities and differences with talk to infants. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(2), 183–210. doi:10.1207/S15327973RLSI34-2_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakamura, K. (2001). Gender and language in Japanese preschool children. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(1), 15–43. doi:10.1207/S15327973RLSI3401_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishio, M., & Niimi, S. (2008). Changes in speaking fundamental frequency characteristics with aging. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 60(3), 120–127. doi:10.1159/000118510
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogden, R. (2001). Turn transition, creak and glottal stop in Finnish talk-in-interaction. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31(1), 139–152. doi:10.1017/s0025100301001116
   Google Scholar
• Ogden, R. (2009). An introduction to English phonetics. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ogden, R. (2013). Clicks and percussives in English conversation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 43(3), 299–320. doi:10.1017/s0025100313000224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peppé, S. (2009). Why is prosody in speech-language pathology so difficult? International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(4), 258–271. doi:10.1080/17549500902906339
   Google Scholar
• Persson, R. (2013). Intonation and sequential organization: Formulations in French talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 19–38. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce, J. R. (1992). The science of musical sounds (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Pillet-Shore, D. (2012). Greeting: Displaying stance through prosodic recipient design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 375–398. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.724994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podesva, R. J., Callier, P., Voigt, R., & Jurafsky, D. (2015, August). The connection between smiling and GOAT fronting: Embodied affect in sociophonetic variation. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow, Scotland. Retrieved from https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ICPHS0343.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Reetz, H., & Jongman, A. (2009). Phonetics: Transcription, production, acoustics, and perception. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Rendle-Short, J. (2005). Managing the transitions between talk and silence in the academic monologue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 179–218. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D., & Kevoe-Feldman, H. (2010). Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’ questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(3), 232–259. doi:10.1080/08351813.2010.497990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2016). Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(2), 148–166. doi:10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szczepek Reed, B. (2015). Managing the boundary between “yes” and “but”: Two ways of disaffiliating with German ja aber and jaber. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 32–57. doi:10.1080/08351813.2015.993843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szczepek Reed, B., & Persson, R. (2016). How speakers of different languages extend their turns: Word linking and glottalization in French and German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(2), 128–147. doi:10.1080/08351813.2016.1164405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tartter, V. C. (1980). Happy talk: Perceptual and acoustic effects of smiling on speech. Perception & Psychophysics, 27(1), 24–27. doi:10.3758/bf03199901
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, G. (2012). Coordination and interpretation of vocal and visible resources: “Trail-off” conjunctions. Language and Speech, 55(1), 141–163. doi:10.1177/0023830911428858
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, G. (2013). Phonetics and prosody in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 455–474). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, G. (2016). Phonetic variation and interactional contingencies in simultaneous responses. Discourse Processes, 53(4), 298–324. doi:10.1080/0163853x.2015.1056073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, T. (2014a). Form ≠ function: The independence of prosody and action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.871792
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, T. (2014b). The independence of phonetic form and interactional accomplishments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(1), 23–27. doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.871796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wier, C. C., Jesteadt, W., & Green, D. M. (1977). Frequency discrimination as a function of frequency and sensation level. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61(1), 178–184. doi:10.1121/1.381251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiggins, S. (2002). Talking with your mouth full: Gustatory mmms and the embodiment of pleasure. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 311–336. doi:10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R., Beeke, S., & Maxim, J. (2010). Formulating actions and events with limited linguistic resources: Enactment and iconicity in agrammatic aphasic talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 57–84. doi:10.1080/08351810903471506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar