Наслеђе 49 (2021), стр. 29-46

АУТОР(И): Кристина Д. Томић, Катарина С. Миленковић


Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/NasKg2149.029T


Forensic speaker profiling is a procedure employed in criminal cases where there is a voice recording of the criminal, but there is no suspect. It encompasses determining the age, gender, origin or socio-economic status of the recorded speaker (Rose 2002; Kašić, Đorđević 2009a; Jessen 2010). One of the challenges of modern forensic phonetic science is speaker profiling from the voice sample in a foreign language. In the current research, we analyzed the vowel duration of five speakers from Novi Sad and five speakers from Niš, when they were speaking spontaneously in their mother tongue, Serbian, and in a foreign language, English. We compared the quantity of vowels of each group of speakers within-language and across languages. The acoustic analysis of vowels was performed manually in Praat (Boersma, Weenink 2018), by looking at the spectrogram and waveform of the recordings. To test the difference in means of two groups of data, we used the Welch t-test (Welch 1947). Our results show that urban speakers from Niš and Novi Sad do not exhibit statistically significant differences in the duration  of their English vowels. However, certain duration relations that exist between vowels may be indicative of one’s native dialect.


forensic phonetics, forensic speaker profiling, vowel duration, urban Niš speech, urban Novi Sad speech


  • Bakran 1996: J. Bakran, Zvučna slika hrvatskoga govora. Zagreb: Ibis grafika. Baldwin, French 1990: J. Baldwin, P. French, Forensic Phonetics. London: Pinter.
  • Bjelaković 2018: A. Bjelaković, Vokali savremenog standardnog britanskog izgovora i njihovo usvajanje kod izvornih govornika srpskog jezika. Beograd: Doktor- ska disertacija.
  • Boersma, Weenick 2018: P. Boersma, D. Weenick, Praat: Doing Phonetics by Com- puter (Version 6.0.42) [Computer program}. Retrieved August 16th, 2018, from
  • Bowman, Azzalini 2003: A. W. Bowman, A. Azzalini, Computational aspects of non- parametric smoothing with illustrations from the sm library. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 42, 545-560. doi:10.1016/S0167-9473(02)00118-4
  • Broeders 2001: A. P. Broeders, Forensic Speech and Audio Analysis Forensic Linguis- tics 1998 to 2001: A Review. Proceedings of the ‘13th INTERPOL Forensic Sci- ence Symposium’. Lyon, France.
  • Coulthard, Johnson 2007: M. Coulthard, A. Johnson, An Introduction to Forensic Lin- guistics: Language in Evidence. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
  • Čubrović 2016: Čubrović, B. (2016). Acoustic Investigations of Serbian and Ameri- can English Vowel Inventories. Belgrade: University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philology.
  • Čubrović 2019: Čubrović, B. (2019). Duration as a Phonetic Cue in Native and Non Native American English. English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries, 16(1), 15-28. doi:10.4312/elope.16.1.15–28
  • Cruttenden 2002: Cruttenden, A. (2008). Gimson’s Pronunciation of English (Seventh ed.). London: Hodder Education.
  • De Jong-Lende et al. 2017: G. de Jong-Lendle, R. Kehrein, F. Urke, J. Molezanow, A. Georg, B. Fingerling, S. Franchini, O. Köster, C. Ulbrich, Language iden- tification from a foreign accent in German. Book of abstracts – 26th Annual Conference of the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acous- tics, Split, Croatia, 9th – 12th July 2017 (pp. 135-138). Zagreb: Croatian Phil- ological Association.
  • Derrick et al. 2016: B. Derrick, D. Toher, P. White, Why Welch’s test is Type I error robust. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(1), 30-38. doi:10.20982/ tqmp.12.1.p030
  • Du Bois et al. 1993: J. Du Bois, S. Schuetze-Coburn, S. Cumming, D. Paolino, Outline of discourse transcription. In J. E. Edwards, & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research (pp. 45-89). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Elliott, Kuper 2017: T. Elliott, M. Kuper, iNZight: iNZight GUI for Data Explora- tion and Visualisation (version 3.1.1) {Computer program}. Auckland, NZ. Retrieved August 16th, 2018, from iNZight/getinzight.php
  • Fingerland 2012: M. W. Fingerland, t-tests, non-parametric tests, and large stud- ies—a paradox of statistical practice? BMC Medical Research Methodology. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-78
  • Fischer-Jorgensen 1964: Fischer-Jorgensen, E.  (1964).  Sound  duration  and  place of articulation. Zeitschrift fur Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikations- forschung, 17, 175-207.
  • French 2017: P. French, A developmental history of forensic speaker comparison in the UK. In English Phonetics (pp. 271-286). Retrieved October 5th, 2018, from
  • Gold 2014: E. A. Gold, Calculating likelihood ratios for forensic speaker comparisons using phonetic and linguistic parameters. PhD Thesis. The Unversity of York, Department of Language and Linguistic Science.
  • Heffner 1937: Heffner, R.-M. S. (1937). Notes on the length of vowels. American Speech, 12(2), 128-134. doi:10.2307/452621
  • Hollien 2012: H. Hollien, About Forensic Phonetics. Linguistica. 52, p. 27-53. Lju- bljana: Tiskana. doi:10.4312/linguistica.52.1.27-53
  • Hollien 1990: H. Hollien, The Acoustics of Crime: The New Science of Forensic Phonet- ics. New York: Springer.
  • House, Fairbanks 1953: House, A. S., & Fairbanks, G. (1953). The influence of conso- nant environment upon the secondary acoustical characteristics of vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 105-113. doi:1.1906982
  • Ivić 1956: P. Ivić, Dijalektologija srpskohrvatskog jezika. Uvod u štokavsko narečje. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska.
  • Ivić, Lehiste 2002: P. Ivić, I. Lehiste, O srpskohrvatskim akcentima. (D. Petrović, Ed.) Novi Sad: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića.
  • Jessen 2010: M. Jessen, The forensic phonetician: Forensic speaker identification by experts. In M. Coulthard, & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (p. 702). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
  • Kašić, Đorđević 2009a: Z. Kašić, J. P. Đorđević, Ostaci automatizma artikulacione baze kao forenzički markeri. ETRAN 2009 Zbornik Radova. Vrnjačka Banja.
  • Kašić, Đorđević 2009b: Z. Kašić, J. P. Đorđević, Zašto je lingvistika postala forenzička veština. U D. Radovanović (Ur.), Istraživanja u specijalnoj pedagogiji (p. 469- 482). Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu – Fakultet za specijalnu edukaciju i rehabilitaciju.
  • Kreidler 1989/2004: C. W. Kreidler, The Pronunciation of English: A Course Book. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Künzel 2013: H. Künzel, Automatic speaker recognition with crosslanguage speech material. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 20(1), 21-44. doi:10.1558/ijsll.v20i1.21
  • Ladefoged 2001: P. Ladefoged, Vowels and Consonants: An Introduction to the Sounds of Language. Massachusetts, Oxford : Blackwell Publishers.
  • Ladefoged, Johnson 2010: P. Ladefoged, K. Johnson, A Course in Phonetics (6th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
  • Laver 1994: J. Laver, Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehiste 1970: I. Lehiste, Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press.
  • Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 2009: Fifth Edition. Pearson Educa- tion Limited.
  • Marković 2009a: M. Marković, Different Strategies in Acquiring L2 Vowels: The Pro- duction of High English Vowels /iː, ɪ, uː, ʊ/ by Native Speakers of Serbian. In Čubrović, & T. Paunović (Eds.), Ta(l)king English Phonetics Across Fron- tiers, (pp. 3-18). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Marković 2009b: M. Marković, Perception and production of English vowels /e/  and
  • /æ/ by native speakers of Serbian. In A. Tsangalidis (Ed.), Selected Papers from the 18th International Symposium of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, (pp. 253-262). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Retrieved September 1st, 2018, from
  • Marković, Bjelaković 2009: M. Marković, I. Bjelaković, Kvantitet naglašenih vokala u govoru Novog Sada. In Ž. Bošnjaković (Ed.), Govor Novog Sada. Sveska 1: Fonetske osobine (pp. 148-158). Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet, Odsek za srski jezik i lingvistiku.
  • Marković, Jakovljević 2016: M. Marković, B. Jakovljević, Phonetic cue interpre- tation in the acquisition of a non-native vocalic contrast. Annual Review     of the Faculty of Philosophy, Novi Sad, 41(1), pp. 215-227. doi:10.19090/ gff.2016.1.215-227
  • Nolan 1997: F. Nolan, Speaker Recognition and Forensic Phonetics. in W. J. Hardcas- tle, & J. Laver (Eds), The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences (p. 744-767). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Olsson 2008: J. Olsson, Forensic Linguistics (Second edition ed.). London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  • Paunović 2011: T. Paunović, Sounds Serbian? Acoustic properties of Serbian EFL stu- dents’ speech. İn E. Kitis, N. Lavidas, N. Topintzi, & T. Tsangalidis (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 19th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (ISTAL19) içinde (p. 357-369). Thesaloniki: Aristotle University of Thesaloniky, School of English, Department of Theoretical & Applied Linguistics.
  • Peterson, Lehiste 1960: Peterson, G. E., & Lehiste, I. (1960). Duration of syllable nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of Ameri, 32(6), 693-703. doi:10.1121/1.1908183
  • Roach 1991: P. Roach, English Phonetics and Phonology: A Practical Course (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rose 2002: P. Rose, Forensic Speaker Identification. London and New York: Taylor & Francis.
  • RStudio Team 2016: RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA. Retrieved November 15th, 2016, from
  • Ruxton 2006: G. D. Ruxton, The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student’s t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test. Behavioral Ecology, 17(4), 688-690. doi:10.1093/beheco/ark016
  • Simić, Ostojić 1996: R. Simić, B. Ostojić, Osnovi fonologije srpskog književnog jezika. Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogrdu.
  • Sovilj-Nikić 2010: S. Sovilj-Nikić, Trajanje glasova i faktori koji ga određuju u srp- skom i drugim jezicima. 18. Telekomunikacioni forum TELFOR, (pp. 602- 605). Beograd, November 23rd-25th, 2010.
  • Sredojević 2017: D. Sredojević, Fonetsko-fonološki opis akcenata u standardnom srp- skom jeziku: od specifičnog ka opštem. Novi Sad: Sajnos.
  • Stanojčić, Popović 1986: Ž. Stanojčić, L. Popović, Gramatika srpskoga jezika za gim- nazije i srednje škole. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike.
  • Subotić et al. 2012: Lj. Subotić, D. Sredojević, I. Bjelaković, Fonetika i fonologija: ortoepska i ortografska norma standardnog srpskog jezika. Novi Sad: Filozof- ski fakultet Novi Sad.
  • Sudimac 2016: N. Sudimac, Sociofonetski pregled na srpske jezičke varijetete – Percepcija. Akustika. Stavovi. Philologia Mediana, 8, 555-586. Retrieved January 10th, 2019, from download/1526_4318554ee9bbcdea974caf8a167e7635
  • Tomić, Milenković 2019: Tomić, K., & Milenković, K. (2019). Forenzičko profilisanje govornika iz uzorka na engleskom kao stranom jeziku – analiza kvaliteta  vokala. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku, 62(1), 151-170.
  • Watson, Harrington 1999: C. I. Watson, J. Harrington, Acoustic evidence for dynamic formant trajectories in Australian English vowels. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 106(1), 458-468. doi:10.1121/1.427069
  • Welch 1947: B. L. Welch, The generalization of student’s’ problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika, 34(1), 28-35. doi:10.2307/2332510