Rejoinder to Francis Nolan’s ‘The “telephone effect” on formants: a response’
Keywords:formants, FSI, telephone transmission, forensic phonetics
Abstractn his response to my article ‘Beware of the “telephone effect”: the influence of telephone transmission on the measurement of formant frequencies’, which appeared in Volume 8 Number 1 of this journal, Francis Nolan’s main concern seems to be that ‘forensic phoneticians who dispute the value of acoustic analysis’ might use the conclusions as an endorsement of ‘a complete exclusion of formants from the FSI process’ (p. 72). It is quite evident that in any science an author’s arguments can be understood, misunderstood or just interpreted differently, by different individuals. They can also be used for the pursuit of particular interests. The latter fact s of special relevance to FSI-related court cases where phoneticians as experts aim at convincing non-experts of their opinions. Although after reading Nolan’s response carefully I do not think my text may provide a basis for the misunderstanding that he is afraid of, even less that it may be mistaken as ‘a blanket interdiction on the use of spectral information in FSI’ (pp. 74–75), I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the essence of my conclusions.
How to Cite
Künzel, H. J. (2002). Rejoinder to Francis Nolan’s ‘The “telephone effect” on formants: a response’. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 9(1), 83–86. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v9i1.83
© Equinox Publishing Ltd.
For information regarding our Open Access policy, click here.