To answer this question, we first need to consider what is Phonetics. Phonetics is the science of speech. It involves the systematic study of speech in all its aspects, including:
Forensic phonetics is the use of expertise in phonetics for legal purposes, and the extension of research on phonetics to investigations relevant to legal situations. Some common applications of forensic phonetics include speaker identification, and transcription. More information on some applications are given below.
Phonetics is a branch of Linguistics, the science of language in all its aspects. Linguistics includes the study of grammar, pronunciation, conversation, language learning, history and origins of language, similarities and differences between languages, language learning, and many other sub-disciplines.
Forensic linguistics is the use of this science of Linguistics in legal cases. For more information see the International Association of Forensic Linguists (www.iafl.org), or Language in the Judicial Process http://www.outreach.utk.edu/ljp/. or the Birmingham Forensic Linguisitics site (http://web.bham.ac.uk/forensic/index.html).
For information more specific to Forensic Phonetics, go to the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics (IAFPA) http://www.iafpa.net/)
In all areas of phonetics and linguistics, there are important respects in which the results of research run counter to the everyday assumptions of ordinary educated people (see more on this below). It is very important to hire someone with suitable qualifications in the particular branch of Lingusitics or Phonetics that relates to your case. Guidance on this can be obtained from IAFL or IAFP.
There are also serious limitations on the ability of phonetic science to give reliable evidence. The International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics (IAFPA) has drawn up a Code of Practice to help ensure that legal evidence respects these limitations. Some of these limitations are discussed in the next sections. There are also some things forensic phonetics cannot or should rarely or never be used for. One of these is psychological profiling - making statements about a speaker's personality or state of mind based on characteristics of their voice.
The next important thing to consider is whether the material you have is suitable for phonetic analysis. Some guidance on this is given below.
Back to Contents
There isn't really a discrete discipline of Forensic Phonetics. The best way to get into Forensic Phonetics or Forensic Linguistics is to study Phonetics or Linguistics to a high level and then seek opportunities to use your expertise in forensic applications. However there are a few courses which enable people with a knowledge of Lingustics and Phonetics to study forensic issues. Information on some of these can be found here.
Great! It is a good thing if more people with a solid understanding of Phonetics and Linguistics get involved. There are several important things to bear in mind though. The main one is to stay strictly within your specific area of expertise. Another is to frame your evidence in ways that are useful to the courts but also remain true to the fundamental tenets of Linguistics and Phonetics. The best advice is to make contact with someone who has done a lot of work in this area and ask to discuss some of the issues. Good sources of general information and discussion are the Forensic List email discussion list maintained by Sue Blackwell (join via http://web.bham.ac.uk/forensic/) or the linguistlist website. You will also want to consult The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law. See their Table of Contents at www.iafpa.net
Most people know a great deal about speech, in the sense that they can use and interpret it in all its aspects. People's knowledge about speech, on the other hand, in the sense of ability to describe and analyse the properties of sounds and voices, is usually very limited - even if they are knowledgeable about the history of English, or are fluent in another language.
Unfortunately many people, despite this lack of knowledge about the nature of speech, have strongly held beliefs about speech, which are often quite erroneous from a scientific point of view. Many of these inaccuracies have to do with the assumption that speech is like writing.
It is understandable that people should think that speech is like writing. After all we were taught as children that letters represent sounds. Nevertheless, there are many respects in which speech is not like writing. For example, there no spaces between words in speech; the sounds of speech do not have a one-to-one correspondence with letters (even making allowances for the anomalies of the English alphabet); sounds are not discrete units like letters; the pronunciation of words can vary dramatically depending on the sentence they are spoken in, and so on.
Failure to appreciate these things (and other, more technical, facts about speech) can lead to serious misjudgments about the implications of speech data. In the next sections some important considerations about common uses of forensic phonetics are discussed.
There are two main kinds of speaker identification: auditory identification of the everyday kind (sometimes called 'naive speaker identification'), and identification by an expert in phonetics (sometimes called 'technical identification') which involves scientific analysis, both auditory and instrumental, of the speech. The sections following give a brief introduction to each of these. Readings by Nolan in the reference list below are recommended. See also Prof Nolan's homepage at http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~fjn1/#forensics
We are very used to the everyday experience of recognising someone by their voice, eg. on the telephone or in the next room. However it is rare that we put the accuracy and reliability of our identification abilities to the test. When this is done, it is clear that the accuracy of auditory identification cannot be taken for granted in a critical situation such as a legal case. In particular it seems clear that a person's confidence in identification does not always correlate well with their accuracy. On the other hand, some people seem to be naturally much more reliable in auditory identification than others.
Some factors which would serve to enhance the reliability of an auditory identification:
In some cases it is appropriate to test the witness's identification with a 'voice line-up' - or 'voice parade' - in which the witness is presented with a number of similar voices on a tape, and is asked to pick the accused person's voice from among them. The construction of materials for such a voice line-up is an extremely delicate matter, and certainly requires phonetic expertise. It is essential that there should be no way of identifying the suspect except by the personal characteristics of the voice. For example if some of the voices are reading or reciting and only one is spontaneous speech, or if background noise gives away the recording location of some speakers as a police station - then clearly the test is not a fair one, and could easily be criticised by opponents in a trial.
Technical identification and 'voiceprints'
Despite the portrayals of the media and entertainment industry, there are serious limitations on the ability of phoneticians to identify taped voices - or, as is usually the task, to match an unknown taped voice with a known taped voice. It is certainly not a matter of simply making 'voiceprints' which can be compared in the same way as fingerprints. In fact most phoneticians reject the tems 'voiceprint' precisely because it creates this erroneous picture in people's minds. (The correct term is 'spectrogram'.)
In general, it would be considered irresponsible by most professional phoneticians to make highly confident identifications based on this kind of material, unless in very unusual circumstances. However there are many cases in which a phonetician can give useful corroborative evidence regarding the identity of a taped speaker. Each case has to be treated on its merits, as it is rare to find two cases where all the same considerations hold good. For this reason, most phoneticians prefer to make a preliminary examination of the data and advise on the feasibility of the task before making any commitments as to their ability to reach a conclusion.
It should also be borne in mind that this type of phonetic analysis is very time consuming, requiring painstaking preparation of speech samples and close observation of their acoustic and other characteristics - and often considerable statistical analysis as well. It is usually not feasible to do a full scale analysis at very short notice.
Finally, such analysis should only ever be done by an accredited phonetician who is well-versed in the particular issues involved in voice identification (rather a minority specialisation even among speech experts). There have been cases of underqualified people being used to give this type of evidence. Not only do such cases bring bad repute to the discipline of phonetics, but it is generally easy for the opposition to discredit the evidence very substantially.
Factors to consider in judging the viability of technical speaker identification evidence:
The process of writing down what someone says may seem like a very simple one - but in fact it harbours a number of problematic issues, especially (but by no means only) if the listening conditions are poor.
It is a well established principle of psycholinguistics that people can be influenced in their perception of speech by their expectations about what is being said (see any textbook on psycholinguistics, eg. Massaro in reference list below).
The phonetic 'stuff' of speech under-determines its perception as meaningful language. It has been well known for many years, for example, that individual words excised from the flow of speech have very low intelligibility, even when they are perfectly clear in context.
In normal speech perception, the hearer 'fills in' information based on their knowledge of the language and their expectations and predictions in the particular context. This is generally understood as showing that speech perception involves both 'bottom-up' information, from the speech signal, and 'top-down' information from the hearer's knowledge system. Perception can therefore be influenced by the hearer's expectations, predictions or biases.
Well-known experiments for example have shown that if subjects are presented with poorly recorded speech, their perception can be altered depending on whether they are told it is a sentence about sport or a sentence about the weather.
It is also a common aspect of everyday experience that speech can be mis-heard. Psycholinguists and phonologists study these as useful data on speech processing. As just one example from large corpora of perception errors consider this one: 'That's unbelievable' heard as 'That's happened to me before'.
For further background on this topic please see
Fraser, H. 2003.‘Issues in Transcription: Factors affecting the reliability of transcripts as evidence in legal cases. Forensic Linguistics 10 (2) (available here)
What does all this have to do with transcripts in legal cases?
It simply means that the accuracy of a transcript should not be taken for granted, but needs to be demonstrated thoroughly. It does not mean that no transcript is ever reliable.
Guidelines for ensuring the accuracy of transcripts
Eades, D., Fraser, H., Siegel, J., McNamara, T. and Baker, B. 2003. ‘Linguistic identification in the determination of nationality: A preliminary report.’ Language Policy. 2.2. p.179-199. Eades, D., Fraser, H., Siegel, J., McNamara, T. and Baker, B. 2003. Linguistic identification in the determination of nationality: A preliminary report. (Report submitted to The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Aboriginal Affairs - available here). I can also let you have a copy of a radio interview on this topic (in MP3 format) broadcast on Australia's TRIPLE-J station in 2003. See also the article by Michael Erard in US magazine 'Legal Affairs', available here.
Eades, D., Fraser, H., Siegel, J., McNamara, T. and Baker, B. 2003. ‘Linguistic identification in the determination of nationality: A preliminary report.’ Language Policy. 2.2. p.179-199.
Eades, D., Fraser, H., Siegel, J., McNamara, T. and Baker, B. 2003. Linguistic identification in the determination of nationality: A preliminary report. (Report submitted to The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Aboriginal Affairs - available here).
I can also let you have a copy of a radio interview on this topic (in MP3 format) broadcast on Australia's TRIPLE-J station in 2003.
See also the article by Michael Erard in US magazine 'Legal Affairs', available here.
Sometimes there are allegations that a recording has been tampered with in some way. If determination of the facts involves analysis of characteristics of the recording equipment or background noise, it might be best to use the services of an engineer. If it involves analysis of the actual words spoken, it might be best to use the services of a phonetician.
It should be noted that despite the availability of digital techniques, and the ability of movie editors and others to create amazing effects, it is actually very difficult to insert or delete individual words in a flow of speech and leave an authentic sounding result. Depending on the exact nature of the material, a phonetician could be expected to detect this kind of tampering with some confidence.
(this section under construction; additional information gratefully received <hfraser@metz.une.edu.au>)
General Resource: Australian Legal Information Institute http://www.austlii.edu.au/
Regina v E. J. Smith (O'Brien CJ of Cr D). Supreme Court. 1984. NSWLR. 1.p.462-490. Regina v Brownlowe (Hunt J). Supreme Court. 1987. NSWLR. 7.p.466-469. Regina v Barry John Morris (96060301). Supreme Court of New South Wales. 1996. Regina v Tilley 1985 Victorian Law Reports p.505 Regina v Jamison NSW 1992 Regina v Van Thanh Hyunh (94060032). Supreme Court of New South Wales. 1996. Anton Bulejcik v The Queen F.C. 96/010 Criminal Law and Procedure High Court of Australia. 1996. Evidence Act 1995. NSW Consolidated Acts. 1995.
Regina v E. J. Smith (O'Brien CJ of Cr D). Supreme Court. 1984. NSWLR. 1.p.462-490.
Regina v Brownlowe (Hunt J). Supreme Court. 1987. NSWLR. 7.p.466-469.
Regina v Barry John Morris (96060301). Supreme Court of New South Wales. 1996.
Regina v Tilley 1985 Victorian Law Reports p.505
Regina v Jamison NSW 1992
Regina v Van Thanh Hyunh (94060032). Supreme Court of New South Wales. 1996.
Anton Bulejcik v The Queen F.C. 96/010 Criminal Law and Procedure High Court of Australia. 1996.
Evidence Act 1995. NSW Consolidated Acts. 1995.
The International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics (IAFPA) was formally established in York, England, in 1991. It seeks to foster research and provide a forum for the interchange of ideas and information on practice, development and research in forensic phonetics as well as to set down and enforce standards of professional conduct and procedure for those involved in forensic phonetic casework. Jointly, IAFPA and IAFL publish The Journal of Forensic Linguistics.
The Association has formulated a Code of Practice set out below. For more information on the IAFP see their website at www.iafpa.net
This is the new IAFPA Code of Practice which was approved by the AGM in Helsinki, 2004. 1. Members should act in all circumstances with integrity, fairness and impartiality. 2. Recognising the varied array of casework subsumed under the interests of IAFPA (eg speaker identification/elimination, speaker profiling, voice line-ups, transcription, authentication, signal enhancement, sound propagation at crime scenes), Members should maintain awareness of the limits of their knowledge and competencies when agreeing to carry out work. 3. Members should not enter into any arrangements in which remuneration is dependent on the outcome of the case. 4. Members should make clear, both in their reports and in giving evidence in court, the limitations of forensic phonetic and acoustic analysis. 5. In reporting on cases where an opinion or conclusion is required, Members should make clear their level of certainty and give an indication of where their conclusion lies in relation to the range of judgements they are prepared to give. 6. (a) Members should exercise particular caution if carrying out forensic analysis of any kind on recordings containing speech in languages of which they are not native speakers. (b) In carrying out forensic speaker identification/elimination work, Members should exercise particular caution if the samples for comparison are in different languages. (c) Members should exercise particular caution if carrying out authenticity or integrity examinations of recordings that are not claimed to be original. 7. Members undertaking forensic phonetic and acoustic analyses or operations of all kinds should state in their reports the methods they have followed and provide details of the equipment and computer programs used. 8. Members, in making their analysis, should take due account of the methods available at the time and of their appropriateness to the samples under examination. 9. Members should not attempt to do psychological profiles or assessments of the sincerity of speakers. 10. Members' reports should not include or exclude any material which has been suggested by others (in particular by those instructing them) unless that Member has formed an independent view.
This is the new IAFPA Code of Practice which was approved by the AGM in Helsinki, 2004.
1. Members should act in all circumstances with integrity, fairness and impartiality. 2. Recognising the varied array of casework subsumed under the interests of IAFPA (eg speaker identification/elimination, speaker profiling, voice line-ups, transcription, authentication, signal enhancement, sound propagation at crime scenes), Members should maintain awareness of the limits of their knowledge and competencies when agreeing to carry out work. 3. Members should not enter into any arrangements in which remuneration is dependent on the outcome of the case. 4. Members should make clear, both in their reports and in giving evidence in court, the limitations of forensic phonetic and acoustic analysis. 5. In reporting on cases where an opinion or conclusion is required, Members should make clear their level of certainty and give an indication of where their conclusion lies in relation to the range of judgements they are prepared to give. 6. (a) Members should exercise particular caution if carrying out forensic analysis of any kind on recordings containing speech in languages of which they are not native speakers. (b) In carrying out forensic speaker identification/elimination work, Members should exercise particular caution if the samples for comparison are in different languages. (c) Members should exercise particular caution if carrying out authenticity or integrity examinations of recordings that are not claimed to be original. 7. Members undertaking forensic phonetic and acoustic analyses or operations of all kinds should state in their reports the methods they have followed and provide details of the equipment and computer programs used. 8. Members, in making their analysis, should take due account of the methods available at the time and of their appropriateness to the samples under examination. 9. Members should not attempt to do psychological profiles or assessments of the sincerity of speakers. 10. Members' reports should not include or exclude any material which has been suggested by others (in particular by those instructing them) unless that Member has formed an independent view.
FSSC is a development from The Forensic Speaker Identification Standards Committee (FSISC), which was established in 1996 as a committee of the Australian Speech Science and Technology Association (ASSTA), the professional association for those involved in all aspects of speech science and technology, including phonetics, communications engineering, cochlear implants, computer speech recognition and synthesis, and many more disciplines.
The main aim was to formulate standards of practice for forensic speaker identification, and advise the government, the legal profession, and other interested parties on forensic speaker identification. FSISC works closely with the International Association of Forensic Phoneticians (IAFP) and the International Association of Forensic Linguistics (IAFL). The founding Chair was Dr John Ingram, and then I was Chair for several years. The committee is currently being restructured and the new Chair is Dr Phil Rose. Information will appear in due course on the ASSTA website.
This is a method which claims to be able to identify the author of a text (in a legal context, of a letter, written confession, etc). The technique is written up in the works referred to below, but it should be noted that this method is held in very low regard by many professional linguists; for details, see
Canter, D and Chester, J. 'Investigation into the claim of weighted Cusum in authorship attribution studies' Journal of Forensic Linguistics 4 (1) p.18
See also informal comments at: http://www.ai.univie.ac.at/archives/Linguist/Vol-5-1000-1099/0077.html
Bissell, D. 1995. Statistical Methods for Text Analysis by Word-Counts. Swansea: European Business Management School, University of Wales Farrington, J.M. 1996. Analysing For Authorship: A Guide to the Cusum Technique. Cardiff: University of Wales Press
Bissell, D. 1995. Statistical Methods for Text Analysis by Word-Counts. Swansea: European Business Management School, University of Wales
Farrington, J.M. 1996. Analysing For Authorship: A Guide to the Cusum Technique. Cardiff: University of Wales Press
The Journal of Forensic Linguistics has a wide range of useful articles. See their Table of Contents at www.iafpa.net
Bailey, G., Maybir, N. and Cukor-Avila, P. (ed). 1991. The Emergence of Black English: Text and commentary. Amsterdam/Philadelphis: Benjamins
Baldwin, P. and French, P. 1990. Forensic Phonetics. London: Pinter
Bowe, H. and Storey, K. 1995. 'Linguistic analysis as evidence of speaker identification: demand and response.' in D. Eades (ed) Language in Evidence: Issues confronting Aboriginal and multicultural Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press
Broeders, A.P.A. 1994. 'Phonetics, Forensic.' in R. Asher (ed) Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon p.3099-3101.
Eades, D. 1994. 'Verbatim courtroom transcripts and discourse analysis.' in H. Kniffke (ed) Recent Developments in Forensic Linguistics (Bonn-IAFL-Conference volume).
Fraser, H. 1995. 'Voiceprints and speaker identification.' The Law Society of South Australia Bulletin. Oct.p.27-28.
Fraser, H. 1995. 'What phonetics expert witnesses can (and can't) say about speaker identification.' Law Society of Tasmania Newsletter. 74.(Sept). p.14-15.
Fraser, H. (manuscript). 'Auditory Recognition of Familiar and Unfamiliar Speakers.' International Association for Forensic Linguistics meeting, University of New England, Armidale July 1995
Fraser, H. 1996. 'Identifying Taped Voices &endash; What phonetic science can and can't do.' Policing Issues and Practices Journal. 4.4. p.39-43.
Fraser, H. (manuscript). 'Issues in the use of voice identification evidence in court.' NSW Crown Prosecutors' Annual Seminar meeting, Coogee, Sydney 1997
Gibbons, S. 1995. A Glossary of Drug-related Terminology. Sydney: Transcription Unit, Telephone Interception Section. NSW Police Service
Hillcoat, T. 1994. An Evaluation of Selected Sibilant and Nasal Parameters for Use in Forensic Speaker identification. MLitt, University of New England.
Hollien, H. 1974. 'Peculiar case of "voiceprints".' Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 56.1. p.210-213.
Hollien, H. 1990. The acoustics of crime : the new science of forensic phonetics. New York: Plenum Press
Hollien, H. and Doherty, E.T. 1982. 'Perceptual identification of voices under normal, stress and disguise speaking conditions.' Journal of Phonetics. 10.p.139-148.
Ingram, J., Prandolini, R. and Ong, S. 1993. 'Phonetic variability in speaker recognition for forensic purposes.' p.465 - 470.
Johnson, C.C., Hollien, H. and Hicks, J.W. 1984. 'Speaker identification utilizing selected temporal speech features.' Journal of Phonetics. 12.p.319-326.
Kniffka, H. 1990. Texte zu Theorie und Praxis forensischer Linguistik. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag
Kreiman, J. and Papcun, G. 1985. 'Voice discrimination by two listener populations.' UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics. 61.July. p.45-50.
Labov, W. 1985. 'The judicial testing of linguistic theory.' in D. Tannen (ed) Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation p.159-182.
Laubstein, A. (manuscript) 'Voice (ear witness) lineups: problems.' International Association for Forensic Linguistics meeting, University of New England, Armidale July 1995
Massaro, D.W. 1994. 'Psychological aspects of speech perception: Implications for research and theory.' in M.A. Gernsbacher (ed) Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press p.219-263. Esp p. 231ff
McGehee. 1944. 'An experimental study of voice recognition.' Journal of General Psychology. 31.p.53-65.
McGehee, F. 1937. 'The reliability of the identification of the human voice.' Journal of General Psychology. 17.p.249-271.
Nolan, F. 1983. The Phonetic Bases of Speaker Recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Nolan, F. 1991. 'Forensic Phonetics.' Journal of Linguistics. 27.p.483-93.
Nolan, F. 1996. 'Forensic Speaker Identification.' unpublished course notes, Australian Linguistics Institute, ANU, Canberra
Nolan, F. 1997. 'Speaker recognition and forensic phonetics.' in W. Hardcastle and J. Laver (ed) A Handbook of Phonetic Science. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Nolan, F. and Grabe, E. 1996. 'Preparing a voice lineup.' Forensic Linguistics. 3.1. p.74-94.
Patrick, P. 1999. 'Applied creolistics in court: Linguistic, methodological and ethical dimensions of expert testimony.' manuscript
Rickford, J.R. 1991. 'Representativeness and reliability of the ex-slave materials, with special reference to Wallace Quarterman's recording and transcript.' in G. Bailey, N. Maybir and P. Cukor-Avila (ed) The Emergence of Black English: Text and commentary. Amsterdam/Philadelphis: Benjamins p.191-212.
Rose, P. 2003. Forensic Speaker Identification. London: Taylor and Francis
Rose, P. & Duncan, S. 1995. 'Naive auditory identification and discrimination of similar voices by familiar listeners' Journal of Forensic Linguistics 2/1: 1-17.
Rose, P. 1996a. 'Speaker Verification Under Realistic Forensic Conditions' In Paul McCormack & Alison Russel (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th Australian International Conf. on Speech Science and Technology, Australian Speech Science and Technology Association: 109-114.
Rose, P. 1996b. 'Observations on Forensic Speaker Recognition' Proc. 6th International Criminal Law Congress, Organising committee (Distributed on Compact Disc by Organising Committee, 6th ICLC).
Rose, P. & Simmons, A. 1996c. 'F-pattern variability in Disguise and Over the Telephone - Comparisons for Forensic Speaker Identification'. In Paul McCormak & Alison Russel (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th Australian International Conf. on Speech Science and Technology, Australian Speech Science and Technology Association: 121-126.
Rose, P. 1996d. 'Between- and within-Speaker variation in the fundamental frequency of Cantonese citation tones. 'In Pamela Davis and Neville Fletcher (eds.) Vocal Fold Physiology: Controlling Complexity and Chaos: Singular Press:307-324.
Rose, P. 1997 'Identifying Criminals by their Voice: the emerging applied discipline of Forensic Phonetics'. Australian Language Matters 5/2: 6-7
Rose, P. 1998. 'A Forensic Phonetic Investigation into Long-term Variation in the F-pattern of Similar-sounding Speakers', in Robert H. Mannell & Jordi Robert-Ribes (eds.). Proc. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Australian Speech Science and Technology Association. Vol. 2, 217-220.
Rose, P. 1999. 'Differences and Distinguishability in the Acoustic Characteristics of Hello in Voices of Similar-Sounding Speakers: A Forensic Phonetic Investigation', Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 21(2): 1-42.
Shirt, M. 1984. 'An auditory speaker-recognition experiment.' Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics. 6.Part 1. p.101-105.
Tosi, O. 1979. Voice Identification: Theory and legal applications. Baltimore: University Park Press
van Lancker, D. and Kreiman, J. 1985. 'Unfamiliar voice discrimination and familiar voice recognition are independent and unordered abilities.' UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics. 62.December. p.50-60.
Wald, B. 1995. 'The problem of scholarly predisposition: G. Bailey, N. Maynor and P. Cukor-Avila (eds) "The Emergence of Black English: Text and commentary".' Language in Society. 24.2. p.245-257.
Walker, A.G. 1990. 'Language at work in the law.' in J. Levi and A.G. Walker (ed) Language in the Judicial Process. London/NY: Plenum Press p.203-244.
International Association of Forensic Linguists (IAFL) International Association of Forensic Phoneticians (IAFP) The Linguist List http://www.linguistlist.org Zeno's Forensic Page http://users.bart.nl/~geradts/forensic.html Harry Hollien PhD http://web.csd.ufl.edu/faculty/hollien.html Francis Nolan's Homepage http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~fjn1/ Home pages related to phonetics and speech sciences http://fonsg3.let.uva.nl/Other_pages.html Studying Phonetics on the Net http://faculty.washington.edu/dillon/PhonResources/ Spectrogram Reading http://www.cse.ogi.edu/CSLU/cse551/
International Association of Forensic Linguists (IAFL)
International Association of Forensic Phoneticians (IAFP)
The Linguist List http://www.linguistlist.org
Zeno's Forensic Page http://users.bart.nl/~geradts/forensic.html
Harry Hollien PhD http://web.csd.ufl.edu/faculty/hollien.html
Francis Nolan's Homepage http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~fjn1/
Home pages related to phonetics and speech sciences http://fonsg3.let.uva.nl/Other_pages.html
Studying Phonetics on the Net http://faculty.washington.edu/dillon/PhonResources/
Spectrogram Reading http://www.cse.ogi.edu/CSLU/cse551/