Why would anyone pick the pitch of a voice as the sole indicator of ethnic origin? There are bass, baritone, and tenor voices among men of all perceived “races.”
As to the qualities that differentiate voices, they include a whole range of variables, all of them learned. Among those variables, African languages tend to be throatier, East Asian languages more nasal, and European languages between them. Since language is learned in the home, the tradition of where the voice is produced continues to be passed from parent to child, even when the speakers move to a new land with a new language. “Honky” originated among black Americans because, to their ears, whites spoke nasally, even though most white speakers would claim that nasal speech is an Asian trait. Again, language families tend to use similar ranges of consonants in similar ways. Speakers who grew up using consonants differently, will place more or less emphasis on them, even when speaking a different language. This will affect the way that a person’s voice is perceived by others.
It is not genetic, but learned. If it was genetic, then Arsenio Hall would not have the physical capacity to do his devastatingly accurate “white man” schtick.
Further, speakers in dialects not one’s own are more likely to speak in ways that are confusing to one. I have heard any number of men from Mississippi or Louisiana speaking so that I identified them as black or white on the radio, only to discover that I had guessed wrong, when I encountered their photos. I would guess that several variations of the dialect from that region strike my ears in ways that I misinterpret.
Do people of different ethnic backgrounds tend to sound more alike than others? Sure. People tend to cluster along ethnic lines, (sometimes with the force of law behind such clustering), and so they will tend to grow up using similar speech patterns.
Nothing genetic about that.
Many people are simply not objective about topics like this. In ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ Gould detailed how 19th century science incorporated biases in scientific analysis of race, but didn’t pretend to show that later 20th century science didn’t also. Bias can include what you choose not to look into too closely to not risk finding answers that might make you a social pariah.
Obviously many people are dying to say ‘it has nothing to do with (genetic) race’, on any topic suggesting anything might. They are presenting a belief, not a scientifically proven fact or set of facts.
On this particular question, firstly any reasonable discussion will accept that individuals vary widely. Even if a particular trait is more common or stronger among some races on average than others, that won’t apply to everyone, counter examples will be common. This is a given, and so pointing out individual exceptions to a hypothesis about race doesn’t prove anything.
Second the OP said ‘different races [might] have different ways of speaking with the same accent’ (regardless of same environment). It’s wasn’t ‘different races might have different accents regardless of same environment’, which would indeed be bizarre, but it’s not what was asked.
AFAIK there’s no proof for or against this hypothesis. It’s obvious that accents or dialects depend on environment, though OTOH also obvious (take our so ‘folksy’ in dialect when the occasion demands, yet so sophisticated when it suits him, Great Leader here in the US for example) that the same person can more than one dialect/accent depending on the circumstance and might confuse themselves at times. But that other aspects of the voice itself, in sound spectrum terms, don’t vary in any systematic way by race on average? I don’t know any proof of that or basic scientific principal on which to reject it. I wouldn’t however just trust my ear. To my ear, black (or for that matter east Asian) Americans who’ve grown up in an ostensibly ‘homogenized’ environment still send to sound distinct from whites on average, not every person but more often than not. However how homogenized is the environment it really? And again people can choose to modify their speech. It’s quite complicated I think, and individual subjective evidence could easily mislead.
meh That has not been a significant portion of the response, here.
This has already been addressed. Language is passed primarily in the home and family and speech patterns are determined at a very early age.
Couple A moves to an area that is dominated by a different ethnic group and their children pick up the local accent and dialect from their peers, but they speak that accent or dialect using the pronunciation tools that they first learned from their parents who spoke with the tonality and pronunciation with which they were raised.
The point made in the OP was that, regardless of what dialect a person was speaking, it would generally be possible to identify their ethnic background. This is really not controversial. Someone did a study a few years back in which a large number of people of all ethnic groups could distinguish between a white, black, and Chicano speakers based on the single recorded word “hello.” The question is whether this distinction is due to nurture or nature. I would say that there are several reasons why nurture appears to trump nature regarding this question:
As noted, it is possible for a person of one ethnicity to choose to “sound like” a different ethnicity, which would suggest that it does not have a physical origin or constraining factor. Further, I have already proposed a mechanism by which this would occur.
To go with an “ethnic” solution, one should probably demonstrate that the pronunciation and tonality of speech is determined by the shapes of the mouth, throat, and nasal cavities and then demonstrate that each ethnic group has consistently similar physical traits that would determine those sounds.
Babies are born being able to differentiate between all phonemes (sounds used in language). Some time before they turn two, that ability gets pruned. After that they only distinguish between phonemes that have meaning in the language spoken around them.
In English there is a significant difference between R and L sounds. If a child is past the time of pruning and has never heard words where distinguishing between the two mattered, it will be very hard for her to hear the difference.
In Korean, there are[three sounds](korean phoneme “hard for English speakers”)that an English speaker would hear as K.
So language exposure when young can produce a measurable difference in speech. The effect of the exposure can be timed and quantified. It’s not subjective. There has, however, been no measurable link found between pronunciation and genetics, except, perhaps, for some speech disabilities.
Are you suggesting people haven’t tried to correlate accents and race? That objective studies haven’t been performed? They have.
Basically, the answer is “maybe”. There might be a racial difference, but, if so, it’s small enough to get swamped by anything else, especially local culture.
To the extent this relates to the OP, the OP is entirely off base. The maximum level of difference that might exist is totally out of line with the OPs supposition of a genetic basis. The OP explicitly apportions a majority of the difference to genetic race, which is totally unsupported by the research. Strawmen abound when you argue the pushback is simply a kneejerk reaction.
Well, it is at least conceivable that different ethnic groups (tend to) have differently-shaped vocal apparatus just as they (tend to) have differently-shaped noses, skulls, etc. There is no evidence for that AFAIK, but it is a possibility.
