Phonetic Shifts in the Post-Pandemic Era: The Impact of Prolonged Virtual Communication on Global English Accents
Keywords:
Post-pandemic phonetics, Virtual communication, English accent convergence, Sociolinguistics, COVID-19 language changeAbstract
The COVID-19 pandemic forced an unprecedented shift toward virtual communication platforms such as Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams, fundamentally restructuring the acoustic environments in which English speakers interact. This study investigates phonetic shifts in global English accents resulting from prolonged virtual communication during and after the pandemic (2020–2024). Purpose: The research aims to identify, classify, and explain phonetic changes attributable to extended virtual interaction, and to assess whether these changes represent short-term accommodation or durable phonological change This study aims to answer three research questions: (1) Do measurable phonetic shifts occur in global English accents following prolonged virtual communication between 2020 and 2024? (2) Which phonetic features (segmental vs. suprasegmental) are most susceptible to change? (3) Do patterns of change differ across national English-speaking communities, and if so, what factors explain these differences?. Methods: A longitudinal acoustic phonetic study was conducted involving 320 participants drawn from four national English-speaking communities: the United States (n = 80), the United Kingdom (n = 80), India (n = 80), and Indonesia (n = 80). Speech data were collected at three time points (2020, 2022, 2024) using standardized reading passages and semi-structured interviews. Acoustic analysis focused on vowel formant trajectories (F1, F2), voice onset time (VOT), and intonation contours. Results: Significant phonetic convergence was observed in vowel space compression and rising intonation adoption across all four communities, with the greatest shifts documented in the Indonesian and Indian cohorts. VOT values for word-initial plosives showed measurable shifts toward General American norms in non-native speaker groups. Platform-me
References
Baird, A., Tzirakis, P., Gidel, G., Pike, C., & Schuller, B. W. (2021). The great COVID-19 accent study: What two years of remote communication have done to our voices. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 43, 2011–2017.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Beckman, M. E., & Ayers, G. M. (1994). Guidelines for ToBI labelling, version 3. The Ohio State University. https://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2023). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 6.3.14). http://www.praat.org/
Cooke, M., & Ma, N. (2021). Acoustic environment effects on speech perception in virtual meetings. Speech Communication, 128, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2021.03.004
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 University Press.
Coupland, N. (2010). The authentic speaker and the speech community. In C. Llamas & D. Watt (Eds.), Language and identities (pp. 99–112). Edinburgh University Press.
Drouin, M., McDaniel, B. T., Pater, J., & Toscos, T. (2021). How parents and their children used social media and technology at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and associations with anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(11), 754–760. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0284
Fairbanks, G. (1960). Voice and articulation drillbook (2nd ed.). Harper & Row.
Giles, H. (2009). The process of communication accommodation. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), The new sociolinguistics reader (pp. 276–286). Palgrave Macmillan.
Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4(1). Available online: https://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761
Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). University of Illinois Press.
Kerswill, P. (2002). Koineization and accommodation. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 669–702). Blackwell.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word, 20(3), 384–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1964.11659830
Lobanov, B. M. (1971). Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49(2B), 606–608. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912396
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Sailaja, P. (2009). Indian English (Dialects of English series). Edinburgh University Press.
Stuart-Smith, J., Timmins, C., & Tweedie, F. (2013). 'Talkin' Jockney'? Variation and change in Glaswegian accent. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(2), 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12003
Trudgill, P. (2004). New-dialect formation: The inevitability of colonial Englishes. Edinburgh University Press.
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English (3 vols.). Cambridge University Press.
Ziegler, J., & Kohler, K. J. (2021). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on spoken language communication: A phonetic perspective. Phonetica, 78(5–6), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1159/000518631
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Global Education, Research, and Innovation in Studies (INGGERIS)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
