Sorry, Not Sorry: The independent role of multiple phonetic cues in signaling the difference between two word meanings.
Caitlyn Martinuzzi, Jessamyn Schertz
PMID 33506740WHAT IT FOUND
Listeners distinguished two meanings of 'sorry' above chance.
Longer duration, falling pitch, and lower intensity signaled an apology, while shorter duration and rising pitch signaled 'excuse me.'
Key findings
01Listeners identified the intended meaning of isolated 'sorry' tokens at 64.7% accuracy, significantly above chance.
02In production, 'sorry' used as an apology was significantly longer (126 ms) than when used to get attention, but pitch and intensity differences were not significant.
03When acoustic cues were manipulated independently, longer duration, falling pitch contour, and lower intensity each significantly increased the likelihood of a token being perceived as an apology.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study is a case report on a single word ('sorry') using only four voice actors, so findings may not generalize to other words or typical speakers. Production data came from scripted readings by voice actors, which may exaggerate phonetic distinctions compared to spontaneous speech. The sample size for listeners was small (47 per experiment), and the study did not include clinical populations. The authors note that the effects found were larger than in previous literature, possibly due to the specific social routine nature of the word 'sorry' or the simulated affect.
Declared interests
The research was supported by a Joseph Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship awarded to Caitlyn Martinuzzi by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. No commercial conflicts were declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume these acoustic distinctions apply to all words or clinical populations. The study used a single word produced by voice actors in a lab setting, and the authors explicitly state this is a starting point for hypotheses, not evidence of generalizable speech patterns.