TY - JOUR
T1 - Corrigendum to “Discrimination of L2 Greek vowel contrasts
T2 - Evidence from learners with Arabic L1 background” [Speech Communication 102 (2018) 68–77, (S0167639318300244), (10.1016/j.specom.2018.07.003)]
AU - Georgiou, Georgios P.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2023/2
Y1 - 2023/2
N2 - The authors regret minor numerical errors in the report of statistics due to mistakes in the extraction of results from the tables of the statistical software. These errors do not alter the statistical significance and, therefore, conclusions are not affected in any way. These errors are found in pages 74-75 of the manuscript. The section of Results with the correct statistics is provided below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Specifically, the findings showed that L2 stressed vowels /i/-/e/ were assimilated to EA phonological category /i/. L2 vowel /i/ gained a high goodness of fit rating (4.4), while L2 vowel /e/ gained a low one (1.4). The t-test analysis showed significant differences between the goodness of fit ratings of the two vowel contrast members; t(14) = 2.56, p = 0.01. The matrix showed that the L2 learners tended to assimilate both L2 vowels /o/ and /u/ to the same phonological category of their L1 (/u/). They rated L2 vowel /o/ with a high goodness of fit rating (4.6), while they gave a low one to L2 vowel /u/ (2.1). The t-test analysis revealed significant differences between the goodness of fit ratings of the two members of the vowel contrast; t(14) = 8.77, p = 0001. The L2 unstressed vowel contrast /o/-/u/ has been also analyzed. The matrix showed that the two L2 vowels were assimilated to the same EA phonological category (/u/). A moderate to high goodness of fit was given to L2 vowel /o/ (3.5), while a low one was given to vowel /u/ (1.5). The t-test revealed significant differences between the goodness of fit ratings of the two vowel contrast members; t(14) = 5.69, p = 0001. The results showed no significant effect of Vowel Contrast [F(3, 39) = 2.32, p = 0.09, η2 = 0.1], while there was a significant effect of Language Group, [F(1, 13) = 45.43, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.44]. The interaction of Vowel Contrast × Language Group was significant [(F(3, 39) = 7.74, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.05)]. The analysis revealed a significant effect of Vowel Contrast [F(3, 39) = 97.78, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.1]. The Bonferroni post-hoc test showed significant differences between unstressed /i/-/e/ - stressed /i/-/e/ (p = 0.001), unstressed /i/-/e/ - stressed /o/-/u/ (p = 0.001) and unstressed /i/-/e/ - unstressed /o/-/u/ (p = 0.001). So, the unstressed /i/-/e/ contrast was discriminated more accurately than the stressed /i/-/e/, stressed /o/-/u/, and unstressed /o/-/u/ contrasts. There was a significant effect of Language Group for stressed /i/-/e/ [F(1, 13) = 36.78, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.3] with CGR native speakers performing better ([Formula presented] = 100% correct) than L2 learners ([Formula presented] = 65% correct), stressed /o/-/u/ [F(1, 13) = 19.98, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.9] with CGR native speakers performing better ([Formula presented] = 100% correct) than L2 learners ([Formula presented] = 61% correct), and unstressed /o/-/u/ [F(1, 13) = 71.34, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.13] with, again, CGR native speakers performing better ([Formula presented] = 100% correct) than L2 learners ([Formula presented] = 55% correct). By contrast, no significant effect was found for unstressed /i/-/e/ [F(1, 13) = 1.32, p = 0.27, η2 = 0.19].
AB - The authors regret minor numerical errors in the report of statistics due to mistakes in the extraction of results from the tables of the statistical software. These errors do not alter the statistical significance and, therefore, conclusions are not affected in any way. These errors are found in pages 74-75 of the manuscript. The section of Results with the correct statistics is provided below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Specifically, the findings showed that L2 stressed vowels /i/-/e/ were assimilated to EA phonological category /i/. L2 vowel /i/ gained a high goodness of fit rating (4.4), while L2 vowel /e/ gained a low one (1.4). The t-test analysis showed significant differences between the goodness of fit ratings of the two vowel contrast members; t(14) = 2.56, p = 0.01. The matrix showed that the L2 learners tended to assimilate both L2 vowels /o/ and /u/ to the same phonological category of their L1 (/u/). They rated L2 vowel /o/ with a high goodness of fit rating (4.6), while they gave a low one to L2 vowel /u/ (2.1). The t-test analysis revealed significant differences between the goodness of fit ratings of the two members of the vowel contrast; t(14) = 8.77, p = 0001. The L2 unstressed vowel contrast /o/-/u/ has been also analyzed. The matrix showed that the two L2 vowels were assimilated to the same EA phonological category (/u/). A moderate to high goodness of fit was given to L2 vowel /o/ (3.5), while a low one was given to vowel /u/ (1.5). The t-test revealed significant differences between the goodness of fit ratings of the two vowel contrast members; t(14) = 5.69, p = 0001. The results showed no significant effect of Vowel Contrast [F(3, 39) = 2.32, p = 0.09, η2 = 0.1], while there was a significant effect of Language Group, [F(1, 13) = 45.43, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.44]. The interaction of Vowel Contrast × Language Group was significant [(F(3, 39) = 7.74, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.05)]. The analysis revealed a significant effect of Vowel Contrast [F(3, 39) = 97.78, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.1]. The Bonferroni post-hoc test showed significant differences between unstressed /i/-/e/ - stressed /i/-/e/ (p = 0.001), unstressed /i/-/e/ - stressed /o/-/u/ (p = 0.001) and unstressed /i/-/e/ - unstressed /o/-/u/ (p = 0.001). So, the unstressed /i/-/e/ contrast was discriminated more accurately than the stressed /i/-/e/, stressed /o/-/u/, and unstressed /o/-/u/ contrasts. There was a significant effect of Language Group for stressed /i/-/e/ [F(1, 13) = 36.78, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.3] with CGR native speakers performing better ([Formula presented] = 100% correct) than L2 learners ([Formula presented] = 65% correct), stressed /o/-/u/ [F(1, 13) = 19.98, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.9] with CGR native speakers performing better ([Formula presented] = 100% correct) than L2 learners ([Formula presented] = 61% correct), and unstressed /o/-/u/ [F(1, 13) = 71.34, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.13] with, again, CGR native speakers performing better ([Formula presented] = 100% correct) than L2 learners ([Formula presented] = 55% correct). By contrast, no significant effect was found for unstressed /i/-/e/ [F(1, 13) = 1.32, p = 0.27, η2 = 0.19].
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85147386312&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.specom.2023.01.009
DO - 10.1016/j.specom.2023.01.009
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:85147386312
SN - 0167-6393
VL - 147
SP - 118
JO - Speech Communication
JF - Speech Communication
ER -