NVESTIGATING LEXICAL ACQUISITION PATTERNS: CONTEXT AND COGNITION



p<.05; P2: Z= 4.6, p<.OOOO; P3.Z= 4, p<.0005).The same pattern was found for each group.
Significant differences were found for the Lexical contrast (Mann-Whitney U: Z=2.8,
p<.005) and the Definition group (Mann-Whitney U: Z= 2.1, p<.05) during post test 2.

Furthermore, children with high level comprehension vocabulary performed better on the
naming task than those with low level comprehension vocabulary. The differences were
significant for post test 1 (Mann-Whitney U: Z= 2.1, p<.05), while a trend for significance
was found for the other post tests. The same pattern was found for each group separately, but
significant differences were only found for the Ostensive definition group during post test 3
(Mann-Whitney U: Z=2, p<.05).

Error Analysis

Unsurprisingly the children produced a range of different responses on the naming task. An
Error analysis was carried out to identify and quantify the different types of responses in the
naming task. The different responses are presented on Table 7.7.

Table 7.7 Error Analysis of children’s responses in the naming task

Responses______________

______Example________________________________

Don’t know
Irrelevant responses
Innovative word
Phonological error

If they did not provide any answer

If irrelevant responses were given

If they provided a made up word
Non-accurate production of the target word,
e.g. ostrit for ostrich

Functional properties

Mention of functional properties,
e.g. “we sit on it” for the stool

Perceptual properties
Basic level word
Superordinate level word
Subordinate level word
Target word____________

What the target item looks like, e.g. “It is brown” for the mole

Use of a basic level word, e.g. bird for ostrich

Use of a superordinate word, e.g. “animal for ostrich”

Use of a subordinate word, e.g. flamingo for ostrich

Naming accurately the target word_______________________

All the correct responses (target word) were excluded for the Error analysis. The distribution
of children’s error responses over time was investigated. iiUse of a basic level” word ranged
between 16% and 20.2%, while iiuse of Superordinate level” words ranged only between
3.1% and 3.5%. The iidon ,t know” responses ranged between 14.4% and 27.9%. Table 7.8
shows the results in detail. Children’s performance for all the target words together is
presented since their performance did not differ by target item. The impact of different

201



More intriguing information

1. Spatial agglomeration and business groups: new evidence from Italian industrial districts
2. 101 Proposals to reform the Stability and Growth Pact. Why so many? A Survey
3. Correlates of Alcoholic Blackout Experience
4. How to do things without words: Infants, utterance-activity and distributed cognition.
5. RETAIL SALES: DO THEY MEAN REDUCED EXPENDITURES? GERMAN GROCERY EVIDENCE
6. Environmental Regulation, Market Power and Price Discrimination in the Agricultural Chemical Industry
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Shifting Identities and Blurring Boundaries: The Emergence of Third Space Professionals in UK Higher Education
10. Wettbewerbs- und Industriepolitik - EU-Integration als Dritter Weg?