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. Do the Largest Firms Grow the Fastest? The Case of U.S. Dairies
2. PROFITABILITY OF ALFALFA HAY STORAGE USING PROBABILITIES: AN EXTENSION APPROACH
3. An Incentive System for Salmonella Control in the Pork Supply Chain
4. The name is absent
5. Dynamic Explanations of Industry Structure and Performance
6. Partner Selection Criteria in Strategic Alliances When to Ally with Weak Partners
7. The name is absent
8. Micro-strategies of Contextualization Cross-national Transfer of Socially Responsible Investment
9. EXPANDING HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE U.K: FROM ‘SYSTEM SLOWDOWN’ TO ‘SYSTEM ACCELERATION’
10. The name is absent