NVESTIGATING LEXICAL ACQUISITION PATTERNS: CONTEXT AND COGNITION



Analysis of the Semantic properties

Is there a differential impact of the type of exposure to new lexical items that the children
receive on the provision of semantic properties?

No significant differences were found for post test 1, while significant differences were
found for post test 2 [F(2,75)= 8.1, p<.005] and post test 3 (Kruskal-Wallis I-Way Anova:
X2 = 24.7, df=4, p<.0005). Post hoc analysis for post test 2 revealed that the Definition group
used significantly more semantic properties than the Ostensive definition and Lexical contrast
group. During post test 3 the Definition group used significantly more semantic properties
than the Control (Wilcoxon: Z=4.07, p<.0005) the Phonological control group (Wilcoxon:
Z=4.6, p<.0005), and the experimental groups (Wilcoxon: Z= 3.04, p<.005; Z=3.5, p<.0005).

Does children ,s provision of semantic properties increase with increased exposure to the
lexical items ?

All the children provided significantly more “semantic” properties in their definitions during
post test 3 than post test 1 (Wilcoxon: Z=4.8, p<.0000) and post test 2 (Wilcoxon: Z=3.9,
p<.0005).They also provided significantly more semantic properties during post test 2 than
post test 1 (Wilcoxon: Z=2.7, p<.005). Separate analysis for each experimental group
revealed the same pattern. Particularly the Ostensive definition group provided significantly
more “semantic” properties during post test 3 than post test 1 (Wilcoxon: Z=2.4, p<.05) and
post test 2 (Wilcoxon: Z=2.8, p<.005). The Lexical contrast group provided significantly
more “semantic” properties during post test 3 than post test 1 (Wilcoxon: Z=2.2, p<.05). The
Definition group provided significantly more “semantic” properties during post test 3 than
post test 1 (Wilcoxon: Z=3.7, p<.0005) and post test 2 (Wilcoxon: Z=3.05, p<.005) and
significantly more “semantic” properties during post test 2 than post test 1 (Wilcoxon: Z=2.6,
p<.05).

Does the children ,s prior knowledge of the lexical items influence the provision of semantic
properties ?

No significant differences were found by the nature of the children’s prior knowledge of the
lexical items.

217



More intriguing information

1. Life is an Adventure! An agent-based reconciliation of narrative and scientific worldviews
2. Discourse Patterns in First Language Use at Hcme and Second Language Learning at School: an Ethnographic Approach
3. TLRP: academic challenges for moral purposes
4. Poverty transition through targeted programme: the case of Bangladesh Poultry Model
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. The storage and use of newborn babies’ blood spot cards: a public consultation
8. Who runs the IFIs?
9. Governance Control Mechanisms in Portuguese Agricultural Credit Cooperatives
10. TECHNOLOGY AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF PATENTS AND FIRM LOCATION IN THE SPANISH MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS INDUSTRY.