Z=4.3, p<.0000; Z=3.1, p<.OO5). Also, the Definition and Lexical contrast groups provided
more “semantic” justifications than the Phonological control group (WilcoxomZ=4.4,
p<.0000; Z=2.9, p<.005).The Definition and Lexical contrast groups provided again more
“semantic” justifications than the Ostensive definition group (Wilcoxon: Z=4.1, p<.0000) and
(Wilcoxon: Z=2.5, p<.05).

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

A Friedman -Two -Way ANOVA was carried out. The children provided significantly more
“semantic” justifications over time (X²=I 2.3, df=2, p=.005). In addition, the same pattern was
evident for the Lexical contrast (X²=6.5, df=2, p=.05) and Definition group (X²=12.2, df=2,
p=.005).

Does the children's prior knowledge of the lexical items influence the provision of semantic
justifications?

As Figure 7.23 shows, during post test 1, the children tended to provide more “semantic”
justifications for the partially represented than the unknown words, while during post tests
2 and 3 they provided more “semantic” justifications for the unknown than the partially
represented words. However, the differences were not significant.

Figure 7.23 Provision of semantic justifications by children’s prior knowledge of the
lexical items across testing

I I Unknown words

I__I Partially represented words

244

<<   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   >>

More intriguing information