p<.005; P2: X² =14.1 df=3, p<.005; P3: X —13.3 df=3, p<.OO5). Last, they provided
significantly more furniture contrasts for the stool than for the other words (Pl: X²=I8.2,
df=3, p<.0005; P2: X²=I5.8 df=3, p<.005; P3: X²=I6.4, df=3, p<.005).

Analysis of the “animal contrasts”¹

Is there a differential impact of the type of exposure to new lexical items that the children
receive on the provision of "animal contrasts”?

Three One Way Analyses of Variances were carried out with group as the independent
variable and score for animal contrasts in each post test as the dependent variable. No
significant differences were found during post test 1. Significant differences were found
during post test 2 [F(2,75) =8.5, p<.0000] and post test 3 [F(4,125) =8.3, p<.0000]. The
means are given in the Table 7.16 below.

Table 7.16 Children’s provision (means and sds) of “animal contrasts” in the
_____________contrast task by group across testing_____________________________

Particularly, the post hoc analysis for post test 2 demonstrated that the Definition and the
Lexical contrast group provided significantly more animal contrasts for the ostrich and mole
than the Ostensive definition group. In addition, during post test 3, the Lexical contrast and
Definition group provided significantly more animal contrasts than the Control, Phonological
control and Ostensive definition groups.

Does children ^,s provision of "animal contrasts ” increase with increased exposure to the
lexical items ?

Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences over time.

¹ The score for animal contrasts was computed by adding the animal contrasts provided
for the two animal words.

256

<<   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   >>

More intriguing information