NVESTIGATING LEXICAL ACQUISITION PATTERNS: CONTEXT AND COGNITION



Does the children ,s prior knowledge of the lexical items influence the provision of “animal
contrasts”?

Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences.

Is the provision of “animal contrasts ” influenced by the semantic domain of the lexical
items?

The children provided significantly more animal contrasts for the words describing animals
than for the words describing artifacts across testing (Wilcoxon, Pl: Z=5.3, p<.0005; P2:
Z=4.2, p<.0005; P3: Z=6.3, p<.0005). The same pattern was evident for each one of the
groups across testing. The differences were found to be significant for the Control group
(Wilcoxon: P3: Z=2.5, ρ<.05), the Phonological control group (Wilcoxon: P3: Z=2.1, p<.0)
the Ostensive definition group (Wilcoxon: Pl: Z=2.7, p<.05) the Lexical contrast group
(Wilcoxon: Pl: Z=2.8, p<.005; P2: Z=2.8, p<.005; P3: 3.3, p<.005); and Definition group
(Wilcoxon: Pl: 3.7, p<.0005; P2: Z=2.8, p<.005; P3: Z=3.9, p<.0005).

Analysis of the “cutlery contrasts”

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

During post test 2 the Definition group provided significantly more cutlery contrasts than
the Ostensive definition group (Wilcoxon: Z=2.04, p<.05). Last, during post test 3, the
Lexical contrast group provided significantly more cutlery contrasts than the Control
(Wilcoxon: Z=2.1, p<.05) and the Phonological control group (Wilcoxon: Z=2.1, p<.05).

Does children’s provision of “cutlery contrasts” increase with increased exposure to the
lexical items?

Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences over time.

Does the children ,s prior knowledge of the lexical items influence the provision of “cutlery
contrasts ”?

The children provided significantly more cutlery contrasts for the unknown than for the
partially represented words across testing (Wilcoxon: Pl: Z=3.7, p<.0005; P2: Z=3.4,
p<.0005; P3: Z=4.2, p<.0000). The same pattern was evident for the Ostensive definition
group across testing (Wilcoxon: Pl: Z=2.2, p<.05; P2: Z=2.02, p<.05; P3: Z=2.3, p<.05), the

257



More intriguing information

1. The ultimate determinants of central bank independence
2. How to do things without words: Infants, utterance-activity and distributed cognition.
3. Natural hazard mitigation in Southern California
4. An Estimated DSGE Model of the Indian Economy.
5. Creating a 2000 IES-LFS Database in Stata
6. TOMOGRAPHIC IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION OF FAN-BEAM PROJECTIONS WITH EQUIDISTANT DETECTORS USING PARTIALLY CONNECTED NEURAL NETWORKS
7. On the Desirability of Taxing Charitable Contributions
8. Searching Threshold Inflation for India
9. Telecommuting and environmental policy - lessons from the Ecommute program
10. School Effectiveness in Developing Countries - A Summary of the Research Evidence
11. The name is absent
12. Optimal Private and Public Harvesting under Spatial and Temporal Interdependence
13. Program Semantics and Classical Logic
14. Credit Markets and the Propagation of Monetary Policy Shocks
15. The name is absent
16. Informal Labour and Credit Markets: A Survey.
17. Does Competition Increase Economic Efficiency in Swedish County Councils?
18. Getting the practical teaching element right: A guide for literacy, numeracy and ESOL teacher educators
19. Income Taxation when Markets are Incomplete
20. Are Japanese bureaucrats politically stronger than farmers?: The political economy of Japan's rice set-aside program