ї= 3.8, p<.0000). The same pattern was evident for each one of the groups. Significant
differences were found for the Ostensive definition group during post test 2 (Wilcoxon:
Z=2.03, p<.05), the Lexical contrast group (Wilcoxon, P2: Z=2.7, p<.05; P3: Z=2.6, p<.05)
and the Definition group (Wilcoxon, Pl: Z=3.5, p<.0005; P2: Z= 2.4, p<.05).

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

The children provided significantly more furniture contrasts for the words describing
artifacts than for the words describing animals (Wilcoxon, Pl: Z=4.3, p<0000; P2: Z=2.7,
p<.005; P3: Z=4.8, p<.0000). The same pattern was found for each one of the groups.
Significant differences were found for the Control group (Wilcoxon, P3: Z=2.3, p<.05) the
Ostensive definition group (Wilcoxon, Pl: Z=1.9, p<.05), the Lexical contrast group
(Wilcoxon, Pl: Z=2.6, p<.05; P3: Z=2.6, p<.05) and the Definition group (Wilcoxon, Pl:
Z=3.07, p<.005; P3: Z= 2.6, p<.05).

Key findings from the contrast task

Is there a differential effect of the type of exposure to new lexical items that the children
receive on the provision of contrasts?

• Children’s provision of contrasts differed significantly by group during post tests 2
and 3. During post tests 2 and 3, the Lexical contrast and Definition group provided
significantly more contrasts than the Ostensive definition group. During post test 3
also, the Lexical contrast and Definition group provided significantly more contrasts
than the Control, the Phonological control and the Ostensive definition groups.

Does children ^,s performance on the Contrast task improve with increased exposure to the
lexical items ?

• No significant differences were found over time.

Does the children’s prior knowledge of the lexical items influence performance on the
contrast task ?

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

259

<<   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   >>

More intriguing information