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