Figure 7.34 Distribution (raw data) of the properties mentioned on the story task
across testing

■ Functional H Semantic

□ Other

Considering all the properties except the “other” category, it was found that the children
provided significantly more “contextual” than “descriptive” properties across testing
(Wilcoxon, Pl: Z=2.5, p<.05; P2: Z=2.7, p<.05; P3: Z=4.9, P<.0000), more “functional” than
“descriptive” properties across testing (Wilcoxon: Pl: Z= 3.8, p<.0005; P2: Z=3.0, p<.005;
P3: Z= 5.3, p<.0000) and more “functional” than “semantic” properties (Wilcoxon: Pl:
Z=2.6, p<.05; P2: Z=3.09, p<.05). During post test 3 they also provided more “semantic”
than “descriptive” properties (Wilcoxon: Z=4.7, p<.0000).

Analysis of the “descriptive properties”

Is there a differential impact of the type of exposure to new lexical items that the children
receive on the provision of descriptive properties?

No significant differences were found for post tests 1 and 3. Significant differences were
found for post test 2 (Kruskall-Wallis 1 Way-Anova: X² = 9.8, df= 2 p<.05). Particularly, the
Definition group provided significantly more “descriptive” properties than the Ostensive
definition (Wilcoxon: Z = 2.06, p<.05) and Lexical contrast groups (Wilcoxon: Z = 2.5,
p<.05).

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

Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences over time.

269

<<   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   >>

More intriguing information