in the Definition group were more able to provide a definition for the novel words than their
counterparts in the other groups.
The above findings imply that children used the linguistic context and the information given
as a basis to infer the meanings of the novel words as measured by the corresponding tasks.
Children’s success on the particular tasks (analogy, contrast, definition) was mainly
dependent on the input received from the external environment -contextual cues and
mediating variables according to Sternberg and Powell’s theory-. That was shown by the
failure of the other groups to succeed on the particular tasks.
In addition, another finding which supports the above position, is that in Experiment 2 the
children in the Lexical contrast group performed better on the association task, “world
knowledge questions”, definition and story generation tasks than the other groups. The
Lexical contrast context provided them with information about the relations of the target item
with others from the same semantic category as well as information about where the item can
be found. That argument is in accordance with Elbers et. al. (1993) who claim that the
usefulness of contrast is in relation to other similar words rather than to the whole lexicon.
They also suggest that such contrast will aid children’s understanding of the relationships
between words. Consequently, the children used the information and outperformed the other
groups who had not received the appropriate input.
Additionally, children’s ability to use the linguistic input to infer the meanings of the novel
words was shown in their performance on the association task. When the children were asked
to put items together without receiving any prior semantic input (e.g., Phonological control
group) their justifications were based on thematic properties. On the other hand, when they
were given semantic input about the target words (e.g., Definition and Lexical contrast group)
their justifications were based on semantic properties. It is probable that the Phonological
group children provided thematic justifications for the partially represented target items, since
they were based on their past experiences with the items (acquired in context, in relation with
other items) and not on any prior linguistic input. On the other hand, the Definition group
provided Semanticjustifications because they received semantic input, and therefore, they did
not have to rely on past experiences.