Our hypothesis foresees the presence of the following lexical abilities: synonyms, antonyms, categories, word function with or without sentence context. 215 girls and 257 boys in third grade, 240 girls and 255 boys in fourth grade, 245 girls and 276 boys in fifth grade (for a total of 1488) participated in this research project. The experiment was divided into 2 phases. In the first phase, 100 boys and girls, divided by age were asked to define words with high image value and dominant meaning and frequency of use in a list. The words were taken from short readings of elementary school literature. The passages used were those reflecting a popularity rating above 80%. The Flesch index of readability (with a value between 64 and 73, higher than mean value of 50) was applied to the readings. In the first phase we recorded the answers the children gave to questions such as "What does word X mean?" or "How would you define word X?". The children were asked to provide the best written definition according to them. They were with no problems in reading and writing processes. We then proceeded to elaborate the test with four multiple choice questions. In the second phase, using the definitions provided by the children, we used trials subject to item analysis using calculations based on: index of difficulty, ability to distinguish, reliability factor (using the Kuder-Richardson formula). The definitive test was divided into eight parts including: synonyms, antonyms, categories, contextual and non contextual functions (PAV or Analytical Vocabulary Test, Florence, O.S., 1991).The results showed by means of factorial analysis times principle components (varimax method, N = 1488) the presence of two principal factors: Factor 1, contextual and Factor 2, non contextual. This data would seem to confirm that subjects when working out the definition of words, need two types of information: the context of the sentence in which the word is used (Factor 1, contextual) and the definition of the word without referring to the sentence (Factor 2, non contextual).
INTRODUCTIONRelatively recently, especially from the 1970s onwards, scholars have focused specifically on lexical development and its evolutionary characteristics, providing contributions of empirical research.Lexical skills, it has been observed, develop according to multi-dimensional processes including synonyms, antonyms, categories and functions. While the issue of how these lexical processes are influenced by the phrasal context in which they are to be processed compared to the non-contextual condition has been relatively neglected, that is little attention has been paid especially from an evolutionary point of view; on the contrary it is a topic that is central to this research (Al-Issa, 1969;Anglin, 1970Anglin, , 1977Anglin, , 1985McNeill, 1970;Ehri & Richardson, 1972;Litowitz, 1977;Bartlett, 1978;Hermann, 1978;Nelson, 1978;Clark, 1979;Arcaini, 1982;Arcuri & Girotto, 1986;Kuczaj & Barrett, 1986;Powell, 1986;Miller & Gildea, 1987;Girotti, Antonietti & Marchetti, ...