The role of syntactic structure and verb overlap in spoken sentence production of 4- to 6-year-olds: Evidence from syntactic priming in Mandarin

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01608

Abstract

Abstract:

The period between the ages of 4 and 6 is crucial for children to develop their capacity for spoken sentence production. The interplay between syntactic and lexical information in children's sentence production has garnered attention in the field of language acquisition. We employed a syntactic priming paradigm with sentence repetition and image description tasks using the particular transitive structures of Chinese (SVO, SbaOV, and SbeiOV) as the corpus. A total of 77 preschool children with an average age of 4.4 years were enrolled in the experiment. The study involved the manipulation of Prime types (SVO, SbaOV, SbeiOV, and baseline) and Verb types (no-overlap versus overlap). The dependent variable was the ratio of syntactic choices. The results showed that abstract priming effects are induced by the three syntactic structures, irrespective of whether the verb overlaps or not. When children begin a specific sentence pattern, such as a SbaOV structure, they tend to formulate a SbaOV structure in the target sentence rather than an SVO or SbeiOV structure. This implies that the development of syntactic knowledge does not rely on lexical information. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that despite the absence of an increase in priming strength in SbaOV or SbeiOV structures with verb overlap, the probability of older children (5-6 years old) opting for an SOV structure during priming is augmented. To summarize, the acquisition of syntax in Chinese children aligns with the Implicit Learning Theory, whereby they exhibit abstract priming effects stemming from their anticipation of error estimates.

Key words: children, sentence production, abstract priming effect, lexical boost/dependent effect, syntactic structure preference, Mandarin

WANG Yang, ZHANG Linshuang, CUI Nannan, WU Yan. (2023). The role of syntactic structure and verb overlap in spoken sentence production of 4- to 6-year-olds: Evidence from syntactic priming in Mandarin. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(10), 1608-1619.

Figures/Tables 7

References 58

[1]	Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2018). Parsimonious mixed models (arXiv:1506.04967). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967
[2]	Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4 (arXiv:1406.5823). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823
[3]	Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 URL
[4]	Branigan, H. P., & McLean, J. F. (2016). What children learn from adults’ utterances: An ephemeral lexical boost and persistent syntactic priming in adult-child dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.02.002 URL
[5]	Branigan, H. P., McLean, J., & Jones, M. (2005). A blue cat or a cat that is blue? Evidence for abstract syntax in young children’s noun phrases. In A. Brugos & M. R. Clark-Cotton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vols. 1-2, pp. 109-121). Cascadilla Press.
[6]	Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e282. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16002028 doi: 10.1017/S0140525X16002028 URL
[7]	Brown, V. A. (2021). An introduction to linear mixed-effects modeling in R. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920960351
[8]	Buckle, L., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. L. (2017). The effects of animacy and syntax on priming: A developmental study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, e2246. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02246
[9]	Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711-733. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4490266 doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186 URL
[10]	Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234-272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234 URL pmid: 16637761
[11]	Chang, F., Janciauskas, M., & Fitz, H. (2012). Language adaptation and learning: Getting explicit about implicit learning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(5), 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.337 doi: 10.1002/lnc3.337 URL
[12]	Chen, Q. R. (2012). Syntactic priming: Paradigm and controversy in language comprehension. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(2), 208-218. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.00208 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.00208 URL
[13]	Chen, X. M., Branigan, H. P., Wang, S. P., Huang, J., & Pickering, M. J. (2020). Syntactic representation is independent of semantics in Mandarin: Evidence from syntactic priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(2), 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1644355 doi: 10.1080/23273798.2019.1644355 URL
[14]	Chen, X. M., Hartsuiker, R. J., Muylle, M., Slim, M. S., & Zhang, C. (2022). The effect of animacy on structural priming: A replication of Bock, Loebell and Morey (1992). Journal of Memory and Language, 127, 104354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104354 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2022.104354 URL
[15]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G^Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods*, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 URL pmid: 19897823
[16]	Fisher, C. (2002). The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: A reply to Tomasello (2000). Cognition, 82(3), 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00159-7 URL pmid: 11747864
[17]	Foltz, A., Thiele, K., Kahsnitz, D., & Stenneken, P. (2015). Children’s syntactic-priming magnitude: Lexical factors and participant characteristics. Journal of Child Language, 42(4), 932-945. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000914000488 doi: 10.1017/S0305000914000488 URL
[18]	Gámez, P. B., & Shimpi, P. M. (2016). Structural priming in Spanish as evidence of implicit learning. Journal of Child Language, 43(1), 207-233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000915000161 doi: 10.1017/S0305000915000161 URL pmid: 25908450
[19]	Gámez, P. B., & Vasilyeva, M. (2015). Exploring interactions between semantic and syntactic processes: The role of animacy in syntactic priming. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 138, 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.04.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.04.009 URL pmid: 26024980
[20]	Gong, S. Y. (2007). The development features of syntactic awareness on “ba” and “bei” construction in 4-5years old preschool children. Educational Science, 23(1), 92-94.
[21]	Hsu, D. B. (2014a). Mandarin-speaking three-year-olds’ demonstration of productive knowledge of syntax: Evidence from syntactic productivity and structural priming with the SVO-ba alternation. Journal of Child Language, 41(5), 1115-1146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000408 doi: 10.1017/S0305000913000408 URL
[22]	Hsu, D. B. (2014b). Structural priming as learning: Evidence from Mandarin-learning 5-year-olds. Language Acquisition, 21(2), 156-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2014.884571 doi: 10.1080/10489223.2014.884571 URL
[23]	Hsu, D. B. (2018). Children’s syntactic representation of the transitive constructions in Mandarin Chinese. PLOS ONE, 13(11), e0206788. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206788
[24]	Hsu, D. B. (2019). Children’s adaption to input change using an abstract syntactic representation: Evidence from structural priming in Mandarin-speaking preschoolers. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, e2186. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02186
[25]	Huang, J., Pickering, M. J., Yang, J. H, Wang, S. P., & Branigan, H. P. (2016). The independence of syntactic processing in Mandarin: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.02.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.02.005 URL
[26]	Huang, J., Yang, Z. Y., Hong, D. P., Liu, X. Q., & Wang, S. P. (2022). Different mechanisms for head and non-head words in the lexical boost effect on syntactic priming. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(11), 1354-1365. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01354 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01354 URL
[27]	Huang, Y. T., Zheng, X., Meng, X., & Snedeker, J. (2013). Children’s assignment of grammatical roles in the online processing of Mandarin passive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 589-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.002 URL
[28]	Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Shimpi, P. (2004). Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(2), 182-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.09.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2003.09.003 URL
[29]	Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children’s language growth. Cognitive Psychology, 61(4), 343-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.08.002 URL pmid: 20832781
[30]	Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 URL pmid: 19884961
[31]	Kidd, E. (2012). Implicit statistical learning is directly associated with the acquisition of syntax. Developmental Psychology, 48(1), 171-184. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025405 doi: 10.1037/a0025405 URL pmid: 21967562
[32]	Kumarage, S., Donnelly, S., & Kidd, E. (2022). Implicit learning of structure across time: A longitudinal investigation of syntactic priming in young English-acquiring children. Journal of Memory and Language, 127, e104374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104374
[33]	Leech, K., Rowe, M. L., & Huang, Y. T. (2017). Variations in the recruitment of syntactic knowledge contribute to SES differences in syntactic development. Journal of Child Language, 44(4), 995-1009. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000210 doi: 10.1017/S0305000916000210 URL pmid: 27266880
[34]	Levelt, W. J. M., & Wheeldon, L. (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary? Cognition, 50(1-3), 239-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90030-2 URL pmid: 8039363
[35]	Mahowald, K., James, A., Futrell, R., & Gibson, E. (2016). A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 5-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009 URL
[36]	Messenger, K. (2021). The persistence of priming: Exploring long-lasting syntactic priming effects in children and adults. Cognitive Science, 45(6), e13005. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13005
[37]	Messenger, K., Branigan, H. P., & McLean, J. F. (2011). Evidence for (shared) abstract structure underlying children’s short and full passives. Cognition, 121(2), 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.003 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.003 URL
[38]	Messenger, K., & Fisher, C. (2018). Mistakes weren’t made: Three- year-olds’ comprehension of novel-verb passives provides evidence for early abstract syntax. Cognition, 178, 118-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.002 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.002 URL
[39]	Peter, M., Chang, F., Pine, J. M., Blything, R., & Rowland, C. F. (2015). When and how do children develop knowledge of verb argument structure? Evidence from verb bias effects in a structural priming task. Journal of Memory and Language, 81, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.12.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.12.002 URL
[40]	Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 633-651. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2592 doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2592 URL
[41]	Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427-459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 URL pmid: 18444704
[42]	Rowland, C. F., Chang, F., Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2012). The development of abstract syntax: Evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost. Cognition, 125(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.008 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.008 URL pmid: 22986018
[43]	Rowland, C. F., & Monaghan, P. (2017). Developmental psycholinguistics teaches us that we need multi-method, not single-method, approaches to the study of linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17000565 doi: 10.1017/S0140525X17000565 URL
[44]	Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children’s linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science, 6(5), 557-567. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00312 doi: 10.1111/1467-7687.00312 URL pmid: 18259588
[45]	Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Structural priming as implicit learning in language acquisition: The persistence of lexical and structural priming in 4-year-olds. Language Learning and Development, 2(1), 27-49. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15473341lld0201_2 doi: 10.1207/s15473341lld0201_2 URL
[46]	Segaert, K., Wheeldon, L., & Hagoort, P. (2016). Unifying structural priming effects on syntactic choices and timing of sentence generation. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 59-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.011 URL
[47]	Shao, J. M. (2016). General theory of modern Chinese (3rd ed). Shanghai Education Press.
[48]	Shen, J. X. (2017). Structural parallelism and the building of a grammatical system: Exploring Chinese grammar in terms of class inclusion. Journal of East China Normal University (Humanities and Social Sciences) , 49(4), 1-11.
[49]	Shimpi, P. M., Gámez, P. B., Huttenlocher, J., & Vasilyeva, M. (2007). Syntactic priming in 3- and 4-year-old children: Evidence for abstract representations of transitive and dative forms. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1334-1346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1334 URL pmid: 18020815
[50]	Sun, C. F., & Givón, T. (1985). On the so-called SOV word order in Mandarin Chinese: A quantified text study and its implications. Language, 61(2), 329-351. https://doi.org/10.2307/414148 doi: 10.2307/414148 URL
[51]	Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74(3), 209-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00069-4 doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00069-4 URL pmid: 10640571
[52]	Wei, R., Kim, S.-A., & Shin, J.-A. (2022). Structural priming and inverse preference effects in L2 grammaticality judgment and production of English relative clauses. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, e845691. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.845691
[53]	Xu, T. Q. (2001). Fundamental structural principles of Chinese semantic syntax in terms of ZI. Applied Linguistics, (1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.16499/j.cnki.1003-5397.2001.01.001
[54]	Yang, M. M., & Hu, J. H. (2022). A study of the diachronic change of syntax in Chinese from the perspective of child language acquisition. Foreign Language Research, (6), 66-72. https://doi.org/10.16263/j.cnki.23-1071/h.2022.06.010
[55]	Yang, Y. F. (2015). Psycholinguistics. Science Press.
[56]	Yu, Z., & Zhang, Q. F. (2020). Syntactic structure and verb overlap influence the syntactic priming effect in Mandarin spoken sentence production. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(3), 283-293. https://doi. org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00283 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00283
[57]	Zhou, G. G. (1994). An analysis of the acquisition mechanism of Chinese passive sentences. Chinese Teaching in the World, (1), 30-36
[58]	Zhu, Y., Xu, M., Lu, J., Hu, J., Kwok, V. P. Y., Zhou, Y., Yuan, D., Wu, B., Zhang, J., Wu, J., & Tan, L. H. (2022). Distinct spatiotemporal patterns of syntactic and semantic processing in human inferior frontal gyrus. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(8), 1104-1111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01334-6 doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01334-6 URL

Verb Types	Prime Types	Target Types
Verb Types	Prime Types	SVO	SbaOV	SbeiOV
No-Overlap	SVO	0.818(755)	0.180(166)	0.002(2)
	SbaOV	0.250(231)	0.739(683)	0.011(10)
	SbeiOV	0.499(461)	0.286(264)	0.215(199)
	Baseline	0.791(730)	0.206(190)	0.003(3)
Overlap	SVO	0.776(712)	0.217(199)	0.007(6)
	SbaOV	0.243(223)	0.740(679)	0.016(15)
	SbeiOV	0.347(318)	0.383(351)	0.270(248)
	Baseline	0.655(599)	0.334(306)	0.011(10)

Verb Types	Prime Types	Target Types
Verb Types	Prime Types	SVO	SbaOV	SbeiOV
No-Overlap	SVO	0.818(755)	0.180(166)	0.002(2)
	SbaOV	0.250(231)	0.739(683)	0.011(10)
	SbeiOV	0.499(461)	0.286(264)	0.215(199)
	Baseline	0.791(730)	0.206(190)	0.003(3)
Overlap	SVO	0.776(712)	0.217(199)	0.007(6)
	SbaOV	0.243(223)	0.740(679)	0.016(15)
	SbeiOV	0.347(318)	0.383(351)	0.270(248)
	Baseline	0.655(599)	0.334(306)	0.011(10)

Independent variable	SVO Model (Model 1)				SbaOV Model (Model 2)				SbeiOV Model (Model 3)
Independent variable	β	SE	Wald Z	p	β	SE	Wald Z	p	β	SE	Wald Z	p
Intercept	0.29	0.09	3.01	0.003^**	-0.63	0.08	-7.47	<0.001^***	-5.11	0.23	-22.30	<0.001^***
Main effect
Age	0.10	0.11	0.90	0.37	-0.06	0.10	-0.64	0.52	-0.05	0.29	-0.15	0.88
SVO	0.65	0.21	3.15	0.002^**	-0.60	0.18	-3.37	0.001^***	-1.25	0.67	-1.86	0.06.
SbaOV	-2.66	0.21	-13.40	<0.001^***	2.58	0.18	14.15	<0.001^***	-0.66	0.57	-1.17	0.24
SbeiOV	-1.61	0.19	-8.51	<0.001^***	0.37	0.17	2.26	0.02^*	4.24	0.39	10.87	<0.001^***
Verbs	-0.47	0.20	-2.33	0.02*	0.34	0.19	1.84	0.07.	0.63	0.34	1.86	0.06.
Second-order interaction
Age: SVO	0.02	0.20	0.13	0.90	-0.02	0.18	-0.11	0.91	-0.22	1.08	-0.21	0.84
Age: SbaOV	-0.57	0.18	-3.20	0.001^***	0.53	0.20	2.70	0.007^**	0.48	0.78	0.61	0.54
Age: SbeiOV	-0.03	0.16	-0.16	0.87	0.17	0.16	1.09	0.28	-0.07	0.62	-0.11	0.91
Age: Verbs	0.33	0.24	1.36	0.17	-0.32	0.30	-1.40	0.16	0.21	0.59	0.35	0.73
SVO: Verbs	0.62	0.43	1.45	0.15	-0.59	0.40	-1.46	0.14	-0.08	1.19	-0.06	0.95
SbaOV: Verbs	0.43	0.41	1.06	0.29	-0.51	0.40	-1.28	0.20	-1.04	1.03	-1.01	0.31
SbeiOV: Verbs	-0.13	0.39	-0.33	0.74	-0.20	0.37	-0.54	0.59	-0.94	0.71	-1.32	0.19
Third-order interaction
Age: SVO: Verbs	1.31	0.47	2.80	0.005^**	-1.26	0.46	-2.73	0.006^**	-0.35	2.19	-0.16	0.87
Age: SbaOV: Verbs	-0.60	0.45	-1.35	0.18	0.67	0.45	1.46	0.14	-0.92	1.63	-0.56	0.57
Age: SbeiOV: Verbs	0.17	0.38	0.47	0.64	-0.21	0.39	-0.55	0.58	-0.28	1.24	-0.23	0.81

Independent variable	SVO Model (Model 1)				SbaOV Model (Model 2)				SbeiOV Model (Model 3)
Independent variable	β	SE	Wald Z	p	β	SE	Wald Z	p	β	SE	Wald Z	p
Intercept	0.29	0.09	3.01	0.003^**	-0.63	0.08	-7.47	<0.001^***	-5.11	0.23	-22.30	<0.001^***
Main effect
Age	0.10	0.11	0.90	0.37	-0.06	0.10	-0.64	0.52	-0.05	0.29	-0.15	0.88
SVO	0.65	0.21	3.15	0.002^**	-0.60	0.18	-3.37	0.001^***	-1.25	0.67	-1.86	0.06.
SbaOV	-2.66	0.21	-13.40	<0.001^***	2.58	0.18	14.15	<0.001^***	-0.66	0.57	-1.17	0.24
SbeiOV	-1.61	0.19	-8.51	<0.001^***	0.37	0.17	2.26	0.02^*	4.24	0.39	10.87	<0.001^***
Verbs	-0.47	0.20	-2.33	0.02*	0.34	0.19	1.84	0.07.	0.63	0.34	1.86	0.06.
Second-order interaction
Age: SVO	0.02	0.20	0.13	0.90	-0.02	0.18	-0.11	0.91	-0.22	1.08	-0.21	0.84
Age: SbaOV	-0.57	0.18	-3.20	0.001^***	0.53	0.20	2.70	0.007^**	0.48	0.78	0.61	0.54
Age: SbeiOV	-0.03	0.16	-0.16	0.87	0.17	0.16	1.09	0.28	-0.07	0.62	-0.11	0.91
Age: Verbs	0.33	0.24	1.36	0.17	-0.32	0.30	-1.40	0.16	0.21	0.59	0.35	0.73
SVO: Verbs	0.62	0.43	1.45	0.15	-0.59	0.40	-1.46	0.14	-0.08	1.19	-0.06	0.95
SbaOV: Verbs	0.43	0.41	1.06	0.29	-0.51	0.40	-1.28	0.20	-1.04	1.03	-1.01	0.31
SbeiOV: Verbs	-0.13	0.39	-0.33	0.74	-0.20	0.37	-0.54	0.59	-0.94	0.71	-1.32	0.19
Third-order interaction
Age: SVO: Verbs	1.31	0.47	2.80	0.005^**	-1.26	0.46	-2.73	0.006^**	-0.35	2.19	-0.16	0.87
Age: SbaOV: Verbs	-0.60	0.45	-1.35	0.18	0.67	0.45	1.46	0.14	-0.92	1.63	-0.56	0.57
Age: SbeiOV: Verbs	0.17	0.38	0.47	0.64	-0.21	0.39	-0.55	0.58	-0.28	1.24	-0.23	0.81

id	verb	prime		target
id	verb	agent	patient	agent	patient
1	put down / 放下	calf / 小牛	bag / 书包	puppy / 小狗	pistol / 手枪
2	break / 打破	kitten / 小猫	egg / 鸡蛋	puppy / 小狗	cup / 杯子
3	put on / 穿上	puppy / 小狗	shoe / 鞋子	rabbit / 兔子	clothing / 衣服
4	put up / 挂起	dad / 爸爸	lantern / 灯笼	police / 警察	flag / 红旗
5	eat up / 吃掉	monkey / 猴子	banana / 香蕉	puppy / 小狗	bone / 骨头
6	take-off / 摘下	grandpa /爷爷	apple / 苹果	grandma / 奶奶	glasses / 眼镜
7	put on / 戴上	grandma / 奶奶	glasses / 眼镜	grandpa / 爷爷	hat / 帽子
8	push / 推开	lamb / 小羊	window / 窗户	bear / 小熊	door / 大门
9	open / 打开	little bear /小熊	box / 盒子	duck / 小鸭	box / 箱子
10	bust / 摔坏	fox / 狐狸	toy / 玩具	puppy / 小狗	vase / 花瓶
11	pull out / 拔掉	calf / 小牛	nail / 钉子	tiger / 老虎	teeth / 牙齿
12	take-off / 脱掉	brother / 弟弟	pants / 裤子	monkey / 小猴	clothing / 衣服
13	break / 打碎	tiger / 老虎	mirror / 镜子	pony / 小马	tank / 水缸
14	steal / 偷走	fox / 狐狸	TV / 电视	monkey / 小猴	cell phone / 手机
15	bring / 端来	piglet / 小猪	cake / 蛋糕	grandma / 奶奶	fruit / 水果
16	lift / 搬起	calf / 小牛	stone / 石头	bear / 小熊	box / 箱子
17	tie / 系上	dad / 爸爸	tie / 领带	brother / 哥哥	red scarf / 红领巾
18	blow out / 吹灭	piglet / 小猪	match / 火柴	uncle / 叔叔	candle / 蜡烛
19	step / 踩坏	bear / 小熊	flowers / 花草	monkey / 小猴	balloon / 气球
20	pick up / 抱起	puppy / 小狗	watermelon / 西瓜	monkey / 小猴	tree / 大树
21	Write /写完	the old /老人	assignment / 书法	sister / 姐姐	homework / 作业
22	wash /洗净	rabbit / 兔子	clothing / 衣服	grandma / 奶奶	plate / 盘子
23	blow away /吹走	bear / 小熊	flower / 花朵	piglet / 小猪	branch / 树枝
24	lift /举起	calf / 小牛	stool / 凳子	monkey / 小猴	bucket / 水桶
25	tear off / 撕掉	puppy / 小狗	book / 书本	calf / 小牛	fan / 扇子
26	kick over / 踢翻	fox / 狐狸	block / 积木	wolf / 大灰狼	basin / 水盆
27	cut off / 剪断	sister / 姐姐	long hair / 长发	calf / 小牛	cord / 绳子
28	cover /盖上	tiger / 老虎	cup cover / 杯盖	monkey / 小猴	box / 盒子
29	turn off /关掉	puppy / 小狗	tv / 电视	dad / 爸爸	mobile phone / 手机
30	pick up /捡起	monkey / 小猴	airplane / 飞机	brother / 哥哥	book / 书本
31	pick up /拿起	chick / 小鸡	pencil / 铅笔	kitten / 小猫	water cup / 杯子
32	fix it / 修好	dad / 爸爸	stopcock / 水龙头	grandpa / 爷爷	car / 车子
33	drink it up /喝掉	piglet / 小猪	milk / 牛奶	pony / 小马	drinks / 饮料
34	kick away / 踢飞	tiger / 老虎	shoe / 鞋子	elephant / 小象	ball / 皮球
35	throw away / 扔掉	puppy / 小狗	paper / 纸团	monkey / 猴子	peel / 香蕉皮
36	close / 关上	mom / 妈妈	window / 窗户	grandma / 奶奶	door / 房门