4~6岁幼儿口语产生中句法结构和动词重复的作用：来自句法启动的证据

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01608

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

4~6岁是幼儿句法习得的关键期, 此阶段的句法表征是否受到词汇信息的影响尚存理论争议。采用句法启动范式中的句子重复−图片描述任务, 以句法选择比率为指标, 借助汉语及物结构(主动句、把字句和被动句), 分析了幼儿在句子产生时句法结构和动词重复的作用。结果显示三种句法结构都诱发了抽象启动效应, 证实幼儿在习得汉语句法知识时不依赖词汇信息。同时, 动词重复只有在大龄幼儿(5~6岁)主动句的启动中才能提升启动量, 表明动词增强效应与幼儿年龄以及句法结构偏好有关。此外, 因句法结构偏好差异, 三种结构间产生了逆偏好效应。以上结果可以从内隐学习理论的角度进行解释。

关键词: 幼儿, 句子产生, 抽象启动效应, 词汇增强/依赖效应, 句法结构偏好

Abstract:

The period between the ages of 4 and 6 is crucial for young 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. Recently, experts in Indo-European languages have begun to utilize the priming paradigm to address this question; however, theoretical conflicts remain.

Unlike Indo-European languages, Mandarin, as an isolating language, relies on function words and word order instead of morphological changes to express grammar. Some researchers have even proposed that Chinese syntax is a language usage and there is no syntactic structure separate from semantics. Consequently, we intend to evaluate pre-existing theories by scrutinizing the syntactic representation in four-to-six-year-old Mandarin-speaking children. To examine the effects of syntactic structure and verb repetition on the syntactic representation of Chinese in young children, 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 of the study showed that abstract priming effects are induced by the three syntactic structures, irrespective of whether the verb overlaps or not. Especially, when young children begin a specific sentence pattern, such as an SbaOV structure, they tend to formulate an 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. This finding implies that the emergence of verb boost effects is influenced by the age of children and their syntactic structural preferences. Moreover, the priming effect of non-preferential structures is more powerful than that of preferential structures regardless of whether the verb overlaps, resulting in a reverse preferential effect.

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. Conversely, the lexical boost effect is determined by their working memory. Simultaneously, this research challenges both the RA-Early and RA-Later syntactic models, which rely on the Residual Activation Theory. We believe that children’s syntactic representations may not emerge exclusively from the syntactic structures and node links between verbs. In essence, it is not feasible to induce both abstract priming and lexical reinforcement effects in young children during the early stages of cognitive development. Furthermore, establishing lexical dependency effects before generating abstract representations is not a prerequisite.

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

中图分类号:

B842
B844

王阳, 张琳爽, 崔楠楠, 吴岩. (2023). 4~6岁幼儿口语产生中句法结构和动词重复的作用：来自句法启动的证据. 心理学报, 55(10), 1608-1619.

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.

图/表 5

参考文献 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
	[陈庆荣. (2012). 句法启动研究的范式及其在语言理解中的争论. 心理科学进展, 20(2), 208-218.]
[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.
	[龚少英. (2007). 4-5岁幼儿把字句和被字句句法意识发展的特点. 教育科学, 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 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206788 URL
[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
	[黄健, 杨子瑜, 洪丹萍, 刘喜琴, 王穗苹. (2022). 中心词和非中心词在句法启动的词汇增强效应中存在不同的机制. 心理学报, 54(11), 1354-1365.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01354
[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 doi: 10.1111/cogs.v45.6 URL
[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.
	[邵敬敏. (2016). 现代汉语通论 (第3版). 上海教育出版社.]
[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.
	[沈家煊. (2017). “结构的平行性”和语法体系的构建——用 “类包含” 讲汉语语法. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 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
	[徐通锵. (2001). 字和汉语语义句法的基本结构原理. 语言文字应用, (1), 3-13.]
[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
	[杨萌萌, 胡建华. (2022). 儿童语言获得视角下的句法演化研究——以古今汉语句法结构层级的发展为例. 外语学刊, (6), 66-72.]
[55]	Yang, Y. F. (2015). Psycholinguistics. Science Press.
	[杨玉芳. (2015). 心理语言学. 科学出版社.]
[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 URL
	[于宙, 张清芳. (2020). 句法结构和动词重复对汉语句子口语产生中句法启动效应的影响. 心理学报, 52(3), 283-293.] 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
	[周国光. (1994). 试析汉语被动句的习得机制. 世界汉语教学, (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

动词类型	启动类型	目标类型
动词类型	启动类型	主动句	把动句	被动句
不重复	主动句	0.818 (755)	0.180 (166)	0.002 (2)
	把动句	0.250 (231)	0.739 (683)	0.011 (10)
	被动句	0.499 (461)	0.286 (264)	0.215 (199)
	基线句	0.791 (730)	0.206 (190)	0.003 (3)
重复	主动句	0.776 (712)	0.217 (199)	0.007 (6)
	把动句	0.243 (223)	0.740 (679)	0.016 (15)
	被动句	0.347 (318)	0.383 (351)	0.270 (248)
	基线句	0.655 (599)	0.334 (306)	0.011 (10)

动词类型	启动类型	目标类型
动词类型	启动类型	主动句	把动句	被动句
不重复	主动句	0.818 (755)	0.180 (166)	0.002 (2)
	把动句	0.250 (231)	0.739 (683)	0.011 (10)
	被动句	0.499 (461)	0.286 (264)	0.215 (199)
	基线句	0.791 (730)	0.206 (190)	0.003 (3)
重复	主动句	0.776 (712)	0.217 (199)	0.007 (6)
	把动句	0.243 (223)	0.740 (679)	0.016 (15)
	被动句	0.347 (318)	0.383 (351)	0.270 (248)
	基线句	0.655 (599)	0.334 (306)	0.011 (10)

自变量	主动句(模型1)				把字句(模型2)				被动句(模型3)
自变量	β	SE	Wald Z	p	β	SE	Wald Z	p	β	SE	Wald Z	p
截距	0.29	0.09	3.01	0.003^**	−0.63	0.08	−7.47	<0.001^***	−5.11	0.23	−22.30	<0.001^***
主效应
年龄	0.10	0.11	0.90	0.37	−0.06	0.10	−0.64	0.52	−0.05	0.29	−0.15	0.88
主动句	0.65	0.21	3.15	0.002^**	−0.60	0.18	−3.37	0.001^***	−1.25	0.67	−1.86	0.06.
把字句	−2.66	0.21	−13.40	<0.001^***	2.58	0.18	14.15	<0.001^***	−0.66	0.57	−1.17	0.24
被动句	−1.61	0.19	−8.51	<0.001^***	0.37	0.17	2.26	0.02^*	4.24	0.39	10.87	<0.001^***
动词重复	−0.47	0.20	−2.33	0.02*	0.34	0.19	1.84	0.07.	0.63	0.34	1.86	0.06.
二阶交互
年龄: 主动句	0.02	0.20	0.13	0.90	−0.02	0.18	−0.11	0.91	−0.22	1.08	−0.21	0.84
年龄: 把字句	−0.57	0.18	−3.20	0.001^***	0.53	0.20	2.70	0.007^**	0.48	0.78	0.61	0.54
年龄: 被动句	−0.03	0.16	−0.16	0.87	0.17	0.16	1.09	0.28	−0.07	0.62	−0.11	0.91
年龄: 动词重复	0.33	0.24	1.36	0.17	−0.32	0.30	−1.40	0.16	0.21	0.59	0.35	0.73
主动句: 动词重复	0.62	0.43	1.45	0.15	−0.59	0.40	−1.46	0.14	−0.08	1.19	−0.06	0.95
把字句: 动词重复	0.43	0.41	1.06	0.29	−0.51	0.40	−1.28	0.20	−1.04	1.03	−1.01	0.31
被动句: 动词重复	−0.13	0.39	−0.33	0.74	−0.20	0.37	−0.54	0.59	−0.94	0.71	−1.32	0.19
三阶交互
年龄: 主动句: 动词重复	1.31	0.47	2.80	0.005^**	−1.26	0.46	−2.73	0.006^**	−0.35	2.19	−0.16	0.87
年龄: 把字句: 动词重复	−0.60	0.45	−1.35	0.18	0.67	0.45	1.46	0.14	−0.92	1.63	−0.56	0.57
年龄: 被动句: 动词重复	0.17	0.38	0.47	0.64	−0.21	0.39	−0.55	0.58	−0.28	1.24	−0.23	0.81

自变量	主动句(模型1)				把字句(模型2)				被动句(模型3)
自变量	β	SE	Wald Z	p	β	SE	Wald Z	p	β	SE	Wald Z	p
截距	0.29	0.09	3.01	0.003^**	−0.63	0.08	−7.47	<0.001^***	−5.11	0.23	−22.30	<0.001^***
主效应
年龄	0.10	0.11	0.90	0.37	−0.06	0.10	−0.64	0.52	−0.05	0.29	−0.15	0.88
主动句	0.65	0.21	3.15	0.002^**	−0.60	0.18	−3.37	0.001^***	−1.25	0.67	−1.86	0.06.
把字句	−2.66	0.21	−13.40	<0.001^***	2.58	0.18	14.15	<0.001^***	−0.66	0.57	−1.17	0.24
被动句	−1.61	0.19	−8.51	<0.001^***	0.37	0.17	2.26	0.02^*	4.24	0.39	10.87	<0.001^***
动词重复	−0.47	0.20	−2.33	0.02*	0.34	0.19	1.84	0.07.	0.63	0.34	1.86	0.06.
二阶交互
年龄: 主动句	0.02	0.20	0.13	0.90	−0.02	0.18	−0.11	0.91	−0.22	1.08	−0.21	0.84
年龄: 把字句	−0.57	0.18	−3.20	0.001^***	0.53	0.20	2.70	0.007^**	0.48	0.78	0.61	0.54
年龄: 被动句	−0.03	0.16	−0.16	0.87	0.17	0.16	1.09	0.28	−0.07	0.62	−0.11	0.91
年龄: 动词重复	0.33	0.24	1.36	0.17	−0.32	0.30	−1.40	0.16	0.21	0.59	0.35	0.73
主动句: 动词重复	0.62	0.43	1.45	0.15	−0.59	0.40	−1.46	0.14	−0.08	1.19	−0.06	0.95
把字句: 动词重复	0.43	0.41	1.06	0.29	−0.51	0.40	−1.28	0.20	−1.04	1.03	−1.01	0.31
被动句: 动词重复	−0.13	0.39	−0.33	0.74	−0.20	0.37	−0.54	0.59	−0.94	0.71	−1.32	0.19
三阶交互
年龄: 主动句: 动词重复	1.31	0.47	2.80	0.005^**	−1.26	0.46	−2.73	0.006^**	−0.35	2.19	−0.16	0.87
年龄: 把字句: 动词重复	−0.60	0.45	−1.35	0.18	0.67	0.45	1.46	0.14	−0.92	1.63	−0.56	0.57
年龄: 被动句: 动词重复	0.17	0.38	0.47	0.64	−0.21	0.39	−0.55	0.58	−0.28	1.24	−0.23	0.81

▲主动句(模型1)：收敛模型公式：目标反应 = 启动类型 × 动词类型 × 年龄 + (1 + 主动句 + 把字句 + 被动句 + 动词重复 + 主动句：动词重复 + 把字句:动词重复 + 被动句：动词重复 \| 被试) + (1 + 年龄 + 主动句 + 把字句 + 动词重复 + 年龄：主动句 + 年龄：动词重复 + 主动句:动词重复 + 把字句：动词重复 + 年龄：主动句：动词重复 + 年龄：把字句：动词重复 \| 项目)
被试			项目
随机项	Variance	SD	随机项	Variance	SD
截距	0.24	0.49	截距	0.22	0.47
主动句	0.26	0.51	年龄	0.02	0.14
把字句	0.21	0.46	主动句	0.18	0.42
被动句	0.18	0.42	把字句	0.07	0.27
动词重复	1.16	1.08	动词重复	0.98	0.99
主动句:动词重复	1.86	1.37	年龄：主动句	0.03	0.16
把字句:动词重复	1.07	1.03	年龄：动词重复	0.32	0.57
被动句:动词重复	0.68	0.82	主动句：动词重复	0.41	0.64
			把字句：动词重复	0.43	0.66
			年龄：主动句：动词重复	0.18	0.43
			年龄：把字句：动词重复	1.92	1.39
▲把字句(模型2) 收敛模型公式：目标反应 = 启动类型 × 动词类型 × 年龄 + (1 + 主动句 + 把字句 + 被动句 + 动词重复 + 年龄：主动句 + 年龄：把字句 + 主动句：动词重复 + 把字句：动词重复 + 被动句：动词重复 \| 被试) + (1 + 年龄 + 主动句 + 把字句 + 动词重复 + 年龄：主动句 + 年龄:动词重复 + 主动句：动词重复 + 把字句：动词重复+ 年龄：主动句：动词重复 + 年龄：把字句：动词重复 \| 项目)
被试			项目
随机项	Variance	SD	随机项	Variance	SD
截距	0.20	0.44	截距	0.15	0.39
主动句	0.10	0.32	年龄	0.02	0.12
把字句	0.31	0.55	主动句	0.16	0.34
被动句	0.17	0.42	把字句	0.11	0.33
动词重复	0.95	0.97	动词重复	0.87	0.93
年龄:主动句	0.02	0.14	年龄：主动句	0.07	0.27
年龄:把字句	0.10	0.31	年龄：动词重复	0.42	0.65
主动句:动词重复	1.34	1.16	主动句：动词重复	0.40	0.63
把字句:动词重复	1.33	1.15	把字句：动词重复	0.49	0.70
被动句:动词重复	0.64	0.80	年龄：主动句：动词重复	0.39	0.62
			年龄：把字句：动词重复	1.22	1.11
▲被动句(模型3) 收敛模型公式：目标反应 = 启动类型 × 动词类型 × 年龄 + (1 + 主动句 + 把字句 + 被动句 + 动词重复 + 主动句：动词重复 + 把字句：动词重复 \| 被试)+ (1 + 主动句 + 把字句 + 年龄：把字句 + 年龄：动词重复 + 把字句：动词重复 + 年龄：把字句：动词重复 \| 项目)
被试			项目
随机项	Variance	SD	随机项	Variance	SD
截距	0.03	0.17	截距	0.05	0.23
主动句	1.77	1.33	主动句	1.42	1.19
把字句	2.66	1.63	把字句	0.47	0.69
被动句	0.59	0.77	年龄：把字句	0.01	0.10
动词重复	0.69	0.83	年龄：动词重复	0.15	0.39
主动句：动词重复	9.81	3.13	把字句：动词重复	2.56	1.60
把字句：动词重复	17.14	4.14	年龄：把字句：动词重复	3.61	1.90