Thus prioritizing lexical encoding is generally compatible with the main tenets of linear incrementality, and prioritizing encoding of structural information is more compatible with hierarchical incrementality. As outlined earlier, discussions about the role of words

and structures in formulation bear a strong similarity to questions about lexical–structural integration – i.e., the long-standing debate about lexical and structural guidance in grammatical UMI-77 manufacturer encoding (Bock, 1987a; see Pickering & Ferreira, 2008, for a review). Sentence form is a product of both lexical and structural constraints, but lexicalist and abstract structural accounts assume that speakers prioritize Dabrafenib price encoding of either words or structures: in a lexical system, words trigger structural assembly (lexical guidance), and in an abstract structural system, structures can be generated without lexical support (structural guidance). The types of dependencies between words and structures described by these accounts have the same implications for formulation as linear and hierarchical incrementality: lexical guidance assumes that non-relational processes take precedence over relational processes, while structural guidance gives abstract structures a more prominent role in shaping sentence form. One approach to testing for effects

of lexical and structural guidance on formulation is to experimentally vary the ease of lexical and structural encoding. In the current experiments, we manipulate these processes via lexical and structural priming. Lexical priming involves presenting speakers with words that are semantically or associatively related to a referent in the target picture (e.g., pony or milk before a picture of a horse kicking a cow; Bock, 1986b). Processing of the prime words increases the activation and hence the

accessibility of target words, and thus increases production of sentences with primed, easy-to-name characters in subject position. Similarly, structural see more priming involves exposing speakers to syntactic structures that may be used to describe target events, and thus increases the likelihood of speakers using the primed structure on the target trial ( Bock, 1986a). Experiment 1 used lexical primes embedded in intransitive sentences to increase the accessibility of the agent and patient characters in target events, and Experiment 2 used structural primes to facilitate assembly of a transitive structural frame. The paradigms were adapted from Bock, 1986a and Bock, 1986b: on prime trials, speakers saw pictured events and heard recorded descriptions, while on target trials, they were asked to describe new pictures themselves.