What determines whether formulation of any one message and sentence falls towards one end or the other end of this continuum? The hypothesis evaluated in this paper is that reliance on these planning strategies should depend on the ease of non-relational and relational encoding, click here as well as on interactions between these processes. Linear incrementality defines increments in terms of non-relational, character-specific information, whereas hierarchical incrementality gives precedence to relational over non-relational encoding. Thus if increments generated by applying a linearly incremental or a hierarchically incremental planning strategy are encoded by

prioritizing different types of information, then differences in sentence formulation should be observed under two conditions. First, the timecourse of formulation should vary systematically across events with different non-relational

and relational PI3K inhibitor properties (such as the ease of encoding individual characters and the ease of encoding event gist). Second, formulation should shift from one end of the continuum to the other end of the continuum whenever processes responsible for encoding non-relational and relational information become easier or harder to execute. We report the results of two eye-tracking experiments that examined differences in the timecourse of formulation for descriptions of transitive events. In both experiments, participants saw and described a list of pictures while their gaze and speech were recorded. The agent and patient characters in the target events (n = 30 in each experiment) varied in ease of naming (character codability) and performed actions that were easier or harder to describe (event codability; Kuchinsky & Bock, 2010). PIK3C2G In addition, the ease of retrieving character names was manipulated in Experiment 1 via lexical priming,

and the ease of generating active and passive structures was manipulated in Experiment 2 via structural priming. Of these four variables, two provided a measure of the ease of non-relational encoding (character codability and ease of lexical retrieval) and two were more closely tied to relational encoding (event codability and the ease of assembling syntactic structures). Within each variable type, one reflected item-specific properties and one was experimentally manipulated. Together, these variables capture variability in encoding that can arise at the message level as well as the sentence level. Earlier work showed that all four variables can influence sentence form ( Bock, 1986a, Bock, 1986b and Kuchinsky and Bock, 2010), and detailed predictions with regard to the timecourse of formulation are listed below (Sections 1.2 and 1.3).