Agent codability had the expected effect on sentence form: speakers produced more active sentences beginning

with “easy” agents than “hard” agents (.71 vs. .61). Importantly, Agent codability interacted with Prime condition (Fig. 2b; Table 2). The first contrast for this interaction shows no difference between production of actives in the passive condition and in the two other conditions in items with “easy” and “hard” agents. However, the second contrast shows a difference between the active prime condition and neutral prime condition: this is due to the fact that active primes increased the likelihood of speakers placing a “harder” agent in FDA-approved Drug Library in vitro subject position. In other words, the effect of agent accessibility on sentence form was attenuated by structural priming: active primes selectively

increased production of active descriptions in items where properties of the agent disfavored selection of active syntax. The direction of this effect is again consistent with the observation that priming effects are larger when structures are difficult to produce (“difficulty” in this case is defined by the conflict between the preference to begin sentences with agents and the preference to produce less accessible referents later). Structure choice was not sensitive to Event codability (Fig. 2c). Speakers tended to produce more active sentences to describe “harder” events, and, while passive primes reduced this tendency, interactions with Prime condition did RO4929097 mw not reach significance. Active sentences were initiated earlier than passive sentences (2029 ms vs. 2131 ms).

As in Experiment 1, onsets were sensitive to Agent codability: sentences with “easier” agents were initiated more quickly than sentences with “harder” agents (β = .16, z = 3.51, for the main effect of Agent codability), but this effect was smaller in passive sentences, where agents were produced in object position (β = .08, z = 2.18, Montelukast Sodium for the interaction of Sentence type with Agent codability). Thus speakers likely attempted to encode agents as sentence subjects by default, but demonstrated more sensitivity to properties of the second character than in Experiment 1. Speech onsets differed across Prime conditions only in active sentences. Onsets were longer after passive primes than after active and neutral primes combined (β = .08, z = 2.98); onsets after active and neutral primes did not differ (β = .01, z = .22). Onsets in passive sentences did not vary by condition, but interactions of Sentence type (active vs. passive) with Prime condition did not reach significance. As in Experiment 1, speakers began formulation of active sentences by fixating agents preferentially within 200 ms of picture onset and then briefly directing their gaze to the patient by 400 ms.