Anna Merin Mathew

Background: Case marking serves as a crucial cue in sentence processing, enabling the prediction of upcoming arguments, thematic roles, and event structure. Cross-linguistic studies have revealed language-specific variations in case processing, with differences observed between nominative–accusative and ergative languages, albeit with limited data from the latter. Objective: To this end, we investigated case processing in Hindi compound light verb constructions, leveraging its split-ergative system. Methods: An ERP study was conducted with twenty-four native Hindi speakers, wherein the subject case (ergative or nominative) either matched or mismatched with the aspect marking on the light verb (perfective or imperfective). Results: The results revealed distinct ERP effects depending upon the subject case: a P600 effect for ergative case violations at the imperfective light verb and a biphasic N400-P600 effect for nominative case violations at the perfective light verb. Conclusions: These findings suggest underlying neurophysiological differences in the processing of ergative versus nominative case alignment within light verb structures. Moving forward, a closer examination of structure-specific neurophysiological variation can help bridge the gap between typological distributions and their neural underpinnings.

Ergativity marks subject arguments as agents of a transitive event and thereby signals verbal transitivity and influences language comprehension. We report here on an event-related brain potentials (ERP) study in Hindi, in which we investigated this interconnection to ascertain whether the ergative case as a processing cue and its ERP correlates can be generalized across and within ergative languages. The case marking on the subject argument (ergative or nominative case) in our study either matched or mismatched with the transitivity of the light verb (transitive or intransitive) in compound light verb constructions. Ergative case violations due to an intransitive light verb evoked an N400 effect, whereas nominative case violations due to a transitive light verb elicited a P600 effect. The results reveal neurophysiological differences in the processing of ergative and nominative case alignment modulated by the transitivity of the light verbs. The findings highlight the need for cross-linguistic research to aim beyond universality and elucidate the mechanism underlying the processing of language-specific structural variations.

The study reported here was conducted to investigate the neurophysiological correlates of processing two types of subject experiencer verbs, namely mental experiencer verbs and physical experiencer verbs in Malayalam, a South Dravidian language. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded as twenty-eight first-language speakers of Malayalam read intransitive sentences with the two types of experiencer verbs. Critical stimuli were either fully acceptable, whereby the subject case matched the requirements of the verb, or unacceptable, whereby the subject case violated the requirements of the verb. A linear mixed-models analysis confirmed negativity effects in the time window 400–800 ms for mental and physical experiencer verbs. Post-hoc analyses revealed that the negativity peaked relatively early for mental experiencer verbs, whereas relatively late for physical experiencer verbs. Further, the sentence-final acceptability of trials modulated the ERPs in non-anomalous conditions but not in violation conditions, and this modulation qualitatively differed between mental and physical experiencer verbs. These results suggest that, whilst a qualitatively similar mechanism is involved in the processing of both kinds of experiencer verbs, subtle but robust differences are inherent in processing mental versus physical experiencer verbs in Malayalam.