MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1162/nol.a.247

Медицинская библиотека · Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026

Same Sentences, Different Grammars, Different Brain Responses?: An MEG Study on Case and Agreement Encoding in Hindi and Nepali Split-Ergative Structures.

Chacón Dustin A, Shrestha Subhekshya, Dillon Brian W, Bhatt Rajesh, Almeida Diogo, Marantz Alec

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

At first glance, the brain's language network appears to be universal, but languages clearly differ. Does the brain adapt to the specific details of individual grammatical systems? Here, we present a magnetoencephalography (MEG) study on case and agreement in Hindi and Nepali. Both languages use split-ergative case systems. However, these systems interact with verb agreement differently-in Hindi, case features conspire to determine which noun phrase (NP) the verb agrees with (subject, object, or neither), but in Nepali the verb always agrees with the subject NP. We found that NPs with different case values elicit different MEG signals around 200-500 and 600-900 ms. In subsequent exploratory analyses, we failed to find a reliable difference in this brain activity between the two languages corresponding to the different relations between case and agreement. However, we identified a portion of the left temporoparietal junction as exhibiting a statistically nonsignificant effect that may warrant further investigation.

Для цитирования: Chacón Dustin A, Shrestha Subhekshya, Dillon Brian W, Bhatt Rajesh, Almeida Diogo, Marantz Alec. Same Sentences, Different Grammars, Different Brain Responses?: An MEG Study on Case and Agreement Encoding in Hindi and Nepali Split-Ergative Structures.. Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.). 2026. DOI: 10.1162/nol.a.247.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.