the resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective

www.elsevier.com/locate/cogbrainres

Cognitive Brain Research

Research Report

The resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective

Stefan Frisch a,b,c,*, Matthias Schlesewsky d

aDay-Care Clinic of Cognitive Neurology, University of Leipzig, GermanybInstitute of Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Germany

cMax-Planck Institute of Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, GermanydJunior Research Group Neurolinguistics, Philipps-University Marburg, Germany

Accepted 31 July 2005

Available online 1 September 2005

Abstract

We present two ERP experiments examining the resolution of language processing conflicts involving the multidimensional

linguistic feature case, which determines processing in both syntactic and interpretive respects. Ungrammatical German structures

with two identically case-marked arguments (double subject or double object constructions) were tested. In earlier studies, double

subject constructions have been shown to elicit a biphasic pattern consisting of an N400 effect (a marker of thematic integration

problems) followed by a P600 effect (a marker of syntactic ill-formedness). Here, we compare double nominative (subject case)

constructions with double datives (indirect object case; Experiment 1) and double accusatives (direct object case; Experiment 2).

All types of double case ungrammaticalities elicited a biphasic N400–P600 response. However, double datives differed from

double nominatives in that they elicited a larger P600, suggesting that the ill-formedness is more salient in structures with two

dative arguments. Double accusatives, by contrast, elicited a stronger N400 in comparison to double nominatives, suggesting that

they induce more severe semantic– thematic integration problems. The results demonstrate that the human language comprehension

system is sensitive to fine grained linguistic distinctions between different cases and utilizes these in its attempts to solve

processing conflicts.

D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Theme: Neural basis of behavior

Topic: Cognition

Keywords: Event-related brain potentials (ERPs); Language processing; Case; Thematic role; N400; P600

1. Introduction

Case has always been one of the most fascinating, but

also eluding, aspects of linguistic theorizing, as becomes

apparent when considering the vast body of literature on this

topic. This general interest in case may be partially

attributed to the fact that this linguistic feature is charac-

terized by a unique degree of multidimensionality. In other

words, while case is most prominently associated with

0926-6410/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.07.010

* Corresponding author. Max-Planck Institute of Human Cognitive and

Brain Sciences, PO Box 500 355, D-04303 Leipzig, Germany. Fax: +49

341 99 40 260.

E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Frisch).

syntactic properties (i.e. grammatical function, cf. [6]), it is

also of great importance for other linguistic domains such as

morphology (i.e. inflectional regularities) and semantics (cf.

[30,47,48]). Since the earliest days of linguistics, the degree

of association between these different functions of case and

their relation to one another have been subject to much

discussion (e.g. [14,39]).

The notion of case has received great attention not

only in linguistic theory but also in the domain of

language processing. Especially in languages with overt

morphological case marking and word order freedom

(e.g. German, Russian, Polish, Finnish, etc.), case is an

important indicator as to how sentential arguments should

be interpreted with respect to their underlying syntactic

25 (2005) 484 – 498

1 We do not use the term ‘‘Control’’ here as referring to a specific type of

syntactic construction (such as in The man tried PRO to escape), but in the

interpretative sense of Comrie [8]. Here, it indicates to what extent the

different participants in an event (expressed in a sentence) have volitional

control over that event. In a sentence such as The thief killed the policeman,

the thief has more control over the killing event than the policeman. The

concept is used to predict how these different participants have to be

encoded syntactically (cf. [39]).

S. Frisch, M. Schlesewsky / Cognitive Brain Research 25 (2005) 484–498 485

and semantic function. Consider the German examples in

(1a) and (1b).

(1a). Der Dichter besuchte den Maler.

[the poet]NOM visited [the painter]ACC

FThe poet visited the painter_

(1b). Den Dichter besuchte der Maler.

[the poet]ACC visited [the painter]NOM

FThe painter visited the poet_

In contrast to English, the first argument in German

clauses can be either the subject (as in (1a)) or the object (as

in (1b)). Whether it is the former or the latter depends on its

case marking (nominative – subject case – in (1a) and

accusative – direct object case – in (1b)). Importantly,

besides determining the grammatical function of arguments,

case also plays a crucial role in their interpretation: the

nominative case marking of ‘‘der Dichter’’ in (1a) in

comparison to its accusative case marking in (1b) allows

the language processing system to conclude that the poet is

the participant doing the visiting in (1a) – the Actor – but

the participant being visited in (1b) – the Undergoer.

Clearly, this difference is of crucial importance, since

answering the question of who is doing what to whom in

a sentence constitutes the core of understanding that

sentence.

Several ERP studies have shown that the morphological

case of an argument in German is immediately analyzed in

syntactic as well as interpretive (thematic) terms (cf. [40]).

Bornkessel et al. [3,4] have shown that verbs which do not

confirm an expected canonical thematic ordering between

two arguments elicit an early positivity which is induced by

a ‘‘thematic reanalysis’’. In German embedded clauses such

as (2a) and (2b) (tested in [4]), in which the verb follows the

arguments, the processing system establishes a hierarchical

thematic ordering between the arguments even before the

verb is encountered.

(2a). Ich glaube, dass der Dichter dem Gartner folgt.

I believe that [the poet]SUB [the gardener]OBJ follows.

FI believe that the poet follows the gardener_

(2b). Ich glaube, dass der Dichter dem Gartner gefallt.

I believe that [the poet]SUB [the gardener]OBJ pleases

FI believe that the poet is appealing to the gardener_

More specifically, on the basis of the properties of the

German case system, the processor can derive the prediction

that if there is an argument marked with nominative case, it

is more likely to play the ‘‘doing’’ or ‘‘causing’’ role (Actor)

in an event compared to an argument marked with dative

case, which is more probably causally affected by that

event. Active verbs such as ‘‘folgen’’ (to follow) in (2a)

confirm this prediction seeing that the nominative-marked

argument indeed turns out to be thematically higher-

ranking. Dative object–experiencer verbs such as ‘‘gefallen’’

(to be appealing to) as in (2b), by contrast, have a subject

which is affected and an object which is experiencing

something (here: being appealed to) and which thereby has

more control (Actor) properties in comparison to the

grammatical subject (cf. [12,39]). In that sense, the thematic

ordering normally built up on the basis of morphological

case is reversed if an object–experiencer verb follows the

arguments as compared with an active verb. In terms of ERP

effects, this ‘‘thematic garden path’’ is found to correlate

with an early positivity around 350 ms (cf. [3,4]).

Further support for the assumption that neuronal lan-

guage processing mechanisms immediately draw upon

morphological case information for a thematic hierarchiza-

tion of arguments stems from an experiment reported in

[20]. In this study, German sentences were presented in

which both arguments of a transitive verb were identically

case-marked for nominative as in (3a). Since clauses in

German (as in other languages) cannot have two arguments

both marked for subject, (3a) becomes ungrammatical at the

position of the second argument.

(3a). * Paul fragt sich, welcher Angler der Jager gelobt hat.

Paul asks himself [which angler]NOM [the hunter]NOM

praised has

(3b). Paul fragt sich, welchen Angler der Jager gelobt hat.

Paul asks himself [which angler]ACC [the hunter]NOM

praised has

FPaul asks himself which hunter has praised the angler_

In comparison to the same position in a correct sentence

such as (3b), the second nominative-marked argument in

(3a) induced a biphasic pattern consisting of an N400

negativity and a subsequent P600 positivity. In previous

ERP studies (see [16,17] for overviews), the N400 effect

was associated with problems of semantic–thematic inte-

gration (cf. [7,18,32]), whereas the P600 effect has been

found to indicate syntactic and non-syntactic ill-formedness

or unexpectedness (cf. [31,38,44]). Frisch and Schlesewsky

[20] argue that the N400 effect observed in (3a) reflects the

fact that the two arguments cannot be brought into a

hierarchical thematic relation on account of their identical

case marking. In this way, morphological case plays a

crucial role in determining the hierarchical relation between

the arguments in a sentence with respect to thematic

dimensions such as control.1 More precisely, in sentences

with two animate nominative-marked arguments such as

(3a), both arguments fulfill the prerequisites for a proto-

typical Agent or an ‘‘ideal’’ Actor (cf. [11,39,46]). As a

consequence, the parser has no evidence for determining

who is doing something to whom, since control properties

S. Frisch, M. Schlesewsky / Cognitive Brain Research 25 (2005) 484–498486

must be ascribed to both arguments to the same degree and a

conflict in thematic interpretation arises.

Further support for the assumption that the N400

effect in double nominative constructions such as (3a) is

indeed triggered by interpretive (thematic) problems was

also shown in the study of Frisch and Schlesewsky [20].

While the results discussed above suggest that nominative

case marking predisposes an argument towards an actor

reading (cf. [39,46]), a second interpretively relevant

feature, namely animacy, also provides a strong cue to

actorhood. Whereas animate arguments are much more

likely to exert control over an event, inanimate arguments

are more prototypical Patients or Undergoers. Animacy

differences have been shown to play a crucial role in

understanding who is doing what to whom in a sentence

in studies on agrammatic comprehension (cf. [51,24]). In

this way, if the N400 effect is truly a consequence of the

fact that both arguments cannot be hierarchized with

regard to a thematic feature such as control, and if the

high control status of an argument is determined by

nominative case in combination with animacy, the

thematic hierarchizing difficulties should be less strong

in a constellation where both arguments bear nominative

case but differ with respect to animacy. Indeed, Frisch

and Schlesewsky [20] observed exactly this hypothesized

processing pattern when the two nominative-marked

arguments differed with respect to animacy. More

precisely, if one of the arguments was animate and the

other inanimate, the ungrammatical sentence (4a) elicited

only a P600 effect in comparison to the grammatical

control sentence (4b), but no N400 effect.

(4a). * Paul fragt sich, welcher Forster der Zweig gestreift

hat.

Paul asks himself [which forester]NOM [the twig]NOM

brushed has

(4b). Paul fragt sich, welchen Forster der Zweig gestreift

hat.

Paul asks himself [which forester]ACC [the twig]NOM

brushed has

FPaul asks himself which twig has brushed the forester_

Thus, even if both arguments are identically case marked

with nominative, the language processing system can

establish a hierarchical thematic ordering between the two

arguments on the basis of their animacy difference. Addi-

tionally, the finding that the P600 effect is independent of

the animacy manipulation suggests that this component

reflects the processing of the ungrammaticality per se (that

is, the violation of the requirement that a German clause

cannot host two subject arguments).

Both the studies of Bornkessel et al. [3,4] and Frisch

and Schlesewsky [20] examine a central topic in research

on language processing, namely the resolution of process-

ing conflicts between the current input information and the

previous sentence material already integrated up to that

point. How the neuronal language comprehension routines

deal with arising conflicts is central to the investigation of

how language comprehension proceeds (cf. [15]), inde-

pendent of whether these conflicts are of a temporary

nature (as in [3,4]) or whether they are irresolvable (as in

[20]). We will come back to this issue in more detail

below.

Evidence from both theoretical linguistics and psycho-

linguistics suggests that case ungrammaticalities such as

those tested by Frisch and Schlesewsky [20] should induce

different types of conflicts depending on the specific case

employed. Whether these differences can indeed be traced

neurophysiologically is addressed in this paper.

2. The present studies

The German case system has one subject case, nomi-

native, and two object cases, accusative and dative. The first

distinction that can be drawn on theoretical grounds is the

one between nominative on the one hand and the two object

cases on the other. This is because nominative is endowed

with a special status in many languages—German being no

exception. For example, nominative can be inserted as a

default case even if a different case is required for

grammatical reasons, e.g. in left dislocation constructions

such as Der Papst, den mogen wir alle/[The pope]NOM

[the one]ACC we all like (see [12,39,41]). This specific

status of the nominative also manifests itself during sentence

comprehension, seeing that differences in acceptability

ratings between nominative and the two object cases (dative

and accusative) have been found in speeded-acceptability

judgment experiments examining double case ungrammati-

calities similar to those in [20]. Interestingly, it was found

repeatedly that double nominatives are judged at chance

level (cf. [35,41,42]), whereas double accusatives (cf.

[35,41,42]) as well as double datives (cf. [41]) are judged

to be ungrammatical with accuracy rates that are clearly

above chance (with no significant difference between the

two object cases, cf. [41]). At first sight, the finding that

only double nominatives are so difficult to judge correctly

may be explained by the fact that nominative is (syntacti-

cally) a default case in German, which can sometimes be

used in some constructions (such as in left dislocations, cf.

[41] and see above) even if another case is grammatically

required. One may conclude that nominative is therefore

easier to process in a position which it cannot occupy

according to grammatical principles. However, this cannot

be the whole story since the two object cases in German,

accusative and dative, also differ syntactically – at least in

transitive structures – with respect to their default status: if a

verb has only one internal argument (object), then this

object is regularly marked with accusative, while dative-

marked objects occur only with specific verbs. There is a

consensus in the theoretical linguistic literature with respect

to transitive constructions, in that almost all accounts


differentiate between accusative as a default case and dative

as an exceptional case. Of course, this difference is spelled

out in various ways in linguistic theory, e.g. in the

distinction between structural and lexical case in Govern-

ment and Binding Theory (cf. [27]), between Macroroles

and Non-Macroroles in Role and Reference Grammar (cf.

[46]) or in terms of an additional phrase structure projection

for the exceptional case (cf. [2]). (We will discuss some of

these approaches in more detail in the General discussion

section.) Although these different approaches cannot (yet)

be empirically separated, they all predict that dative in

German has an exceptional status. Additionally, this

property of the dative has already been shown to affect

electrophysiological correlates of language processing (cf.

[28]). Thus, the higher judgment accuracies for double

datives (compared to double nominatives) may be explained

by the syntactic markedness of the dative in transitive

constructions. However, the better performance in double

accusative constructions (compared to double nominatives)

cannot be explained by differences in syntactic markedness,

since accusative is unmarked in transitive constructions.

Whatever the reason for the higher saliency of double

accusatives, there is reason to expect that its source is not

identical to that of double datives. With respect to the

specific characterization of both the N400 and the P600

effect induced by a double nominative ungrammaticality as

found in [20], we would expect that double datives should

lead to increased syntactic integration problems reflected in

modulations of the P600 due to the exceptional status of

dative case in transitive constructions (see above). This

question will be addressed in Experiment 1.

3. Experiment 1

3.1. Materials and methods

3.1.1. Participants

Sixteen students (10 females; mean age 23 years; age

range from 18 to 31 years) from the University of Leipzig

participated in the experiment after giving informed

consent. All were right-handed (as assessed by an adapted

German version of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory,

cf. [36]), monolingual native speakers of German and had

normal or corrected-to-normal vision.

3.1.2. Materials

All sentences used in this (and the second) experiment

had the structure NP-V-NP-PP. The ungrammaticality arises

at the position of the second NP. Throughout the experi-

ments, only masculine singular NPs were used, as deter-

miners only provide unambiguous case marking in this

constellation in German. Besides the ungrammatical con-

structions (double nominative vs. double dative), we also

included their grammatical counterparts (nominative–dative

and dative–nominative). Sentence examples for each of the

four critical conditions are listed in examples (5a), (5b), (5c)

and (5d) (the critical second NP is underlined):

(5a) Nominative–Dative (NOM–DAT)

Welcher Kommissar half dem Detektiv im Bahnhof?

[which inspector]NOM helped [the detective]DAT in the

railway station

FWhich inspector helped the detective in the railway

station?_

(5b) Dative–Nominative (DAT–NOM)

Welchem Kommissar half der Detektiv im Bahnhof?

[which inspector]DAT helped [the detective]NOM in the

railway station

FWhich detective helped the inspector in the railway

station?_

(5c) Nominative–Nominative (NOM–NOM)

*Welcher Kommissar half der Detektiv im Bahnhof?

[which inspector]NOM helped [the detective]NOM in the

railway station

(5d) Dative–Dative (DAT–DAT)

*Welchem Kommissar half dem Detektiv im Bahnhof?

[which inspector]DAT helped [the detective]DAT in the

railway station

40 sentences in each of the four conditions were

constructed on the basis of 40 noun–noun–verb triplets.

In order to avoid a confound of sentence-final wrap-up

effects (cf. [37]) with the critical effects on the second

argument, we completed the sentences with an additional

sentence-final PP.

3.1.3. Procedure

All 160 sentences were presented visually in the center of

a 17V computer monitor in a pseudo-randomized order. The

first NP was presented as a whole for 450 ms. All other

items, i.e. the verb, the second NP and the PP (the latter two

as a whole) were presented for 400 ms. The presentation of

each element was followed by 100 ms blank screen.

Participants performed an acceptability judgment task 800

ms after the last word of each sentence. In 20% of the trials,

participants completed an additional probe detection task in

order to ensure that they also processed the lexical items of

the sentences and not only the determiner inflections. Probes

were phonologically and/or semantically related either to the

first noun, the second noun or the verb. The next sentence was

presented 1000 ms after the participant’s button press.

All sentences were assigned to four blocks with 40

sentences each. Order of presentation of the blocks as well

as of sentences within the blocks was varied systematically

between participants, as was the assignment of answer type

(‘‘correct’’/‘‘incorrect’’) to push buttons (left/right).

3.1.4. EEG recordings

EEGs were recorded from the following 42 scalp sites by

means of AgAgCl electrodes attached to an elastic cap


(Electro Cap International): F7, F5, F3, FZ, F4, F6, F8, FT7,

FC5, FC3, FC4, FC6, FT8, T7, C5, C3, CZ, C4, C6, T8,

TP7, CP5, CP3, CP4, CP6, TP8, P7, P5, P3, PZ, P4, P6, P8,

PO7, PO3, O1, O2, PO4 and PO8 according to the position

nomenclature proposed by the American Electroencephalo-

graphic Society (cf. [43]). FC2 served as the ground

electrode. Recordings were referenced to the left mastoid

and re-referenced to linked mastoids off-line. In order to

control for eye movement artifacts, the electro-oculogram

(EOG) was monitored: the horizontal EOG was recorded

from electrodes at the outer canthus of each eye and the

vertical EOG was monitored with two electrodes located

above and below a participant’s right eye. Electrode

impedances were kept below 5 kV. EEG and EOG channels

were recorded continuously with a band pass from DC to 30

Hz with a digitization rate of 250 Hz. ERPs were filtered

off-line with 10 Hz low pass for the plots, but all statistical

analyses were computed on unfiltered data.

3.1.5. Data analysis

The experimental design for all statistical analyses of the

four conditions crosses the two ANOVA factors order

(ORDER: nominative first (NOM–DAT/NOM–NOM) vs.

dative first (DAT–NOM/DAT–DAT)) and correctness

(CORR: correct (NOM–DAT/DAT–NOM) vs. incorrect

(NOM–NOM/DAT–DAT)). Interactions between the two

condition factors were always resolved by the factor

correctness in order to look at differences between the

two ungrammatical (as well as between the two grammat-

ical) conditions. Single comparisons between the two

correct or between the two incorrect conditions were

computed only when there was a significant interaction

between the two factors ORDER and CORR.

3.1.5.1. Behavioral data. Given that the participants’

response time was not as much restricted as in the speeded

acceptability judgment studies mentioned in the Introduction,

we did not have reason to expect the same (or any) differences

between conditions in errors or response latencies (cf. [34]).

Therefore, these data are not statistically analyzed in this

paper. But given that they served as a criterion for trial

selection, we briefly report the mean error percentages per

condition in the results section of each experiment.

3.1.5.2. ERP data. All ERP averages were aligned to a 200

ms baseline before the onset of the critical item (second NP).

Trials with incorrect responses in the acceptability judgment

task and/or with ocular or amplifier saturation artifacts (EOG

rejection criterion was 40 mV) were excluded from the

averages. Probe detection performance played no role with

respect to trial selection. The percentage of remaining trials in

Experiment 1 was 78.98 across conditions.

On the basis of visual inspection, we chose three

different time windows: (1) 300–550 ms for negativity

effects, (2) 500–800 ms and (3) 800 to 1000 ms for late

positivity effects. In addition, we computed an ANOVA

over the local positive maxima in a window between 600

and 1000 ms (peak analysis).

ANOVAs with the two factors ORDER and CORR

mentioned above were computed separately for midline and

lateral electrodes. Analyses over midline electrodes included

one additional topographical factor electrode (ELEC) with

the three electrodes FZ, CZ and PZ as levels. Analyses over

lateral sites were computed with the two topographical

factors region (REG: anterior vs. central vs. posterior) and

hemisphere (HEMI: left vs. right) which were crossed in

order to obtain six lateral regions of interest (ROIs). The

following lateral ROIs, each consisting of six electrodes,

were defined: left-anterior: F3, F5, F7, FC3, FC5, FT7;

right-anterior: F4, F6, F8, FC4, FC6, FT8; left-central: C3,

C5, T7, CP3, CP5, TP7; right-central: C4, C6, T8, CP4,

CP6, TP8; left-posterior: P3, P5, P7, PO3, PO7, O1; right-

posterior: P4, P6, P8, PO4, PO8, O2.

To protect against excessive type 1 errors due to

violations of sphericity, we applied the correction proposed

by [29] when the analysis involved factors with more than

one degree of freedom in the numerator.

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Behavioral data

In Experiment 2, participants made 2.6% errors in

NOM–DAT, 4.8% in DAT–NOM, 10.0% in NOM–NOM

and 10.0% in DAT–DAT.

3.2.2. ERP data

Figs. 1 and 2 display the grand averages for the

grammatical and ungrammatical conditions, respectively,

from the onset of the critical word (second NP, onset at 0

ms) up to 1000 ms thereafter for a subset of 9 electrodes.

Fig. 3 displays the patterns in all four conditions in the same

time window for electrode PZ only. Negativity is plotted

upwards.

As is apparent from the figures, the ERPs in the four

conditions are very similar in the first 300 ms after the

onset of the critical NP in that they all exhibit a

negativity–positivity pattern (N1–P2 complex), which is

expected for the processing of visual stimuli (cf. [33]).

After 300 ms, the two violation conditions behave very

much alike and show a negativity compared to the gram-

matical conditions. After 600 ms, a late positivity emerges

in the violation conditions in comparison to correct

sentences. After approximately 750 ms, this positivity

becomes stronger in the double dative compared to the

double nominative condition.

3.2.2.1. N400 time window (300 to 550 ms). An ANOVA

over midline sites in the N400 time window showed a

significant negativity for the incorrect conditions in com-

parison to the correct conditions (F(1, 15) = 21.93, P <

0.001). Furthermore, there was an interaction ORDER �ELEC (F(2, 30) = 4.21, P < 0.05). However, ANOVAs at

Fig. 1. Averaged ERPs from the onset of the critical second NP (onset marked by vertical line at 0 ms) up to 1000 ms thereafter in the two grammatical

conditions of Experiment 1 at a subset of nine electrodes. Negativity is plotted upwards.

Fig. 2. Averaged ERPs from the onset of the critical second NP (onset marked by vertical line at 0 ms) up to 1000 ms thereafter in the two ungrammatical



Fig. 3. Averaged ERPs from the onset of the critical second NP (onset

marked by vertical line at 0 ms) up to 1000 ms thereafter in all four

conditions of Experiment 1 at electrode PZ. Negativity is plotted upwards.


single electrodes did not reveal any main effect of ORDER

(all F < 1).

The only effect over lateral sites was a main effect of

CORR (F(1, 15) = 25.45, P < 0.001) due to a negativity in

the incorrect conditions.

3.2.2.2. Early P600 time window (600 to 800 ms). An

ANOVA over midline sites in the earlier P600 time window

showed a significant positivity for the incorrect conditions

(F(1, 15) = 10.12, P < 0.01). An interaction CORR �ELEC (F(2, 30) = 15.60, P < 0.001) was due to the fact that

this positivity was significant at CZ (F(1, 15) = 13.43, P <

0.01) and PZ (F(1, 15) = 18.24, P < 0.001), but not at FZ

(F < 1).

An interaction ORDER�CORRwas only marginally sig-

nificant in this time window (F(1, 15) = 3.66, P = 0.07). It

was not due to a difference between the correct conditions

(F<1), but to a positivity in the double datives as compared

to the double nominatives (F(1, 15) = 5.28, P < 0.05).

A positivity for the incorrect conditions was also found

laterally (F(1, 15) = 8.28, P < 0.05). An interaction

CORR � REG (F(2, 30) = 13.00, P < 0.001) was due to

the fact that this positivity was significant in the central

(F(1, 15) = 10.55, P < 0.01), posterior (F(1, 15) = 19.27,

P < 0.001), but not anterior region (F < 1).

3.2.2.3. Late P600 time window (800 to 1000 ms). Over

midline sites, there was a main effect of ORDER (F(1, 15) =

12.80, P < 0.01) due to a positivity in the dative-first

conditions. The resolution of an interaction CORR � ELEC

(F(2, 30) = 20.81, P < 0.001) revealed a negativity for the

incorrect conditions at FZ (F(1, 15) = 6.02, P < 0.05), but a

positivity at CZ (marginal: F(1, 15) = 4.32, P = 0.06) and PZ

(F(1, 15) = 11.23, P < 0.01).

Furthermore, we found an interaction ORDER � CORR

(F(1, 15) = 6.56, P < 0.05), due to the fact that the correct

conditions did not differ (F(1, 15) = 3.64, P = 0.08),

whereas the double dative condition elicited a positivity

compared to the double nominative condition (F(1, 15) =

11.93, P < 0.01).

Analyses over lateral sites revealed a main effect of

ORDER (F(1, 15) = 13.41, P < 0.01) due to a positivity in

the dative-first conditions. CORR interacted with REG

(F(2, 30) = 17.06, P < 0.001) as well as with HEMI (F(1,

15) = 7.48, P < 0.05). A positivity for the incorrect

conditions was found neither over the left (F(1, 15) = 1.35,

P = 0.26) nor over the right hemisphere (F < 1). In the

anterior region, the incorrect conditions displayed a neg-

ativity (F(1, 15) = 6.60, P < 0.05) and a positivity in the

posterior region (F(1, 15) = 11.30, P < 0.01). Correct and

incorrect conditions did not differ centrally (F < 1).

An interaction ORDER � CORR (F(1, 15) = 6.30, P <

0.05) was resolved by the factor CORR. This revealed a

positivity in the DAT–NOM compared to the NOM–DAT

condition (F(1, 15) = 5.42, P < 0.05) and also a positivity in

the double dative compared to the double nominative

condition (F(1, 15) = 12.35, P < 0.01). Furthermore, we

found a three-way interaction ORDER � CORR � REG

(F(2, 30) = 7.04, P < 0.01). An interaction ORDER �CORR was found in the central (F(1, 15) = 6.21, P < 0.05)

and in the posterior region (F(1, 15) = 9.06, P < 0.01). The

DAT–NOM condition displayed a positivity compared to

NOM–DAT in the central region only (F(1, 15) = 5.10, P <

0.05). The double dative condition was more positive going

than the double nominative condition in the central (F(1,

15) = 13.07, P < 0.01) and the posterior region (F(1, 15) =

14.53, P < 0.01).

3.2.2.4. Peak analysis across both P600 time windows

(600–1000 ms). As is apparent from Figs. 2 and 3, the

positive peak in the late positivity time window falls

more or less between the windows chosen in the

statistical analyses. One might object that the positivity

in the double dative compared to the double nominative

condition (second time window) was due to a difference

after the positive maximum (which would mean that

there would not be an absolute difference in P600

amplitude). In order to trace the P600 unequivocally, that

is, independent of a specific time window, we measured

the local positive amplitude maxima in the time window

between 600 and 1000 ms at electrode PZ.

Mean voltages for the maxima (with standard devia-

tions in parentheses) were 5.9 AV (3.8) in condition

NOM–DAT, 5.9 AV (3.0) in DAT–NOM, 7.7 AV (3.8)

in NOM–NOM and 10.0 AV (3.9) in DAT–DAT. An

ANOVA over the mean voltages revealed a positivity for

the dative-first conditions (ORDER: F(1, 15) = 11.55, P <

0.01), a positivity for the incorrect conditions (F(1, 15) =

22.44, P < 0.001) and an interaction ORDER � CORR

(F(1, 15) = 5.41, P < 0.05). The two correct conditions did

not differ from each other (F < 1), but the positive

maximum in the double dative condition was greater than

the one in the double nominative condition (F(1, 15) = 11.95,

P < 0.01).


Mean latencies of the peak maxima (with standard

deviations in parentheses) were 759 ms (75) in condition

NOM–DAT, 748 ms (88) in DAT–NOM, 745 ms (79) in

NOM–NOM and 742 ms (62) in DAT–DAT. In an ANOVA

over the mean latencies, neither the main effects nor the

interaction were significant (all F < 1).

3.3. Discussion

In general, both the double nominative and the double

dative constructions elicited a biphasic N400–P600

response compared to their grammatical counterparts. This

general pattern replicates the findings of [20] and is insofar

expected in that, independently of specific cases, two

identically case-marked arguments cannot be thematically

hierarchized (N400) and cannot be integrated into a legal

phrase structure representation (P600). Interestingly, the

two violation conditions did not differ in the negativity

time range, but showed P600 differences in a late time

window. Although both violations conditions elicited a

P600 compared to the grammatical conditions, this

component was more pronounced in the double dative

than in the double nominative condition. The larger P600

for double datives suggests that the structural problems

induced in this condition have a greater impact on the

processing system than in double nominative structures.

This corresponds to the prediction formulated on the basis

of the markedness differences between dative as an

exceptional case in German transitive constructions (cf.

[27,28]) on the one hand, and nominative as the default

case on the other. Following the assumptions from [20],

that the N400 effect in double case constructions is

sensitive to interpretive hierarchies between arguments,

the absence of N400 differences between double datives

and double nominatives suggests that these two cases have

a similar degree of interpretative variability (in the sense of

‘‘hierarchizibility’’). This variability results from the fact

that both nominative and dative-marked arguments can co-

occur with a thematically higher as well as with a

thematically lower second argument in a transitive clause.

By contrast, accusative-marked arguments must have a

second argument which is thematically higher, that is,

which has control over the event expressed in the

respective clause (cf. [39]). We will come back to the

linguistic background of this difference in more detail in

the General discussion section. However, if the language

processor is indeed sensitive to such a difference, then one

would expect a modulation of the ‘‘thematically sensitive’’

enhanced N400 between accusative on the one hand and

nominative on the other. Concerning the P600, this

component is not expected to differ between double

nominative and double accusative (in contrast to dative),

since both are default cases in German transitive structures.

These assumptions are investigated in Experiment 2, in

which double accusative and double nominative ungram-

maticalities are compared.

4. Experiment 2

4.1. Materials and methods

4.1.1. Participants

Sixteen students (9 females; mean age 23 years; age range

from 21 to 29 years) from the University of Leipzig

participated in the experiment after giving informed consent.

They were right-handed (assessed by an adapted German

version of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory, cf. [36]),

monolingual native speakers of German and had normal or

corrected-to-normal vision. None of them had participated in

Experiment 1.

4.1.2. Materials

Construction of materials was identical to Experiment 1,

apart from replacing the dative verbs with accusative verbs

and adapting the sentence final PPs on grounds of plausi-

bility. Sentence examples for each of the four critical

conditions are listed in examples (6a), (6b), (6c) and (6d)

(critical second NP is underlined):

(6a) Nominative–Accusative (NOM–ACC)

Welcher Kommissar lobte den Detektiv im Bahnhof?

[which inspector]NOM commended [the detective]ACC

in the railway station

FWhich inspector commended the detective in the

railway station?_

(6b) Accusative–Nominative (ACC–NOM)

Welchen Kommissar lobte der Detektiv im Bahnhof?

[which inspector]ACC commended [the detective]NOM


FWhich detective commended the inspector in the rail-

way station?_

(6c) Nominative–Nominative (NOM–NOM)

*Welcher Kommissar lobte der Detektiv im Bahnhof?

[which inspector]NOM commended [the detective]NOM


(6d) Accusative–Accusative (ACC–ACC)

*Welchen Kommissar lobte den Detektiv im Bahnhof?

[which inspector]ACC commended [the detective]ACC


4.1.3. Procedure

The experimental procedurewas identical toExperiment 1.

4.1.4. EEG recordings

EEG recordings were identical to Experiment 1.

4.1.5. Data analysis

The percentage of remaining trials in Experiment 2 was

75.55 across conditions.

In general, the ANOVA design was identical to that for

Experiment 1. The only difference was that we chose

slightly different time windows on the basis of visual


inspection of the data: (1) 300 to 400 ms and (2) 400 to 550

ms for negativity effects and (3) 600 to 900 ms for late

positivity effects.

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Behavioral data

In Experiment 2, participants made 2.2% errors in NOM–

ACC, 4.1% in ACC–NOM, 17.8% in NOM–NOM and

12.8% in ACC–ACC.

4.2.2. ERP data

Figs. 4 and 5 display the grand averages for the

grammatical and ungrammatical conditions, respectively,

from the onset of the critical word (second NP, onset at 0

ms) up to 1000 ms thereafter for a subset of 9 electrodes. Fig.

6 displays the patterns in all four conditions in the same time

window for PZ only. Negativity is plotted upwards.

The ERPs in the four conditions are again very similar

in the first 300 ms after the onset of the critical NP in that

they all exhibit the correlates of early visual processing.

After 300 ms, the patterns in the two correct conditions

behave more or less alike, whereas the patterns in the two

violation conditions clearly diverge from one another as

well as from the two correct conditions. There is a

Fig. 4. Averaged ERPs from the onset of the critical second NP (onset marked

conditions of Experiment 2 at a subset of nine electrodes. Negativity is plotted u

negativity between 300 and 400 ms in the ACC–ACC

condition compared to all three other conditions. Up to 550

ms, the two incorrect conditions both exhibit a negativity

compared to the correct conditions. From 600 to 900 ms,

both violation conditions show a very similar late positive

deflection (P600) in comparison to the correct conditions.

4.2.2.1. Early N400 time window (300 to 400 ms). An

ANOVA over midline sites in this earlier N400 time window

revealed a main effect of CORR (F(1, 15) = 9.38, P < 0.01)

due to a negativity in the incorrect conditions. Furthermore,

there was an interaction ORDER � CORR (F(1, 15) = 6.63,

P < 0.05). Single comparisons showed no differences

between the two correct conditions (F < 1), but the double

accusative condition showed a negativity compared

to the double nominative condition (F(1, 15) = 6.26,

P < 0.05).

Over lateral sites, we found a main effect of CORR (F(1,

15) = 11.41, P < 0.01) and an interaction ORDER � CORR

(F(1, 15) = 8.26,P < 0.05). As for the midline electrodes, this

interaction was due to the fact that the double accusative

condition elicited a negativity in comparison to the double

nominative condition (F(1, 15) = 6.72, P < 0.05), whereas

the two correct conditions did not differ from one another

(F(1, 15) = 1.38, P = 0.26).

by vertical line at 0 ms) up to 1000 ms thereafter in the two grammatical

pwards.

Fig. 5. Averaged ERPs from the onset of the critical second NP (onset marked by vertical line at 0 ms) up to 1000 ms thereafter in the two ungrammatical



4.2.2.2. Late N400 time window (400 to 550 ms). Over

midline sites in this later N400 time window, there was a

main effect of CORR (F(1, 15) < 0.05) due to a

negativity for the incorrect conditions. In contrast to the

analyses in the previous time windows, there was no

interaction between the two condition factors (F(1, 15) =

1.39, P = 0.26).

Analyses over lateral sites showed a similar picture:

a negativity in the incorrect conditions led to a main

effect of CORR (F(1, 15) = 21.74, P < 0.001), but there

Fig. 6. Averaged ERPs from the onset of the critical second NP (onset

marked by vertical line at 0 ms) up to 1000 ms thereafter in all four

conditions of Experiment 2 at electrode PZ. Negativity is plotted upwards.

was no interaction ORDER � CORR (F(1, 15) = 1.17,

P = 0.30).

4.2.2.3. P600 time window (600 to 900 ms). Over midline

sites, we found a main effect of CORR (F(1, 15) =

12.73, P < 0.01) due to a positivity in the incorrect

conditions. There was no interaction ORDER � CORR

(F < 1). Furthermore, there were interactions ORDER �ELEC (F(1, 15) = 5.27, P < 0.05), CORR � ELEC

(F(1, 15) = 6.25, P < 0.05) and ORDER � CORR �ELEC (F(1, 15) = 5.36, P < 0.05). There was no main

effect of ORDER at FZ (F(1, 15) = 3.27, P = 0.09), CZ

(F(1, 15) = 2.77, P = 0.12) and PZ (F < 1). A main effect of

CORR due to positivities for the incorrect conditions was

found at CZ (F(1, 15) = 13.68, P < 0.01) and PZ (F(1, 15) =

14.69, P < 0.01), but not at FZ (F(1, 15) = 1.03, P = 0.32).

Furthermore, we did not find an interaction ORDER �CORR at any of the three midline electrodes (FZ: F(1, 15) =

3.50, P = 0.08; CZ and PZ: F < 1). The tendentious

interaction at FZ was not due to differences between the two

incorrect conditions (F < 1) but to a positivity in the ACC–

NOM compared to the NOM–ACC condition (F(1, 15) =

9.09, P < 0.01).

The statistical analysis over lateral sites revealed only

an interaction CORR � REG (F(2, 30) = 10.06, P <

0.001). The positivity for the incorrect conditions was

significant in the posterior region (F(1, 15) = 9.78, P <


0.01), but neither centrally (F(1, 15) = 3.64, P = 0.08)

nor anteriorly (F < 1).

4.3. Discussion

Both double accusative and double nominative ungram-

maticalities induced an N400–P600 pattern compared to

their grammatical counterparts. In contrast to Experiment 1,

the violation conditions did not differ in the P600 time

window, but the double accusative condition elicited a more

negative response in an early N400 time window as

compared to the double nominative condition.

The former result is very plausible, as both nominative

and accusative are default cases in transitive structures

whereas dative is syntactically marked here. The finding

that double accusatives (in contrast to double datives)

elicited a more pronounced N400 than double nominatives

suggests that the thematic integration problem is more

salient in the former. This can be explained by the fact that

accusative is thematically more marked, as it is always

[+ dependent]. By contrast, the thematic variability of

nominative (and dative)-marked arguments is greater, since

they can be either [+ dependent] or [� dependent] (cf. [39]).

We will come back to this issue in detail in the General

discussion section.

The positivity at FZ between the two correct conditions

(that is, in ACC–NOM vs. NOM–ACC) also deserves

some discussion, especially because it is absent in Experi-

ment 1. In our view, this word order effect is due to the fact

that accusative-before-nominative is a marked word order in

German. Thus, the linear orders of syntactic functions

(object–subject) and thematic interpretations (lower role–

higher role) do not match (crossed linking). This leads to

enhanced processing cost [5]. Such an effect, by contrast, is

not expected in Experiment 1 (DAT–NOM vs. NOM–

DAT), seeing that, in German, there is no clear preference

for nominative-before-dative over dative-before-nominative.

This is because nominative–dative can be more marked

than dative–nominative in some cases, such as in Gestern

wurde [das Fahrrad]NOM [dem Jungen]DAT gestohlen/

Yesterday was [the bicycle]NOM [from the boy]DAT stolen

(cf. [40]).

2 This comparison implies an indirect comparison between double

accusatives and double datives. A direct comparison between these two

violation types is not possible because of principled differences between

accusative and dative verbs, which have been shown to result in substantial

neurophysiological differences with respect to argument processing (cf.

[5]). Crucially, these differences are not confined to objects, but also apply

to subjects, thereby also rendering a direct comparison between the double

nominative conditions with the two types of verbs impossible. In view of

these considerations, we must base our line of argumentation on the relative

difference between the critical (double accusative or dative) condition and a

further condition (double nominative) including the same type of verb.3 The notion of dependency is part of many other theoretical approaches

in linguistics such as Role and Reference Grammar [46], Primus’ Proto-

Role approach [39] and Lexical Decompositional Grammar [49].

5. General discussion

A central research question with respect to language

processing is how the language comprehension system deals

with problems due to conflicting linguistic information (cf.

[15]). In the present study, we addressed this issue by

focusing on an important linguistic feature with a multi-

dimensional nature, i.e. which has both structural (syntactic)

and interpretational (semantic–thematic) implications on

processing, namely case.

Previous ERP studies testing ungrammatical structures in

which two arguments were identically case marked for

subject found a biphasic N400–P600 response (cf. [20]). It

was shown that the N400 effect for these types of violation

reflects thematic integration problems, i.e. the fact that two

identically case-marked arguments cannot be thematically

hierarchized. The P600 effect, by contrast, is an index of the

syntactic ill-formedness of such a construction, seeing that

there is no legal clause structure in German which can host

two subject arguments. The biphasic N400–P600 pattern

nicely reflects theoretical accounts (see the Introduction)

which emphasize the multidimensional (i.e. thematic and

syntactic) nature of the case feature. However, linguistic

theory gives reason to assume that the different cases in

German should not produce identical patterns, but that the

type (syntactic/thematic) and/or the strength of conflict they

induce might be different. As the results from the present

experiments show, individual cases are, in fact, specifically

affected by the different types of information on which the

conflict is based.

Whereas accusative differs from nominative with respect

to the N400 component, double datives show a difference to

nominative in the subsequent P600 component.2 How can

we explain these differences? With respect to the former

effect and in analogy to the animacy influences observed in

[20], we can assume that the attempt to resolve the conflict

in double nominatives and datives is driven by the potential

to establish a hierarchical (thematic) ordering between the

two arguments (cf. [3,20]). From a linguistic perspective,

this relationship is one of dependency in the sense of [39]:

‘‘If one participant of a predicate is causally affected, the

predicate necessarily selects a causer as another partic-

ipant’’ (page 52).3 With respect to the three argument cases

in German, it can be shown that nominative and dative can

be [� dependent] as well as [+ dependent], whereas

accusative is always [+ dependent]. Consider the following

examples (7), (8) and (9).

(7). Der Dieb erschoss den Polizisten.

[the thief]NOM shot [the policeman]ACC

(8). Der Arzt half dem Patienten.

[the doctor]NOM helped [the patient]DAT.

In (7), the thief (nominative) has more volitional control

over shooting the policeman than the policeman (accusative)

4 Macroroles (Actor and Undergoer) according to [46] encode the

typologically effective hierarchy between the participants of a transitive

event. They correspond to the prototypes Agent and Patient in the sense o

[11].

Fig. 7. Differences in thematic dependency between the different cases

nominative, dative and accusative in German and how they influence

attempts to resolve processing conflicts. The figure schematically encodes

the assumption that a typical transitive verb (e.g. hit, visit) assigns the

thematic status of [� dependent] to one of its arguments and the thematic

status of [+ dependent] to the second argument. In combination with the

thematic compatibility of the different morphological cases, this premise

derives the possible set of conflict resolutions that can apply in the case of a

double case violation. Whereas nominative and dative allow both a [�dependent] and a [+ dependent] reading, accusative allows only a [+

dependent] reading. Thus, from the perspective of thematic dependencies,

double nominatives and double datives allow for a possible solution to the

thematic conflict, since the second nominative can be reanalyzed to [+

dependent] from its preferred interpretation as [� dependent] and,

conversely, the second dative can be reanalyzed to [� dependent] from

its preferred interpretation as [+ dependent]. By contrast, accusatives allow

for no such solution because this case only allows for the assignment of the

[+ dependent] status.


has over being shot. The same is true in (8), where the

doctor (nominative) has more control over helping than the

patient (dative) in being helped. Taking (7) and (8)

together, they show that both accusative (7) as well as

dative (8) arguments can be [+ dependent] and that

nominative can be [� dependent]. (9), in addition, shows

both that nominative can also be [+ dependent] and that

dative can also be [� dependent].

(9). Dem Autor zerbrach der Bleistift.

[the author]DAT broke [the pencil]NOM

Here, the author (dative) has more control over breaking

the pencil than the pencil (nominative). By contrast, there is

no instance in which accusative can be [+ dependent], it

always needs a thematically higher argument (i.e. one that

has more control over the event). To conclude, both

nominative and dative are [T dependent], that is, they have

the ability to function as Actor or Undergoer in a transitive

relation. Accusative, however, is [+ dependent] without

exception and must always realize the undergoer role in a

transitive event. Under such circumstances, an attempt to

solve the conflict by hierarchizing the arguments will

always fail. The enhanced N400 for double accusatives

observed in Experiment 2 can therefore be seen as a direct

correlate of this failure. In sum, what the present results

show is that not only animacy information is used in the

attempt to solve a processing conflict in double case

ungrammaticalities (as shown by [20]). In addition, other

interpretative properties, such as dependency, seem to have

an impact on what happens if our language processing

system has to deal with a processing conflict of the kind we

have tested here. So, what exactly happens in such a conflict

situation? In a transitive construction (as we have used in

our study), there are two arguments that stand in a

dependency relation, in that one of them (mostly the object)

is always dependent from the other (mostly the subject).

Seeing that these two arguments are associated with two

different cases, a construction with two identically case-

marked arguments always introduces a conflict that cannot

be resolved satisfactorily. Nevertheless, the differences with

respect to dependency of nominative and dative on the one

hand and accusative on the other, play a role, as Fig. 7

shows.

Fig. 7 illustrates what happens if our processing

mechanism encounters one argument that is incorrectly

case marked. Then, in both double nominatives and datives,

there is still some kind of ‘‘interpretive resort’’, since both

can satisfy the interpretative requirements to some extent,

whereas accusative cannot.

Based on the findings of Frisch and Schlesewsky [20],

we argue that the N400 effects reflect problems of thematic

dependencies, whereas the P600 differences seem to be

more non-interpretive in nature. As mentioned above, a

dative object in a transitive construction is – at least in

German – always exceptional. The source of this undis-

puted exception seems to be relatively difficult to describe,

seeing that there are several approaches that either argue

with respect to generalized markedness hierarchies (cf.

[23,1]), linking properties (cf. [45,50]) or variations in

structural complexity (cf. [2]). We will consider the latter

two approaches more closely. In Role and Reference

Grammar [46], both nominative and accusative are assigned

via Macroroles (MR),4 nominative to the highest and

accusative to the second argument by default. By contrast,

dative is assigned exclusively to a Non-Macrorole (NMR)

by default. The larger P600 in double datives might reflect

the fact that one MR cannot be linked (i.e. remains

unsaturated), whereas linking to MRs is possible in both

double nominatives and accusatives (i.e. both MRs are

saturated here). An alternative account that is based on

structural differences between the cases would assume that

dative arguments in German are structurally more complex,

in that they are embedded in an additional maximal

projection, a so-called Kasusphrase/KP [2]. According to

this view, a more complex structure (with a KP) for one of

the arguments would be projected in a transitive nomina-

tive–dative construction. In case of two nominatives, this

projection (although it would be redundant) could be filled

by a nominative, whereas in the case of datives, another

such projection would have to be created. As previous

studies have demonstrated, conflicts in which new structure

has to be created are more costly than those in which the

structure does not have to be altered. Such differences are

reflected in late positivities in the ERP (cf. [19,21]).

f


At present, we cannot decide which of these above

accounts is true (if any), this question calls for further

empirical work.What all these approaches have in common is

that they predict a higher saliency of the inherent dative case

properties in a transitive relation. In the case of a processing

conflict, the enhanced P600 for double datives in Experiment

1 can be correlated with this behavior.5

Taken together, the two experiments support the assump-

tion that, during the processing of overt morphological case

marking, information from two different linguistic domains is

activated, namely from the thematic and the syntactic

domain. While the former is used in order to establish a

hierarchical interpretive ordering between arguments inde-

pendent of explicit verb information, the latter realizes the

syntactic aspects of argument–argument relations.

Moreover, the present results demonstrate the impor-

tance of employing a method that is apt to unmask

underlying qualitative differences in processing which

surface only quantitatively in a judgment paradigm. In

speeded-acceptability judgments, both double accusatives

and double datives were judged more accurately (with no

significant difference between accusatives and datives, cf.

[41]). The two ERP experiments presented here, however,

have shown that the greater saliencies of double accusative

and double dative violations compared to nominative do

not rely on the same neurophysiological mechanisms,

seeing that they modulate different ERP components which

are selectively affected by the different dimensions

(syntactic vs. thematic) of the case feature.

What do the present results tell us about the architecture

of the language processing system? We can state that the

‘‘essence’’ of language processing is that understanding a

sentence consists in grasping who is doing what to whom.

Essentially, this implies the establishment of hierarchical

dependencies between the different arguments in a

sentence (indicating the participants of the event expressed

in the sentence) in correspondence with verb–argument

structure information (indicating the event expressed in the

sentence). Across languages, there exist numerous syntac-

tic (e.g. case, linear position) and non-syntactic cues (e.g.

animacy information, control/dependency properties) to

encode these hierarchical dependencies (cf. [40]). The

present paper addresses the question what happens if a

decisive cue gives conflicting information with respect to

thematic and syntactic interpretation (as in sentences with

two identically case-marked arguments). The results show

5 Although the precise relationship between (online) ERP data and

(offline) behavioral data has to be addressed with much caution (cf. [5] for

some arguments against such a simple correlation), there is an interesting

difference between Experiment 1 and 2 with respect to the percentage of

rejections in the double nominative conditions (10% in Experiment 1 vs.

almost 18% in Experiment 2). This difference could also be due to the fact

that transitive nominative–dative verbs (used in Experiment 1) are

exceptional, whereas transitive nominative –accusative verbs (used in

Experiment 2) are not. Therefore, double nominatives are more salient in

the former compared to the latter case.

that even in case of an obvious ungrammaticality (i.e. a

conflict which cannot be resolved), the human language

processor makes attempts to establish hierarchical depend-

encies. What is the reason for these efforts that seem to be

fruitless at first sight? Since ungrammatical utterances

occur in everyday communication, it is reasonable to

assume that we are equipped with a language processor

that aims at maximal interpretation, even in ‘‘hopeless’’

cases (in the sense of the Goodenough Principle of

Ferreira and colleagues [13]).

One might ask what the present results tell us about

language processing in general, that is, in languages other

than German. We predict that results such as ours should

be found in one way or the other in all languages in which

morphological case is an important cue in syntactic as

well as thematic interpretation (such as Russian, Polish,

Bulgarian etc.). These languages, however, differ princi-

pally from languages such as English in which the linear

position of an argument determines which syntactic

function and which thematic interpretation it receives (cf.

[9]). Although morphological case has survived in English

on pronouns (e.g., he vs. him), it is not crucially involved

in determining whether an argument is a subject or an

object or Actor or Undergoer (cf. [9]). Accordingly, an

English construction in which a pronoun in object position

is marked for subject should not induce the same

processing conflict than in German (or in any other free

word order language). Since the second argument in a

linear sequence in an English (declarative) clause must be

the object, a nominative case marking should elicit a

morphosyntactic problem, not a thematic one. Accord-

ingly, we would not expect to find an N400 in English,

but a ‘‘morphosyntactic component’’, such as the LAN. An

ERP study by Coulson, King and Kutas [10] shows that

this is indeed the case. The authors presented sentences

such as (10) to their participants.

(10). *The plane took we to paradise.

In comparison to correct sentences, the authors found

that the pronoun in sentences such as (10) elicited a

biphasic LAN–P600 pattern. Since the LAN is known to

reflect morphosyntactic violations rather than problems of

semantic–thematic integration (cf. [16,25,26]), this pattern

contrasts with the German results in the expected way. In

contrast to German, it is clear that the pronoun ‘‘we’’ in

(10) is the object (and therefore thematically lower),

irrespective of its case marking, thereby giving rise to a

clash of morphosyntactic features. Furthermore, there are

case marking violations in German that contrast with

those tested in the present study in that they are

irrelevant for thematic hierarchizing. As outlined above,

the regular case for the single internal argument of a

transitive verb in German is accusative. Some German

verbs, however, mark their internal object with dative. If

their internal object is marked with accusative, the

sentence becomes ungrammatical as in (11).


(11). *Hans weiß, dass der Architekt den Gartner zuwinkte...

Hans knows that [the architect]NOM [the gardener]ACC

waved-at [ _ NP(DAT)]

Note that this type of case violation affects neither

syntactic nor thematic interpretation, because the first NP

is clearly marked for subject and the second for object.

Therefore, no problem of thematic hierarchizing is

expected and therefore no N400 effect. In contrast to

the violations tested in the experiments reported in this

paper, the problem is that the morphological form of the

latter does not fit the subcategorization frame of the verb.

In comparison to correct sentences, Friederici and Frisch

[18] found that verbs in sentences such as (11) elicited a

negativity that was only present over left (temporal)

electrodes, but was absent over right hemisphere homo-

logues. This effect was therefore topographically similar

– though not identical – to the one found by Coulson et

al. [10] for English double case violations, in that it

resembled a left-anterior negativity (LAN), which has

traditionally been associated with morphosyntactic viola-

tions [25,26].

To conclude, we have shown that, during on-line

language comprehension, the human language processing

system relies upon the multidimensional (structural and

thematic) information of explicit case marking when

trying to resolve case ungrammaticalities. In constructions

with two identically case-marked arguments in German, a

conflict based on dative case induces higher structural

processing demands compared to nominative, whereas

thematic interpretation problems are enhanced when both

arguments bear accusative case (compared to nominative).

The overall data pattern can be seen as a reflection of the

underlying properties of case in natural languages.

However, it remains to be investigated in what way the

complex interplay between the relevant cues (case

marking, word order etc.) influences sentence processing

across languages (see [22] for first ‘‘neurotypological’’

evidence).

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungs-

gemeinschaft (DFG)/Research Group ‘‘Conflicting Rules in

Cognitive Systems’’ (FOR 375-1) and by the Max Planck

Society. We are especially indebted to Angela D. Friederici,

Ina Bornkessel and Lyn Frazier, among others.

References

[1] J. Aissen, Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy, Nat.

Lang. Linguist. Theory 21 (2003) 435–483.

[2] J. Bayer, M. Bader, M. Meng, Morphological underspecification meets

oblique case: syntactic and processing effects in German, Lingua 111

(2001) 465–514.

[3] I. Bornkessel, M. Schlesewsky, A.D. Friederici, Beyond syntax:

language-related positivities reflect the revision of hierarchies, Neuro-

Report 3 (2002) 361–364.

[4] I. Bornkessel, M. Schlesewsky, A.D. Friederici, Eliciting thematic

reanalysis effects: the role of syntax-independent information during

parsing, Lang. Cogn. Processes 18 (2003) 268–298.

[5] I. Bornkessel, B. McElree, M. Schlesewsky, A.D. Friederici, Multi-

dimensional contribution to garden-path strength: dissociating phrase

structure from case marking, J. Mem. Lang. 51 (2004) 495–522.

[6] N. Chomsky, Lectures in Government and Binding, Kluwer, Dor-

drecht, 1981.

[7] D.J. Chwilla, C.M. Brown, P. Hagoort, The N400 as a function of the

level of processing, Psychophysiology 32 (1995) 274–285.

[8] B. Comrie, Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, Basil

Blackwell, Cambridge, 1989.

[9] B. Comrie, Argument structure, in: J. Jacobs, A.V. Stechow, W.

Sternefeld, T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax, vol. 1, de Gruyter, Berlin/

New York, 1993.

[10] S. Coulson, J. King, M. Kutas, Expect the unexpected: event-related

brain response to morphosyntactic violations, Lang. Cogn. Processes

13 (1998) 21–58.

[11] D. Dowty, Thematic proto-roles and argument selection, Language 67

(1991) 547–619.

[12] G. Fanselow, Optimal exceptions, in: B. Stiebels, D.Wunderlich (Eds.),

Lexicon in Focus, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 2000, pp. 173–209.

[13] F. Ferreira, K. Christianson, A. Hollingworth, Misinterpretations of

garden-path sentences: implications for models of reanalysis, J. Psy-

cholinguist. Res. 30 (2001) 3–20.

[14] C.J. Fillmore, The case for case, in: E. Bach, R.T. Harms (Eds.),

Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New

York, 1968, pp. 1–88.

[15] J.D. Fodor, F. Ferreira, Reanalysis in Sentence Processing, Kluwer,

Dordrecht, 1999.

[16] A.D. Friederici, The time course of syntactic activation during

language processing: a model based on neuropsychological and

neurophysiological data, Brain Lang. 50 (1995) 259–281.

[17] A.D. Friederici, Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence

comprehension, Trends Cogn. Sci. 6 (2002) 78–84.

[18] A.D. Friederici, S. Frisch, Verb argument structure processing: the role

of verb-specific and argument-specific information, J. Mem. Lang. 43

(2000) 476–507.

[19] A.D. Friederici, A. Mecklinger, Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain

responses: first-pass and second-pass parsing processes, J. Psycholin-

guist. Res. 25 (1996) 157–176.

[20] S. Frisch, M. Schlesewsky, The N400 reflects problems of thematic

hierarchizing, NeuroReport 12 (2001) 3391–3394.

[21] S. Frisch, P. beim Graben, M. Schlesewsky, Parallelizing grammatical

functions: P600 and P345 reflect different cost of reanalysis, Int. J.

Bifurc. Chaos 14 (2004) 531–549.

[22] S. Frisch, M. Schlesewsky, H. Wegner, The interaction of morphological

case and word order constraints: cross-linguistic ERP evidence from

German, Russian and Finnish, J. Cogn. Neurosci., Suppl. (2005) 26.

[23] J.H. Greenberg, Universals of Language, 2nd edR, MIT Press, Cam-

bridge, MA, 1966.

[24] Y. Grodzinsky, The neurology of syntax: language use without Broca’s

area, Behav. Brain Sci. 23 (2000) 1–71.

[25] T.C. Gunter, L.A. Stowe, G. Mulder, When syntax meets semantics,

Psychophysiology 34 (1997) 660–676.

[26] T.C. Gunter, H. Schriefers, A.D. Friederici, Syntactic gender and

semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction,

J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12 (2000) 556–568.

[27] L. Haegeman, Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, Basil

Blackwell, Cambridge, 1991.

[28] J.-M. Hopf, J. Bayer, M. Bader, M. Meng, Event-related brain

potentials and case information in syntactic ambiguities, J. Cogn.

Neurosci. 10 (1998) 264–280.

[29] H. Huynh, L.A. Feldt, Conditions under which mean square ratios in


repeated measurement designs have exact F-distributions, J. Am. Stat.

Assoc. 65 (1970) 1582–1589.

[30] R. Jacobson, Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen

der russischen Kasus, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6

(1936) 240–288.

[31] J.C.J. Hoeks, L.A. Stowe, G. Doedens, Seeing words in context: the

interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading,

Cogn. Brain Res. 19 (2004) 59–73.

[32] M. Kutas, S. Hillyard, Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials

reflect semantic incongruity, Science 207 (1980) 203–205.

[33] M. Kutas, C.K. van Petten, Psycholinguistics electrified: event-

related brain potential investigations, in: M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.),

Handbook of Psycholinguistics, Academic Press, San Diego, 1994,

pp. 83–143.

[34] B. McElree, T. Griffith, Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence

comprehension, J. Exp. Psychol., Learn., Mem., Cogn. 21 (1995)

134–157.

[35] M. Meng, M. Bader, Mode of disambiguation and garden-path strength:

an investigation of subject–object ambiguities in German, Lang. Speech

43 (2000) 43–74.

[36] R.C. Oldfield, The assessment and analysis of handedness: The

Edinburgh Inventory, Neuropsychologia 9 (1971) 97–113.

[37] L. Osterhout, On the brain responses to syntactic anomalies: manipu-

lations of word position and word class reveal individual differences,

Brain Lang. 59 (1997) 494–522.

[38] L. Osterhout, P.J. Holcomb, Event-related brain potentials elicited by

syntactic anomaly, J. Mem. Lang. 31 (1992) 785–804.

[39] B. Primus, Cases and Thematic Roles, Niemeyer, Tubingen, 1999.

[40] M. Schlesewsky, I. Bornkessel, On incremental interpretation: degrees

of meaning accessed during language comprehension, Lingua 114

(2004) 1213–1234.

[41] M. Schlesewsky, S. Frisch, Nominative case as a multidimensional

default, in: S. Fischer, R. van de Vijver, R. Vogel (Eds.), Experimental

Studies in Linguistics (LIP 21), vol. 1, Universitatsverlag, Potsdam,

2003, pp. 61–72 (URL: http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/lip/21/LIP21-

3schlefri.pdf).

[42] M. Schlesewsky, G. Fanselow, S. Frisch, Case as a trigger for

reanalysis—Some arguments from the processing of double case

ungrammaticalities in German, in: S. Fischer, R. van de Vijver, R.

Vogel (Eds.), Experimental Studies in Linguistics (LIP 21), vol. 1,

Universitatsverlag, Potsdam, 2003, pp. 31–60 (URL: http://www.ling.

uni-potsdam.de/lip/21/LIP21-2schlesfanfri.pdf).

[43] F. Sharbrough, G.-E. Chatrian, R.P. Lesser, H. Luders, M. Nuwer,

T.W. Picton, American Electroencephalographic Society guidelines for

standard electrode position nomenclature, J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 8

(1991) 200–202.

[44] M. van Herten, H.J.H. Kolk, D.J. Chwilla, An ERP study of P600

effects elicited by semantic anomalies, Cogn. Brain Res. 22 (2005)

241–255.

[45] R.D. van Valin, Semantic Macroroles in Role and Reference

Grammar, Unpublished manuscript, University at Buffalo, SUNY,

2002 (URL: http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/research/rrg/vanvalin_

papers/SemMRsRRG.pdf.

[46] R.D. van Valin, R.J. La Polla, Syntax: Structure, Meaning and

Function, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997.

[47] A. Wierzbicka, The Case for Surface Case, Karoma Publishers, Ann

Arbor, 1980.

[48] A. Wierzbicka, Semantics, Primes and Universals, Oxford Univ. Press,

Oxford, 1996.

[49] D. Wunderlich, Cause and the structure of verbs, Linguist. Inq. 28

(1997) 27–68.

[50] D. Wunderlich, Optimal case patterns: German and icelandic

compared, in: E. Brandner, H. Zinsmeister (Eds.), New Perspectives

on Case Theory, CSLI publications, Stanford, 2003.

[51] E.B. Zurif, A. Caramazza, Psycholinguistic structures in aphasia:

Studies in syntax and semantics, in: H. Whitaker, H.A. Whitaker

(Eds.), Studies in Neurolinguistics, vol. 1, Academic Press, New

York/San Francisco/London, 1976, pp. 261–292.

http:\\www.ling.uni-Epotsdam.de\lip\21\LIP21-E3schlefri.pdf

http:\\www.ling.uni-potsdam.de\lip\21\LIP21-2schlesfanfri.pdf

http:\\www.linguistics.buffalo.edu\research\rrg\vanvalin_papers\SemMRsRRG.pdf

the resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective

Documents