The study aims to investigate online sensitivity to morphosyntactic violations in Norwegian as a third language (L3).
Design/methodology/approach:
L1 Polish–L2 English–L3 Norwegian trilinguals (N = 56) and a control group of native Norwegian speakers (N = 25) performed a self-paced reading task in Norwegian, with sentences including adjectival gender agreement and pronominal possessor agreement violations.
Data and analysis:
Reading times were analysed on the critical (adjective in the predicative position and possessive pronoun, respectively) and spill-over (following preposition) words using mixed-effects regression modelling.
Findings/conclusions:
The results revealed significant between-group differences in reading times as a function of sentence grammaticality for gender agreement, but not for possessor agreement: while native Norwegian speakers showed sensitivity to both types of violations, L3 learners slowed down while reading incorrect sentences testing possessor agreement. This differential performance might be related to the greater salience of possessor agreement, or to transfer from English, as advocated by the Typological Primacy Model (Rothman, 2011) and the L2 Status Factor model (Bardel & Falk, 2007).
Originality:
In contrast to the growing body of literature on transfer effects in L3 acquisition, tested mainly with untimed judgement tasks, the present study offers insight into incremental processing of L3 morphosyntax, reflecting implicit knowledge.
Significance/implications:
The results indicate that native-like processing in the L3 is achievable, but is influenced by such factors as structure salience and cross-linguistic similarity.
Alemán BañónJ.FiorentinoR.GabrieleA. (2018). Using event-related potentials to track morphosyntactic development in second language learners: The processing of number and gender agreement in Spanish. PLoS ONE, 13(7), e0200791.
2.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
3.
BardelC.FalkY. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23(4), 459–484.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
6.
Berg AndersenL.HofsetJ. (2023). God i norsk 1 [Good in Norwegian 1]. Aschehoug.
7.
BusterudG.LohndalT.OpsahlT.RodinaY.WestergaardM. (2025). Language change and the loss of feminine gender: Grammatical gender and declension class in the Oslo dialect. Nordic Journal of Linguistics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586525000071
8.
BusterudG.LohndalT.RodinaY.WestergaardM. (2019). The loss of feminine gender in Norwegian: A dialect comparison. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 22, 141–167.
9.
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2006). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.
12.
DługoszK. (2023). Cross-linguistic influence in the comprehension of reflexive possessive pronouns in L3 and L4 Swedish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 28(5), 828–844.
13.
DługoszK.KołaczekN.PrzybyłJ. (2024). Is there a multilingual advantage in gender agreement processing? Evidence from self-paced reading. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 28, 275–291.
EllingsenE.Mac DonaldK. (2018). På vei. Tekstbbok [On the way. Coursebook]. Cappelen Damm.
16.
FaarlundJ. T.LieS.VanneboK. I. (1997). Norsk referansegrammatikk [Norwegian reference grammar]. Universitetsforlaget.
17.
FlynnS.FoleyC.VinnitskayaI. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 3–16.
18.
FoucartA.Frenck-MestreC. (2012). Can late L2 learners acquire new grammatical features? Evidence from ERPs and eye-tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 226–248.
19.
Gillon DowensM.VergaraM.BarberH. A.CarreirasM. (2009). Morphosyntactic processing in late second-language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(8), 1870–1887.
20.
González AlonsoJ.Alemán BañónJ.DeLucaV.MillerD.Pereira SoaresS. M.Puig-MayencoE.SlaatsS.RothmanJ. (2020). Event related potentials at initial exposure in third language acquisition: Implications from an artificial mini-grammar study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 56, 100939.
21.
GreyS.SanzC.Morgan-ShortK.UllmanM. T. (2018). Bilingual and monolingual adults learning an additional language: ERPs reveal differences in syntactic processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(5), 970–994.
22.
HawkinsR.ChanC. Y. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research, 13(3), 187–226.
23.
HermasA. (2010). Language acquisition as computational resetting: Verb movement in L3 initial state. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(4), 343–362.
24.
JakubíčekM.KilgarriffA.KovářV.RychlýP.SuchomelV. (2013). The TenTen corpus family. In HardieA.LoveR. (Eds.), 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference (pp. 125–127). UCREL.
25.
JustM.CarpenterP.WoolleyJ. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.
26.
KeatingG. D. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59, 503–535.
27.
KeatingG. D.JegerskiJ. (2015). Experimental designs in sentence processing research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 1–32.
28.
KinnT.KulbrandstadL. A. (2023). Språkmønster. Innføring i det norske språksystemet [Language patterns. Introduction to the linguistic system of Norwegian]. Universitetsforlaget.
29.
LagoS.Stutter GarciaA.FelserC. (2018). The role of native and non-native grammars in the comprehension of possessive pronouns. Second Language Research, 35(3), 319–349.
30.
LeeserM. J.BrandlA.WeissglassC. (2011). Task effects in second language sentence processing research. In TrofimovichP.McDonoughK. (Eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching, and research: Insights from psycholinguistics (pp. 179–198). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
31.
LenthR.BolkerB.BuerknerP.Giné-VázquezI.HerveM.JungM.LoveJ.MiguezF.RieblH.SingmannH. (2023). Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means (R Package version 1.8.7). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans
32.
LieS. (2005). Kontrastiv grammatikk – med norsk i sentrum [Contrastive grammar – with Norwegian in focus]. Novus Forlag.
33.
Mac DonaldK. (2023). Norsk grammatikk. Norsk som andrespråk. Teoribok [Norwegian grammar. Norwegian as a second language. Theory book]. Cappelen Damm.
34.
MacWhinneyB. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In KrollJ. M.de GrootA. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). Oxford University Press.
35.
MarsdenE.ThompsonS.PlonskyL. (2018). A methodological synthesis of self-paced reading in second language research. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(5), 861–904.
36.
MeulmanN.StoweL. A.SprengerS. A.BresserM.SchmidM. S. (2014). An ERP study on L2 syntax processing: When do learners fail?Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1072.
37.
Morgan-ShortK.SanzC.SteinhauerK.UllmanM. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event- related potential study. Language Learning, 60(1), 154–193.
38.
NicholsE. S.JoanisseM. F. (2019). Individual differences predict ERP signatures of second language learning of novel grammatical rules. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(1), 78–92.
39.
NilsenG. K.ManneG. (2023). Ny i Norge. Tekstbok A1-A2 [New in Norway. Coursebook A1-A2]. Fagbokforlaget.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
42.
RodinaY.WestergaardM. (2021). Grammatical gender and declension class in language change: A study of the loss of feminine gender in Norwegian. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 33(3), 235–263.
43.
RothmanJ. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research, 27(1), 107–127.
44.
SabourinL.HaverkortM. (2003). Neural substrates of representation and processing of a second language. In van HoutR.HulkA.KuikenF.TowellR. J. (Eds.), The lexicon- syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 175–195). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
45.
SabourinL.StoweL. A. (2008). Second language processing: When are first and second languages processed similarly?Second Language Research, 24(3), 397–430.
46.
SchwartzB. D.SprouseR. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72.
47.
SlabakovaR. (2008). Meaning in the second language. De Gruyter Mouton.
48.
SlabakovaR. (2017). The scalpel model of third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 651–665.
49.
SolbakkenH.EikR.van BaalY.LohndalT. (2024). The decline of feminine possessives in Norwegian: An empirical and theoretical investigation of gender and declension class. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 9(1), 1–36.
50.
SpinoL. (2022). Investigating grammatical gender agreement in Spanish. A methodological exploration of eye tracking. In AyounD. (Ed.), The acquisition of gender: Crosslinguistic perspectives (pp. 183–208). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
51.
TokowiczN.MacWhinneyB. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 173–204.
52.
UllmanM. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105–122.
53.
WestergaardM.MitrofanovaN.MykhaylykR.RodinaY. (2017). Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The linguistic proximity model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 666–682.
54.
WestergaardM.MitrofanovaN.RodinaY.SlabakovaR. (2023). Full transfer potential in L3/Ln acquisition: Crosslinguistic influence as a property-by-property process. In CabrelliJ.Chaouch-OrozcoA.González AlonsoJ.Pereira SoaresS. M.Puig-MayencoE.RothmanJ. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of third language acquisition (pp. 219–242). Cambridge University Press.
55.
ŻychlińskiS.SkałbaA.WrembelM. (2025). The perception of gradient acceptability among L1 Polish monolingual and bilingual speakers. Applied Linguistics Review, 16(6), 2769–2793.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
