Qualitative differences in L3

learners' neurophysiological

response to L1 versus L2 transfer

Alejandra Keidel Fernández

Department of Linguistics

Magister Thesis 15 HE credits

General linguistics

Autumn 2016

Supervisor: Dr. Thomas Hörberg

Qualitative differences in L3

learners' neurophysiological response to L1 versus L2 transfer

Alejandra Keidel Fernández

Abstract

In the present study, the influence of morphosyntactic aspects of L1 and L2 on L3

comprehension is investigated using ERP (Event-Related Brain Potentials). The study examines

the processing of verb and gender agreement incongruences in Spanish by native Swedish

speakers that are fluent in English and learning Spanish, in comparison to a control group of

native Spanish speakers. The study investigates the relevance of morphosyntactic transfer from

L1 and/or L2 to L3, as well as language processing in third language acquisition. Language

acquisition is considered as an individual process, different in acquisition of the first, second

and third language. EEG (Electrocephalograpy) had been used in the present study to examine

the processing of verb and gender agreement. Different views on L3 learning have been shown

in previous studies according to whether L1 or L2 have a stronger influence on the acquisition

of L3.

Regarding native like processing of language, the study showed that L3 learners process

language differently in comparison with native like speakers. In particular, adjective agreement

engender a specific brain reaction (a P300) in L3 learners only and not in L1 speakers. Verb

agreement, on the other hand, do not engender the P300 in any of the of the groups. The P300

effect is related to strategic processing of language, which leads to the possibility of considering

that the morphosyntactic transfer of their first language (Swedish) to the third language is

processed in a less automatic mode than L2 (English).

Keywords

EEG, Language acquisition, Morphosyntax, TLA, grammar, P300

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 1

2. Background ......................................................................................... 2

2.1. L1 and L2/L3 ............................................................................................... 2

2.2. Language transfer and its relevance for the present study................................. 3

2.3. Language acquisition theories ........................................................................ 4

2.4. Research question and purpose of the study .................................................... 5

2.5. Agreement .................................................................................................. 5

2.5.1. Agreement errors ................................................................................... 5

2.5.2. The ERP paradigm and the ERP response to agreement errors ..................... 6

2.6. Grammatical aspects of English, Spanish and Swedish ...................................... 7

2.7. Predictions .................................................................................................. 9

3. Methods ............................................................................................ 10

3.1. Participants ................................................................................................10

3.2. Experimental sentences ...............................................................................11

3.3. Comprehension question ..............................................................................12

3.4. Stimuli presentation ....................................................................................13

3.5. Procedure ..................................................................................................13

3.6. EEG recordings ...........................................................................................13

3.7. ERP data analysis ........................................................................................14

3.8. Statistical analysis ......................................................................................14

4. Results .............................................................................................. 16

4.1. Behavioural data .........................................................................................16

4.2. ERP Data ...................................................................................................17

4.2.1. Adjective - L1-Spanish speakers .............................................................17

4.2.2. Adjective - L3 Spanish learners ...............................................................19

4.2.3. Adjective - L1 Spanish speaker - L3 Spanish learners ................................21

4.2.4. Verb – L1 Spanish speakers....................................................................22

4.2.5. Verb-L3-Spanish learners .......................................................................23

4.2.6. Verb - L1 Spanish speakers - L3 Spanish learners .....................................25

5. Discussion ......................................................................................... 28

5.1. Incongruence negativity ...........................................................................28

5.2. P600 ......................................................................................................28

5.3. P300 ......................................................................................................29

6. Conclusions ....................................................................................... 30

References ............................................................................................ 31

Appendix ............................................................................................... 35

I. Proficiency test ..............................................................................................35

I.a. Spanish Test ............................................................................................35

I.b. Swedish – Test .........................................................................................37

II. Experimental Sentences ............................................................................38

1

1. Introduction

Language constitutes a unique human characteristic that conceptualizes our environment and

society. The acquisition of language shapes our understanding and communication inside a

community or society. The acquisition of language commonly refers to first language

acquisition (L1), second language acquisition (L2) and third language acquisition (L3), etc.

which is based on the acquiring processes of a language. Acquiring a language implies

acquiring the language semantics, syntax, pragmatics, phonology, morphology among many

other traits.

According to different studies, 97% of Swedes speak more than one language, compared to

the rate in the European Union where 56% of the population speak more than one language

(Europeans and their languages, 2012). Moreover, 44% of the Swedish population speak more

than two languages (ref). Usually this is the most common language combination according to

(European and their languages, 2012): Swedish (L1), English (L2) and German (L3), Spanish(L3)

or French (L3).

Due to the high amount of L3 speakers and the increasing demand of L3 learners, the

understanding of how a third language is processed and comprehended in comparison to the

second and the first language is of great relevance and will furthermore improve the

understanding of language.

Despite the importance of this field the phenomenon of multilingual acquisition has not been

researched thoroughly until the last decade even though it affects a large part of the

population (Canagarajah, 2007).

The present study investigates the processing of verb and adjective agreement in third

language (L3) learners. Initially, it seeks to understand to what extent the L1 or the L2

influences the learning of the L3. The chosen language combination for this study is Swedish

as L1, English as L2, and Spanish as L3. Spanish is used as the experimental language of the

study. Since “it” shares with English the inflection of the verb and with Swedish the agreement

on nouns and adjectives it is an excellent test language.

This study applies electroencephalography (EEG) method in order to investigate language

processing and comprehension in two groups of speakers: L1 speakers of Swedish with English

as L2 and Spanish as L3, on the one hand, and L1 speakers of Spanish, on the other group.

2

2. Background

2.1. L1 and L2/L3

The acquisition of a language refers to the human ability to obtain language and its features.

The manner in which acquisition of a language in humans occurs has been strongly under

discussion and research.

In accordance with Chomsky (1965) humans are born with an innate ability, also called the

language acquisition device, which is located in an area in the brain that facilitates language

learning as a natural event. According to this theory the optimal age of learning a language is

in the first few years of the infant. In contrast to the theory advocated by Chomsky, Tomasello

(2009) claims that language is acquired by children through extracting words from utterances

as well as meaningful grammatical patterns. On the same line of this theory, contemporary

research on language acquisition suggest that instead of having a language specific mental

ability, acquisition is based on the use of general cognitive principles and learning

mechanisms, that are not particular for language, as well as on the environment of the infant.

However, both theories of language acquisition agree on an early stage of life in which the

first language (L1) is acquired by the infant, as well on the fact that in both frameworks the

acquiring processing is unconscious.

There is some evidence indicating that language acquiring is divided by two stages

(Lenneberg’s 1967, Brainard 1998, among others). The initial stage, called the critical period

(Robson 2002), refers to infant language acquisition in the earliest stages of life. This is a

consequence of the highly sensitive nervous system during that period, in respect to language

stimuli (Robson 2002). Languages acquired after the critical period are subsequent languages,

second language (L2), third language (L3) etc. that are not processed as L1. There is an

increasing trend indicating that the critical period is active during a certain time frame, once

this timeframe is over the acquisition of a languages are more problematic to acquire.

In the last decades L2 and subsequent language acquisition have been increasingly under

focus in research. The main division between the field of study of L1, L2 and L3 is established

according to the acquiring process of the language distinction (Karshen, 1979). Karshen (1979)

formulated the first crucial distinction as a division of the concepts of acquiring and learning

a language. Language acquisition occurs according to Kashen (1979) without awareness of the

learning process, whereas language learning implies awareness of this process. Therefore, first

language (L1) has been acquired in a natural unaware manner, whereas the second (L2) third

(L3) languages, show awareness of the learning process of the language. The different periods

in which a language has been therefore acquired as an effect on where these languages are

‘located’ in the brain. In line with Ullman’s (2001) research on language acquisition, takes

place during the critical period in the child’s life, and is automatically learned, it is ‘stored’ in

procedural memory which is related with automaticity and implicit learning, the subsequent

languages are acquired at a later age and are consciously stored in the declarative memory

3

since they have been acquired under a conscious process. Declarative memory stands for

aware actions, whereas procedural memory stands for actions that are preformed

automatically. It has been shown in studies (e.g. Ullman 2001) that the understanding of the

information that is in the declarative memory is more accessible in terms of being simpler to

understand and explain (e.g. L3 learner will be able to explain a grammatical aspect of L2 more

likely than of L1 speakers). The same is applicable to the findings of this study.

2.2. Language transfer and its relevance for the

present study

This study examines how transfer occurs from L1 and/or L2 to the L3 language, therefore it is

of great relevance to underline what transfer involves. The differences in transferring from L1

to L2 and/or L3 provides an insight into similarities and differences of the influence of L1 and

L2 on L3. In general terms language transfer concerns the process of applying previous

knowledge from one language to a subsequent language (see Weinreich 1952). Transfer is

divided into two aspects: when features and/or structures from one language are transferred

to another language, also called positive transfer. On the contrary when the transfer fails and

features and/or structures are not transferred to another language the transfer is called

negative transfer (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996, Hawkins & Chan (1997). The following examples,

(1) and (2) illustrates positive transfer:

(1) María promote a Juan leer el libro.

Maria promise.3P.SG to-DAT Juan read.INF the.ART book.ACU

‘María promise Juan to read the book’

This example shows that English and Spanish share the infinitive verb form (to read), and

allows therefore the transfer from Spanish into English and vice versa. Specifically, if L1 is

Spanish and L2 English, the infinitive verb form is transferred from L1 to L2. If on the contrary

L1 is English and L2 Spanish, the infinitive verb from can be transferred from L1 to L2.

Example (2) shows a negative transfer. The L1 Spanish speaker has transferred syntactically

from Spanish into English (*I want that my sister talks with me), but both languages do not

share this syntactical feature with each other: The subordinate clause in English formed with

the infinite verb is not headed by a subjunction ("that"), in contrast in Spanish, the

corresponding subordinate clause is finite and headed by the subjunction "que". The

subjunction is there erroneously transferred from Spanish to English.

(2) Quiero que mi hermana hable conmigo

want.1P.SG. that my sister talk.3P.SG with.me

‘I want my sister to talk to me’

4

2.3. Language acquisition theories

Recent literature has shown that there are differences in L1 acquisition, L2 acquisition and L3

acquisition. According to most studies the first language, L1 is acquired, whereas second and

third, etc. are learned, nevertheless a consensus on the terminology whether if L2 is learn or

acquired is under debate. However, the main scientific focus on language acquisition has so

far been made on first and second language acquisition (“SLA”), (Dechert et al. 1989; Odlin

1989; Schwartz et al. 1996, among others), but less on L3 learning. However, current research

suggests to differentiate L1 from L2 and L3 (Edwards & Dewaele, 2007). The current literature

on L3 acquisition shows mainly two views on the transmission of features in particular, which

language is transferred from L1 and L2 to L3.

One of these views states that the transfer of features is equal from L1 and L2 to L3. Evidence

for this view is, for example, provided by a study of Flynn et al. (2004). Flynn and colleagues

investigated how transfer from L1 Kazakh and L2 Russian into L3 English occurs, showing that

the transfer happened equally from L1 and L2 to L3. The influence of L1 Kazakh and L2 Russian

on the oral production of relative clauses in L3 English was investigated. They found that L1

Kazakh and L2 Russian transferred to L3 English equally and concluded that previous

knowledge of both L1 and L2 is accessible during the acquisition of L3. Consequently, this

study indicates that both languages L1 and L2 equally influences L3 acquisition.

The other view, often referred to as L2 Status Factor (e.g., Bardel & Falk 2011), states that the

transfer of features mainly occur from L2 to L3. A study conducted by Jaensch (2001), for

example, showed that the transfer of features into L3 German are dependent on the

proficiency of L2 English. In this study L3 acquisition of German adjectival inflection was

examined. The results of the study showed that the gender and number on German attributive

adjectives are related with third language acquisition. The study compared L1 Japanese

speakers that have different L2 English proficiencies and are L3 learners of German. The task

showed different results in terms of correct responses of the groups depending on the

proficiency of L2 English. These results show evidence for the L2 Status Factor, in that the L2

takes a more relevant role of transmission to L3 than L1, since the results depended on the L2

and not L1 language proficiency. In respect to this view, L2 acts like a “filter” making L1

inaccessible, due to the fact that L2 and L3 are more similar in terms of being learned and not

acquired, that is, have been learned less automatically than L1, in line with the assumption of

Ullman (2001), that L1 is implicitly acquired and stored in procedural memory, whereas L2 and

L3 are consciously learned and stored in declarative memory.

In accordance with this view Bardel & Falk (2011) showed that L2 is more dominant during the

transfer to L3, presumably because L2 is stored in the declarative memory and thus more

accessible in the context of L3 learning, whereas L1 is stored in the procedural memory. The

transfer differences of L1 and L2 to L3 of this result reflects that not all third language learners

acquire their L3 in the same way, and indicates that L3 learning partially depends on the level

5

of the L2. Bardel & Falk (2007) found results that indicated a qualitative difference between

L1, L2 and L3 acquisition. The results of their study indicated that L1 and L2 have a stronger

cognitive similarity than L1 and L3. In the study L2 English speakers and L2 German/Dutch

speakers were compared with respect to the placement of sentence negation. These two

groups of speakers were tested in L3 Swedish on placement of sentence negation. The results

showed that the L2 German speaking group did not show any difficulties with negation

placement. On the contrary the L2 English speaker group often misplaced the negation in the

utterances. Thus, the results provide evidence for a qualitative difference between the

acquisition of L2 and the subsequent L3. Importantly, the results also indicate that the transfer

occurred stronger from L2 to L3 than from L1 to L3, in line with the L2 Status Factor view.

2.4. Research question and purpose of the study

The present study aims to shed further light on the question of whether the transfer into L3 is

equally strong from L1 and L2, or whether transfer into L3 primarily occurs from L2. This is

investigated on the basis of L3-learners' ERP response. Consequently, it investigates if L3

(Spanish) learners react stronger to verb incongruencies (see Table 1 below) that exist in their

L2 (English) but not in their L1 (Swedish), if they are more sensitive to adjective incongruences

that are found in their L1 but not in their L2, or if they are equally sensitive to both of these

inconguencies. This is investigated by looking at the ERP response to incongruencies in the L3

which either exist in the L1 or the L2. If the influence on L3 is similar for L1 and L2, similar

responses should be observed. On the other hand, if the L2 influence is stronger than the L1

influence, the response to L2 incongruencies should be more "native-like" than the response

to L1 incongruencies.

2.5. Agreement

2.5.1. Agreement errors

Agreement patterns englobe three main features, number, gender and person (Wechsler

2003). It is defined as “a syntactic covariance between a semantic or formal property of one

element and a formal property of another” (Steele, 1978). For example, in 4a below, the

subject NP 'The girl' is in the singular and this is marked on the copula verb ('is'). In 4b, on the

other hand, the subject NP ('The girls') is in the plural, and this is marked on the copula verb

by virtue of its form ('are'):

(4a) The girl is running.

(4b) The girls are running.

6

Example 4 illustrates the syntactic covariance between the subject NP and the finite copula

verb of the sentence. Thus, morphosyntactic disagreement refers to the violation of the

syntactic covariance between the formal property of one element and the formal property of

another. This is exemplified in (5a). In this example the subject NP is in singular, but the copula

verb takes the plural form which causes a morphosyntactic disagreement.

(5a) The girl *are running.

(5b) The girls *is running.

2.5.2. The ERP paradigm and the ERP response to agreement errors

The present study uses EEG (electroencephalogram), a noninvasive method that records

voltage variations through the scalp. EEG is a measuring method that underlies the extraction

of ERP ("event related brain potential") waves. ERP waves are averages of EEG epochs that are

time locked to a specific stimulus. As such, ERPs measure brain responses to specific events

that are time-locked to the presentation of a stimulus. ERPs measure the brain’s response to

the presented stimuli as changes in microvolts recorded at specific scalp positions. The ERP

wave consists of negative and positive shifts in microvolts, whose amplitudes, latencies and

scalp locations are characteristic of functionally distinct cognitive processes (Blackwood &

Muir, 1990). For example, Kutas & Van Petten (1994) investigated the ERP response to

semantically anomalous words in sentences such as "I like my coffee with cream and dog" in

comparison to their unanomalous counterparts (i.e., "I like my coffee with cream and sugar").

They found anomalous words (e.g., "dog") to engender a negative shift in the ERP wave with

a cento-parietal distribution, peaking around 400ms after its presentation. This ERP effect is

known in the literature as the "N400 effect".

The focus of two main ERP effects to agreement processing started with Osterhout & Mobley

(1995). They found agreement violations in reflexive pronouns (i.e., "The wealthy queen built

himself...") to engender two ERP effects, the so-called Left Anterior Negativity or “LAN” effect

and the P600 effect. The LAN effect is a negative deflection in the ERP wave with a left anterior

scalp distribution that most frequently is detected in the 300-450 ms time window, in case of

the detection of a smaller region in the same time window 300-500 it is also called Incongruent

Negativity. The LAN has also been detected in the study carried out for example by Barber

and Carreiras (2006). In their study, the effect occurred in the time window of 300-400ms and

had a negative polarity with a left anterior scalp distribution. The P600 is a positivity with a

centro-parietal scalp distribution that usually is found in the 500-700 ms time window (see

e.g. Barber & Carreiras, 2005, Dowens et al. 2012). The literature on agreement processing in

adjectives and verbs in Spanish (Carreriras et al. 2012) shows the same biphasic pattern: A

LAN effect followed by a P600 effect. Carreiras et al. (2011) differentiated between an early

P600 effect with a frontal-parietal scalp distribution in the 500-750ms time window, and a late

7

P600 with a more anterior distribution in the 750-1000ms time window. This pattern was also

detected in a study carried out for example by Díaz et al. (2016). In this study, agreement

errors on verbs in Spanish and Basque were tested on native speakers and L2 learners, since

the agreement pattern in Spanish and Basque differs. The results of the study showed for the

native and L2 learners a left-anterior negativity, the LAN, engendered in the time window of

300-500ms. This was followed by a posterior positive effect in the time frame of 500-700ms,

the P600, caused by syntactic reanalysis and repair and also by grammatical errors such as

incongruencies. Using the same type of agreement errors, but contrasting gender and number

in Spanish, Banón et al. (2012) found a prominent P600 between 400-900 ms related to the

morphosyntactic processing of the participants. Banón et al. found no amplitude difference in

the response to number and gender violations, suggesting therefore that the mentioned

agreements are processed alike.

2.6. Grammatical aspects of English, Spanish and

Swedish

Swedish adjectives agree with the noun in terms of gender, number, and definiteness. Gender

is a lexical property that exists in Swedish and Spanish but not in English as shown in Example

6a and 6b. In Swedish there is congruency between the noun and the adjective, as well as in

Spanish. In Swedish this is marked if the noun has the en-gender, the adjective stays in its base

form, but if the noun has the ett-gender it has to be added a -t to the adjective. In Spanish this

is marked by the article and the ending of the adjective (-o for masculine and -a for feminine)

in concordance with the gender of the noun as well as the article.

7a. ett grön hus a.Neutr.SG. green.NEUTR.SG. house.Neutr.SG ’a green house’

7b. en Grön båt a.UTR.SG green.UTR.SG boat.UTR.SG ‘a green boat’

8a. Una casa verde a.INDEF.F.SG

house.F.SG green-SG

‘a green house’ 8b. Un barco verde a.INDEF-M.SG boat.M.SG. green-SG. ‘a green boat’

8

These examples illustrate a correspondence between the indefinite article, the noun and the

adjective in Swedish and Spanish, whereas in English there is no such correspondence. On the

contrary, in English and Spanish the verb agrees with the subject, but Swedish lacks subject-

verb agreement.

8a. I eat apples.

8b. He eats apples

9a. Yo como Manzanas

I.SG eat.1SG apples.PL

‘I eat apples’

9b. Él come Manzanas

he.3SG eat-3P.SG apples-PL

‘He eats apples’

10a. Jag Äter äpplen

I.3P.SG eat-INF apples-PL

‘I eat apples’

10b. Han Äter äpplen

He-3P.SG eat-INF apples-PL

‘He eats apples’

As shown in examples 8 and 9, the verb agrees with the subject pronoun in English and Spanish

as indicated by the inflections of the verb. In Spanish, the infinitive form of the verb is marked

with –er (i.e., "comer"). In 9a, the verb ("como") instead takes the ending –o, and therefore

agrees with the subject pronoun ("Yo") which is the 1st person singular. In 9b, the subject

pronoun ("el") instead expresses the 3rd person singular, and the verb is instead marked with

–e inflection. This concordance is marked as well in English by using the -s inflection on the

verb when the subject pronoun expresses the 3rd person (Example 8b) but not when it

expresses the 1st person (Example 8a). In Swedish, on the other hand, the same verb form is

used when the subject either is 1st (Example 10a) or 3rd (Example 10b) person.

2.7. P300

The P300 effect is shortly introduced in this section due to the relevance and novel finding of

the present study and it will be discussed as well in the sections below. The P300 occurs during

the time window of 200-400 ms in form of a positive deflection. Research indicates that a

trend of the P300, is related to information processing. Moreover, research shows that it is

9

tested by task related stimuli. The P300 concerns mainly with information updating and

automaticity of information processing (Donchin & Coles, 1988).

2.8. Predictions

The sentence conditions used for the present study are divided into Subject-Verb agreement

and Subject-Adjective agreement sentences using Spanish as the test language as specified

above and illustrated in Table 1. An example set of the experimental sentences are presented

in Table 1. Each set consists of 5 different conditions: adjective congruent (AdjCon), adjective

incongruent (AdjInc), verb congruent (VerbCon), verb incongruent (VerbInc) and predicative

incongruent (PredInc).

The sentences of the AdjCon, AdjInc and PredInc conditions consist of copular constructions

with an initial subject consisting of a definite article and a noun, followed by a copular verb,

and an adjective which either agrees (AdjCon) or disagrees (AdjInc) with the subject in terms

of gender. The sentences of the VerbCon and VerbInc conditions were formed by a transitive

verb consisting of two nuclear arguments, an external argument to the verb phrase and an

internal argument. In these conditions the verb agrees in terms of number (VerbCon) or

disagrees also in terms of number (VerbInc) with the noun.

Table 1. Examples of the experimental sentences of each condition

CONDITION EXAMPLE SENTENCE ADJCON 1 La

the-SG.FM

tierra earth.SG.FM

es be-PRS.3DR

redonda round.SG.FM

y and

La the-FM

Luna moon-SG.FM

también and

‘the world is round and the moon as well’ ADJINC 2 La

the-

SG.FM

tierra

earth.SG.FM

es

be-

PRS.P.3

*redondo

round.SG.MS

y

and

la

the-

FM

luna

moon-

SG.FM

también

and

‘the world is round and the moon as well’

PREDINC 3 La

the-

SG.FM

tierra

earth.SG.FM

*eres

be-

PRS.2ND

redonda

round.SG.FM

y

and

la

the-

FM

luna

moon-

SG.FM

también

and

‘the world is round and the moon as well’

VERBCON 4 Tú

2SG.

Anotas

annotate-

PRS.2nd

la

the-

SG.FM

Cifra

ciffer-SG.FM

‘you write down the cipher’

VERBINC 5 Tú

2SG

*anota

annotate-

PRS.3rd

la

the-

SG.FM

Cifra

ciffer-SG.FM

‘you write down the cipher’

In the present study, the ERP waves reflect the processing of these experimental sentences in

respect to adjective and verb agreement anomalies. The conditions are tested on two groups,

a control group of L1 Spanish speakers, and an experimental group of L3 Spanish learners, with

10

English as L2 and Swedish as L1. These are also compared with each other in each condition.

The incongruent adjectives are expected to engender a LAN effect in comparison to their

congruent counterparts. As explained in Section 4.2, Barber and Carreiras (2011) found a

negative polarity with a left anterior scalp distribution in the time window of 300-400 ms, that

is, a LAN. This effect was followed by a positive polarity with a centro-parietal scalp

distribution in the time window of 500-700ms, that is, the P600 effect (see Section 4.2).

The incongruent verbs are expected to engender a LAN followed by the P600 effect in comparison to their congruent counterparts (e.g, Díaz et al. 2016, Section 4.2). The data of the present study will show in line with the present studies, in terms of

pronounced effects if the L3 learners are more sensitive to adjective agreements errors (found

in their L1) or to verb agreement errors (found in their L2). The data of each group, Spanish

native speakers and Spanish L3 learners will be compared with each other, as well as each

condition by itself. I assume that if the learners have a stronger response to verb agreement

errors than to adjective agreement errors, L2 is more important in their L3 learning. If on the

contrary the response is more pronounced to adjective agreement errors than to verb

agreement errors, L1 plays a bigger role in their L3 learning.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

The ERP experiment was undertaken by a total of 33 participants divided into two groups (see

Table 2). The first group consisted of 18 L3 learners of Spanish that were native Swedish

speakers, and had English as their L2 (8 female 10 male). Their age at the time of testing ranged

between 21 to 44 (mean: 31.6). Their proficiency level was initial and advanced. It was tested

with a written and oral test according to the Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages (Council of Europe 2016). The second group, that functioned as a control group,

consisted of 15 Spanish native speakers that had English as their L2 and Swedish as their L3 (7

female and 8 male). They had an age range at the time of testing of 22 to 42 years (mean:

27,5). Their Swedish level was tested, also according to the Common European Framework of

References for languages. All participants had normal or corrected vision, and none of them

was left handed. All participants provided informed consent in writing.

Table 2. Number, L1, L2 and L3 as well as Spanish proficiency level of the participants in the experiment

11

GROUP NR. L3-NIVEAU L1 L2 L3

SWEDISH 18 9-initial

9-advanced

Swedish English Spanish

SPANISH 15 9-initial

6-advanced

Spanish English Swedish

3.2. Experimental sentences

The sentences are based on the similarity of adjective agreement of L1 (Swedish) and L3

(Spanish) but lacking in L2 (English) and vice versa verb agreement, existing in L2 (English) but

not in L1 (Swedish), as can be seen above in Table 1. On the basis of these traits a total of 48

sets were built on 80 verbs, 135 nouns and 45 adjectives. As shown in Table 1 each sentence

set consisted of 5 conditions. The experimental sentences were evenly distributed across sets

that were balanced with respect to the gender of the subject nouns of the AdjCon, AdjInc and

PredInc conditions and the person, gender and number of the subject pronouns in the

VerbCon and VerbInc conditions. Each condition consisted of either congruent (AdjCon and

VerbCon) or incongruent (AdjInc, PredInc, and VerbInc) sentences. As the padiscussed earlier,

the AdjInc condition contains adjective incongruencies that exist in Swedish (L1) but not in

English (L2). The VerbInc condition, on the other hand, contains verb incongruences that exists

in English (L2) but not in Swedish (L1). The AdjCon, AdjInc and PredInc conditions consisted of

predicative constructions with a definite lexical subject, a copula verb, and an adjective. In

order to avoid sentence wrap up effects, these sentences also contained a final conjuncted NP

that also functioned as the base of predication (e.g., "The earth is round and the moon as

well"). The VerbCon and VerbInc conditions consisted of prototypical transitive sentences with

an initial pronominal subject NP, a lexical verb, and a definite lexical object NP. The

incongruencies occur systematically with respect to the gender marking of the adjective in the

AdjInc condition, and with respect to the number marking of the verb in the PredInc and

VerbInc conditions. As illustrated in Table 1, the gender incongruency of the adjectives is

presented at the fourth word in the AdjInc condition. The number incongruency of the verbs

is presented at the third and the second word in the PredInc and VerbInc conditions,

respectively.

All the sentences from each condition are found in Appendix 3. The sentences are based

partially on the stimulus material used in Alemán& Bañón (2010) and Silva-Pereyra & Carreiras

(2007).

12

3.3. Comprehension question

Each sentence presented during the experiment was subsequently followed by a yes/no

question. Half of these comprehension questions were to be answered with a yes, and the

other half with a no, and that this was evenly balanced across the sentences within a set. The

interrogative sentences were context related with respect to the declarative sentences, based

on synonyms and antonyms. The comprehension questions were used in order to be certain

that the participants stayed attentive at the task at hand and were able to understand the

corresponding critical sentences. ERP epochs corresponding to sentences for which the

comprehension questions had been answered incorrectly were excluded for further analysis

(see e.g. below Table 3). As shown in Table 3 the length of the questions were formed by 6

words in the conditions of AdjInc and AdjCon and 4 words in the conditions of VerbInc and

VerbCon (see e.g. Appendix II).

Table 3. Examples of 5 different comprehension questions for the critical sentence (the strawberry is digestive and the carrot also)

Yes ¿La fresa ayuda a la digestión?

the-F.Sg strawberry-F.SG help to the-F.SG. digestion?

‘Does the strawberry help to digest food?’

No ¿La fresa es desagradable?

the.F.SG. strawberry is.P3.SG disgusting?

‘Is the strawberry disgusting?’

Yes1 ¿La zanahoria ayuda a la digestión?

the.F.SG carrot.F.SG help.INF to the.F.SG. digestion?

‘Does the carrot help to digest food?’

No1 ¿La piña es dulce?

The.F.SG. pineapple-F.SG is.P3.SG sweet?

‘Is the pineapple sweet?’

Yes2 ¿La fresa no es ácida?

the.F.SG strawberry NEG is.P.3SG. acid?

‘Is the strawberry acid?’

No2 ¿La zanahoria no es digestiva?

the.F.SG. carrtot.F.SG. NEG is.P.3.SG. digestive?

‘Isn’t the carrot digestive?’

13

3.4. Stimuli presentation

The experimental sentences were divided into 5 blocks in a manner that ensured that

conditions, grammatical properties of the sentences, as well as the question types (whether

the question were to be answered with "yes" or "no") were evenly balanced across blocks.

Sentences within a block were presented in a randomised fashion. The ordering of the blocks

was counterbalanced across participants on the basis of a latin-square design. Each sentence

was displayed one word at a time presented 400ms in the center of the screen followed by a

pause of one 100ms until the next word. The corresponding comprehension question was

presented after the sentence on the screen at the same time; the time was not limited to

answer the questions, thus the sentence was presented until the participant pressed the

answer button to continue.

3.5. Procedure

The study was performed in the phonetics laboratory at the Department of Linguistics at

Stockholm University. All of the participants were informed about the procedure of the

experiment. The participants were informed about the possibility to abort the experiment at

any time. Before starting the experiment, the participants were asked to sign a formal consent

and fill out a language level test of their L3 language (Spanish or Swedish see blow Appendix

I.). They were seated on a comfortable chair in front of a monitor within a distance of one

meter. Also they were asked not to blink while the sentences were presented word by word

on the monitor, and only to blink during the question was presented. They were provided with

a response box with two buttons marked with “Yes” or “No” to answer whether the

comprehension question was correct or not. Each experimental session started with a

practice trial consisting of 12 practice sentences. During the practice trial, participants

received feedback about whether they had answered the question correctly. Each

experimental session varied from 60 to 90 minutes depending on the language proficiency

(L3) of the participant.

3.6. EEG recordings

The EEG was recorded from 128 electrodes on a high-impedance Hydrocel Sensor Net and

analyzed using Net Station equipment (Electrical Geodesics, Inc.). The 128 electrodes detected

the electrical brain responses of the participants and measured the signal strength during each

presented word. The electrooculogram (EOG) was monitored with two electrodes positioned

at the outer canthus of each eye, four positioned above the eyes and two below. The signal

was amplified with a Net Amps 300 amplifier with a fixed sampling rate of 20,000 Hz and a

low-pass filter at 4,000 Hz, but down sampled during recording to a user set sampling rate of

250 Hz.

14

Impedances of all electrodes were adjusted below 50 kΩ before the recording was started.

The ground electrode was positioned in between CPz and Pz. Channels were referenced to Cz

during recording, but re-referenced to the average of the left and right mastoids.

3.7. ERP data analysis

The software used for acquiring and preprocessing the data was Net Studio 4.2. First the data

was band-pass filtered off-line using a 0.5- to 20-Hz filter. Bad channels were interpolated

from the good channels, using spherical splines (Perrin, Pernier, Bertrand, Giard, & Echallier,

1987). Channels were defined as bad if the signal exceeded ±100 μV in more than 20% of the

4000 ms time windows during the periods during which the experimental stimuli were

presented. Single-trial epochs that ranged from 200 ms before the onset of the critical words1

to 1000 ms after their onsets were extracted. The 200 ms before stimulus onset was used for

baseline correction. Baseline correction involves subtracting the mean voltage of the baselines

from the full EEG epochs in order to make epochs comparable. Epochs were defined as bad

and excluded if they contained more than 15 bad channels in which the signal exceeded ±100

μV in the full epoch, if the signal exceeded ±100 μV in a 600 ms time window in any of the

anterior or posterior EOG channels, or if the signal exceeded ±55 μV in a 500 ms time window

in any of the EOG channels outside the canthus of each eye. All single trial epochs in which

participants answered incorrectly were also defined as bad and excluded. Single-subject ERPs

time locked to the critical words of each condition were then calculated on the basis of the

remaining good epochs. Data from subjects with less than 15 epochs in any of the conditions

were excluded from further analysis. This entailed that data from two of the L1 Swedish

participants and one of the L1 Spanish participants were excluded.

3.8. Statistical analysis

The statistical analyses were conducted in the statistical software R (R Core Team 2014), using

RStudio (RStudio Team 2015). T-tests were conducted in order to compare differences in

mean amplitudes between congruent and an incongruent conditions (e.g. VerbCon vs.

VerbInc) within a particular group of speakers (i.e. L3 or L1 speakers), and to compare

differences between the speaker groups for a particular condition (e.g., the difference in the

processing of adjective incongruencies between L3 and L1 speakers). These analyses were

conducted in scalp regions consisting of groups of electrodes (see Figure 1 below). The

analyzed regions correspond to Regions of Interest “ROIs”, identified in other studies such as

e.g., Hahne & Friederici, (2001); Hagoort, (2003); Ye et al., (2006). Electrodes were grouped

in the following four regions-of-interest (ROIs): Left Anterior (“LA”), consisting of electrodes

1 The fourth word in the AdjCon and AdjInc conditions, the second in the VerbCon and

VerbInc conditions and the third in the PredInc condition

15

34,28,35,T7,41 and 36, Left Anterior Superior ("LAS"), consisting of electrodes C1, C3, F1, F3,

FC1, FC3, FC5, 7, 12, 20 and 35, Left Posterior Inferior (“LIP”) and Centro- Parietal (“CP”),

consisting of electrodes 31,55,80,54,79,61 and 78. These regions are illustrated in Figure 1

below.

Figure 1. Regions on scalp map

Paired t-tests were used to analyse statistically the significance of an effect in a certain region

based on regions of interest as explained above in which the conditions AdjCon and AdjInc as

well as VerbCon and VerbInc of each group (L1 Spanish speaker or L3 Spanish learner) were

compared with each other. It was also tested statistically across groups within the same

condition (e.g. Spanish AdjCon and Swedish AdjCon, Spanish VerbInc and Swedish VerbInc).

This statistical analysis schema is illustrated below in Figure 2.

16

Figure 2. Schema applied for Statistical Analysis of 4 conditions (Adjective Congruent and Incongruent, Verb

Congruent and Incongruent) divided in Paired T-Test for individual group analysis: L1 Spanish Speaker and L3

Spanish learner and Unpaired T-Test for group comparison analysis: L1 Spanish Speakers with L3 Spanish

learners.

Due to the few participants of each group, either time windows were adjusted, or regions

were narrowed down in a few cases. Nevertheless, the most relevant time windows into this

study are the 300-500 ms time window (for the LAN), the 500-700 ms time window (for the

P600), and the 200-400 ms time window (for the P300).

4. Results

In the following, I first report the behavioral results (Section 10.1) and in the subsequent section 10.2 I move on to the ERP results examined according to Table 4 illustrated below.

4.1. Behavioural data

This section reports the response accuracies in the comprehension question test of both

groups and also in comparison with each other. The L1 Spanish speaker group had a higher

mean response accuracy (M=0.93, SD=0.001) than the L3 Spanish speaker group (M=0.85,

Analysis

PAIRED T-TEST

L1 Spanish Speaker

AdjCon-AdjInc

VerbCon-VerbInc

L3 Spanish learners

AdjCon-AdjInc

VerbCon-VerbInc

UNPAIRED T-TEST L1 Spanish speaker

L3 Spanish learner

AdjCon

AdjInc

VerbCon

VerbInc

17

SD=0.01) in the test. The average response difference between the speaker groups is very

significant, t(25)=30, p < .0001.

As expected, the L1 Spanish speakers showed a higher response accuracy.

Figure 3. Response accuracies across groups and conditions ( L1 Spanish speaker, L3 Spanish learner)

4.2. ERP Data

The ERP data illustrates the effects of the grammatical anomalies on language comprehension in the L3 learners in comparison to the L1 speakers. In the following, I start out by presenting results for each anomaly type and group as shown in Table 4 below, followed by differences and similarities between groups. It is assumed that the effects are engendered by the incongruencies in comparison to the congruent control conditions.

Table 4. Analysed effects per group and anomaly type

Group Incongruence Effects

L1 Adjective *INC.NEG P600 P300

L3 Adjective INC.NEG P600 P300

L1-L3 Adjective INC.NEG P600 P300

L1 Verb INC.NEG P600 P300

L3 Verb INC.NEG P600 P300

L1-L3 Verb INC.NEG P600 P300

*INC.NEG- incongruence negativity.

4.2.1. Adjective - L1-Spanish speakers

Incongruence negativity

The L1 Spanish speaker group showed a negative response to adjective incongruences (see

Figure 13) in the 300-500ms time window that had a left-parietal distribution (LP). This effect

is illustrated in Figure 5. The difference in amplitude between the AdjInc and AdjCon

conditions was significant (paired t-test, t(13)=2.80, p<0.01) showing a more prominent

deflection on the incongruent condition.

689 688 697 693 694

632 627 627 625 624

500

550

600

650

700

AdjCon AdjInc PredInc VerbCon VerbInc

corr

ect

re

spo

nse

s

conditions

Participant answers per Condition

18

Figure 5. The ERP response at electrode 36 of L1 Spanish speaker comparing condition Adjective Congruent and Incongruent

P600

L1 Spanish speakers also showed a positive response to adjective incongruencies that had a

centro-parietal distribution, illustrated in Figures 6. This effect is highly significant (paired t-

test, t(13)=-3.13, p<0.01 in the 500-700ms.

Figure 6. The ERP response at electrode 78 of L1 Spanish speaker comparing condition Adjective Congruent and Incongruent

P300 For L1 speakers, adjective condition did not show a positive deflection in the expected time

window of 200-400 ms. The statistical result showed (t(13)=1.0, p= 0.34) in the centro-parietal

region. An example is of the P300 effect is shown below in Figure 7.

19

Figure 7. The ERP response at electrode 80 of L1 Spanish speaker comparing Adjective Congruent and Incongruent condition

4.2.2. Adjective - L3 Spanish learners

Incongruence negativity

In contrast to the L1 Spanish speakers, L3 Spanish learners did not show a significant effect

engendered by adjective incongruencies in the 300-500 ms time window (t(18)=1.87, p= 0.08)

in the centro-parietal region. An example of this effect under this conditions is illustrated in

the Figure below 8 which shows that AdjCon engendered a more prominent negativity than

AdjInc.

Figure 8. The ERP response at electrode 78 of L3 Spanish learner comparing Adjective Congruent and Incongruent condition

20

P600

For the L3 speakers, a significant difference between the AdjCon and AdjInc conditions was

detected in the 500-700 ms time window in the centro-parietal scalp distribution. This was

statistically tested (paired t-test, t(13)=-2.35, p=0.038). The effect is illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 9. The ERP response at electrode 80 of L3 Spanish learner comparing Adjective Congruent and Incongruent condition

P300

For L3 speakers, however, adjective incongruencies appear to engender an early positivity in

the 200-400 ms time window with centro-parietal distribution (see Figure 10). A paired t-test

on between-condition mean amplitudes in the 200-500 ms time window showed a statistically

significant difference (paired t-test, t(13)=-2.98, p=0.01).

21

Figure 10. The ERP response at electrode 31 of L3 Spanish learner comparing Adjective Congruent and Incongruent condition

4.2.3. Adjective - L1 Spanish speaker - L3 Spanish learners

Incongruence negativity

By comparing L1 and L3 groups to each other in the congruent and incongruent-adjective

conditions, a statistically significant amplitude difference was detected in both cases. The

unpaired test showed (t(22)=4.36 p>0.001) in the 300-500ms time window in the centro-

parietal region a very significant amplitude difference in L1 and L3 group. The L1 group showed

a lower negative deflection on the congruent adjective condition in comparison with the L3

group, an example is illustrated below in Figure 11.

In respect to the incongruent condition the amplitude difference was statistically less

significant than AdjCon. A Unpaired t-test was used to test the same region as for AdjCon

(centro-parietal region) and time window 300-500 ms with the following result (t(22)=2.08

p>0.05. As expected the deflection is stronger on L1 speakers, an example is shown below in

Figure 12.

Figure 11. The ERP response at electrode 55 of L1 Spanish Speaker and L3 Spanish learner comparing Adjective Congruent condition

Figure 12. The ERP response at electrode 55 of L1 Spanish Speaker and L3 Spanish learner comparing Adjective Incongruent condition

P300

For L3 learners, both the AdjCon and AdjInc conditions appear to engender an enhanced P300

wave in comparison to L1 speakers. Unpaired t-tests on mean amplitudes in the 200-400 ms

time window in the centro-parietal region showed that this difference between L1 and L3

speakers is significant both in the adjective congruent (t(22)=2.29, p > 0.05) and the adjective

incongruent conditions (t(22)=3.38, p< 0.01). The between group differences of congruent

and incongruent adjective condition are illustrated in Figure 13 and 14 below.

22

Figure 13. The ERP response at electrode 61 of L1 Spanish Speaker and L3 Spanish learner comparing Adjective Congruent condition

Figure 14. The ERP response at electrode 62 of L1 Spanish Speaker and L3 Spanish learner comparing Adjective Congruent condition

4.2.4. Verb – L1 Spanish speakers

Incongruence negativity

Data from L1 Spanish speakers showed an effect of verb incongruencies in the centro-parietal

(CP) region with a somewhat leftward distribution on the scalp. As illustrated in Figure 15,

verb incongruencies engender a negative deflection peaking around 450 ms time window. A

paired t-test between-condition (VerbInc vs. VerbCon) on mean amplitudes in the 300-500 ms

time window of the centro-parietal region found a significant difference (t(13)=2.89, p<0.01).

This effect, henceforth referred to as the incongruence negativity, is similar to the

conventional N400 effect in terms of its scalp distribution. However, it’s somewhat leftward

scalp distribution suggests that it is a LAN effect with a posterior distribution, which is the kind

of effect that is expected.

Figure 15. The ERP response at electrode 55 of L1 Spanish speakers comparing conditions Verb Congruent and Verb Incongruent conditions

23

P600 –P300

The expected region to find a P600 effect engendered by verb incongruencies is the centro-

parietal (CP) region. The expected region was tested statistically in the 500-700 ms time

window, but no significant differences were found t(13)=0.88, p = 0.39).

Additionally, due to the finding of the so-called P300 effect (see below) in the between group

comparisons, this effect was also tested statistically for the verb condition. The centro-parietal

region was also tested statistically in the 200-400 ms time window, but no significant

amplitude differences were found (t(12)=1.58, p = 0.14). Both results are illustrated below in

Figure 16.

Figure 16. The ERP response at electrode 61 and 31 of L1 Spanish speakers comparing conditions Verb Congruent and Verb Incongruent conditions

4.2.5. Verb-L3-Spanish learners

Incongruence negativity For the L3 Spanish learners, the incongruence negativity effect was localized in the centro- parietal region, but showed a nonsignificant difference (t(17)=1.13, p = 0.28) in the 300-500 ms time window. The effect is shown below in Figure 17.

24

Figure 17. The ERP response at electrode 54 of L3 Spanish learner comparing conditions Verb Congruent and Verb Incongruent conditions

P600 For L3 learners, verb incongruencies appear to engender a late positivity effect with a left

anterior scalp distribution, similar to the conventional P600. This effect was tested in the 500-

700 ms time window in the left anterior (LA) region in which a significant effect was detected

(t(17)=2.90, p< 0.01). This effect is illustrated in the Figure 18 below.

Figure 18. The ERP response at electrode 36 of L3 Spanish learner comparing conditions Verb Congruent and Verb Incongruent conditions

P300 As explained above, because of the detected amplitude difference in the adjective condition

finding a so-called P300 effect, the verb condition has also been tested statistically. The tested

area correspond to the centro-parietal region in the 200-400 ms time window, no significant

amplitude difference was found (t(17)=1.04, p = 0.32), an example is shown below:

25

Figure 19. The ERP response at electrode 61 of L1 Spanish learner comparing conditions Verb Congruent and Verb Incongruent conditions

4.2.6. Verb - L1 Spanish speakers - L3 Spanish learners

Incongruence negativity

Figures 9 and 10 illustrates the difference in the incongruence negativity effect between the

two groups of speakers in the verb incongruent condition. As indicated in Figure 9, this effect

is somewhat strong for L1 speakers than L3 speakers. An unpaired t-test on the mean

amplitudes in the 300-400 ms time window in the centro-parietal region showed that this

difference is significant (t(22)=1.75, p=0.09). In contrast to this result the congruent verb

condition did not show a statistically significant result within the same time window and

region as the incongruent verb condition. The unpaired test on the mean amplitudes

(t(22)=1.02, p=0.31) showed as mentioned a non-significant result. Finally, as illustrated in

Figures 9 and 10, in the incongruent as well as the congruent condition, the incongruence

negativity peaks around 500-550 ms for L3 speakers but around 400450 ms for L1 speakers.

Thus, the negative deflection peak is later for L3 than L1.

Figure 20. The ERP response at electrode 60 of L1 Spanish learner and L3 Spanish speaker comparing condition Verb Incongruent.

Figure 21. The ERP response at electrode 60 of L1 Spanish learner and L3 Spanish speaker comparing condition Verb congruent

26

P300

For L3 learners, verb incongruencies were tested because a significant difference was

detected on the adjective condition. This effect was tested statistically in the 200-400 ms time

window using an unpaired t-test on the mean amplitude of this region found a non-significant

effect for the verb congruent and verb incongruent condition in the centro-parietal region.

The unpaired t-test showed for the congruent verb the following result (t(22)=0.823, p= 0.41)

and for the incongruent adjective condition (t(22)=1.00, p= 0.07). Both conditions are shown

below in Figure 22 and 23.

Figure 22. The ERP response at electrode 79 of L1 Spanish learner and L3 Spanish speaker comparing condition Verb Incongruent

Figure 23. The ERP response at electrode 61 of L1 Spanish learner and L3 Spanish speaker comparing condition Verb congruent

Table 5 summarizes the effects that were detected when comparing conditions as well as

speaker groups.

27

Table 5. Summary of effects differentiated on the basis of verb classes, groups and condition comparisons

Incongruence Negativity Word class Group comparison Condition comparison Time window t-value p-value Region

Verb

L1-L1 Congruent-Incongruent 300:500 2.89 0.01** CP

L3-L3 Congruent-Incongruent 300:500 1.13 0.28 CP

L1-L3 Congruent 300:500 1.02 0.31 CP

L1-L3 Incongruent 300:500 1.75 0.09 CP

ADJ.

L1-L1 Congruent-Incongruent 350:500 2.80 0.01** LP

L3-L3 Congruent-Incongruent 300:500 1.87 0.08 CP

L1-L3 Congruent 300:500 4.36 0.0002*** CP

L1-L3 Incongruent 300:500 2.08 0.04* CP

P600

Word class Group comparison Condition comparison Time window t-value p-value Region

VERB

L1-L1 Congruent-Incongruent 500:700 0.88 0.39 CP

L3-L3 Congruent-Incongruent 500:700 2.90 0.01** LA

L1-L3 Congruent 500:700 -0.49 0.62 CP

L1-L3 Incongruent 500:700 -0.92 0.36 CP

ADJ.

L1-L1 Congruent-Incongruent 500:700 -3.13 0.009** CP

L3-L3 Congruent-Incongruent 500:700 -2.35 0.038* CP

L1-L3 Congruent 500:700 0.95 0.3 CP

L1-L3 Incongruent 500:700 1.13 0.2 CP

P300

Word class Group comparison Condition comparison Time window t-value p-value Region

VERB

L1-L1 Congruent-Incongruent 200:400 1.58 0.14 CP

L3-L3 Congruent-Incongruent 200:400 1.04 0.32 CP

L1-L3 Congruent 200:400 0.823 0.41 CP

L1-L3 Incongruent 200:400 1.86 0.07 CP

ADJ.

L1-L1 Congruent-Incongruent 200:400 1.00 0.34 CP

L3-L3 Congruent-Incongruent 200:400 2.98 0.01** CP

L1-L3 Congruent 200:400 2.29 0.03* CP

L1-L3 Incongruent 200:400 3.38 0.002** CP

28

5. Discussion

This study aimed to compare differences in language processing in L1 and L3 Spanish speakers

with respect to verb and adjective agreement incongruencies. The study aimed as well to

assess how specific morphosyntactic features are transferred from L1 (Swedish) and L2

(English) to a L3 Spanish learner group. In this scope the purpose was to investigate whether

L1 (Swedish) or in contrast L2 (English) influences L3 (Spanish) acquisition the most. Results

showed evidence for a stronger transfer occurring from L2 (English) based on the finding of a

P300 effect as a response to the processing of adjective conditions in the L3 learner group.

The details of this argument are presented in the following.

On the other hand, the results showed lack of an incongruence negativity that indicates that

L3 Spanish learners process Spanish differentially perhaps due to a lower level of language

proficiency. The mean proficiency scores per group L1 is M=0.99 and L3 is M=0.85. These

scores were measured during the experiment and are based on the correct responses of each

participant.

In the following, the results of the study will be discussed with respect to each ERP effect.

5.1. Incongruence negativity

This effect has been detected in the present study as well as in Barber & Carrerias (2014). They

found both verb and adjective incongruencies to engender a LAN effect. In the present study,

verb and adjective agreement processing showed a significant difference between congruent

and incongruent conditions. For L1 the VerbInc condition engendered a negativity on the

centro-parietal region, whereas AdjInc on the left anterior region. In accordance with Carreiras

et al. (2014) mentioned above, the results of AdjInc can be related with a LAN effect (left

anterior negativity) since it is produced in a larger region in the left anterior region. For the

L3 speakers the VerbInc condition did not engendered a significant negativity. These results

indicate that verb and adjective agreement are differently processed by L1 Spanish speakers

and L3 Spanish learners. The group comparisons (L1 and L3) showed as well a significant

difference during the processing of both verb and adjective incongruences in terms of a

significantly more pronounced incongruence negativity for the L1 Spanish speaker in

comparison to L3 Spanish learners. These results suggest that the response to the agreement

errors were detected stronger by the L1 group which shows a higher neuronal response to

this error in contrast to the L3 group. These results confirm therefore that the comprehension

and processing of adjective and verb incongruencies was different between the groups.

5.2. P600

This effect was detected in response to verb incongruencies in the L3 group, but not in the L1

group. It was also detected in the adjective incongruency condition in both the L1 and L3

29

groups the L1 in the 500-700 ms time window in the centro-parietal region. These results differ

slightly with most previous studies (Carreiras et al., 2014, among many others) in which the

P600 effect is detected for verb incongruencies in L1 speakers. This alteration presumably is

caused due to the small sample size of the L1 group.

On the other hand, as mentioned above a significant amplitude difference was detected in L1

and L3 for the adjective condition, which manifested a stronger neuronal response on the

incongruent condition in comparison to the congruent condition. The elicitation of a P600 can

be expected to be stronger in the L1 Spanish speakers as shown for the adjective condition,

since previous studies (e.g. Barber & Carrerias, 2014) have found an absence of the P600 effect

in low-proficiency L2 learners. The reaction to grammatical errors such as agreement errors

as in the present study, connect the P600 effect. The observed difference between the L1 and

the L3 groups might be as well an effect of reanalysis, since the incongruent condition showed

a more prominent response than the congruent condition. Incongruency might lead L1 and L3

to analyse in a different manner than initially expected sentence causing the reanalysis of the

presented sentence. (Osterhout & Holcomb 1992).

5.3. P300

The L1 group showed no incongruence-congruence difference in the time window of 200-400

ms, neither for the verb nor the adjective conditions. In contrast, L3 speakers manifested a

significant difference in the P300 time window between the adjective incongruence and

congruence conditions. Comparisons between the L1 and L3 groups found a significant

difference for AdjCon and a very significant amplitude difference on the AdjInc during the time

window of 200-400 ms. The positive deflection is more pronounced in the L3 speakers in

comparison to the L1 group. The literature does examine the P300 effect in relation with

grammatical agreement errors. Hence it is not possible to relate the findings of this study

directly with other studies in the frame of agreement processing.

Consequently, the results of the present study are related with various studies that have

shown that the P300 effect is related to automaticity and strategical language processing as

for example in Rugg (1995). These results indicate that the processing for the L3 group of

adjective agreements, is less automatically processed than verb agreement. The detection of

this effect only identified on the adjective condition and considering that adjective agreement

exist in their L1 language (Swedish) and on the basis of previous studies, I assume that in the

L3 group, the morphosyntactic transfer to their L3-Spanish is mainly done from their L2

(English), since no P300 effect is detected on verb agreement processing.

According to the L2 Status factor theory presented in Section 2.3., transfer from L2 to L3 is

more common than transfer from L1 to L3, because L2 and L3 are similar in terms of being

acquired at a later stage in life, and therefore to a greater extent it is stored in declarative

memory. The L2 is therefore making the L1 less accessible during the processing of an L3. In

the present study, L3 learners are therefore more attentive to the adjective agreement that

exist in their L1 but not in their L2 (i.e., adjective incongruencies) and this is reflected in the

30

enhanced P300 wave. L2-English acts like a filter to L1-Swedish, making it less accessible,

thereby making it less automatically accessed, which is reflected by the P300 effect. This might

be caused by the fact of the L3 learners being more attentive to the adjective incongruencies

due to the L2 status. Current research suggests that the P300 reflects updating of working

memory (Donchin & Coles 1988) produced by context updating. Language processing requires

working memory capacity in order to keep continuously information of the sentence in the

memory. It has been shown in different studies that the increased difficulty of a task in which

strategic information processing was required, showed an increased P300 effect, since higher

activity on working memory was necessary. In the present study the sentence similarity and

the vastly structured task of the experiment might cause a “strategic information processing”

(Donchin & Coles 1988). According to this study the P300 effect was engendered by stimuli

that was originally unexpected but through repetition became expected.

Finally, the results also stand in line with Ullmans theory (2001) regarding the difference

between declarative and procedural memory. The results of this study indicate a transfer

difference between L1 and L2 to L3. In line with Ullman (2001), the filtering of L1 by L2 happens

because L2 and L3 has the same status in terms of degree of entrenchment since both are

stored in declarative memory to a greater extent, whereas L1 is stored in procedural memory.

6. Conclusions

In this study it has been shown how to use ERP methodology for research in third language

acquisition, which is an emerging research field nowadays. The present study has confirmed

that language is processed differently in native like speakers and L3 learners.

Therefore, the most significant finding of this study is the P300 effect that was significantly

more prominent in L3 learners than in L1 Spanish speakers but also demonstrated a higher

amplitude in the condition of adjective agreements. This shed new light on L3 acquisition,

stating that L2 acts like a filter making L1 inaccessible, standing in line with the L2 Status

Factor. The findings of this study show, for the first time, the relation between third language

acquisition and the P300 effect as a conclusion for a presumable transfer sign of L2 to L3. This

is likely caused due to the cognitive similarity between L2 and L3 in contrast with L1 and L3,

since L1 is part of the procedural memory and L2 and L3 are on the contrary part of the

declarative memory. As explained in the Background Section, the L3 learners are more aware

of the L2 grammatical features than of L1. This is shown in the present study through the P300

effect engendering a stronger neuronal response on L3 speakers first language feature the

adjective condition (Swedish), indicating a less automatic language process.

Further research is needed with a higher amount of participants and a clear division between

L3 language proficiency in order to get more certain results.

31

References

Alemán Bañón, J. (2010). The processing of number and gender agreement in Spanish: An ERP

investigation. MA Thesis, University of Kansas, 2010 Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R. & Gabriele, A., (2012) The processing of number and gender

agreement in Spanish: An event related potential investigation of the effects of structural distance. Brain Research 1456, 49-63.

Bardel, C. & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of

Germanic syntax. Second Language Research 23(4),459–484. Barber, H. & Carreiras M. (2005). Grammatical Gender and Number Agreement in Spanish: An ERP

Comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17(1),137-53.

Blackwood D. H. R, Muir W. J. (1990). Cognitive brain potentials and their application. The British

Journal of Psychiatry. 157(9),96–101. Brainard MS, Knudsen EI. (1998). Sensitive periods for visual calibration of the auditory space map in

the barn owl optic tectum. Journal of Neuroscience. 18(10),3929–42 Canagarajah, A. (2002). Critical Academic Writing and Multilingual Students. Michigan: University of

Michigan Press. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Massachusets: MIT Press. Europeans and their Languages. (2016). [online] European Commission, Directorate - General for

Education and Culture, Directorate - General for Translation and Directorate - General for Interpretation and coordinated by Directorate - General for Communication. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf [Accessed 14 Aug. 2016].

Molinaro, N., Barber H.A. & Carreiras M. (2011). Grammatical Agreement Processing in Reading: ERP

Findings and Future Directions." Cortex 47,908-930.

Molinaro, N., Barber, H.A., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading:

ERP findings and future directions. Cortex 47,908-930. Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Pitkanen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., & Molinaro, N. (2006). Novice learners,

longitudinal designs, and event-related potentials: A paradigm for exploring the neurocognition of second-language processing. Language Learning, 56(1),199-230

Pérez, A., Molinaro, N., Mancini, S., Barraza, P. & Carreiras, M. (2012). Oscillatory dynamics related to

the Unagreement pattern in Spanish. Neuropsychologia, 50(11),2584-2597.

32

Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Davidson, D.J., Avilés, A., & Carreiras, M. (2014). Person and the syntax-discourse interface: An eye-tracking study of agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 141-157

Dechert, H.; Raupach, M. (1989). Transfer in language production. Norwood, NJ: Praeger. Díaz, B., Erdocia K., de Menezes R. F., Mueller J. L., Sebastian-Galles N., & Laka I. (2016).

Electrophysiological correlates of second-language syntactic processes are related to native and second language distance regardless of age of acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology. 12(7),133

Donchin, E., Coles M.G.H. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11(03),357-374. Dowens M., Vergara M., Barber H., & Carreiras M. (2012). Morphosyntactic Processing in Late Second-

Language Learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22(8),1870-1887. Edwards, M.; Dewaele J-M. (2007). Trilingual conversations: a window into multicompetence.

International Journal of Bilingualism 11(2),221–242. Fasth, C. & Kannermark, A. (1998). Form i fokus, Övningsbok I svensk Grammatik Del C., Trelleborg:

Folkuniversitetets förlag

Flynn S., Foley C., Vinnitskaya I. (2004). The cumulative enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 3–17.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hagoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP

effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15(6):883–899.

Hahne, A. & Friederici, A. (1998). ERP-evidence for autonomous first-pass parsing processes in auditory

language comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Supplement, 125. Hawkins, R., Yuet-hung Chan C. (1997) The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second

language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis.’ Second Language Research 13(3),187-226

Jaensch, Carol. (2009). Article choice and article omission in the L3 German of nativespeakers of

Japanese with L2 English. In: García-Mayo & Hawkins R. (eds). Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. Hawkins. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kaan, E. & Swaab, T. (2003). Repair, Revision, and Complexity in Syntactic Analysis: An

Electrophysiological Differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15(1):98-110 Kutas M. & Dale A. (1997). Electrical and magnetic readings of mental functions. In: Rugg M. D. (ed.),

Cognitive Neuroscience. Hove East Sussex: Psychology Press. Krashen, S. D. (1979). 'A response to Mc Laughlin, "The Monitor Model, some methodological

considerations*", Language Learning,29, 151-167

33

Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K.D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language

comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 4(12),463–470 Kutas, M., Van Petten, C.K.; Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II. In: Traxler, M. &

Gernsbacher, M.A. (Eds.). Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd Edition. New York: Elsevier.

Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. K. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential

investigations. In: Gernsbacher M. A. (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego:

Academic Press. Laszlo, S. & Federmeier, K.D. (2008). Minding the PS, queues, and PXQs: Uniformity of semantic

processing across stimulus types. Psychophysiology 45(3),458–466 Lenneberg.E.H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Molinaro, N; Barber, H.A., Caffarra, S & Carreiras, M (2015). On the left anterior negativity (LAN): The

case of morphosyntactic agreement. Cortex. 66,156-159. Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K. &amp; Ullman, M.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

Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. (1992). Event-Related Brain Potentials Elicited by Syntactic Anomaly.

Journal of Memory and Language 31,785-806. Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal

of Memory & Language 34(6),739-773 Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Osterhout, L.; Holcomb, P. (1992). Event-Related Brain Potentials Elicited by Syntactic Anomaly. Journal

of Memory and Language 31, 785-806. Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An Integrative Theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology

118(10),2128–2148. Pritchard W.S., Houlihan M.E. & Robinson J.h. (1999). P300 and Response Selection: A New Look Using

Independent-Components Analysis. Brain Topography, 12(1), 31-37. Robson, G., & Midorikawa, H. (2001). How reliable and valid is the Japanese version of the Strategy

Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)? JALT Journal, 23, 202-226.

Rugg, M. D., & Coles, M. G. H. (1995). Electrophysiology of mind: Event-related brain potentials and

cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sanz, C. (2005). Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, Theory, and Practice.

Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.

34

Schacht, A., Sommer, W., Shmuilovich, O., Martíenz, P.C; Martín-Loeches, M. (2014). Differential Task Effects on N400 and P600 Elicited by Semantic and Syntactic Violations. PLoS ONE. 9(3), e91226.

Silva-Pereyra, J., and Carreiras, M. (2007). An ERP study of phi-features in Spanish. Brain Research.

1185, 201–211. Steele, S. (1978). Word order variation: a typological study. In: Greenberg J.H., Ferguson C.A. &

Moravcsik E.A. (eds) Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press Schwartz, B.D.; Sprouse, R.A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model.

Second Language Research 12(1):40-72.

Schwartz B. D., Sprouse R.(1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access hypothesis. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72.

Tomasello, M. (2009). The usage-based theory of language acquisition. In Edith L. Bavin (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of child language. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Ullman M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The

declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(2), 105–122 Verleger, R. (1988). Event-related potentials and cognition: a critique of the context-updating

hypothesis and an alternative interpretation of P3. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11(3), 343-356

Wechsler, S., and Zlatić L. (2003). The Many Faces of Agreement. Standford: CSLI Weinreich, U. (1952). Sabesdiker Losn in Yiddish: A Problem of Linguistic Affinity Languages Contact

Word 8(4),360-377. Ye, Z., Luo, Y., Friederici, A.D. & Zhou, X. (2006). Semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence

comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research. 1071(1),186–196.

35

Appendix

I. Proficiency test

I.a. Spanish Test

Sample Language Usage Items

Select the correct choice to fill the blank space in the sentence:

1. Los hombres ______ afeitan cuando tienen barba.

a. le

b. lo

c. me

d. se

2. Cuando llegamos allí, nos dijeron que Roberto ya ______ .

a. ha salido

b. salga

c. había salido

d. saliera

3. ¿A usted ______ bien su nuevo secretario?

a. te cae

b. me cae

c. se cae

d. le cae

Sample Cloze Item

36

You will be given a reading passage from which several words have been omitted. For each blank, select the

correct choice from the possible answers given.

Select the choice that logically completes the dialogue. The two speakers are labeled by X and

Y.

1. X: Necesito saber por qué no vino a la fiesta Ramón.

Y: ______ .

a. Va a traer cerveza, ¿no?

b. Es hora de preguntárselo.

c. Me la pidió esta mañana.

d. ¿No sabe qué hora es?

2. X: ¿Le llevaste tu coche al mecánico?

Y: ______ .

a. No, se me olvidó

b. Sí, te lo hago esta tarde

c. No, lo vas a arreglar pronto

d. Sí, es del mecánico

37

I.b. Swedish – Test

I. Instructions: Select the best answer.

1. Robert ___________ på fabriken idag.

o A - arbeta

o B- arbetar

o C- arbetat

o D- arbete

2. Vem är __________, Marja eller Monika?

o A- längre än

o B- lång

o C- längst

o D- längst än

3. Filmen var _____________ boken.

o A- så bra som

o B- lika bra som

o C- bra som

o D- bra lika

4. Jag tycker om att läsa, titta på TV och ____________.

o A - går på bio

o B - jag går på bio

o C- går jag på bio o D- gå på bio

II. Instructions: Select the underlined word or phrase that is incorrect.

1. Jag ska be att få fem röda äppler.

o A- be

o B- få

o C- röda

o D- äppler

2. De mesta turister som kommer till Sverige säger att allting är så dyrt.

o A- mesta

o B - turister

o C- som

o D- dyrt

3. Vet du om det är mycket kallt ut idag?

o A - om

o B - mycket

o C - kallt

o D – ut

III. Instructions: Select the best answer.

1. De flesta stockholmare ____________ lägenhet.

o A - hyr

o B - bor

o C - lever

o D - tillhör

2. Jag har ont i ___________, så jag kan inte skriva.

o A - halsen

o B - handleden

o C - vristen

o D - ankeln

3. Många invandrare ___________ att svenskarna är reserverade.

o A - tycker

o B- tänker

o C- avser

o D- verkar

Instructions: Read the Swedish text and select the best answers for the questions.

Nina bor på Söder i Stockholm. Det är svårt att parkera i stan, så det är lättast att åka buss eller tunnelbana när man ska hälsa

på henne. Nina brukar alltid rekommendera att man tar tunnelbanan eftersom tågen går oftare än bussarna. Ta vilket

38

södergående tåg som helst från T-Centralen och stig av vid Slussen. Gå ut genom uppgången till Götgatan och ta sedan till

vänster. Gå Götgatan söderut i ungefär fem minuter, tills du kommer till Högbergsgatan. Ta av till vänster. Hennes port är

nummer 35, den tredje på höger sida av gatan. Du behöver inte veta koden till hennes ingång, eftersom hon också har porttelefon.

1. På vilken gata bor Nina?

o A - T-Centralen

o B - Högbergsgatan

o C - Slussen

o D - Götgatan

2. Varför rekommenderar Nina alltid tunnelbanan?

o A- Tågen går oftare än bussarna.

o B - Bussarna går oftare än tågen.

o C - Hon bor vid T-Centralen. o D - Hon bor långt från T-Centralen.

II. Experimental Sentences

Sentence nr

Block

Item W1 W2 W3 W4

W5

W6 W7 W8 Question

1 1 1 El Mediterráneo es cálido y el Adriático también

¿Es el Adriático cálido?

2 5 1 El Mediterráneo es cálida y el Adriático también ¿Es el Mediterráneo cálido?

3 4 1 El Mediterráneo soy cálido y el Adriático también ¿Es el Mediterráneo frío?

4 3 1 Yo abro la puerta ¿Cierro la puerta?

5 2 1 Yo abre la puerta ¿Abro la ventana?

6 2 2 La tierra es redonda y la luna también ¿Es la tierra plana?

7 1 2 La tierra es redondo y la luna también ¿El la luna redonda?

8 5 2 La tierra eres redondo y la luna también ¿La tierra no es plana?

9 4 2 Tú anotas la cifra ¿No anotas nada?

10 3 2 Tú anota la cifra ¿Anotas letras?

11 3 3 El colegio es gratuito y el instituto también ¿Es el instituto caro?

12 2 3 El colegio es gratuita y el instituto también ¿El colegio no es gratutio?

13 1 3 El colegio soy gratuito y el instituto también ¿El colegio es gratuito?

14 5 3 Ella notó el frío ¿Hace fío?

15 4 3 Ella noté el frío ¿Hace calor?

16 4 4 El coliseo es emblemático y el Foro también

¿Únicamente el coliseo es emblemático?

17 3 4 El coliseo es emblemática y el Foro también

¿Únicamente el Foro es emblemático?

18 2 4 El coliseo eres emblemático y el Foro también ¿El Coliseo no es emblemático?

19 1 4 Yo alcanzo el techo ¿Alcanzo el techo?

20 5 4 Yo alcanzas el techo ¿Puedo tocar el techo?

21 5 5 La naranja es jugosa y la pera también ¿Las peras y naranjas son jugosas?

22 4 5 La naranja es jugoso y la pera también ¿Sólo la pera es jugosa?

23 3 5 La naranja eres jugosa y la pera también ¿La naranja no es jugosa?

24 2 5 Tú anotas la cifra ¿Anoto una letra?

25 1 5 Tú anoto la cifra ¿Anoto la cifra?

26 2 6 El Atlántico es gigantesco y el Egeo también ¿Es gigante el Egeo?

39

27 1 6 El Atlántico es gigantesca y el Egeo también ¿Es gigante el Atlántico?

28 5 6 El Atlántico soy gigantesco y el Egeo también ¿Son gigantes el Atántico y el Egeo?

29 4 6 Él quemó el papel ¿Él no quemó el papel?

30 3 6 Él quemas el papel ¿Él no quemó nada?

31 3 7 La falda es femenina y la blusa también ¿La falda no es femenina?

32 2 7 La falda es femenino y la blusa también ¿Son las blusas son femeninas?

33 1 7 La falda eres femenina y la blusa también ¿Tanto falda como blusa son femeninas?

34 5 7 Yo soluciono el problema ¿Se ha solucionado el problema?

35 4 7 Yo soluciona el problema ¿No se ha solucionado el problema?

36 4 8 El faro es grandioso y el obelisco también ¿El faro es amarillo?

37 3 8 El faro es grandiosa y el obelisco también ¿El obslisco es amarillo?

38 2 8 El faro soy grandioso y el obelisco también ¿Es grande el obelisco?

39 1 8 Tú arreglas el instrumental ¿El instrumental será arreglado?

40 5 8 Tú arregla el instrumental ¿Él arregla el instrumental?

41 5 9 La falda es azulada y la blusa también ¿Es azul la blusa?

42 4 9 La falda es azulado y la blusa también ¿Es amarilla la falda?

43 3 9 La falda eres azulado y la blusa también ¿Es roja la falda?

44 2 9 Ella respira el humo ¿Hay humo?

45 1 9 Ella respiro el humo ¿El aire tiene humo?

46 1 10 El faro es sólido y el campanario también ¿El campanario es sólido?

47 5 10 El faro es sólido y el campanario también ¿Es sólido el faro?

48 4 10 El faro soy sólido y el campanario también ¿Es frágil el campanario?

49 3 10 Yo aprieto el tornillo ¿ÉL aprieta la rosca?

50 2 10 Yo aprietas el tornillo ¿El tornillo es apretado?

51 3 11 La isla es rocosa y la península también ¿Son rocosas las islas?

52 2 11 La isla es rocoso y la península también ¿Es rocosa la península?

53 1 11 La isla eres rocosa y la península también ¿La isla no tiene rocas?

54 5 11 Tú atas las manos ¿Están las manos desatadas?

55 4 11 Tú ato las manos ¿El ata los pies?

56 4 12 El arroyo es hondo y el charco también ¿El arroyo no es profundo?

57 3 12 El arroyo es honda y el charco también ¿El charco es hondo?

58 2 12 El arroyo soy hondo y el charco también ¿Arroyo y charco son hondos?

59 1 12 El robó la tienda ¿La tienda no ha sido atracada?

60 5 12 El robé la tienda ¿La tienda no ha sufrido un robo?

61 5 13 El otoño es oscuro y el invierno también ¿El invierno es muy claro?

62 4 13 El otoño es oscura y el invierno también ¿Es el otoño claro?

63 3 13 El otoño eres oscuro y el invierno también ¿Es el otoño oscuro como el invierno?

64 2 13 Yo beso los labios ¿Ha besado a alguien?

65 1 13 Yo besas los labios ¿Ha besado la nariz?

66 1 14 La casa es minúscula y la cochera también ¿La casa es grande?

67 5 14 La casa es minúsculo y la cochera también ¿Sólo la cochera es grande?

68 4 14 La casa eres minúscula y la cochera también ¿La casa y el jardín son minúsculos?

69 3 14 Tú aumentas el cosnsumo ¿Ha aumentado el consumo?

70 2 14 Tú aumenta el cosnsumo ¿El consumo ha crecido?

40

71 2 15 El arroyo es largo y el meandro también ¿Son largos los arroyos y meandros?

72 1 15 El arroyo es larga y el meandro también ¿Es el arroyo corto?

73 5 15 El arroyo soy largo y el meandro también ¿Es el meandro corto?

74 4 15 Ella oye música ¿Ella mira la televisión?

75 3 15 Ella oyes música ¿Escucha ella música?

76 4 16 La cocina es amplia y la entrada también ¿Es amplia la cocina?

77 3 16 La cocina es amplio y la entrada también ¿Es amplia la entrada?

78 2 16 La cocina eres amplia y la entrada también ¿Son amplias la entrada y la cocina?

79 1 16 Yo borro la pizarra ¿El borra la libreta?

80 5 16 Yo borra la pizarra ¿Borro el cuadernillo?

81 5 17 El colegio es antiguo y el liceo también ¿Es muy moderno el colegio?

82 4 17 El colegio es antigua y el liceo también ¿El liceo no es moderno?

83 3 17 El colegio soy antiguo y el liceo también ¿El colegio no es moderno?

84 2 17 Tú buscas una foto ¿Busca una foto?

85 1 17 Tú busco una foto ¿Busca un libro?

86 1 18 La isla es preciosa y la bahía también ¿Es fea la isla?

87 5 18 La isla es precioso y la bahía también ¿Es horrible la bahía?

88 4 18 La isla eres preciosa y la bahía también ¿La isla y la bahía son bonitas?

89 3 18 Él prsentó un cuadro ¿Presentó un cuadro?

90 2 18 Él presenté un cuadro ¿Lo presentado fue un cuadro?

91 2 19 El otoño es húmedo y el verano también ¿El verano no es seco?

92 1 19 El otoño es húmeda y el verano también ¿El inveierno es seco?

93 5 19 El otoño soy húmedo y el verano también ¿El verano no es húmedo como el invierno?

94 4 19 Yo cambio la imágen ¿Modifica la imágen?

95 3 19 Yo cambias la imágen ¿Cambia la imágen?

96 3 20 La casa es sombría y la bodega también ¿La casa es sombría?

97 2 20 La casa es sombrío y la bodega también ¿La bodega es sombría?

98 1 20 La casa eres sombría y la bodega también ¿La bodega tiene mucha luz?

99 5 20 Tú buscas la foto ¿Busca la libreta?

100 4 20 Tú busco la foto ¿Busca una foto?

101 5 21 El baño es amplio y el pasillo también ¿El pasillo es amplio?

102 4 21 El baño es amplia y el pasillo también ¿El baño es amplio?

103 3 21 El baño soy amplio y el pasillo también ¿El pasillo es pequeño?

104 2 21 Ella subrayó el libro ¿Subrayó el cuaderno?

105 1 21 Ella subrayé el libro ¿Subrayó la pizarra?

106 1 22 El baño es rosado y el dormitorio también ¿Es rojo el dormitorio?

107 5 22 El baño es rosada y el dormitorio también ¿El baño es rosado?

108 4 22 El baño eres rosado y el dormitorio también

¿El dormitorio tiene el mismo color que el baño?

109 3 22 Yo celebro el cumpleaños ¿No se celebra el cumpleaños?

110 2 22 Yo celebra el cumpleaños ¿Se celebra el santo?

111 2 23 La moñtana es grandiosa y la colina también ¿La colina no es grandiosa?

112 1 23 La moñtana es grandioso y la colina también ¿La moñtana no es tan grandiosa como la colina?

113 5 23 La moñtana eres grandiosa y la colina también ¿Tanto moñtana como colina son grandiosas?

41

114 4 23 Tú calientas el té ¿El té está siendo calentado?

115 3 23 Tú caliento el té ¿Caleinta el café?

116 3 24 El abrigo es clásico y el chaleco también ¿El abrigo no clásico?

117 2 24 El abrigo es clásica y el chaleco también ¿El chaleco es muy moderno?

118 1 24 El abrigo eres clásico y el chaleco también ¿El chaleco no es clásico?

119 5 24 Él paga la cena ¿Él ha pagado la cena?

120 4 24 Él pago la cena ¿La cena ha sido pagada por él?

121 4 25 La mesa es pesada y la silla también ¿La mesa pesa?

122 3 25 La mesa es pesado y la silla también ¿La silla es muy ligera?

123 2 25 La mesa eres pesada y la silla también ¿La mesa es muy ligera?

124 1 25 Yo ceno un caldo ¿Él cena arroz?

125 5 25 Yo cenas un caldo ¿Cena un clado?

126 1 26 El abrigo es caluroso y el gorro también ¿El abrigo es caluroso?

127 5 26 El abrigo es calurosa y el gorro también ¿El gorro caluroso?

128 4 26 El abrigo eres caluroso y el gorro también ¿El gorro y el abrigo son caluroso?

129 3 26 Tú colocas la baraja ¿Coloca los libros?

130 2 26 Tú coloco la baraja ¿Coloca los apuntes?

131 2 27 La biblioteca es gratutia y la sauna también ¿La sauna es muy cara?

132 1 27 La biblioteca es gratutio y la sauna también ¿La sauna no cuesta dinero?

133 5 27 La biblioteca eres gratutia y la sauna también ¿La biblioteca es gratuita?

134 4 27 Tú comunicas la noticia ¿Se comunica información?

135 3 27 Tú comunico la noticia ¿Se censura la noticia?

136 3 28 El terremoto es peligroso y el tornado también ¿El terremoto es tranquilo?

137 2 28 El terremoto es peligrosa y el tornado también ¿El terremoto no es peligroso?

138 1 28 El terremoto eres peligroso y el tornado también ¿El tornado y el terremoto son peligrosos?

139 5 28 Yo hago los deberes ¿Hace los deberes?

140 4 28 Yo haces los deberes ¿Los deberes se están haciendo?

141 4 29 La fresa es ácida y la piña también ¿La fresa no es ácida?

142 3 29 La fresa es ácido y la piña también ¿La piña es dulce?

143 2 29 La fresa eres ácida y la piña también ¿La fresa es desagradable?

144 1 29 Tú conduces el autobús ¿Alguien conduce el bus?

145 5 29 Tú conduzco el autobús ¿El bus es conducido?

146 5 30 El terremoto es catastrófico y el

maremoto también

¿El maremoto es tan catastrófico como el maremoto?

147 4 30 El terremoto es catastrófica y el

maremoto también ¿El maremoto es catastrófico

148 3 30 El terremoto soy catastrófico y el

maremoto también ¿El terremoto es catastrófico?

149 2 30 Ella necesita el dato ¿Se necesita un coche?

150 1 30 Ella necesito el dato ¿Se necesita el dato?

151 2 31 La fresa es digestiva y la zanahoria también ¿La zanahoria ayuda a la digestión?

152 1 31 La fresa es digestivo y la zanahoria también ¿La fresa ayuda a la digestión?

153 5 31 La fresa eres digestiva y la zanahoria también ¿La zanahoria no es digestiva?

154 4 31 Tú corriges los errores ¿Nadie corrige los errores?

155 3 31 Tú corrigo los errores ¿No hay errores?

156 3 32 El libro es anónimo y el artículo también ¿El libro tiene un autor conocido?

157 2 32 El libro es anónima y el artículo también ¿El artículo es anónimo?

42

158 1 32 El libro eres anónimo y el artículo también ¿El libro no tiene autor?

159 5 32 Tú dejas la lucha ¿Comienza con la lucha?

160 4 32 Tú dejo la lucha ¿Se inicia en la lucha?

161 4 33 La guitarra es melodiosa y la flauta también ¿El tambor es melodioso?

162 3 33 La guitarra es melodioso y la flauta también ¿La flauta no es tan melodiosa como la guitarra?

163 2 33 La guitarra eres melodiosa y la flauta también ¿La guitarra es melodiosa?

164 1 33 Él mide la altura ¿Mide la altura?

165 5 33 Él mido la altura ¿Mide el peso?

166 5 34 El laboratorio es conocido y el departamento también ¿El departamento está escondido?

167 4 34 El laboratorio es conocida y el departamento también ¿El laboratorio es oculto?

168 3 34 El laboratorio eres conocido y el departamento también ¿El laboratorio no es conocido?

169 2 34 Yo construyo una casa ¿Construye una casa?

170 1 34 Yo construye una casa ¿Una casa es contruida?

171 1 35 La guitarra es bonita y la armónica también ¿La armónica y guitarra son bonitas?

172 5 35 La guitarra es bonito y la armónica también ¿La armónica no es bonita?

173 4 35 La guitarra eres bonita y la armónica también ¿La guitarra es armónica?

174 3 35 Tú destacas la sinceridad ¿Destaca la mentira?

175 2 35 Tú destaco la sinceridad ¿Desca la sinceridad?

176 3 36 El laboratorio es privado y el archivo también ¿El laboratorio es privado?

177 2 36 El laboratorio es privada y el archivo también ¿El archivo es privado?

178 1 36 El laboratorio eres privado y el archivo también ¿El archivo no es público?

179 5 36 Ella dibuja un corazón ¿Ella dibuja una rosa?

180 4 36 Ella dibjuo un corazón ¿Ella dibjua un círculo?

181 4 37 La pelicula es romántica y la leyenda también ¿La película no es romántica?

182 3 37 La pelicula es romántico y la leyenda también ¿La leyenda es romántica?

183 2 37 La pelicula soy romántica y la leyenda también ¿La película es tan rómantica como la leyenda?

184 1 37 Tú enciendes el fuego ¿Enciende fuego?

185 5 37 Tú enciendo el fuego ¿Apaga el fuego?

186 5 38 El lago es oscuro y el pozo también ¿El puente es oscuro?

187 4 38 El lago es oscura y el pozo también ¿La casa es oscura?

188 3 38 El lago eres oscuro y el pozo también ¿El pozo es oscuro?

189 2 38 Tú entregas la llave ¿Entregó las llaves?

190 1 38 Tú entrego la llave ¿Lo que entregó fueron las llaves?

191 1 39 La libro es didáctico y el periódico también ¿El periódico es didáctico?

192 5 39 La libro es didáctica y el periódico también ¿El libro no es didáctico?

193 4 39 La libro soy didáctico y el periódico también ¿El periódico no es didáctico?

194 3 39 Él espera una disculpa ¿Él espera disculpas?

195 2 39 Él espero una disculpa ¿Lo que espera son discuplas?

196 2 40 El espejo es delicado y el florero también ¿Es delicado el espejo?

197 1 40 El espejo es delicada y el florero también ¿Es delicado el florero?

198 5 40 El espejo eres delicado y el florero también ¿El espejo no es delicado?

199 4 40 Yo mando el mensaje ¿Recibe un mensaje?

200 3 40 Yo mandas el mensaje ¿Manda un mensaje?

201 4 41 La biblioteca es formativa y la escuela también ¿La biblioteca es formativa?

43

202 3 41 La biblioteca es formativo y la escuela también ¿La escuela es formativa?

203 2 41 La biblioteca eres formativa y la escuela también ¿La escuela no es formativa?

204 1 41 Tú escribes una carta ¿Dibujo una carta?

205 5 41 Tú escribo una carta ¿Escribo en la pizarra?

206 5 42 El espejo es precioso y el mosaico también ¿El mosaico es feo?

207 4 42 El espejo es preciosa y el mosaico también ¿El espejo es bonito?

208 3 42 El espejo soy precioso y el mosaico también ¿El mosaico es bonito?

209 2 42 Él encuenta la nota ¿Encontró la casa?

210 1 42 Él encuentro la nota ¿Encontró el coche?

211 1 43 La cafetera es metálica y la tetera también ¿La cafetera es de madera?

212 5 43 La cafetera es metálico y la tetera también ¿La cafetera es de plástico?

213 4 43 La cafetera eres metálica y la tetera también ¿La cafetería es de metal?

214 3 43 Yo quemo el papel ¿Se ha quemado algo?

215 2 43 Yo quema el papel ¿He quemado un lápiz?

216 2 44 El diccionario es didáctico y el glosario también ¿El diccionario es rojo?

217 1 44 El diccionario es didáctica y el glosario también ¿El glosario no es didáctico?

218 5 44 El diccionario soy didáctico y el glosario también ¿El diccionario no es didáctico?

219 4 44 Tú invades el país ¿El país ha sufrido una invasión?

220 3 44 Tú invado el país ¿Alguien ha invadido el país?

221 3 45 La ventana es amarilla y la escalera también ¿La escalaera y ventana son amarillas?

222 2 45 La ventana es amarillo y la escalera también ¿Es roja la ventana?

223 1 45 La ventana eres amarilla y la escalera también ¿Es azul la ventan?

224 5 45 Él olvida el horario ¿Él no se acuerda del horario?

225 4 45 Él olvda el horario ¿No recuerda el horario?

44

Stockholms universitet/Stockholm University

SE-106 91 Stockholm

Telefon/Phone: 08 – 16 20 00

www.su.se