| Abstract [eng] |
This thesis investigated how native and non-native speakers of Lithuanian process active and passive constructions. The aim of the study was to determine whether these constructions differ in processing complexity, and to evaluate the influence of individual and linguistic factors on their processing, such as age, gender, working memory, reading habits, education, Lithuanian language proficiency, and linguistic experience. The research data were collected during the project “Experimental Research on Language Complexity” in the spring of 2025. The study contributes to psycholinguistic research on the Lithuanian passive, which has so far remained relatively limited. The study involved 40 native and 40 non-native speakers of Lithuanian, employing quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative analysis was based on data from a self-paced reading test, during which participants’ reaction times were measured while reading different types of constructions (active, personal passive, impersonal passive). Linear mixed-effects models were applied to analyse reaction times. The processing of active and personal passive constructions, as well as active and impersonal passive constructions, was analyzed separately in the native and non-native speaker groups. The qualitative analysis examined participants’ comments provided during a sentence choice task. In addition, data from a working memory test, a sociolinguistic questionnaire, and a C-test completed by the non-native speakers were collected. The results of the quantitative analysis showed that no statistically significant differences were found between the processing of active and personal passive constructions in either the native or non-native speaker groups. In contrast, impersonal passive constructions were processed faster than active constructions in the native speaker group. It was also established that longer constructions were read more slowly, while language proficiency had a significant effect in the non-native speaker group, i.e. participants with higher linguistic competence processed constructions more quickly. The effects of working memory, reading habits, and education were not statistically significant. The qualitative analysis revealed that, within the native speaker group, passive constructions were most commonly associated with abstractness, depersonalization, a more formal style, and more concise expression. Native-speaking participants considered them suitable for situations in which the action or process itself is more important than the specific agent. This suggests that native speakers perceive the passive voice as a natural part of the Lithuanian language system and are well familiar with its different forms of expression. The majority of non-native speakers preferred active constructions and emphasized that active constructions are easier to understand because the agent is explicitly expressed, which reduces interpretative ambiguity. This suggests that although reaction times did not differ statistically significantly, passive constructions may have caused greater interpretative uncertainty for non-native speakers. It was also observed that in cases where linguistic experience or grammatical knowledge is limited, clearly expressed semantic roles may facilitate sentence comprehension. In conclusion, it can be stated that the processing of active and passive constructions depends not only on grammatical expression but also on various interrelated factors, such as linguistic experience, construction length, and language proficiency. The results of the study challenge the view that the passive is inherently more complex than the active and demonstrate that passive constructions in Lithuanian can perform important communicative and stylistic functions. |
