Previous research suggests that “implicit” agent arguments are activated into the discourse during online comprehension of short passive constructions (Mauner & Koenig, 1999). Yet some researchers (e.g., Kratzer, 1996) have claimed that there exists a distinction between stative/adjectival and eventive/verbal passives, and that only the latter is able to license and project an agent. In addition, the two forms are superficially similar in English, which poses a potential problem for L2 learners of English when their L1s use distinct forms to mark whether a passive construction is eventive or stative. One such case is Swedish, where vara (to be) marks the stative and other forms mark the eventive usage.

Using a word-by-word reading paradigm, we tested monolingual English speakers and advanced Swedish L2 learners of English for differences in agent activation between short adjectival (1) and verbal (2) passive constructions. We hypothesized that for native English speakers, verbal passive participles would activate and make available an agent in the discourse, thus facilitating processing at an agent-dependent, rationale clause (to keep...), whereas adjectival passives would not. For the Swedish L2 learners of English, we explored a possible L1/L2 transfer effect (e.g., Frenck-Mestre & Pynte, 1997) whereby superficial similarities between Swedish vara and English to be would support adjectival activation and preclude agent activation, causing processing difficulty for both conditions (1) and (2).

Two processing constraints were manipulated: 1) structural-semantic bias, via a verb or adjective-biasing adverb (very/immediately), and 2) the frequency (BNC) by which a participle appears in its verbal/adjectival form. A mixed model analysis revealed a main effect of structural-semantic bias for which the direction of the effect differed for native speakers and L2 learners. Native speakers had marginally longer RTs at the first verb region of the rational clause and significantly longer RTs at the verb+ region (any spies) for the adjectival passive vs. the verbal passive and a by-phrase control (3). For the L2 learners, both the adjectival and verbal passives had longer RTs than the control, beginning at the verb and through the final regions, suggesting that both forms were processed as adjectivals. No effect of frequency was found for either group.

In sum, these data support the claim that there exists a structural-semantic distinction between verbal and adjectival passives and that for native speakers, only the former can introduce an implicit agent argument to the discourse. In addition, the L2 data suggest that the adjectival form in the L1 may constrain selection to an adjectival form in the L2, which is consistent with the claim that lexical-semantic properties of an L1 may transfer and affect L2 processing, although an additional study is needed to rule out general L2 effects.

Examples

(1) The important document was very classified to keep any spies from discovering the plan.

(2) The important document was immediately classified to keep any spies...

(3) The important document was immediately classified by the general to keep any spies...

References

Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 119–148.

Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from the verb. In Roryck, J. and Zaring, eds. Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluver. 109-138.

Mauner, G. & Koenig, J. P. (1999). Lexical Encoding of Event Participant Information. Brain and Language 68, 178– 184.