Judgments of the grammaticality of sentences violating Chomsky's principle of Full Interpretation

根据乔姆斯基的生成语法，他的理论关注的是语言知识，即母语使用者对他们的语言了解多少。本研究探讨了充分解释原则的心理现实性，考虑到他的现实主义立场，这一原则必须归因于母语使用者的心理。五个实验产生了以下主要发现：违反这一原则的不合语法的双及物句，如果以全有或全无的方式应用这一原则，则不会被判定为完全不合语法，这与所实现的期望相反。相反，他们被认为是适度的语法。不符合语法的句子，包括一个动名词由一个名词和一个动词组成，shita（做），被认为是高度合乎语法的，尽管违反了原则。有标点符号的不符合语法的句子被认为比没有标点符号的句子更符合语法。不符合语法的转换双及物句子被认为比基本的句子更不符合语法。对于转换后的句子，主客观句的语法性判断都略有提高。如果说话者按照完全解释原则来掌握和判断句子，那么这些发现就不会出现，因此，人们对乔姆斯基关于母语人士拥有与他的生成语法所定义的知识相同的断言产生了怀疑。

According to Chomsky's generative grammar, his theory concerns the knowledge of language, i.e., what native speakers know about their language. This study explored the psychological reality of the principle of Full Interpretation, a principle that, given his realist position, must be attributed to the mind of the native speakers. Five experiments yielded the following major findings :1.Ungrammatical bitransitive sentences violating this principle were not judged as completely ungrammatical contrary to the expectation realized if the principle had been applied in an all-or-none fashion. Instead, they were judged as moderately grammatical. Ungrammatical sentences that included a verbal noun comprising a noun followed by a verb, shita (did), were judged to be highly grammatical despite the violation of the principle.2.Ungrammatical sentences given punctuation were judged more grammatical than the ones without punctuation.3.Ungrammatical transformed bitransitive sentences were judged less grammatical than their basic counterparts. For the transformed sentences emphasis slightly increased the judged grammaticality of both the subjective and the objective sentences.These findings would not be expected if the speakers possess and judge the sentences in conformity with the principle of Full Interpretation, hence raising doubt concerning Chomsky's assertion that native speakers possess the same knowledge as is defined by his generative grammar.