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

根据乔姆斯基的生成语法，他的理论涉及语言知识，即本族语者对他们的语言的了解。这项研究探讨了完全口译原则的心理现实性，鉴于他的现实主义立场，这一原则必须归因于母语人士的心理。五个实验得到了以下主要发现：1.违反这一原则的不合语法的双及物句并没有被判定为完全不合语法，这与如果以全有或全无的方式应用该原则所实现的预期相反。取而代之的是，他们被评为语法适度。尽管违反了这一原则，但非语法句子如果包含一个名词后跟一个动词的动词，则被认为是高度语法的。2.有标点符号的非语法句子比没有标点符号的句子更有语法。3.非语法转换的双及物句的语法程度低于它们的基本句子。对于转换后的句子，强调略微增加了主观和客观句子的判断语法性。如果说话者拥有和判断句子符合完全解释的原则，那么这些发现是不可能的，因此对乔姆斯基的断言提出了质疑，即母语为母语的人拥有与其生成语法所定义的相同的知识。

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.