Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
6
pubmed:dateCreated
2003-12-4
pubmed:abstractText
Two experiments investigated the linguistic intuition of Japanese speakers in which they judged the grammaticality of sentences violating Chomsky's principle of Full Interpretation. Experiment 1 used bitransitive sentences, which included an extra argument that assumed a role of either subjective, dative, or objective on the one hand and that specified semantically a preceding argument or stood in par with it on the other. Findings showed that the speakers judged ungrammatical sentences involving a dative or an objective extra argument as more grammatical than those involving a subjective extra argument. Ungrammatical sentences with an extra specified argument were judged more grammatical than those with an extra par argument when the extra argument was objective. Experiment 2 used sentences that included a verbal noun (VN) comprising a noun followed by a verb, shita (did). Ungrammatical VN sentences contained two arguments given the same objective marker. These sentences were judged to be highly grammatical despite the violation of the principle. Findings suggest that speakers' actual knowledge of language is not fully consistent with the knowledge they are alleged by Chomsky to possess, including the principle of Full Interpretation.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Nov
pubmed:issn
0090-6905
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
32
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
693-709
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2003
pubmed:articleTitle
Judgments of grammaticality of Japanese sentences violating the principle of full interpretation.
pubmed:affiliation
Faculty of Economics, Okayama University, Tsushima, Okayama 700-8530, Japan. hinagata@e.okayama-u.ac.jp
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't