Linked Life Data

16916165

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/16916165

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
3
pubmed:dateCreated
2006-8-18
pubmed:abstractText
Adult Japanese speakers judged the grammaticality of simple ungramatical sentences involving two arguments, each related with a single verb. The arguments were attached to the same case marker playing the same thematic role in the sentences. Thus the sentences violated Chomsky's principle of Full Interpretation. The two arguments were manipulated such that, on the one hand, one argument (the part-argument) constituted a part of the other argument (the whole-argument) and that, on the other, a part-argument either preceded or followed a whole-argument. Participants rated the sentences using either a conventional 7-point rating scale or magnitude estimation. Findings showed that irrespective of rating method sentences in which the whole-argument preceded the part-argument were judged more grammatical than sentences in which the part-argument preceded the whole-argument. Such an empirical phenomenon is inconsistent with the prediction derived from Chomsky's principle of Full Interpretation, while interestingly it is consistent with the grammar of classical Japanese used about 900 years ago.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jun
pubmed:issn
0031-5125
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
102
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
855-70
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2006
pubmed:articleTitle
Judgments of grammaticality of Japanese simple sentences involving two arguments in a whole-part relation: a further examination of Chomsky's principle of Full Interpretation.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Clinical Psychology, Kawasaki University of Medical Welfare, Kurashiki, Japan. hinagata@mw.kawasaki-m.ac.jp
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article