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

Abstract

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.