Judgments of grammaticality of sentences violating the principle of full interpretation: a further exploration

54 Japanese speakers judged isolated simple bitransitive sentences involving an unnecessary extra argument in addition to three legitimate arguments. Two variables were manipulated, with one variable concerning the role the extra argument assumed in a sentence, subjective, dative, or objective and the other concerning the relation it bore with the legitimate argument. The sentences with the extra arguments were judged to be an average grammaticality of about 3 on a 7-point scale. This score, although still lower than that obtained for sentences involving only the legitimate arguments, suggests that speakers' judgments are not fully consistent with the judgments expected if they might possess and demonstrate the knowledge of the principle of Full Interpretation.