grammaticality (n.)

In LINGUISTICS, the conformity of a SENTENCE (or part of a sentence) to the RULES defined by a specific GRAMMAR of a LANGUAGE. A preceding ASTERISK is commonly used to indicate that a sentence is ungrammatical, i.e. incapable of being accounted for by the rules of a grammar. In practice, deciding whether a sentence is grammatical or ungrammatical may cause difficulty, e.g. in cases such as The bus he got off was a red one, where NATIVE-SPEAKERS vary in their judgements. In GENERATIVE linguistics, the view is taken that a grammar is set up in the first instance to draw a dividing line between those sentences which are clearly grammatical and those which are clearly ungrammatical. Once this has been done, the cases of uncertainty can be investigated, and a decision made as to whether they can be incorporated into the grammar as they stand, and without further modification being introduced into the grammar. If they can, these sentences are thereby defined as grammatical, i.e. the grammar recognizes them as such. If not, they will be said to be ungrammatical, with reference to that grammar. Sentences felt to be awkward are identified in writing using a prefixed question mark (or two question marks, in even more marginal cases).

An alternative term for ‘grammatical’, in this context, is WELL FORMED (v. ILL FORMED): grammars adjudicate on the ‘well-formedness’ of sentences. Such decisions have nothing to do with the MEANING or ACCEPTABILITY of sentences. A sentence in this view may be well formed, but nonsensical (as in Noam Chomsky’s famous Colorless green ideas sleep furiously); it may also be well formed but unacceptable (for reasons of STYLISTIC inappropriateness, perhaps).

It should be emphasized that no social value judgement is implied by the use of ‘grammatical’, and this therefore contrasts with some popular uses of the term, as when sentences are said to be ungrammatical because they do not conform to the canons of the STANDARD language (as in the use of double NEGATIVES, such as I haven’t done nothing). There is no PRESCRIPTIVE implication in the above use in linguistics.