If researchers at Northumbria University are right, Noam Chomsky was wrong when he declared that everyone in a linguistic community shares the same grammar.
Research into grammar by academics at Northumbria University suggests that a significant proportion of native English speakers are unable to understand some basic sentences.
The findings–which undermine the assumption that all speakers have a core ability to use grammatical cues–could have significant implications for education, communication and linguistic theory.
The research, conducted by Dr Ewa Dabrowska, showed that basic elements of core English grammar had not been mastered by some native speakers.
It seems to me it would be fairer to say that people don’t always understand bad grammar–because it’s, y’know, bad. Or perhaps that passive construction, in particular, is often found to be incomprehensible. At least now there’s science explaining why it’s bad bad bad (and wicked and wrong) for passive construction in fiction to be used. (You have no idea how much it hurt to write that paragraph. Only for you, Dear Reader…)
I also came across this nifty explanation for why sensory metaphors really, really matter:
…our use of tactile concepts in metaphors that relate to behaviour, such as having a “rough” day or being “solid” as a rock, might influence our judgement: touching similar textures reminds us of their linguistic links to behaviour.
One day, when I have time, I’ll pull together all the posts I’ve done on writing science: mirror neurons, present tense, first person and more. For now, feel free to use the search function and discover just how sad my tagging skills are. Must improve.
Nicola Griffith 
Just finished reading Slow River for the first time. Loved the storytelling craft and wordsmanship. Was particularly taken by a couple of the “dry” metaphors. However, The Blue Place is still my favorite.
“Chomsky was wrong!” is a popular headline used to grab attention. I happen to think “Was Chomsky right?” would be a more important headline– I certainly think he's smart & has interesting things to say, but I'm not so sure about his particulars. Last linguistics book I read was “Adam's Tongue” by Bickerton– I really admired Bickerton's approach to Chomsky– “I am disagreeing with him but not for a cache of iconoclasm, I just think he's wrong about this,” sort of thing. I have another book around I'm meaning to dig into: “Through the Language Glass.”
I knew I wasn't just imagining how truly WRONG bad grammar is (snort).
Dianne, thanks. I was just thinking idly of SR the other day, trying to decide if, in an alternate universe, I'd make any changes…
mordicai, deliberate misinformation on my part. I don't think that Chomsky was wrong about this at all. I think passive construction isn't grammar; it breaks the rules. In other words, I think thisi finding supports Chomsky more than it weakens him.
ssas, bad wrong and wicked.
I didn't mean just your headline but rather…well, EVERY headline about Chomsky ever since he became The Noam Chomsky.
mordicai, yep, he's good for that :) Also, I think he enjoys it…
Nicola — two things that bothered me slightly (on first reading): 1) it seemed from the 3rd person past perspective that a lot worse things happened to Lore than were shown in the 3rd person present (during her kidnapping). 2) It seemed like Magyar and Lore's romance evolved pretty quickly. On second reading I may change my mind or see something I missed.
The Lore/Magyar thing is what I was pondering.