Linguistics is supposed to be the study of linguistic competence. The
sentences used by linguists to illustrate their arguments are presumab
ly, structures that can be generated by the rules that make up the nat
ive speaker's competence. Therefore, all normal native speakers should
in principle be capable of processing them. In this study, adult resp
ondents of various educational backgrounds were presented with a serie
s of test sentences based on examples drawn from recent publications i
n the GB framework. The rest was carefully designed to minimize the ef
fects of extrinsic factors such as memory limitations and lapses of at
tention. It was found that performance increased dramatically with edu
cational achievement, with the least-educated respondents consistently
obtaining very low scores. An analysis of the patterns of answers giv
en by respondents of various educational backgrounds revealed that the
least-educated speakers were also the most likely to ignore syntactic
cues and rely on nonlinguistic strategies in interpreting the test se
ntences. Thus, the results suggest that the ability to deal with the c
arefully edited highly syntacticized structures that one encounters in
publications dealing with language is acquired in the course of forma
l education and is far from universal. This in turn raises doubts abou
t the traditional ''logical'' argument for innateness.