I am trying to understand why violating the locality principle is bad.
Pollard and Sag restrict their SUBCAT list to only have access to complements’ SYNSEMs, in order to maintain certain “locality” restrictions. They observe: “Just like there are no verbs in any language we know of that select a sentential complement whose verb phrase is headed by a transitive rather than intransitive verb, there are no verbs in any language that assign roles to a complement within a complement that they select” (P&S87, p. 143).
Do I understand right that what they are after here is the restrictiveness of the theory, meaning they want to make sure that I am unable to specify such a verb because they believe it does not exist, but that this isn’t about there being specific examples in form of ungrammatical sentences of how that would be bad?
In other words: is what is going to happen, should I violate this principle, that I would have a lexicon which is less theoretically sound but not that I will have ungrammatical sentences generated?