I should also note that what is noted under [29124] would equally apply to much of the works in the field that deal with Japanese, resulting in a great deal of confusion; textbooks on Japanese linguistics (Blackwell), such as Tsujimura 1996, 1999, for example, are full of alleged generalizations that have long been shown to be invalid, once we accept the criterion advocated elsewhere (e.g., please see [29940] in the Further Discussion board -- where some references are provided) and/or the "Research Interests" page -- as noted there, my point of contention is that if we did not adopt some such criterion, there would be little hope of making generative grammar an empirical science or of making it a progressive research program in the sense of Lakatos 1970.)
　　　One must naturally wonder what makes such practice in the field possible. The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that we have failed to develop a rigorous means to evaluate hypotheses in generative grammar. What is needed most critically is, in my view, a good understanding and articulation of the logic of hypothesis-testing in generative grammar, and the development of a minimally satisfactory structure of our experimental design and its justification.