1.10. Outline of the book

What follows is the outline of the rest of the book. Chapter 2 deals with how we deduce testable predictions in language faculty science. The main methodological claim of the present work is that it is possible to pursue language faculty science by adopting the three heuristics in (1), repeated here.

(1) a. Secure testability.
b. Maximize testability.
c. Maximize the significance of the experimental result.

It follows from the heuristics in (1a, b) that we should try to deduce definite and testable predictions from our hypotheses. This leads us to adopt Chomsky's (1993) model of the Computational System of the language faculty because of its categorical nature. We will also be led to adopt Ueyama's (2010) model of judgment-making, which makes it possible to relate explicitly the informant judgment to hypothesized properties of the Computational System. It will be argued that, given the model of the Computational System and the model of judgment-making we adopt, we can deduce categorical predictions about the complete unacceptability of sentences of a certain schematic form and the acceptability (to varying degrees) of sentences that are minimally different from the former, under a specified interpretation. Among the issues to be addressed is how predictions are deduced in language faculty science. Language faculty science is concerned with the universal properties of the language faculty but individual experiments necessarily deal with particular languages; it thus follows that predictions in language faculty science are deduced at least by two types of hypotheses, universal and language-particular. In order to make a testable prediction about properties of the Computational System, we need a hypothesis that relates hypothesized properties of the Computational System to what we can observe. Statements that relate theoretical concepts to informant intuitions are called bridging statements and, as noted earlier, they play a crucial role in deducing testable predictions in language faculty science.

Chapter 3 deals with how we can maximize testability. The chapter proposes that the evidence for or against hypotheses about properties of the language faculty must be (based on) a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry, which obtains if and only if experimental results are reproduced in harmony with the predicted schematic asymmetry, according to which sentences conforming to one type of Schema (*Schema) are always judged to be completely unacceptable under a specified interpretation while those conforming to the other types of Schema (okSchema) are not necessarily judged to be completely unacceptable.

We can try to maximize testability by focusing on hypotheses whose applicability is, in principle, universal. The c-command relation is the most basic structural relation directly definable in terms of the application of Merge (the only structure-building operation assumed in the Computational System), and hence we expect its effects to be "detectable" in any language. We can therefore try to maximize testability by focusing on intuitions that are (hypothesized to be) necessarily based on the c-command relation and pursue the relevant c-command-based hypotheses and their consequences, in line with the spirit of Reinhart's (1983: chapter 7) conjecture.

Among the topics to be deal with in this chapter are:

Confirmed predicted schematic asymmetries
The fundamental asymmetry between two types of predictions
*Schema-based predictions
LF c-command-based intuitions

Chapter 4 addresses how to maximize the significance of the experimental result. We would like the experimental result to be maximally significant with regard to the validity of the hypotheses that have given rise to the prediction(s) in question. If the result is in harmony with the prediction (i.e., in harmony with the predicted schematic asymmetry), we want to maximize the likelihood that it provides support for the hypotheses in question. If the result is not in harmony with the prediction, on the other hand, we want to make sure as much as possible that it indeed means that at least one of the hypotheses in question is at fault, in line with the "Maximize our chances of learning from errors" heuristic, which is a specific instance of the "Maximize the significance of the experimental result" heuristic.

There are basically two ways in which we can maximize the significance of the experimental result. One is by invoking a particular dependency interpretation whose availability is (hypothesized to be) necessarily based on a c-command relation at LF. This would significantly reduce the possibility that the informant's "Unacceptable" judgment is due to a parsing problem. In this chapter, I will articulate why it is necessary to invoke a certain dependency interpretation in our experiment in order to maximize the significance of the experimental result, at least at the initial stage of language faculty science. The other way to maximize the significance of the experimental result is by trying to maximize the effectiveness of the various experimental devices as well as the hypotheses that yield the relevant predictions.

The discussion in this chapter includes: (i) from what hypotheses and assumptions we deduce definite predictions, (ii) how the experimental results get affected not only by the choice of the relevant hypotheses and assumptions but also by the instructions given to the informants and the quality of the informants. It is for the purpose of designing experiments, interpreting the experimental results, and maximizing the significance of the experimental results that a synthesis is called for of all the considerations addressed in this work. It is in the context of such a synthesis that we can see most clearly the crucial role played by the heuristics in (1) and truly appreciate the abstract nature of our experiments despite the surface appearance that our experiments deal with specific sentences of a specific language.

As noted, although a given experiment necessarily deals with (a) particular language(s), what is really at stake is the validity of universal hypotheses. In order for the experimental result to be significant in language faculty science, it is therefore imperative that we have established as clearly and rigorously as possible that the language-particular hypotheses we have invoked in deducing the prediction in question have contributed to an independent confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry in "preliminary experiments." In order to obtain a rigorous and categorical experimental result in accordance with the prediction (i.e., the predicted schematic asymmetry), informant-classification or informant-calibration is necessary by means of "preliminary experiments." It cannot be emphasized more that such informant-calibration and informant-classification are for the purpose of maximizing the effectiveness of the experimental result, which in turn is for the purpose of maximizing the significance of the experimental device. The main purpose of this is to leave as little room as possible for making "excuses" for failing to obtain an experimental result in accordance with our prediction. Those researchers who do not pursue rigorous testability and pursue "compatibility-based research" seem to think that informant-calibration and informant-classification are for the purpose of obtaining the experimental results that we want. But the real purpose of informant-calibration and informant-grouping is to maximize the significance of the experimental result, and ultimately to maximize testability.

The topics that will be covered in this chapter include:

Invoking a dependency interpretation γ(a, b)
Universal and language-particular hypotheses
Bridging statements
Assumptions about the effects of lexical choices not included above
Maximizing the effectiveness of the experimental devices
The lexical choice
Instructions to the informants
Informant resourcefulness

Chapter 5 deals with various aspects of experiments in language faculty science. The sentences (the *Examples and the corresponding okExamples) used in our experiment are constructed on the basis of a predicted schematic asymmetry, which consists of a *Schema and the corresponding okSchemata, constructed on the basis of the relevant universal and language-particular hypotheses and the bridging statement(s). This chapter addresses what formal and non-formal considerations enter the construction of the *Examples and the okExamples in the experiment. The chapter also illustrates the general experimental design in accordance with the proposed characterization of language faculty science.

The chapter addresses the following topics:

Predicted Schematic Asymmetries
Constructing *Schemata and okSchemata
Constructing *Examples and okExamples
Experimental Design

Chapter 6 illustrates the proposed methodology in relation to the so-called scrambling construction in Japanese, one of the most extensively discussed "topics" in Japanese syntax in the generative tradition. Insofar as one considers that the derivation of the so-called scrambling construction (simply OSV) is more complex than that of its 'non-scrambled' counterpart (simply SOV), it is necessary to identify the effective experimental devices and hypotheses dealing with SOV before we begin rigorous research on OSV. And this in turn makes it necessary that we be able to determine whether a particular surface order of expressions (or somewhat more precisely, that of the major constituents of the sentence) is "basic/un-marked" or "non-basic/marked." The availability of the bound variable construal has been the most extensively used empirical means for this purpose over the years.

I will first articulate what hypotheses must be adopted in order to make the relevant predictions regarding the availability of the bound variable construal. It will then be shown that it is possible to obtain robust judgments from informants in line with the predictions. On the scale of 0-100, where "0" corresponds to "complete unacceptability" and "100" to "full acceptability," we have been able to obtain in a number of experiments the average score of around 5 on the *Schema, contrasting sharply with the corresponding okSchemata. The significance of such results should be appreciated especially in light of the fact that there seem to be no experimental results in English that are even remotely comparable to our experimental results dealing with the same type of "phenomena." It will be pointed out that a key to making progress in language faculty science is to identify, utilize, and refine the effective experimental devices as we proceed from a simple to more and more involved experiments. Some illustration of these points will be provided in relation to long-distance OSV, resumption in OSV, and local disjointness effects in Japanese.

It will be noted that Japanese seems to be a language that is well suited for language faculty science as conceived here because (i) unlike languages like English, there is an overt (i.e., morphological) means in Japanese to identify an expression β that must be dependent on another expression α at LF as long as β and α are not co-arguments of the same predicate, and (ii) the relevance of LF for the "interpretations" can be seen more transparently in Japanese than in a language like English.

The chapter addresses the following specific topics:
The LF c-command condition on bound variable construal
SOV in Japanese
OSV in Japanese
Preliminary experiments
So vs. a-NPs as the bindee
Split antecedence
The effectiveness of the various experimental devices
Hypotheses
Instructions to the informants
The choice of the binders
The choice of the bindee
Informants
Resumption in OSV in Japanese
Long-distance OSV in Japanese
Local disjointness and OSV in Japanese

In language faculty science, the researchers are consciously probing into the properties of their own mental organ (the language faculty), a feature not shared by a physical science. In Chapter 7, I will briefly review the proposed methodology in relation to various issues in philosophy of science, including those discussed by Lakatos, Popper, Duhem, Peirce, and Feynman, and address what may be special about language faculty science. I will consider how Feynman's (1965: 142) three necessary conditions for progress in science apply to language faculty science―the ability to experiment, honesty in reporting results, and the intelligence to interpret the results―in light of the discussion in the preceding chapters. In connection to this, I will also discuss the relation between the three heuristics in (1) and the hypothetico-deductive method, which will help us understand the relation between language faculty science and 'language science'.

The topics the chapter deals with include:

Lakatos' scientific research program
Popper's falsificationism
Duhem's under-determination thesis
The Hypothetico-deductive method and language faculty science

If it is indeed possible to pursue language faculty science as an exact science, it is worth considering its implications on the relation between language faculty science and 'language science', and more significantly, its much broader implications for the possibility of an exact science outside the extremely limited domains of inquiry. Chapter 8 briefly addresses how the proposed methodology, especially its emphasis on *Schema-based predictions, might prove to be useful in other research areas that deal with the human mind.

End of the draft of chapter 1.
As noted earlier, the footnotes are not provided and much of the formatting is lost here.