So, it is crucial that we use a QP for which BVA(QP, B) is possible only on the basis of LF c-command if we are conducting tests that make crucial reference to (LF) c-command. [And also the term for B, HH. 4/2/2005]. The failure to do so has resulted in a great deal of judgmental instability, to put it somewhat mildly, in regard to the alleged generalizations discussed in the literature for the past two decades, not only in the area of BVA but also in the area of quantifier scope. The same holds true also in the case of the generalization illustrated by (16) in the WECOL handout and the various paradigms of resumption examples discussed there; and in this sense, the paradigms in the WECOL handout can be understood as constituting strong confirming evidence for the theory of anaphoric relations proposed in Ueyama 1998, in which different types of BVA are teased apart carefully.

Suppose we conduct experiments on the (un)availability of BVA, on the basis of (i) the theory of anaphoric relations in Ueyama 1998, in which such distinctions are made among different sources of BVA, and (ii) what seems to be assumed in Saito 2003, for example, in which such distinctions are not made.

Note that Ueyama (1998) argues that we must be careful in choosing both the 'binder' and the 'bindee' if we are to consider the LF-command-based BVA. A typical 'binder'-'bindee' pair used in Saito 2003 is (i).

(i) dono N-mo ... sono-N
E.g., Dono hon-mo ... sono tyosya-CM ...
(Lit) which book-also ... the author-CM (CM being a case marker)

What is intended in Saito 2003 is to take sono as 'its' with 'it' being bound by the quantifier, and the rough translation for the second line in (i) is (intended to be) "every book ... its author."

But 'binder'-'bindee' pairs like (i) are precisely among those Ueyama (1998) states should not be used in our experiments intended to probe into LF-command-based intuitions -- well, the point re. sono tyosya 'the/its author' might not be made directly in the thesis but it is not difficult to extrapolate it from the discussion there. I am not going to get into the reasons here; but you can check the discussion in Ueyama 1998 on 'co-I-indexation' and also Appendix D. Ueyama 1998 provides Lists of Abbreviations and Terms, which functions a bit like Index; so you can get to the relevant parts of the thesis fairly easily (well, much more easily than otherwise).

So, as expected, the results of the two experiments noted above have yielded substantially different results (clear falsification in one case and corroboration in the other, by the 'criteria' noted in [21482]). I will try to go over that at my Mayfest presentation if the materials fit in the allotted time.