- Top page
- Requests for having additional charts at this website
- Remarks on the forthcoming books
- Preliminary remarks
- Design and Examples
- Glossary
- English Experiments
- EPSA [31]-1 (=[31]-8)
- EPSA [31]-2 (=[31]-9)
- EPSA [31]-3 (=[31]-10)
- EPSA [31]-4 (=[31]-11)
- EPSA [31]-5 (=[31]-12)
- EPSA [31]-7 (=[31]-13)
- Japanese Experiments
- a- vs. so-
- EPSA [10]-5
- EPSA [10]-10
- EPSA [10]-11
- soko and soitu
- EPSA [3]-7
- LF c-command condition on FD
- EPSA [33]-2
- EPSA [33]-3
- EPSA [33]-8
- EPSA [33]-9
- EPSA [33]-17
- EPSA [33]-18
- EPSA [1]-18
- EPSA [1]-20
- EPSA [1]-21
- EPSA [1]-33
- EPSA [1]-34
- otagai
- EPSA [5]-1
- EPSA [5]-3
- EPSA [5]-5
- local disjointness
- EPSA [35]-4
Hajime Hoji .Language Faculty Science |
 © Cambridge University Press |
EPSA [5]-1
Like EPSA [5]-3 and [5]-5, this Experiment deals with a prediction made under the language-particular hypothesis that otagai in Japanese shares a formal property with English each other. SG1 and SG2 differ from each other with respect to where the intended antecedent for otagai is placed in Schema B. LG1 and LG2 differ from each other with respect to the choice of the verb that results in different "case-markings" on otagai. See the Appendix on otagai : Section 3.2.
Design
Examples
Results
Informant list for [5]-1:
based on: [10]-10; &
based on: [10]-11
The informant classification is based on the result of [10]-10 and [10]-11. We consider only those informants whose reported %(Y) on B is 0% and whose reported %(Y) on A is 25% or higher both in [10]-10 and [10]-11.
[5]-1 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[5]-1 Lexical-group-based, based on the above informant list
The informant classification is based on the result of [10]-10, [10]-11 and [3]-7. We consider only those informants whose reported %(Y) on B is 0% and whose reported %(Y) on A is 25% or higher in [10]-10, both in [10]-10 and [10]-11, and whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 50% or higher in [3]-7, both with Lexical group 3 and Lexical group 4.
[5]-1 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[5]-1 Lexical-group-based, based on the above informant list
The informant classification is based on the result of [10]-10, [10]-11 and [3]-7. We consider only those informants whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 25% or higher in [10]-10, both in [10]-10 and [10]-11, whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 50% or higher in [3]-7, both with Lexical group 3 and Lexical group 4, and whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 25% or higher in [10]-5.
[5]-1 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[5]-1 Lexical-group-based, based on the above informant list
The informant classification is based on the result of [10]-10, [10]-11 and [3]-7. We consider only those informants whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 25% or higher in [10]-10, both in [10]-10 and [10]-11, whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 50% or higher in [3]-7, both with Lexical group 3 and Lexical group 4, whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 25% or higher in [10]-5, and whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 25% or higher in [33]-9.
[5]-1 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[5]-1 Lexical-group-based, based on the above informant list
The informant classification is based on the result of [10]-10, [10]-11 and [3]-7. We consider only those informants whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 25% or higher in [10]-10, both in [10]-10 and [10]-11, whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 50% or higher in [3]-7, both with Lexical group 3 and Lexical group 4, whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 25% or higher in [10]-5, and who are familiar with neither "bound variables" nor "wide-scope interpretation" as they are used in linguistic discussion.
[5]-1 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[5]-1 Lexical-group-based, based on the above informant list
The informant classification is based on the result of [10]-10, [10]-11 and [3]-7. We consider only those informants whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 25% or higher in [10]-10, both in [10]-10 and [10]-11, whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 50% or higher in [3]-7, both with Lexical group 3 and Lexical group 4, whose %(Y) on B is 0% and whose %(Y) on A is 25% or higher in [10]-5, and who are familiar with both "bound variables" and "wide-scope interpretation" as they are used in linguistic discussion.
[5]-1 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[5]-1 Lexical-group-based, based on the above informant list
Informant list for [5]-1:
based on: [33]-9
This informant classification gives us the intersection of the informants who participated in EPSA [5]-1 and those who participated in EPSA [33]-9, just considering native speakers of Japanese.
[5]-1 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[5]-1 Lexical-based, based on the above informant list
Informant list for [5]-1:
based on: [33]-9
The informant classification is based on the result of [33]-9. We consider only those informants whose reported %(Y) on B is 0% and whose reported %(Y) on A is 25% or higher in [33]-9. Because Schema A in [33]-9 is of the OSV form, the Yes Answer to the okExamples instantiating it indicates sensitivity to LF c-command.
[5]-1 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[5]-1 Lexical-based, based on the above informant list
Informant list for [5]-1:
based on: [5]-3
The informant classification is based on the result of [5]-3. We consider only those informants whose reported %(Y) on B is 0% and whose reported %(Y) on A is 25% or higher in [5]-3.
[5]-1, based on the above informant list