- 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 [33]-17
This is one of the Main-Experiments dealing with Japanese. This forms a pair with EPSA [33]-18. Just like EPSA [33]-2, [33]-3, [33]-8, and [33]-9, their two SGs are distinguished by means of the "case-marking" on the object NP: the object NP is marked with o in SG1 and with ni in SG2. The two LGs in EPSA [33]-17 and [33]-18 are LG1: BVA(Yokohama Marinos-dake, soko) 'BVA(only Yokohama Marinos, it)' and LG2: BVA(Yokohama Marinos-dake, sono kurabu) 'BVA(only Yokohama Marinos, that club)'. Schema A of each of the two SGs is of the SOV order. See Section 7.5.4.
Design
Examples
Results
Effects of informant classification on a *Schema-based prediction
Informant list for [33]-17:
based on: [10]-10
The informant classification is based on the result of [10]-10. 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.
[33]-17 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[33]-17 Lexical-group-based, based on the above informant list
Informant list for [33]-17:
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 in [10]-10, both in [10]-10 and [10]-11.
[33]-17 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[33]-17 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.
[33]-17 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[33]-17 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.
[33]-17 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[33]-17 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.
[33]-17 Schema-based, based on the above informant list
[33]-17 Lexical-group-based, based on the above informant list