
EPSA [5]1Like EPSA [5]3 and [5]5, this Experiment deals with a prediction made under the languageparticular 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 "casemarkings" on otagai. See the Appendix on otagai : Section 3.2. DesignExamplesResultsInformant list for [5]1: 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 Schemabased, based on the above informant list [5]1 Lexicalgroupbased, 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 Schemabased, based on the above informant list [5]1 Lexicalgroupbased, 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 Schemabased, based on the above informant list [5]1 Lexicalgroupbased, 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 Schemabased, based on the above informant list [5]1 Lexicalgroupbased, 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 "widescope interpretation" as they are used in linguistic discussion. [5]1 Schemabased, based on the above informant list [5]1 Lexicalgroupbased, 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 "widescope interpretation" as they are used in linguistic discussion. [5]1 Schemabased, based on the above informant list [5]1 Lexicalgroupbased, based on the above informant list Informant list for [5]1: 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 Schemabased, based on the above informant list [5]1 Lexicalbased, based on the above informant list Informant list for [5]1: 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 ccommand. [5]1 Schemabased, based on the above informant list [5]1 Lexicalbased, based on the above informant list Informant list for [5]1: 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 [5]1 Schemabased, based on the above informant list [5]1 Lexicalbased, based on the above informant list Raw data 