A Scientific Study of the Language Faculty: a proposal and illustration Hajime Hoji University of Southern California 4/25/2010 Outline 1. Introduction: the general scientific method and a study of the language faculty 2. The language faculty and the Computational System 3. The model of judgment making (as a special case of the model of comprehension) 4. Confirmed schematic asymmetries 5. Consequences 6. Illustration 7. Concluding remarks 2 1. Introduction Scientific knowledge gets accumulated by focusing on reproducible phenomena and analyzing them quantitatively. The generative school of linguistics is claimed to be a scientific study of the language faculty. 3 But in what sense? How can the language faculty be studied scientifically? What should count as reproducible phenomena in the study of the language faculty? How could they be analyzed qualitatively? The work presented here (along with the Ueyama presentation) is an attempt to answer those question. 4 The general scientific method Guess — Computing Consequences — Compare with Experiment (as Feynman (1965/94: 150-1) puts it) 5 Main Claims The general scientific method can be applied to the study of the language faculty. Reproducible phenomena in the study of the language faculty: confirmed schematic asymmetries The quantitative understanding in the study of the language faculty is most crucially about a contrast between zero vs. non-zero. 6 2. The language faculty and the Computational System Minimally, the language faculty must relate 'sounds' and 'meanings'. A fundamental hypothesis in generative grammar is the existence of the Computational System at the center of the language faculty. 7 The Computational System (as put forth in Chomsky 1993) 8 The core elements of the language faculty 9 The core elements of the language faculty of speakers of Japanese and English Japanese English 10 The researcher looking into her/his own mind 11 The researcher trying to go through the "thick barriers" to get to the Computational System 12 You must wonder ... How do researchers try to discover properties of the Computational System? 13 Hypothesis Formation and Testing Predictions by Experiments 14 You must still wonder ... But how? What kind of predictions do you make? How are those predictions testable? How can they be disconfirmed (or confirmed)? How do you conduct “experiments”? How do you evaluate the result of an experiment? 15 What are the predictions about? They are about informants’ judgments on the acceptability of a sentences under a specified interpretation. 16 註: The Model of Prediction Making To illustrate more fully what languagefaculty scientists do, it would be necessary to spell out how predictions are made. But there is not time for that in this presentation. Please email me if you are interested. 17 The model of Computational System (repeated) 18 Embedding the Computational System in the model of judgment making (I) γ(a, b): an intuition that two linguistic expressions a and b are related in a particular manner α: presented sentence β: the informant judgment on the acceptability of α under γ (a, b) 19 Embedding the Computational System in the model of judgment making (II) 20 EPSA Evaluation of Predicted Schematic Asymmetries Predicted Schematic Asymmetries 21 Predictions *Schema-based prediction: Informants judge any *Example conforming to a *Schema to be completely unacceptable under interpretation γ(a, b). An okSchema-based prediction: Informants judge okExamples conforming to an okSchema to be acceptable (to varying degrees) under interpretation γ(a, b). 22 Disconfirmability and confirmability A *Schema-based prediction: Can be disconfirmed but cannot be confirmed. An okSchema-based prediction: Can be confirmed but cannot be disconfirmed. 23 Confirmed Schematic Asymmetries A confirmed schematic asymmetry obtains if and only if (i) the *Schema-based prediction has survived a rigorous disconfirmation attempt, and (ii) the corresponding okSchema-based predictions have been confirmed. 24 A Predicted Schematic Asymmetry Experiment 1 a. okSchema: NP1-ga so-NP-no N-o V (Under BVA(NP1, so-NP)) b. *Schema: NP1-ga a-NP-no N-o V (Under BVA(NP1, a-NP)) c. okSchema: NP1-ga a-NP-no N-o V (Under the interpretation that a-NP is intended to refer to something/someone specific) 25 An initial characterization of BVA(A, B) (BVA: Bound Variable Anaphora) a. A is not singular-denoting; i.e., either there are two or more individuals or entities that are 'expressed' by A or there is no individual or entity expressed by A. b. B is singular-denoting. c. B does not refer to a particular individual or entity. d. B is understood to 'express the same thing' as A is understood to express; i.e., the value of B co-varies with that of A. 26 A necessary condition for BVA(A, B) Intuition BVA(A, B) arises only if: (i) What corresponds to B is specified in the mental lexicon as not inherently referential. 27 あ vs.そ: a necessary condition for BVA(A, B) Intuition BVA(A, B) arises only if: (i) What corresponds to B is specified in the mental lexicon as not inherently referential. Lexical hypotheses (J): あ-NPs are specified as inherently referential while そ-NPs are not. 28 A Predicted Schematic Asymmetry Experiment 1 a. okSchema: NP1-ga so-NP-no N-o V (Under BVA(NP1, so-NP)) b. *Schema: NP1-ga a-NP-no N-o V (Under BVA(NP1, a-NP)) c. okSchema: NP1-ga a-NP-no N-o V (Under the interpretation that a-NP is intended to refer to something/someone specific) 29 On-site Experiment 1 1. (「あそこ」はどこか特定の機関を指す解釈 で。 ) 2割以上の地方自治体が[あそこを批判した雑誌記 okExample 者]に連絡を取った。 2. ( 「2割以上の地方自治体」と「そこ」の連動読みで。すなわち、 「自分のところを批判した雑誌記者に連絡を取ったということ が2割以上の地方自治体に当てはまる」という意味で) 2割以上の地方自治体が[そこを批判した雑誌記者] okExample に連絡を取った。 3. ( 「2割以上の地方自治体」と「あそこ」の連動読みで。すなわ ち、「自分のところを批判した雑誌記者に連絡を取ったというこ とが2割以上の地方自治体に当てはまる」という意味で) 2割以上の地方自治体が[あそこを批判した雑誌記 *Example 者]に連絡を取った。 30 Results: Experiment 1 2 sets of 3 schemata, 12 examples in total. Example #3 of On-site Experiment 1 corresponds to Schema 2B. Of the 28 informants, 13 are "linguistically informed," and 15 are "linguistically naïve." EPSA [10]-#2 (Total 28 participants ; 500 answers) as of March 22, 2010 Schema A Schema B Schema C Schema Group 1 53 values 76 54 values 5 54 values 95 Schema Group 2 54 values 74 52 values 3 53 values 94 Total 107 values 75 106 values 4 107 values 95 31 Classifying informants as “linguistically informed" or "linguistically naïve" Informants are asked whether they understand (i) "bound variable anaphora" or "bound readings" and (ii) "A takes wide scope over B" as they are used in linguistic discussion. If they state that they understand at least (i) or (ii), they are "classified" as "linguistically informed" for the purpose of the discussion here; otherwise, they are classified as “linguistically naïve.” 32 Resourcefulness Issues (1) a. b. Attentiveness Patience (2) a. b. Structural resourcefulness Contextual resourcefulness 33 Instructions affecting informant judgments How informant judgments can be affected by the “instructions” Instructions I: 以下の例文が、(カッコ内に指定されている意味で)どうし ても許せない場合には「×」を、一応許せる場合には「○」を選んでください。 (「少なくとも三つ以上の球団」と「あそこ」の連動読みで。 すなわち、自分と ころの打撃コーチを批判したということが少なくとも三つ以上の球団に当て はまる」という意味で。 ) 少なく とも三つ以上の球団があそこの打撃コーチを批判した。 Instructions II: カッコ内に指定されている状況を以下の文で表すことが出 来ますか?どうしても表すことが出来ない場合には「×」を、表すことが出 来る場合には「○」を、以 下の一組の例文を見比べた上で、選んでくださ い。良く分からない場合は答えずに次に進んで下さい。 (「阪神が阪神の打撃コーチを批判し、広島が広島の打撃コーチを批判し、 そして横浜が横浜の打撃コーチを批 判した」という状況) 三つの球団があそこの打撃コーチを批判した。 34 5. Consequences (= Consequences of adopting Chomsky’s (1993) model of the Computational System) Reproducible phenomena that we should aspire to establish in the study of the language faculty is what will be referred to as confirmed schematic asymmetries. The quantitative understanding in the study of the language faculty is most crucially about a contrast between zero vs. non-zero. 35 6. Illustration Experiment 1 あ vs. そ Experiment 2 The singular-denoting nature of そいつ (and そこ ) 36 Results: Experiment 2 2 sets of 3 schemata, 12 examples in total. Example #3 of On-site Experiment 2 corresponds to Schema 2B. Of the 20 informants, 14 are "linguistically informed," and 8 are "linguistically naïve." EPSA [3]-#1 (Total 22 participants ; 357 answers) as of April 23, 2010 Schema A Schema B Schema C Schema Group 1 44 values 70 44 values 2 44 values 79 Schema Group 2 44 values 80 44 values 3 44 values 76 Total 88 values 75 88 values 3 88 values 77 37 On-Site Experiment 3 1. (「ジョンがビルを推薦してビルがジョンを 推薦した」の意 味で) 先生は [ジョンとビルがなぜお互いを推薦したの か] 全く分からなかった。 2. okExample (「彼ら」と「ジョンとビル」が同じ人を指 しているとして) ジョンとビルは [先生がなぜ彼らを推薦したのか] 全く分からなかった。 ok Example 3. (「ジョンは [先生がなぜビルを推薦したのか] わからなく て、ビルは [先生がなぜジョンを推薦したのか] わからな かった」の意味で) ジョ ンとビルは [先生がなぜお互いを推薦したの *Example か] 全く分からなかった。 38 Results: Experiment 3 2 sets of 3 schemata, 12 examples in total. Example #3 of On-site Experiment 3 corresponds to Schema 2B. Of the 31 informants, 12 are linguistically naïve and 19 are linguistically "informed." EPSA [5]-#1 (Total 31 participants ; 793 answers) as of April 24, 2010 Schema A Schema B Schema C Schema Group 1 60 values 98 59 values 63 60 values 87 Schema Group 2 60 values 96 60 values 55 60 values 72 Total 80 values 97 80 values 59 80 values 80 39 Lexical conditions and structural conditions Lexical conditions for BVA(a, b) are most likely language-specific. The distinction between あ and そ is surely language specific. Structural conditions for BVA(a, b) are most likely universal. Let us see a glimpse of that. 40 On-Site Experiment 4 1. (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、「自 分のところの職員を新聞紙上で批判した地方自治体が地 方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で) 55%以上の地方自治体がそこの職員を新聞紙上 okExample で批判した。 2. (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、「自 分のところの職員に新聞紙上で批判された地方自治体が 地方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で) そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙上 で批判した。 *Example 3. (「そこ」が先行文脈で既出の「財務省」を 指す解釈で) そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙上 okExample で批判した。 41 Results: Experiment 4 3 sets of 3 schemata, 18 examples in total. Example #2 of On-site Experiment 4 corresponds to Schema 1B. EPSA [1]-#2 (Total 17 participants ; 672 answers) as of April 20, 2010 Schema A Schema B Schema C Schema Group 1 34 values 98 33 values 3 33 values 94 Schema Group 2 34 values 98 33 values 10 34 values 94 Schema Group 3 34 values 97 33 values 9 34 values 97 Total 80 values 98 80 values 7 80 values 95 42 Precedence? 1. (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、「自分 のところの職員を新聞紙上で批判した地方自治体が地方自治 体全体の55%以上である」という意味で) 55%以上の地方自治体がそこの職員を新聞紙上で批判した。 okExample 2. (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、「自分 のところの職員に新聞紙上で批判された地方自治体が地方 自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で) そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙上で批判した。 *Example Is the contrast due to the precedence relation between 55% 以上の地方自治体 and そこ? No. 43 On-Site Experiment 5 1. (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、 「自分のところの職員に新聞紙上で批判された地方自治 体が地方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で) そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙 上で批判した。 *Example 2. (「そこ」が財務省を指す解釈で) 3. (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、 「自分のところの職員を新聞紙上で批判した地方自治体 が地方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で) そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙 okExample 上で批判した。 そこの職員を55%以上の地方自治体が新聞紙 okExample 上で批判した。 44 Results: Experiment 5 2 sets of 3 schemata, 12 examples in total. Example #1, #2, and #3 of On-site Experiment 5 correspond to Schema 1B, 1C, and 1A, respectively. EPSA [1]-#5 (Total 10 participants ; 250 answers) as of April 23, 2010 Schema A Schema B Schema C Schema Group 1 20 values 89 20 values 2 20 values 99 Schema Group 2 19 values 88 20 values 7 20 values 99 Total 39 values 89 40 values 4 40 values 99 45 What is the account? The structural condition in question (which is part of the Computational System and hence universal) applies at an abstract level of representation (LF in the model of the Computational System discussed above). 46 Various other cases of BVA (A, B) A: かなりの数のN, NPさえ、少なくとも#割の、#-cl の、すべての、Nが ... #-cl, NPしか、etc. (e.g., かなりの数の会社、トヨタさえ、少なくとも二割 の地方自治体、すくなくとも二割以上の地方自治体、 5人の学生、三つの会社、すべての大学、哲学者が 昨日三人、哲学者が昨日少なくとも三人以上、巨人し か、どの球団も) B: そこ、そいつ、 その会社、その学生、 その球団、 etc. Experiments have been conducted to see if we obtain confirmed schematic asymmetries with a various choice of A and B for BVA(A, B) 47 What have we found out from the experiments with such instances of BVA(A, B) ? Quite promising. But I would need a great deal more time to go over the details, unfortunately. 48 Two Research Heuristics Maximize testability. Maximize our chances of learning from errors. Consequence: Identify what works best—for the purpose of obtaining a confirmed schematic asymmetries—as A and B of BVA(A, B) in simple cases and use them in less simple cases. There are other consequences of a similar nature with regard to (i) other aspects of experiments and (ii) informant resourcefulness. 49 7. Concluding remarks The general scientific method can be applied to the study of the language faculty. Reproducible phenomena that we should aspire to establish in the study of the language faculty is what will be referred to as confirmed schematic asymmetries. The quantitative understanding in the study of the language faculty is most crucially about a contrast between zero vs. non-zero. In order to be able to obtain confirmed schematic asymmetries, we must first focus on the properties of the Computational System. 50 The researcher trying to go through the "thick barriers" to get to the Computational System 51 The researcher trying to go through the "thick barriers" to get to the Computational System 52 Final Remarks A Plea to Interested Philosophers of Science (mostly for graduate students) If you are interested in witnessing (and even documenting) how (what deserves to be called) language-faculty science is being formed for the first time, please get in touch with us and see for yourself how we are trying to do that (and how a substantial part of the field may resist it). Regardless of the ultimate fate of our endeavor, I think there is a good chance that you will be able to observe (and document) how an attempt will have been made to study the language faculty by rigorously applying the hypothetico-deductive method. [email protected] 54 終わり Thank you very much. If you would like the paper that contains the materials presented here, please email me at [email protected]. 55 On-Site Experiment 1 1. (「あそこ」はどこか特定の機関を指す解釈 で。 ) 2割以上の地方自治体が[あそこを批判した雑誌記 okExample 者]に連絡を取った。 2. ( 「2割以上の地方自治体」と「そこ」の連動読みで。すなわち、 「自分のところを批判した雑誌記者に連絡を取ったということ が2割以上の地方自治体に当ては まる」という意味で) 2割以上の地方自治体が[そこを批判した雑誌記者] okExample に連絡を取った。 3. ( 「2割以上の地方自治体」と「あそこ」の連動読みで。すなわ ち、「自分のところを批判した雑誌記者に連絡を取ったというこ とが2割以上の地方自治体に当て はまる」という意味で) 2割以上の地方自治体が[あそこを批判した雑誌記 *Example 者]に連絡を取った。 56 Results: Experiment 1 2 sets of 3 schemata, 12 examples in total. Example #3 of On-site Experiment 1 corresponds to Schema 2B. Of the 70 informants, 18 are "linguistically informed," and 52 are "linguistically naïve." EPSA [10]-#2 (Total 70 participants ; 1137 answers) as of April 24, 2010 Schema A Schema B Schema C Schema Group 1 136 values 70 138 values 20 136 values 91 Schema Group 2 137 values 71 134 values 18 137 values 87 Total 273 values 70 272 values 19 273 values 89 57 On-Site Experiment 2 1. (「そいつたち」が「ある一年生」と「ある二年生」の二人を指 す解釈で) ある一年生がある二年生にそいつたちの共同研究 について相談した。 okExample 2. (「そいつ」が「ある一年生」を指す解釈 で) 3. (「そいつ」が「ある一年生」と「ある二年生」の二人を指す解 釈で) ある一年生がある二年生にそいつの研究について okExample 相談した。 ある一年生がある二年生にそいつの共同研究につ いて相談した。 *Example 58 On-Site Experiment 3 1. (「ジョンがビルを推薦してビルがジョンを 推薦した」の意 味で) 先生は [ジョンとビルがなぜお互いを推薦したの か] 全く分からなかった。 2. okExample (「彼ら」と「ジョンとビル」が同じ人を指 しているとして) ジョンとビルは [先生がなぜ彼らを推薦したのか] 全く分からなかった。 ok Example 3. (「ジョンは [先生がなぜビルを推薦したのか] わからなく て、ビルは [先生がなぜジョンを推薦したのか] わからな かった」の意味で) ジョ ンとビルは [先生がなぜお互いを推薦したの *Example か] 全く分からなかった。 59 On-Site Experiment 4 1. (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、「自 分のところの職員を新聞紙上で批判した地方自治体が地 方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で) 55%以上の地方自治体がそこの職員を新聞紙上 okExample で批判した。 2. (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、「自 分のところの職員に新聞紙上で批判された地方自治体が 地方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で) そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙上 で批判した。 *Example 3. (「そこ」が先行文脈で既出の「財務省」を 指す解釈で) そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙上 okExample で批判した。 60 On-Site Experiment 5 1. (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、 「自分のところの職員に新聞紙上で批判された地方自治 体が地方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で) そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙 上で批判した。 *Example 2. (「そこ」が財務省を指す解釈で) 3. (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、 「自分のところの職員を新聞紙上で批判した地方自治体 が地方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で) そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙 okExample 上で批判した。 そこの職員を55%以上の地方自治体が新聞紙 okExample 上で批判した。 61 Appendix The innateness thesis Historical reflections Language-faculty science and Linguistics Methodology in generative grammar [Historical accident]-al reflections 62 References Ariew, Roger. 1984. "The Duhem Thesis," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35: 313325. Boeckx, Cedric. 2006. Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims. Oxford University Press, New York. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. "A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory," in K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MA: The MIT Press. Cohen, David. 1974. ed. Explaining linguistic phenomena. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Cohen, David, and Jessica R. Wirth. 1975. eds. Testing Linguistic Hypotheses. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Culicover, Peter and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Devitt, Michael. 2006. "Intuitions in Linguistics," The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57: 481-513. Duhem, Pierre. 1954/1982. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Jules Vuillemin, Princeton University Press. (Translated by Philip P. Wiener from the second edition, published in 1914 by Marcel Rivière & Cie., Paris, under the title La Théorie Physique: Son Objet, Sa Structure. (The date of the original publication is 1906. The page references are to the 1991 Princeton Paperback.) 63 References Eckman, R. Fred. 1977. ed. Current themes in linguistics: bilingualism, experimental linguistics, and language typologies. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against Method. New Left Books. (The third edition published by Verso in 1993.) Feynman, Richard. 1965/1994. The Character of Physical Law. New York: The Modern Library. Feynman, Richard. 1974. "Cargo Cult Science," 1974 Caltech commencement address, reproduced in Feynman 1997, pp. 338-346. (Available at: http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.php; reproduced in Feynman 1997.) Feynman, Richard. 1997. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!. New York: Norton & Company. (The hardcover was originally published in 1985.) Fitzgerald, Gareth. 2010. "Linguistic Intuitions," The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61:123-160. Gibson and Fedorenko. 2010. "The need for quantitative methods in syntax." ms., MIT. Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A Theory of Categories Projection and Its Applications, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Hoji, Hajime. 1990. "On the so-called Overt Pronouns in Japanese and Korean," Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Korean Linguistics, ed. Eung-In Baek, Osaka: International Circle of Korean Linguistics& Osaka University of Economics and Law. pp. 61-78. Hoji, Hajime. 1995. "Demonstrative Binding and Principle B," NELS 25: 255-271. Hoji, Hajime. 2003. "Falsifiability and Repeatability in Generative Grammar: A Case Study of Anaphora and Scope Dependency in Japanese," Lingua 113: 377-446. 64 References Hoji, Hajime. 2006a. "Assessing Competing Analyses: Two Hypotheses about 'Scrambling' in Japanese," in Ayumi Ueyama, ed., Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Reference and Anaphora— Toward the establishment of generative grammar as an empirical science, a report of the Grantin-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Project No. 15320052, Supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Kyushu University, pp. 139-185. (Available at: http://www.gges.org/hoji/research/hp-papers.cgi.) Hoji, Hajime. 2006b. "Otagai," in Ayumi Ueyama, ed., Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Reference and Anaphora—Toward the establishment of generative grammar as an empirical science, a report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Project No. 15320052, Supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Kyushu University, pp. 126-138. (Available at: http://www.gges.org/hoji/research/hp-papers.cgi. The paper was circulated originally in 1997.) Hoji, Hajime. 2009. A Foundation of Generative Grammar as an Empirical Science. Book manuscript. University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Hoji, Hajime, Satoshi Kinsui, Yukinori Takubo, and Ayumi Ueyama. 1999. "Demonstratives, Bound Variables, and Reconstruction Effects," Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW, The Second GLOW Meeting in Asia, September 19-22, 1999. 141-158. Hoji, Hajime, Satoshi Kinsui, Yukinori Takubo, and Ayumi Ueyama. 2003. "Demonstratives in Modern Japanese," In A. Li, and A. Simpson, eds., Functional Structure(s), Form and Interpretation: Perspectives from East Asian Languages, Routledge, London, England, pp.97-128. Katada, Fusa. 1991. "The LF Representation of Anaphors," Linguistic Inquiry 22: 287-313. Kinsui, Satoshi, and Yukinori Takubo. 1992. "Nihongo Sizisi Kenkyuusi kara/e (From/Toward a History of Research on Japanese Demonstratives)." In S. Kinsui & Y. Takubo, eds., Sizisi (Demonstratives), pp. 151-192, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo. 65 References Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language, The MIT Press, Cambridge. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1979. "(Ko), So, A nituite (On (ko-), so- and a-)," in Eigo to Nihongo to (English and Japanese), Kurosio Syuppan, Tokyo, pp.41-59. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1999. "Bunpoo riron to tetsugaku teki sizen syugi (Grammatical theory and philosophical naturalism)," in N. Chomsky and S.-Y. Kuroda. Gengo to Sikoo 'Language and Thought' (translated by M. Ohishi), Syouhakusya, Tokyo. pp. 93-134. Kuroda, S.-Y. 2008. "Mathematics and Generative Grammar—"Beyond Explanatory Adequacy" and Mathematical Realism of Language: A Fable for Naoki Fukui," Sophia Linguistica 56: 1-36. Lakatos, Imre. 1970. "Falsification and Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes," in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press. pp. 91-195. (Reprinted as Lakatos 1978: chapter 1; the page references are to Lakatos 1978.) Lakatos, Imre. 1973. "Science and Pseudoscience," included in Lakatos 1978 as "Introduction: Science and Pseudoscience." (pp. 1-7) (The page references are to Lakatos 1978; the transcript can be obtained at http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos//Default.htm.) Lakatos, Imre. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers Volume 1, edited by John Worrall and Gregory Currie, Cambridge University Press. Lebeaux, David. 1983. "A Distributional Difference between Reciprocals and Reflexives," Linguistic Inquiry 14: 723-30. Loftus, R. Geoffrey. 1996. "Psychology will be a much better science when we change the way we analyze data," Current Directions in Psychological Science, 161-171. (Available at: http://faculty.washington.edu/gloftus/.) 66 References Matsushita, D., 1930/1977. Hyoozyun Nihongo hoo (The usage of the standard Japanese). Tokyo: Benseisya. (The original 1930 publication was from Tyuubunkan Shoten. The page reference in the text is to the 1977 edition.) Miyagawa, Shigeru. and Koji Arikawa. 2007. "Locality in syntax and floating numeral quantifiers," Linguistic Inquiry 38: 645-670. Nakaya, Ukichiro. 1958. Method in Science (Kagaku no houhou), Tokyo: Iwanami. Narita, Hiroki. 2009. "The Tension between Explanatory and Biological Adequacy. A Review of Naoki Fukui's (2006) Theoretical Comparative Syntax: Studies in Macroparameters," Lingua.Newmeyer, J. Fredrick. 2008. "A Review of Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims. by Cedric Boeckx," Language 84: 387-395. Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1992. "Syntax of Reciprocals in Japanese," Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 157-96. Poincaré, Henri. 1952. Science and Hypothesis. New York: Dover Publications. (The English translation of LA SCIENCE ET L'HYPOTHESE (1902)) Popper, K. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London and New York: Routledge. (The English translation of Logic der Forschung (1934).) Popper, Karl. 1963. "Science: Problems, Aims, Responsibilities," Federation Proceedings (Baltimore), Federations of American Societies of Experimental Biology Vol. 22, Issue 4: 961-972. Popper, Karl. 1972. Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press. Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation: Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Saito, Mamoru. 1992. "Long Distance Scrambling in Japanese," Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 69-118. 67 References Saito, Mamoru. 2003. "A Derivational Approach to the Interpretation of Scrambling Chains," Lingua 113: 481-518. Sakuma, K., 1936/1951/1983. Gendai Nihongo no Hyoogen to Gohoo (Expressions and Usages in Modern Japanese). (The second and the third editions were published in 1951 and in 1966, respectively. The latter was published in 1983 by Kurosio Publishers, Tokyo.) Schütze, Carson. 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology, University of Chicago Press. Takita, Kensuke. 2009. "VP-scrambling, Linearization Preservation, and the Theories of Control," NELS 40 abstract. (http://web.mit.edu/nels40/program/abstracts/NELS40Takita.pdf) Takubo, Yukinori and Satoshi Kinsui. 1996. "Hukusuu no Sinteki-ryooiki niyoru Danwa-kanri (Discourse Management in terms of Multiple Mental Domains," Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, Vol.3, No. 3, pp.59-74. Takubo, Yukinori & Satoshi Kinsui. 1997. "Discourse Management in terms of Mental Spaces," Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 28, No.6. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam. pp.741-758. Townsend, J. David and Bever, G. Thomas. 2001. Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ueyama, Ayumi. 1998. Two Types of Dependency, Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, distributed by GSIL publications, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Ueyama, Ayumi. 2010. "Model of Judgment Making and Hypotheses in Generative Grammar," in S. Iwasaki, H. Hoji, P. Clancy, and S.-O. Sohn, eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 17, CSLI. pp. 27-47. (Available at: http://www.gges.org/hoji/research/hp-Ayumi.cgi.) Weinberg, Steven. 1992. Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. New York: Pantheon Books. 68
© Copyright 2025 ExpyDoc