Hajime Hoji .Language Faculty Science
Cambridge University Press

cover image
© Cambridge University Press

Last update: 10/18/2016

About this site

This is a website that supplements Language Faculty Science (Cambridge University Press).

It contains the design and the results of every Experiment discussed in the book, and also those of the Experiments mentioned only very briefly in the book.

In the CUP book, the Experimental results are provided only in a summary format. At this website, I provide the full information about the Experiments so as to make it possible for interested people to check the empirical/experimental basis presented in the book for the proposed methodology for language faculty science.

The information at this site is not intended to be self-contained. However, some explanation is provided for how to read the various charts given here. The references to (a section of) a chapter below are all to the CUP book, unless otherwise specified.

Preliminary remarks

How to read various charts

How to read the various types of charts (Design, Examples, Result Charts, Informant Lists, and Raw Data) is provided here. For those who might find it useful to have its Japanese translation, its Japanese translation is provided here (日本語版). Also available are the Japanese version of Ch. 1 (日本語版) and the Japanese version of Ch. 8.2 (日本語版) of Language Faculty Science.

Test types

We combine the results of the one-sentence-at-a-time test type and three-sentences-at-a-time test type, focusing on just the Yes/No test type, because the choice between the two does not seem to result in a significant difference, as illustrated by the result charts under English EPSAs [31]-1, [31]-4, [31]-7 and Japanese EPSAs [3]-7, [10]-10, and [33]-9; see Ch. 5: Section 5.4.6.

Design, Examples and Results

Each EPSA-Experiment page has at least the following four sections: (i) Design, (ii) Examples, (iii) Results, and (iv) Raw Data. "Design" gives information about what SG(s) and LG(s) are employed in each EPSA Experiment, thereby specifying its design. The "Design" chart is, at least initially, not meant to public viewing and basically for the designer of the EPSA Experiment and his/her colleagues. For this reason the "Design" chart is not self-explanatory or self-contained. In relation to the preparation of the CUP book, eforts have subsequently been made to improve on the "readability" of the "Design" chart. The "Design" charts for many Japanese EPSA Experiments, however, still contain Japanese expressions. The "Examples" chart lists the Examples used in the EPSA Experiment. When a certain SG(s) or LG(s) are excluded from consideration, the Examples of such SG(s) or LG(s) are also excluded in the "Examples" chart. It should not be difficult to construct the excluded Examples based on the information provided in the "Design" chart. The informant judgments in the "Raw Data" chart include those on the excluded Examples as well. The excluded Examples can be made available upon request. In addition to various "Result" charts, along with informant-classification charts when applicable, each EPSA-Experiment page provides its "Raw Data" chart that contains all the judgments reported by the informants, including their "time stamp."

Glossary

The concepts/terms that seem most crucial in understanding the result charts are explained here. This pdf file provides a full list of Glossary entries.

%(Y)
%(Y) on an Example
The percentage of the Yes Answers among all the answers given on the Example in question.
%(Y) on a Schema
The percentage of the Yes Answers among all the answers given on the Examples instantiating the Schema in question.
%(I)
the percentage of the informants in a given experiment who have reported Yes on at least one of the *Examples under consideration while at the same time reporting a judgment on an okExample corresponding to Schema A. Since the %(Y) on a *Schema is predicted to be 0, the %(I) is also predicted to be 0.
default criterion values
The %(Y) on Schema A and the %(Y) on Schema B that we use as the default values in classifying informants in this book. They are 25% or higher for the %(Y) on Schema A and 0 for the %(Y) on Schema B. See Ch. 5: section 5.3.2.
[N.B.] [The default criterion values are often not mentioned in our result charts. The choice of 0% for the %(Y) on Schema B is a logical consequence of the proposed methodology, but that of 25% for the %(Y) on Schema A is not.]
informant classification
The determination of whether the reported judgments by a given informant in a Main-Experiment can be regarded as significant with regard to the validity of its Main-Hypotheses.
[N.B.] [The determination is based on the reported judgments by the informant in the Sub-Experiments for the Main-Experiment (ME). It is for the purpose of making the result of the ME as significant as possible with regard to the validity of the Main-Hypotheses tested in the ME.]
Lexical group (=LG)
One of the three dimensions by which the Examples of our Experiment are classified. The other two dimensions are Schema type (one of Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C) and Schema groups.
N(I)
the number of the informants who have provided answers on the Examples being considered.
No Answer
The reported judgment that the Example in question is completely unacceptable (with the specified dependency interpretation).
Schema
A schematic representation that covers, i.e., can be instantiated by, an infinite number of pf representations.
[N.B.] [An actual sentence used in an Experiment instantiates one of the three Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C). Schema A and Schema B minimally specify where the two items mentioned in the bridging hypothesis ( and of BVA( , ) in the case of BVA) occur in a phonetic sequence. Any pf representation instantiating Schema B is predicted to be completely unacceptable, and some pf representations instantiating Schema A are predicted to be acceptable, at least to some extent, with the dependency interpretation specified by the bridging hypothesis.]
*Schema
A Schema such that, according to the hypotheses in question, any Example that instantiates it is completely unacceptable with the specified dependency interpretation, i.e., there is no LF representation corresponding to a pf representation instantiating the *Schema in which the structural and lexical conditions for the LF object/relation in question are all satisfied. It is Schema B among the three Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C).
okSchema
Schema A and Schema C among the three Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C).
Schema A
One of the two okSchemata among the three Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C). Schema A is contrasted with the corresponding Schema B (=*Schema), both with a specified dependency interpretation.
Schema B
The only *Schema among the three Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C).
Schema C
One of the two okSchemata among the three Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C) that is (as) identical (as possible) to Schema B, but without the dependency interpretation considered in the case of Schema B.
Schema group (=SG)
One of the three dimensions by which the Examples of our Experiment are classified. The other two dimensions are Schema types (Schema A, Schema B, and Schema C) and Lexical groups.
Yes Answer
The reported judgment that the Example in question is acceptable at least to some extent (with the specified dependency interpretation).

English Experiments

The result charts for EPSA [31] only include the judgments by native speakers of English. The informant classification code for "Native speakers of English" is "r2," and that is indicated for each result chart for EPSA [31].

The design and the Examples of each EPSA Experiment under EPSA [31] include all the Schema groups and all the Lexical groups. However, not all of them are considered in the CUP book. In the case of EPSA [31]-4 and EPSA [31]-5, for example, Schema group 3 is always ignored in the CUP book, because it is not part of the main concern of the Experiments as discussed in the book.

Almost all the informants in these Experiments were students in a large undergraduate General Education course in Linguistics at the University of Southern California in the spring semester of each of the 2011-2014 academic years. The students were asked to participate in the same set of on-line Experiments twice during the semester, at the beginning and in the later part of the semester. For the purpose of keeping the results of the two rounds of Experiment-participation separately, the Experiments in the first and the second rounds are given different Experiment numbers. EPSA [31]-1, [31]-2, [31]-3, [31]-4, [31]-5, and [31]-7 in the first round are called EPSA [31]-8, [31]-9, [31]-10, [31]-11, [31]-12, and [31]-13, respectively, in the second round. Both rounds of Experiments were conducted before any discussion about what hypotheses were being considered and what predictions were being tested. After the first round and before the second round, there were lectures about set theory and quantification, where the "meaning" of every, no, and some was discussed, but not about what hypotheses or predictions the on-line Experiments were testing.

In the spring of 2012, participation in the first round was obligatory but the second round was optional, which resulted in not many students participating in the second round. In the springs of 2013 and 2014, participation in both the first and the second rounds was obligatory and the majority of the students participated in the Experiments in both rounds.

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

The Main Japanese EPSA Experiments discussed in the CUP book are those under EPSA [33] and EPSA [1]. Their Sub-Experiments are EPSA [10]-5, [10]-10, and [10]-11 and EPSA [3]-7. EPSA [5]-1 and [5]-5 and EPSA [35]-4 are only mentioned briefly and are not discussed in depth in the book. EPSA [5]-3 is not mentioned in the book. (See below for further remarks on EPSA [5]-1, [5]-3, and [5]-5.) The result charts at this website of Experiments under EPSA [10], EPSA [3], EPSA [33], EPSA [1], EPSA [5], and EPSA [35] only include the judgments by native speakers of Japanese, as in the case of the book. The informant classification code for "Native speakers of Japanese" is "r1," and that is indicated for each result chart of the Japanese EPSA Experiments provided here.

The design and the Examples of each of these EPSA Experiments include all the Schema groups (SGs) and all the Lexical groups (LGs), except for EPSA [3]-7 and EPSA [1]-18. Only LG3 and LG4 are included in EPSA [3]-7 here, as in the case of the CUP book, because the Examples of the other LGs (Lexical groups 1, 2, 5, and 6) were not used in the actual Experiments so as to keep the total number of Examples small enough. In the case of EPSA [1]-18, all the SGs were included in the actual Experiment, but only SG1 and SG2 are considered in the result charts in the CUP book in order to make comparison among different EPSA Experiments straightforward; see Ch. 7: section 5. The results charts of EPSA [1]-18 here also include SG1 and SG2 only. (But the "Raw Data" include the informant judgments on the Examples of the other SGs.)

The Examples of the Japanese EPSA Experiments are given as the informants see them, hence without their English translations. Based on the SG(s) and the LG(s) for each Experiment, as provided in the book, the non-native speaker/reader of Japanese should be able to figure out the relevant properties of each Example. That, however, would require efforts. To reduce the "workload" of the non-native speaker/reader of Japanese at least to some extent, I provide at the top of the page for each Japanese EPSA Experiment what its SG(s) and LG(s) are in their English translations if applicable.

Almost all the informants in these Experiments were students in undergraduate courses at various (about 10) universities in Japan. They participate in EPSA Experiments as part of their course activities, either as an optional task or a required task for the course grade. Most of those undergraduate students have had little or no linguistics background prior to participating in EPSA Experiments. The undergraduate courses they attend do not include any discussion about what hypotheses and predictions are being tested in the Experiments before or after their participation in the EPSA Experiments.

Experiments on the lexical hypotheses (a-NP vs. so-NP)

EPSA [10]-5

EPSA [10]-10

EPSA [10]-11

Experiment on the singular-denoting nature of soko and soitu

EPSA [3]-7

Experiments on the 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

Experiments on the language-particular hypothesis about otagai

The following Experiments are made reference to but not discussed in the CUP book; see p. 370 n. 96. A draft of the CUP book contained an Appendix on otagai but it has been removed due to the space limit. I plan to make the Appendix available here soon, which refers to the Experiments below.

EPSA [5]-1

EPSA [5]-3

EPSA [5]-5

Experiment on local disjointness effects in Japanese

The result of this Experiment is briefly mentioned in p. 371-372 n. 98.

EPSA [35]-4

Requests for having additional charts at this website

The charts provided here are those discussed or mentioned in the CUP book. They are among many other result charts that could have been discussed. The particular selection of the result charts and the informant-classification charts is in part due to space/time considerations, and I plan to add more charts at this website as I find their addition to be useful to the reader of the book. If you would like to have other result charts or informant-classification charts added to this website, please email me your requests, along with a brief reason for their addition.

Remarks on the forthcoming books

There are multiple book projects following Hoji 2015. In the next book, I will try to provide further illustration and demonstration of the viability of language faculty science as an exact science as outlined in Hoji 2015. I will discuss in some depth my own single-researcher-informant experiment. This is in line with the internalist thesis, according to which the experimental task of a language faculty scientist should start with one's own single-researcher-informant experiment. Click here for more.