Section 5, shortly after (1):
I take the major goal of generative grammar to be a comprehension of the connection between the sense experiences as reflections of the language faculty, "by the use of a minimum of primary concepts and relations." What is meant by the language faculty here is (ultimately) UG.

Re. the last sentence above, what I had in mind is something like the following.

The language faculty cannot be equated simply to UG, since it is not obvious, and it is perhaps incorrect to say, that our linguistic intuistions are reflections of UG in any direct way, even if we are, or could be, concerned only with the intuitions that clearly and strictly reflect the language faculty. However, certain aspects of our linguistic intuitions are reflections of the grammar we have (internalized). The grammar we have, i.e., the grammar of a particular language, is in turn a 'reflection' of UG, by hypothesis. It is in this sense that I made the statement quoted immediately above.

Now, how is the grammar of a particular language a 'reflection' of UG? My reasoning perhaps was that the grammar of a particular language is a function of UG (the initial state) plus a particular parameter setting in some form or another, on the basis of primary linguistic data. But if the linguistic variations are restricted to (the functional domain of) the Lexicon―the idea that seems widely adopted in the generative tradition now―what constitutes the generative procedure must be invariant across languages, with the possible exception of the linear precedence relation of some sort―the so-called head parameter (i.e., the head-initial vs. head-final parameter). The difference between Japanese and English, for example, would, under this view, be reduced to the presence and the absence of certain items (including features as well as categories) in their Lexicons, leaving aside the difference that is arguably due to the parameter just alluded to).

It is argued in a series of works by N. Fukui, including Fukui 1986 and Fukui & Sakai 2003 (in Lingua), that Japanese does not have active functional categories in its Lexicon, the thesis I adopt and have been pursuing myself. Under this view, then, the generative procedure in Japanese is no different from that in English with respect to what grammatical operations are in principle available and how they apply. Certain operations simply do not take place due to the absence of what would trigger their applications.