The methodological proposals in my book can be further illustrated by discussing the following.

1. a. The use of so of so-no tyosya (intended as 'its author' not 'that author') as B of BVA(A, B). (We can show that the *Schema-based prediction fails quite badly; i.e., we already have robust results of some experiments, as discussed in Hoji 2006 (Assessing Hypotheses))
b. An 'account' of the above and how the account extends to 'quirky binding' in relation to Principle B effects in the OS as well as the SO context as discussed in chapter 4 of my book. (I had a section on (1b) in chapter 4, but I have decided not to include it in the book.)

2. Resumption and the OS construction. (Although we have not conducted an experiment that directly addresses the issue, some experiments on Negation-related issues dealt with resumption and their results were quite robust, precisely as predicted).

3. The long-distance-OS-related claim made in Saito's (2003, for example) work and the disconfirmation of its *Schema-based prediction with do-no-NP as A of BVA(A, B). This is discussed to some extent in Hoji 2006 (Assessing Hypotheses) and also in chapters 2 and 4 of my book, but not in any depth especially in light of the methodological proposals in my book.

4. Miyagawa's claim on the basis of the interaction between NEG and zen'in. (We have already conducted experiments on this and have gotten quite robust results; the *Schema-based prediction has been disconfirmed quite badly. Since the empirical claim in question seems to have played a significant role in recent years in relation to 'floating numerals' and 'scrambling', it may not be a bad idea to discuss this in the public domain for the record.)

Since the manuscript has become long enough, I plan to discuss the above in separate work(s).