Here is how the last substantive section of the Preface reads at the moment.

*****
13. Evaluating the papers in light of Hoji 2015
It would be important and useful to evaluate the papers collected in this volume in light of the methodological proposal advanced in Hoji 2015. For each paper, we can ask whether and how it makes a definite and categorical prediction. In the terms of Hoji 2015, we can ask whether a paper offers a predicted schematic asymmetry, and if it does, what universal and language-particular hypotheses give rise to it.^FN20

FN20: See the Glossary available at http://www.gges.xyz/hojiCUP/.

We can also ask whether the prediction is experimentally supported, i.e., whether we obtain a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry in the terms of Hoji 2015. To put it in somewhat concrete terms, whenever we see an example sentence that is claimed or assumed to be unacceptable (with the specified interpretation), we can ask the questions in (5)-(7).

(5)The fundamental schematic asymmetry:^FN21
a.What is the *Schema that the example sentence in question instantiates?
b.What is the corresponding okSchema?

FN21: As mentioned in footnote 6, I cannot fully discuss here the content of the various aspects of the methodological proposal in Hoji 2015 and their conceptual justifications and experimental illustration. In this and the following few footnotes, I try to give the basic ideas behind the notions introduced here. I argue in Hoji 2015 that our predictions are not about specific example sentences but about schemata that specific example sentences instantiate, as indicated in [P] in section 1.8.2.

(6)The prediction-deduction:^FN22
What universal and language-particular hypotheses make the *Schema and okSchema in (5) a *Schema and an okSchema, respectively?

FN22: In language faculty science, the ultimate concern is the universal aspects of the language faculty, but we must deal with speakers of a particular language (because there are no speakers of the "universal language"). Our predictions, therefore, must be deduced based on both universal and language-particular hypotheses.

(7)Experimental results:^FN23
a. Does the *Schema-based prediction survive a rigorous attempt at disconfirmation? That is to say, is any sentence that we can construct instantiating the *Schema completely unacceptable (under the specified interpretation) no matter how hard we try to make it acceptable?
b. Is the okSchema-based prediction confirmed? That is to say, can we construct a sentence instantiating the okSchema that is more or less acceptable (under the specified interpretation)?

FN23:An experiment in language faculty science consists of a Main-Experiment and its Sub-Experiments, reflecting the structure of the prediction-deduction and more specifically, how each fundamental schematic asymmetry (see [P] in section 1.8.2) tested in the Main-Experiment is deduced. The result of the Main-Experiment is to be considered in light of the results of its Sub-Experiments. Reproducibility in language faculty science can be pursued at different levels, including across-Example and across-occasion reproducibility within a single-informant, across-informant reproducibility, and across-language reproducibility. Depending upon the type and the number of the informants, our experiment can be: a single-researcher-informant experiment, a multiple-researcher-informant experiment, a multiple-non-researcher-informant experiment, etc. Here we can focus on across-Example reproducibility in a single-informant experiment.

Trying to answer such questions would be a useful exercise for the purpose of evaluating a given paper with regard to its potential contribution to, or its relevance to, language faculty science. Even apart from the issues regarding language faculty science, addressing such questions will help us understand what testable predictions are made with what hypotheses, how explicitly formulated each of those hypotheses is, as well as what is assumed to be a valid generalization (in the form of a confirmed (predicted) schematic asymmetry) and whether that indeed qualifies as a confirmed (predicted) schematic asymmetry.

[P] is repeated here for convenience.


[P] The fundamental schematic asymmetry
a. The *Schema-based prediction:
Every example sentence instantiating a *Schema is unacceptable with the specified interpretation pertaining to two expressions.
b. The okSchema-based prediction:
Some example sentences instantiating an okSchema are acceptable at least to some extent with the specified interpretation pertaining to two expressions.*****

What is noted above addresses my own papers collected in the Ohsumi volume, but it applies to any work that is (presumably) meant to be about the language faculty or that is alleged/claimed to pursue rigorous testability.