The first paragraph of the Preface now reads:

"The papers in this volume were published during 1995-2003. Many of the papers (more specifically, Papers 1-6) draw heavily from Hoji 1990, which, it is reasonable to say, is a continuation of Hoji 1985. During the research that led to the papers collected in this volume, I came to be increasingly concerned with methodological issues, as indicated by the titles of Paper 6 and especially of Paper 7. During 1985-2015, the concern and the focus of my research have slowly shifted, eventually leading to Hoji 2015 . The shift can perhaps be characterized as being from E-linguistics to I-linguistics, from compatibility-seeking to testability-seeking research, and one might even say, from linguistics to language faculty science."

The first two paragraph of the old version were:

"The papers in this volume were published during 1995-2003. The research therein was carried out within the Chomskian research program, broadly construed. It is concerned (ultimately) with the language faculty (I-language in the terms of Chomsky 1986) not language (E-language in the terms of Chomsky 1986). It was a continuation of the attempt in Hoji 1985 to identify and establish syntactic generalizations in Japanese that are as robust as possible, so as to be able to place our subsequent research on solid footing.
In retrospect, Hoji 1985 tried to identify the informant intuitions that are necessarily based on the satisfaction of a c-command condition, being concerned mainly with the (un)availability of bound variable construal and scope dependency in Japanese that seem to be sensitive to, i.e., that seem to require the satisfaction of, a c-command condition. By making reference to the (un)availability of the dependency interpretations in question, I argued for a particular view of the phrase structure of Japanese that it is strictly binary-branching. In the terms of Hoji 2015, Hoji 1985 tried to identify as good probes as possible in discovering the universal properties of the language faculty through investigation of Japanese, and used the probes thus identified to argue for the thesis that the Japanese phrase structure is strictly binary branching. Clearly, I was not thinking in those terms when I wrote Hoji 1985. But, this now seems to me to be a reasonable interpretation of what I was trying to do in Hoji 1985."

I am trying to be direct about what I think about my current research and how I would assess the papers collected in Hoji 2013 (i.e., the Ohsumi volume).