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 shift from E-linguistics to I-linguistics -- with the latter including the internalist approach -- means a shift from considering "linguistic phenomena" as the object of inquiry to considering them as a probe into investigation of properties of the language faculty (and more narrowly, those of the CS). Among the "linguistic phenomena" in question are BVA, DR, the sloppy-identity reading, and coreference. The property of the CS in question is the hypothesized object FD. Very simplistically put, as a result of the shift, the nature of "linguistic phenomena" such as BVA, DR, the sloppy-identity reading, and coreference are no longer the object of our inquiry. Yes, we do "study" them. But we study them as a potential probe into FD.

People's judgments on the availability of BVA, DR, the sloppy-identity reading, and coreference (in a particular Schema and with a particular LG) may vary. Such "gradient" judgments, however, do not mean gradient properties of FD. The hypothesized properties of FD are categorical.

What Hoji 2015 shows is that it is possible to obtain definite informant judgments on BVA by carefully designing an experiment and interpreting its results in accordance with its design. In the process of interpreting the results of the Main-Experiment in accordance with the design of our experiment, we remove the reported judgments by many informants out of our consideration. In other words, the definite properties of FD are seen only in the judgments by the informants who have been classified, on the basis of the results of the Sub-Experiments, to be significant for the Main-Hypotheses for the predicted schematic asymmetry in the Main-Experiment.

One can naturally wonder whether it would be possible to see definite properties of FD in the judgments by other informants as well. I think being able to give a positive answer to this question is crucial for convincing (more) people about the viability of language faculty science as an exact science. That will be one of the main issues I plan to address in the next book on language faculty science.