I have started preparing the second book on language faculty science. I have written about 100 pages so far, and I will soon have to start worrying about how to make it short enough. The title of the book, at the moment is Internalist Perspective and Experiments in Language Faculty Science.

I plan to add the following at the bottom of the website accompanying Language Faculty Science (http://www.gges.xyz/hojiCUP/).

***
Remarks on the forthcoming books, including Experiments and Internalist Perspective in Language Faculty Science
Hajime Hoji
(October 15, 2015)

　　There are multiple book projects following Hoji 2015. In the next book, I will try to provide further illustration and demonstration of the viability of language faculty science as an exact science as outlined in Hoji 2015. I will discuss in some depth my own single-researcher-informant experiment. This is in line with the internalist thesis, according to which the experimental task of a language faculty scientist should start with one's own single-researcher-informant experiment.
　　In non-researcher-informant experiments, there is a severe limit to the number of Examples that can be included and also to the degree of complications regarding the sentence patterns and the specified interpretations. The number of SGs and that of LGs in an experiment must be small enough when we deal with a non-researcher-informant experiment. In my own single-researcher-informant experiment, on the other hand, I do not have any such restrictions. I can use as large a number of SGs and LGs as I wish and make the sentences as complicated or unnatural as I wish, as long as I can test the various predicted schematic asymmetries myself. That allows me to address the hypotheses that give rise to the bridging hypotheses, which was not possible in Hoji 2015.
　　The inclusion of the additional SGs and LGs in my own single-researcher-informant experiment also makes it possible for me to experimentally test the validity of the claim made in Ueyama 1998 that FD can underlie coreference as well as BVA. The result of my own single-researcher-informant experiment supports Ueyama's claim and clearly indicates that coreference in Japanese can be a good probe into the properties of FD (and hence of those of the CS). The experimental result is replicated in a multiple-non-researcher-informant experiment, thereby providing a compelling demonstration of the validity of the anti-locality condition on FD, for which I have long argued for in works such as Hoji 1997a, 1997b, 1998b, 2003a, 2003b, but had not been able to demonstrate experimentally. This is an extremely significant discovery for people, like myself, who have assumed that the distribution of coreference, unlike that of BVA, cannot be a good probe into FD (and hence the CS).
　　The discovery that coreference can be a good probe for investigating the properties of FD (and hence those of the CS) and that the availability of FD-based coreference and that of FD-based BVA are constrained by exactly the same structural conditions and the same lexical condition, in turn, allows us to consider the formal basis of so-called Spec-binding. Empirical discovery about the nature of coreference, the anti-locality condition, and Spec-binding are made possible crucially by the proposed methodology for language faculty science in Hoji 2015. And in that sense, it provides support of the proposed methodology.
　　In summary, further illustration and demonstration of the viability of language faculty science will be provided in the forthcoming book Experiments and Internalist Perspective in Language Faculty Science, where I address in some depth my own single-researcher-informant experiment. The discussion of my single-researcher-informant experiment confirms the commitment to the internalist thesis. It also allows me to consider the hypotheses that give rise to the bridging hypotheses about Japanese discussed in Hoji 2015. My own judgmental fluctuation experienced in my own single-researcher-informant experiment will be accounted for in the terms of such hypotheses, and the proposed account will serve as a basis for the design of a multiple-non-researcher-informant experiment, which, as emphasized in Hoji 2015, is none other than a collection of single-non-researcher-informant experiments.
***