As I go through and proof-read the entire CUP manuscript, I got curious (again) about what people have to say about testability in linguistics, and Googled "testability in linguistics."

One of the hits was:

"Linguistics and scientific methods"
by David Eddington

https://www.jyu.fi/hum/laitokset/kielet/tutkimus/langnet/opiskelu/mennytta-ohjelmistoa/Dabrowska%206

According to http://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Eddington/publication/228848641_Linguistics_and_the_scientific_method/links/00b7d539a0ad7bf2d1000000.pdf (which seems to be a better LINK that the first one), the paper appeared in a 2008 issue of Southwest Journal of Linguistics.

As I have noted elsewhere, there seem to be quite a few articles/works available that deal with "methodological issues" like what is addressed in the paper mentioned above. I think it is fairly easy to "situate" my CUP book in the context of discussions of that sort, as long as you have a good understanding of the points in the CUP book. As I have noted elsewhere, what remains to be not very clear to me is how I should talk to those people who do not clearly distinguish (i) language (and linguistics) and (ii) the language faculty (and language faculty science).

I would say that Chomsky is, at least partially, responsible for the general absence in the field of the clear distinction between the two notions because he often uses "language" when he means the language faculty.