I should also note that only two speakers among the 23 speakers judged all of the Japanese analogues of (1b), (2b), and (3b) as "-2," in sharp contrast with the result that six or more speakers (among the nine) judged all of English (1b), (2b), and (3b) as "-2."

I asked some of the informants to judge the sentences again, without looking at their judgments that they had previously reported, including those two speakers alluded to above. Some gave slightly lower scores than before and others higher scores, but not in any way that can be understood as being systematic. Of the two speakers referred to above, one gave 0, +1, and +1 to the three examples in question, instead of -2, -2, -2, while the other informant gave -2, -2 and -2, again.

If one insisted on being interested in the 'grammar' of a speaker who takes zibunzisin as a local anaphor, one would presumably be examining only one out of the 23 speakers... Even that one speaker, upon being provided with some pragmatic context, I suspect, will start accepting the relevant examples, and that, I would also suspect, would contrast sharply with what would happen with English sentences with reflexives.

What need to be borne in mind is, again, that if something is predicted to be impossible for a grammatical reason, no pragmatic adjustment should save it. And that is how we can hope to attain falsifiability in what we do; see my Mayfest abstract for brief remarks on the additional 'requirement' (for attaining corroboration).