...In Antonio Machicao y Priemer, Andreas Nolda & Athina Sioupi (eds.), Zwischen Kern und Peripherie ;)

There are many Index-entries which appears twice or in this case 4 times. It is probably a problem of the scope of \index \index{\textbf{x}} =/= \index{x}

Probably, it would be helpful to know why one would like to analyse fragments of phrases. Fragments are not utterances, they don't have a truth value, they only appear as parts of bigger phrases and their grammaticality can not be judged. Furthermore fragments are highly ambiguous. "und auf die" e.g. could be a part of "Er wartet auf Maria ["und auf die" Kinder"], or "Er trinkt wieder ["und auf die" Kinder hat er wieder nicht aufgepasst]." In these 2 structures, what is coordinated are completely different things (PPs or CPs). It is the complete structure which reveals the function and the combinatorial potential of its parts.

Coindexation of "he" with "cousin" in (7a) and "she" with "cousin" in (7b) could make it more clear that it is not an interpretation like (6b) which is intended. The same conindexation could be used in (6) to make the marking consistent.

italics for emphasis? since you have talk very much about sexus.

I thought that ten Hacken's problem was based rather on the assumption of "maximally-specific values", and since features must be maximally-specific, there is a problem saying that "cousins" has the value "gen", since "underspecified" is not maximally specific. One could say that values are "as maximally specific as necessary", but since the cases in 6 require gender marking it is problematic to assume that its plural don't (according to maximal specificity of values)

It is not quite clear where the feature "FLIP" has been discussed, and what is the connection of FLIP and spurious ambiguities with gender.

typo

an

an N

If I am right, little v means in your tree "Voice". I would keep the terminology consistent

that?

The point is quite clear, nevertheless I would recommend not to give the options in this way but: She is very smart, isn't she/*he?

But cf. Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391. for a binary analysis of double object constructions in English, and the theories developing the VP shells (and later the Little vP).

typo

why don't you use the same notation with capital letters like in (3b)?

Zwischen Kern und Peripherie

they belong together

...like (3b)

The numerous (gender)masculine forms in German which can be used for both sexus-feminine and sexus-masculine are further examples, e.g.: "Jeder hat es gelesen." >> sex-masc and sex-fem "Jede hat es gelesen." >> only sex-fem. The (gender)masculine form in German does not encode sexus, more than that, it is underspecified with respect to it.

As far as I know: Konjunktiv I und Konjunktiv II are named "present subjunctive" and "past subjunctive" respectively. I am not sure if this terminology is familiar to the English speakers.

of beeing a murderer is expressed as being possible or probable, but not as being true properties of the modified noun.

To make the point of syncretism (and not of "portmanteau morphemes") clear, it would be better to give the example pairs that coincide "as (43a) and (43d) and (43c) and (43e) show".

italics for emphasis

italics for emphasis

Singular

This sentence is slightly confusing.

"... shows the same syntactic distribution", it does not behave exactly in morphological ways.

This paragraph does not build a sense-unit with the example before, and should be therefore indented, similar to the next paragraph beginning with Interjections.

The number of the example would be helpful

Italics would help to understand that "optimal" is used here as an example.

Perfect has not been taken into account, I guess because it is an analytic form(?)

This paragraph is slightly confusing

adjectives have positive, comparative and superlative wordforms

The terms ... are not adequate, since...

without "."

in scientific linguistic work

subdivided

an

an

coincide

(F), (M), (N): Glosses of features in the stem are in the book normally marked with a period (.F, .M, .N)

f the subject? whose phon, syn, and sem information? It could be interpreted as "all information of the sentence" which is surely not meant in this context.

The use of little nPs (paralell to Little vP) in some minimalist accounts makes possessives and prenominal genitives to subjects/external arguments, i.e. in probably exactly this kind of "more general sense" that you meant for HPSG

It is right that "Bären" is in the scope of "groß", but not necessarily that "Bär" means "a lie". "aufbinden" means "to tell something wrong to so.", "Bär" means then "a story". To some extent, one could say that the idiom is not "einen Bären aufbinden", but only "Bär", taking into account that the meaning of "aufbinden" does not change. That is, the modifier would have scope over the entire idiom.

This formulation is not so clear in comparison with the German counterpart (their variety >> author's?, theories? idioms?):

Oder vorsichtig formuliert: kein großes Problem, denn trivial ist die Behandlung von Idiomen in ihrer ganzen Buntheit nicht

Better??: "in all their many aspects?" instead of "in their variety",

It would be good to make this point clearer with an example.

"Referring to the examples would clarifies the term "self-embedding"

a sentence

What does "that-Verb" mean?

that-Verb?

I'm not sure if [Subj V [that-S]] and [that Subj V [that-S]] are \"the same construction\". Taken Goldbergs definition of construction, they are actually different in form and also in meaning (cf. illocutive force in embedded sentences). This point would be true if you have 4 clauses, then the 2 constructions in the middle really would have the same form AND meaning.