Müller, Stefan. 2014d. Kernigkeit: Anmerkungen zur Kern-Peripherie-Unterscheidung.In Andreas Nolda, Athina Sioupi & Antonio Machicao y Priemer (eds.),Zwischen kernund peripherie(studia grammatica 76
...In Antonio Machicao y Priemer, Andreas Nolda & Athina Sioupi (eds.), Zwischen Kern und Peripherie ;)
X theory,76–162X theory, 80X-Theory,76,77,95,97,98,127,131,153,158,160,169,245,429,498,519,520,528,640,789X Theor
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}
it is not possible to havea combination ofthewith a nominal constituent if this constituent was not already builtup from lexical material by Merge
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.
cousin. He
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.
gender
italics for emphasis? since you have talk very much about sexus.
by ten Hacken will never bea problem
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)
I showedthat spurious ambiguities arise for a particular analysis of verbal complexes in Germanwhen one resolves the values of a binary feature (flip). This can be avoided by thecomplicated stipulation of a value in certain contexts
It is not quite clear where the feature "FLIP" has been discussed, and what is the connection of FLIP and spurious ambiguities with gender.
Japanisch
typo
a
an
If the head is a N,
an N
littlev
If I am right, little v means in your tree "Voice". I would keep the terminology consistent
the the
that?
She/he is very smart, isn’t she/he?
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?
with ditransitive verbs inX Theory. InX Theory, it is assumed that a headis combined with all its complements at once
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).
Englisch
typo
((s\np)/np)/np
why don't you use the same notation with capital letters like in (3b)?
Zwischen kernund peripherie
Zwischen Kern und Peripherie
sign language,451–452American (ASL),450,502Sign Language,26
they belong together
lexical entry
...like (3b)
However, gender is normally a grammatical notion
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.
subjunctive (I and II)
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.
f being a murderer is expressed as beingpossible or probable.
of beeing a murderer is expressed as being possible or probable, but not as being true properties of the modified noun.
(43)
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".
post
italics for emphasis
post
italics for emphasis
adverbs
Singular
notes thatwois a kind of uninflectedrelative pronoun and remarks that this description runs contrary to the use of this termfor nominal, that is inflectional, elements.
This sentence is slightly confusing.
behaves exactly like the corresponding adverbs
"... shows the same syntactic distribution", it does not behave exactly in morphological ways.
Conjunctions
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.
above
The number of the example would be helpful
optimal
Italics would help to understand that "optimal" is used here as an example.
Tense (
Perfect has not been taken into account, I guess because it is an analytic form(?)
n the case that adverbs and prepositions cannot be assigned to a particular class,then adverbs are normally used as a kind of “left over” category in the sense that allnon-inflecting words, which are neither prepositions, conjunctions nor interjections, areclassed as adverbs
This paragraph is slightly confusing
adjectives have comparative and superlative forms:
adjectives have positive, comparative and superlative wordforms
One should avoid
The terms ... are not adequate, since...
person (1., 2., 3.)
without "."
scientific grammars
in scientific linguistic work
subdivded
subdivided
a
an
a
an
collapsed together
coincide
F
(F), (M), (N): Glosses of features in the stem are in the book normally marked with a period (.F, .M, .N)
all information about phonology, syntax and semantics
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.
what it does in GB theory
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
In the idiom in (i),Bär‘bear’ actually means a lie and the adjective has to be interpreted accordingly.
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.
Or more carefully put: They do not have any serious problems since the treatment of idioms in their varietyis by no means trivial (Sailer2000)
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",
English differs from German
It would be good to make this point clearer with an example.
self-embedding
"Referring to the examples would clarifies the term "self-embedding"
an s
a sentence
that-Verb
What does "that-Verb" mean?
that-Ver
that-Verb?
licensed by the same construction
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.