1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Case in Russian

Case in Russian

A sign-oriented approach

image of Case in Russian
GBP
Buy:£83.00 + Taxes

This volume presents an analysis of Russian case from a sign-oriented perspective. The study was inspired by William Diver’s analysis of Latin case and follows the spirit of the Columbia School of linguistics. The fundamental premise that underlies this volume is that language is a communicative tool shaped by human behavior.In this study, case is viewed as a semantic entity. Each case is assigned an invariant meaning within a larger semantic system, which is validated through numerous examples from spoken language and literary texts to illustrate that the distribution of cases is semantically motivated and defined by communicative principles that can be associated with human behavior.

References

  1. Adger, D
    (2003) Core syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, J.M
    (1971) The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics; 4). Cambridge, UK: University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (1977) On Case Grammar: Prolegomena to a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London Atlantic Highlands: Croom Helm Humanities Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrews, E
    (1990) Markedness Theory. London: Duke University Press. doi: 10.1215/9780822382881
     https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822382881 [Google Scholar]
  5. Apresjan, V.Y
    (1995)  Dlja i Radi: Sxodstva i Razlichija. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 3, 17–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Babby, L.H
    (1980) Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian (Linguistica extranea. Studia; 8). Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Babby, L
    (1986) The Locus of Case Assignment and the Direction of Percolation: Case theory and Russian. In R.D. Brecht & J.S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 170–219). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (1987) Case, Prequantifiers, and Discontinuous Agreement in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5, 91–138. doi: 10.1007/BF00161869
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161869 [Google Scholar]
  9. (1989) Reviewed work(s): The Role of Case in Russian Syntax by Carol Neidle. Language, 65(4), 832–838. doi: 10.2307/414940
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414940 [Google Scholar]
  10. Babko-Malaya, O
    (1997) On aspect and case in Russian. In M. Lindseth and S. Franks (Eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana meeting (pp. 18–37). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bacz, B
    (1996) How Locative is the Locative Case? On the Meaning of the Polish Locative Phrases with the Locatives. LACUS Forum, 23, 389–398.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (1997) On the Meaning of Locative Cases: The Locative and the Accusative in Polish Expressions of Time. Canadian Slavonic Papers, 39 (3/4), 417–436. doi: 10.1080/00085006.1997.11092163
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.1997.11092163 [Google Scholar]
  13. (1999) Three-case Prepositions in Polish: The Semantics of po. LACUS Forum, 25, 137–147.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2002) On the Image-Schema Proposals for the Preposition PO in Polish. Glossos, 3, 1–19. www.seelrc.org/glossos/issues/3/.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bailyn, J
    (1995) Configurational Case Assignment in Russian Syntax”. The Linguistic Review, 12(4), 315–360. doi: 10.1515/tlir.1995.12.4.315
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1995.12.4.315 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bailyn, John F
    (1997) Genitive of Negation is Obligatory. In W. Browne , E. Dornisch , 
N. Kondrashova & D. Zec (Eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting (pp. 84–114). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bailyn, J. & Citko, B
    (1999) Case and Agreement in Slavic Predicates. In K. Dziwirek , H. Coats & C. Vakareliyska (Eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting (pp. 17–37). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bernolet, S. , Hartsuiker, R.J. , and Pickering M.J
    (2009) Persistence of Emphasis in Language Production: A cross-linguistic approach. Cognition, 112, 300–317. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  19. Beytenbrat, A
    (2009) The Invariant Meanings of Russian cases. In S. Birzer , F. Miriam & I. Mendoza (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Perspectives on Slavistics Conference Regensburg 2006. (pp. 17–25). München: Sagner.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Blake, F.R
    (1930) A Semantic Analysis of Case. Language, 6(4), 34–49. doi: 10.2307/521984
     https://doi.org/10.2307/521984 [Google Scholar]
  21. Borkovsky, V.I. , & Kuznetsov, P.S
    (1965) Istoricheskaja Grammatika Russkogo Jazyka (2nd ed.). Moskva: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Borschev, V. , & Partee, B.H
    (1999) Semantic Type and the Russian Genitive Modifier Constructions. InAnnual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting (pp. 39–57). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2002) The Russian Genitive of Negation in Existential Sentences: The Role of Theme-Rheme Structure Reconsidered. In E. Hajieova & P. Sgall (Eds.), Travaux de Cercle Linguistique de Prague (novelle serie) 4 (pp. 185–250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/plcp.4.11bor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/plcp.4.11bor [Google Scholar]
  24. Borschev, V ., et al.
    Russian Genitives, Non-Referentiality, and the Property-Type Hypothesis. Retrieved12/04/2011, fromhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/FASL16FinalForPrinting.pdf.
  25. Brecht R.D. , & Levine, J.S
    (1984) Conditions on Voice Marking in Russian. In M.S. Flier & R. D. Brecht (Eds.), Issues in Russian Morphosyntax(pp. 118–137). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Brecht, R.D. , & Levine, J.S
    (1986) Case and Meaning. In R.D. Brecht & J.S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 17–34). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Butt, M
    (2006) Theories of case (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139164696
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164696 [Google Scholar]
  28. Chafe, W.L
    (1970) Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Chomsky, N
    (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding (Studies in generative grammar; 9). Dordrecht, Holland; Cinnaminson, [N.J.]: Foris Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2005) Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1162/0024389052993655
     https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
  32. Comrie, B
    (1986) On Delimiting Cases. In R.D. Brecht & J.S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 86–106). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Contini-Morava, E
    (1995) Introduction: On Linguistic Sign Theory. In E. Contini-Morava , Barbara S. Goldberg , & R.S. Kirsner (Eds.), Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory (pp. 1–39). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110907575.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907575.1 [Google Scholar]
  34. Cook, S.J
    (1978) A Case Grammar Matrix Model. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations: Papers Prepared for the Working Group “Valence and Semantic Case,” 12th International Congress of Linguists, University of Vienna, Austria, August 29 to September 3, 1977 (pp. 295–309). Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.1.18coo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.1.18coo [Google Scholar]
  35. Dąbrowska, E
    (1997) Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110814781
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110814781 [Google Scholar]
  36. Diver, W
    (1974) Substance and value in linguistic analysis. Semiotexte, 1(2), 13–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. (1981) On defining the discipline. Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 59–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (1995) Theory. In E. Contini-Morava , Barbara S. Goldberg , Barbara , & R.S. Kirsner (Eds.), Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory (pp. 43–114). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110907575.43
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907575.43 [Google Scholar]
  39. Diver, W. , & Davis, J
    (2012) Latin Voice and Case. In A. Huffman & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and Human Behavior. The Linguistic Essays of William Diver (pp. 195–245). Leiden: Brill Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Dowty, D
    (1991) Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Aelection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  41. Dreer, I
    (2007) Expressing the Same by the Different: The Subjunctive vs the Indicative in French.Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Company. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.59
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.59 [Google Scholar]
  42. Fillmore, C.J
    (1968) The case for case. In E. Bach & R.T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp.1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. (1970) Types of Lexical Information. In F. Kiefer (Ed.), Studies in Syntax and Semantics (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Reidel.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. (1971) Types of Lexical Information. In D.D. Steinberg & L.A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. (pp. 370–392). Cambridge, UK: University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (1977) The Case for Case Reopened. In P. Cole & J.M. Sadock (Eds.), Grammatical Relations (pp. 59–81). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Franks, S
    (1994) Parametric Properties of Numeral Phrases in Slavic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 597–674. doi: 10.1007/BF00992929
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992929 [Google Scholar]
  47. (1995) Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Gerritsen, N
    (1990) Russian Reflexive Verbs: In Search of Unity in Diversity. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Goddard, C
    (1998) Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction (Oxford textbooks in linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. (2003) Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Latest perspectives. Theoretical Linguistics, 29(3), 227–236.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Goddard, C. , & Wierzbicka, A
    (2002) Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings (Studies in Language Companion Series, v. 60–61). Amsterdam; Philadelphia, Pa: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.60
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.60 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2007) Semantic primes and cultural scripts in language teaching and intercultural communication. In F. Sharifian & G. Palmer (Eds.), Applied Cultural Linguistics: Implications for Second Language Learning and Intercultural Communication (pp. 105–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.7.08god
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.7.08god [Google Scholar]
  53. Gorshkova, K.V. , & Khaburgajev, G.A
    (1981) Istoricheskaja Grammatika Russkogo Jazyka. Moskva: Vysshaja Shkola.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Gorup, R
    (2006)  Se Without Deixis. In J. Davis , R.J. Gorup & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in Functional Linguistics: Columbia School Beyond Its Origins (pp. 195–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.57.15gor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.57.15gor [Google Scholar]
  55. Gradinarova, A. , & Zaretsky, E
    (2009) Tranzitivatsija Russkix Glagolov po novym medeljam: Jazykovaja Tendentsija ili Igra so Slovom?Retrieved21/04/2011, journals.slavica.org/index.php/bulrus/article/view/243/381.
  56. Green, B.D
    (1979) Factors in the Choice of the Case of Direct Objects after Negated Transitive Verbs in Russian. Slavonic and East European Review, 57(2), 161–186.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Haegeman, L.M.V
    (1994) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory (2nd ed.Vol.Blackwell textbooks in linguistics; 1). Oxford, UK; Cambridge, Mass., USA: B. Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Harves, S
    (2003) Getting Impersonal: Case, Agreement, and Distributive po-phrases in Russian. In W. Browne (Ed.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Langauges: The Amherst Meeting (pp. 235–254). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Heine, B
    (1997) Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hjelmslev, L
    (1972) La Catégorie des Cas: Etude de Grammaire Générale (2. verb. und mit den Korrekturen des Autors versehene Aufl. der Ausg. Kopenhagen, 1935–1937 ed.). München: W. Fink.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Hornstein, N
    (2001) Move!: A Minimalist Theory of Construal (Generative Syntax; 5). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Huffman, A
    (1997) The Categories of Grammar: French lui and le. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.30
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.30 [Google Scholar]
  63. Israeli, A
    (1995) Syntactic and Pragmatic Studies of the Reflexive Verbs in Russian. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Jakobson, R
    (1936) Beitrag zur Allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutung der Russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 4, 240–288.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. (1984) Contribution to the General theory of Case: General Meanings of the Russian cases. In L.R. Waugh & M. Halle (Eds.), Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies, 1931–1981 (pp.59–103). Berlin: Mouton Publishers. doi: 10.1515/9783110822885
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822885 [Google Scholar]
  66. (1985) K obshchemu Ucheniju o Padezhe: Obshcheje Znachenije Russkogo Padezha. In V.A. Zvegintsev (Ed.), Izbrannyje Raboty (pp. 133–175). Moskva: Progress.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. (1990) Contribution to the General Theory of Case. In L.R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston (Eds.), On Language (pp.332–385). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Janda, L.A
    (2004) Border Zones in the Russian Case System. In D. Apresjan (Ed.), In Sokrovennye Smysly (A Festschrift for Nina D. Arutjunova) (pp. 378–398). Moskva: Jazyki Slavjanskoj Kul’tury. www.hum.uit.no/lajanda/mypubs/Borderzones2.doc
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Janda, L.A. , & Clancy, S.J
    (2002) The Case Book for Russian. Bloomington, Ind.: Slavica.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Jespersen, O
    (1933) Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Kagan, O
    (2005) Genitive Case: A Modal Account. In Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, 21 (IATL 21).
     [Google Scholar]
  72. (2007) On the Semantics of Structural Case.Hebrew University.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Kalyuga, M
    (2002) The Use of Different Cases with Russian Verbs of Similar Meaning. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 22(2), 191–205. doi: 10.1080/0726860022000013175
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0726860022000013175 [Google Scholar]
  74. Kamynina, A.A
    (1999) Sovremennyj Russikij Jazyk. Morfologija. Moskva: Moskovskij Univer-
sitet.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Kaplan, R.M. , & Bresnan, J
    (1995) Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation. In M. Dalrymple (Ed.), Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar (pp.28–130). Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Kilby, D
    (1986) The Instrumental in Russian: On Establishing a Consensus. In R.D. Brecht & J.S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 323–337). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Klenin, E
    (1975) The Pronoun sebja, Particle sebe, and Affix -sja. The Slavic and East European Journal, 19(2), 188–199. doi: 10.2307/306773
     https://doi.org/10.2307/306773 [Google Scholar]
  78. Korn, D
    (1967) Case Selection: Genitive or Accusative after Negation in Contemporary Russian?Moderm Language Reviw, 62(3), 486–497. doi: 10.2307/3722139
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3722139 [Google Scholar]
  79. Krasovitsky A. , Long, A. , Baerman , M., Brown , D., & Corbett, G
    (2008) Predicate nouns in Russian. Russian Linguistics,32, 99–113. doi: 10.1007/s11185‑008‑9025‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-008-9025-4 [Google Scholar]
  80. Kuryłowicz
    J (1936) Dérivation Lexicale et Dérivation Syntactique. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris, 37, 79–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Kuryłowicz, J
    (1949) Le problème du Classement des Cas. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego, 9, 20–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Langacker, R.W
    (1986) An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1–40. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1 [Google Scholar]
  83. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. (2004) Form, Meaning, and Behavior. In E. Contini-Morava , R.S. Kirsner , & B. Rodríguez-Bachiller (Eds.), Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis (pp. 21–60). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.51.03lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.51.03lan [Google Scholar]
  85. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  86. Levine, J.S
    (1984) On the Dative of Possession in Contemporary Russian. The Slavic and East European Journal, 28(4), 493–501. doi: 10.2307/307636
     https://doi.org/10.2307/307636 [Google Scholar]
  87. (1986) Remarks on the Pragmatics of the “Inalienable Dative” in Russian. In R. D. Brecht & J.S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 437–451). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Lomtev, T.P
    (1954) Iz istorii sintaksisa russkogo Jazyka (Voprosy sovetskogo Jazykoznanija). Moskva: Gos. uchebno-pedogicheskoe izd-vo ministerstva prosveshchenija RSFSR.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Mal’chukov, A.L. , & Spencer, A
    (2009) The Oxford handbook of case (Oxford handbooks in linguistics). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Marantz, A
    (1995) The Minimalist Program. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory (pp. 349–382). Oxford, UK; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Mel’čuk, I
    (1988) Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice (SUNY series in linguistics). Albany: State University Press of New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. (1998) Kurs Obshchej Morfologii ( Plungjan , Trans. 2). Moskva: Jazyki Russkoj Kul’tury.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. (2006) Aspects of the Theory of Morphology (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs; 146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110199864
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199864 [Google Scholar]
  94. Mikaelian, I
    (2001) Russkij Predlog U i Ego Analogii vo Frantsuzskom Jazyke: K probleme Genesiza Posessivnogo Otnoshenija. In M. Giro-Veber & I.B. Shatunovsky (Eds.), Russkij Jazyk: Peresekaja Granitsy (pp.117–134). Dubna: Mezhdunarodnyj Universitet Prirody, Obshchestva i Cheloveka “Dubna”.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Mikhailov, V
    (2007) Russian Copular Sentences: Case and Information Structure. [Beer Sheva]: [s.n.].
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Mishlanov, V.A
    (2002) Glagol Byt’ v Russkom Sintaksisje. Retrieved21/04/2011, 
language.psu.ru/bin/view.cgi?art=0067&lang=rus.
  97. Moore, J. & Perlmutter, D.M
    (2000) What Does It Take to be a Dative Subject?Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 18, 373–416. doi: 10.1023/A:1006451714195
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006451714195 [Google Scholar]
  98. Muravenko, E.V
    (2006) O Sintaksicheskix Arxaizmax. InIzmenenija v Jazyke i v Kommunikatsii: XXI Vek (pp.209–224). Moskva: Izd-vo RGGU.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Muravenko, E. , & Kalyuga, M
    (2008) Sistema i Uzuz v Istorii Glagola Skuchat’. Vestik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta, 3(13), 72–84.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Neidle, C.J
    (1982a) The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. Cambridge: MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. (1982b) Case Agreement in Russian. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations (pp. 391–426). Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. (1988) The role of Case in Russian Syntax (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic theory; [v. 10]). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2703‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2703-2 [Google Scholar]
  103. Nekrasov, N.P
    (1865) O Znachenii Form Russkago Glagola.Sanktpeterburg: V tipografii I. Paul’sona i ko.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. New Oxford American Dictionary (version 2.1.3 (80.4)) [software] (2005–2009) Apple Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Nilsen, D.L.F
    (1972) Toward a Semantic Specification of Deep Case (Janua Linguarum. Series Minor; 152). The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. (1973) The Instrumental Case in English: Syntactic and Semantic Considerations (Janua Linguarum. Series Minor; 156). The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Nørgård-Sørensen, J
    (2004) Russian Cardinal Numerals: Meaning, Morphology, and Syntax. Scando-Slavica, 50, 75–92. doi: 10.1080/00806760410011123
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00806760410011123 [Google Scholar]
  108. Ozhegov, S.I. , & Shvedova, N
    (1982) Slovar’ Russkogo Jazyka (Izd. 14-e, stereotipnoe. ed.). Moskva: Russkij Jazyk.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Panov, M.V
    (1968) Russkij Jazyk i Sovetskoje Obshchestvo: Sotsiologo-lingvisticheskoje Issledovanije. Morfologija i Sintaksis Sovremennogo Russkogo Literaturnogo Jazyka. Moskva: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Partee, B.H. , & Borschev, V
    (2004) The semantics of Russian Genitive of Negation: The nature and role of Perspectival Structure. In K. Watanabe & R.B. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT ) 14 (pp. 212–234). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Pattabhiraman, T
    (1992) Aspects of Salience in Natural Language Generation. Simon Fraser University.
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Pavlović, V
    (2010) Cognitive Linguistics and English Language Teaching at English Departments. Linguistics and Literature, 8(1), 79–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Perelmutter, R
    (2005) Case Choice in Russian Genitive/Nominative Absence Constructions. Russian Linguistics, 29(3), 319–346. doi: 10.1007/s11185‑005‑8397‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-005-8397-y [Google Scholar]
  114. Pereltsvaig, Asya
    (1998) Genitive of Negation in Russian. In Proceedings of IATL 13 , pp. 167–190.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Pereltsvaig, A
    (1999) The Genitive of Negation and Aspect in Russian. In Y. Rose & J. Steele (Eds.), McGill Working Papers in Lingsuistics 14 (pp. 111–140).
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Peshkovsky, A.M
    (1956) Russkij Sintaksis v Nauchnom Osveshchenii. (Izd. 7. ed.). Moskva: Gos. uchebno-pedagog. izd-vo.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Portner, P. , & Partee, B.H
    (2002) Formal semantics: The essential readings. Oxford: Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470758335
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758335 [Google Scholar]
  118. Potebnja, A.A
    (1874) Iz Zapisok po Russkoj Grammatike (V. 1). Voronezh: N. D. Goldshtein.
     [Google Scholar]
  119. RAN, In-t Lingvistich. Issledovanij
    (Ed.) (1999) Tolkovyj Slovar’ Russkogo Jazyka. (4-e izd., ster. ed. Vol. 4). Moskva: Russkij Jazyk.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Reid, W
    (2004) Monosemy, Homonymy and Polysemy. In E. Contini-Morava , R.S. Kirsner , & B. Rodríguez-Bachiller (Eds.), Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis (pp. 93–129). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.51.06rei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.51.06rei [Google Scholar]
  121. (2006) Columbia School and Saussure’s langue . In J. Davis , R.J. Gorup & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in Functional Linguistics: Columbia School Beyond Its Origins (pp. 17–39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.57.04rei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.57.04rei [Google Scholar]
  122. Riemer, N
    (2006) Reductive Paraphrase and Meaning: A Critique of Wierzbickian Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 347–379. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑006‑0001‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-0001-4 [Google Scholar]
  123. Rozental’, D.E
    (1976) Sovremennyj Russkij Jazyk. Vol. 2, Syntax. Moscow: Vysshaja Shkola, 37.
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Rudzka-Ostyn, B
    (1996) The Polish Dative. In W. v. Belle & W. v. Langendonck (Eds.), The Dative (pp. 341–394). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cagral.2.14rud
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.2.14rud [Google Scholar]
  125. Ruhl, C
    (2002) Data, Comprehensiveness, Monosemy. In W.H. Reid , R. Otheguy , & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, Meaning, and Message: Perspectives on Sign-based Linguistics (pp. 171–189). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.48.11ruh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.48.11ruh [Google Scholar]
  126. Šarić, L
    (2002) On the Semantics of the “Dative of Possession” in the Slavic Languages: An Analysis on the Basis of Russian, Polish, Croatian/Serbian and Slovenian Examples. 
Glossos, 3, 1–22. www.seelrc.org/glossos/issues/3/saric.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  127. (2006) On the meaning and prototype of the preposition pri and the locative case: A comparative study of Slavic usage with emphasis on Croatian. Rasprave Instituta za 
Hrvatski Jezik i Jezikoslovlje, 32, 225–248.
     [Google Scholar]
  128. van Schooneveld, C.H
    (1977) By Way of Introduction: Roman Jakobson’s Tenets and Their Potential. In D. Armstrong & C.H. van Schooneveld (Eds.), Jakoboson: Echoes of His Scholarship, (pp. 1–11). Liss: The Peter De Ridder Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  129. (1978) Semantic Transmutations: Prolegomena to a Calculus of Meaning: The Cardinal Semantic Structure of the Prepositions, Cases, and Paratactic Constructions in Contemporary Standard Russian. Bloomington: Physsardt.
     [Google Scholar]
  130. (1983) Contribution to the Systematic Comparison of Morphological and Lexical Semantic Structures in the Slavic Languages. In M.S. Flier (Ed.), American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists (pp.327–332). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Schoorlemmer, M
    (1994) Dative Subjects in Russian. In J. Toman (Ed.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Ann Arbor Meeting (pp. 129–172). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  132. (1997) Russian SJA and the Affix-Clitic Distinction. In M. Lindseth & 
 S. Franks (Eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana Meeting (pp. 253–274). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Shakhmatov, A.A
    (1963) Sintaksis Russkogo Jazyka. (Slavistic printings and reprintings, 41). Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  134. (1957) Istoricheskaja Morfologija Russkogo Jazyka. Moskva: Uchebno-pedagogicheskoje izdatel’stvo ministerstva prosvheshchenija RSFSR.
     [Google Scholar]
  135. de Saussure, F
    (1916) Cours de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Payot.
     [Google Scholar]
  136. (1983) Course in General Linguistics. ( C. Bally , A. Sechehaye , A. Riedlinger , Eds., & R. Harris , Trans.) London: Duckworth.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Shvedova, N. , et al.
    (1980) Russkaja Grammatika. Moskva: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Smith, M.B
    (1999) From Instrument to Irrealis: Motivating Some Grammaticalized Senses of the Russian Instrumental. In K. Dziwirek , H. Coats & C. Vakareliyska , (Eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting (pp. 413–433). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Součkova, K
    (2004) Measure prefixes in Czech: Cumulative na- and Delimitative po-. Universitetet i Tromsø.
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Timberlake, A
    (1975) Hierarchies in the Genitive of Negation. The Slavic and East European Journal, 19(2), 123–138. doi: 10.2307/306765
     https://doi.org/10.2307/306765 [Google Scholar]
  141. Timberlake, Alan
    (1986) Hierarchies in the Genitive of Negation. In R.D. Brecht & J.S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 338–360). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Tobin, Y
    (1985) Case Morphology and Language Teaching Revisited. Papers in Linguistics, 18(2), 259–294. doi: 10.1080/08351818509389234
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818509389234 [Google Scholar]
  143. (1988) Phonetics versus Phonology: The Prague School and Beyond. In Y. Tobin (Ed.), The Prague School and Its Legacy in Linguistics, Literature, Semiotics, Floklore, and the Arts (pp. 49–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/llsee.27.07tob
     https://doi.org/10.1075/llsee.27.07tob [Google Scholar]
  144. (1990) Semiotics and Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  145. (1993) Aspect in the English verb: Process and result in language. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  146. (1995) Invariance, Markedness, and Distinctive Feature Analysis: A Contrastive Study of Sign Systems in English and Hebrew (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, v. 111). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.111
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.111 [Google Scholar]
  147. (2008) A Monosemic View of Polysemic Prepositions. In D. Kurzon & S. Adler (Eds.), Adpositions: Pragmatic, Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives (pp. 273–288). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.74.14tob
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.74.14tob [Google Scholar]
  148. (2009) Phonology as Human Behavior: Applying Theory to the Clinic. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, 12(2), 115–134. doi: 10.1179/136132809805335409
     https://doi.org/10.1179/136132809805335409 [Google Scholar]
  149. Tolskaya, I
    (2007) Unifying prepositions and Prefixes in Russian: Conceptual Structure versus Syntax. Nordlyd, 34(2), 345–370.
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Townsend, C.E
    (1967) Voice and Verbs in –sja. The Slavic and East European Journal, 11(2), 196–203. doi: 10.2307/305405
     https://doi.org/10.2307/305405 [Google Scholar]
  151. Uriagereka, J
    (1998) Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Ushakov, D.N
    (1935–1940) Tolkobyj Slovar’ Russkogo Jazyka.Moskva: Gos. in-t “Sov. Entsikl.” OGIZ; Gos. Izd-vo Inostr. i Nats. Slov.
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Valgina, N.S
    (2000) Sintaksis sovremennogo russkogo jazyka: Učebnik. Moskva: Agar.
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Van Valin , R. D
    (2001) An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  155. Vinogradov, V.V
    (2001) Russkij Jazyk (Grammaticheskoje Uchenije o Slove) (Izd. 4. ed.). 
Moskva: Russkij Jazyk.
     [Google Scholar]
  156. Vinokur, G.O
    (2010) Istorija Russkogo Literaturnogo Jazyka. Moskva: Librokom.
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Wade, T
    (1980) The Russian Preposition Do and the Concept of Extent (Birmingham Slavonic Monographs, no. 9). Birmingham: Department of Russian Language & Literature, University of Birmingham.
     [Google Scholar]
  158. (1992) A comprehensive Russian grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  159. Webelhuth, G
    (1995) X-bar Theory and Case Theory. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory (pp. 15–95). Oxford, UK; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  160. Wheeler, M. , Unbegaun, B.O. , Costello, D.P. , & Ryan, W.F
    (1972) The Oxford Russian-English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  161. Wierzbicka, A
    (1972) Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum
     [Google Scholar]
  162. (1980) The Case for Surface Case. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  163. (1992) Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-specific Configurations. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  164. (1996) Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  165. (2009) The Theory of the Mental Lexicon. In S. Kempgen (Ed.), Die Slavischen Sprachen: Ein Internationales Handbuch zu Ihrer Struktur, Ihrer Geschichte und Ihrer Erforschung (pp. 848–863). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  166. Zalizniak, A.A
    (1967) Russkoe Imennoe Slovoizmenenie. Moskva: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  167. (1992) Issledovanija po Semantike Predikatov Vnutrennego Sostojanija (Slavistische Beiträge; 298). München: O. Sagner.
     [Google Scholar]
  168. Zholobov, O.F
    (2002) Morfositaksis Chislitel’nyx Dva, Tri, Chetyre: K Istorii Malogo Kvantitativa. Russian Linguistics, 26, 1–27. doi: 10.1023/A:1015668712172
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015668712172 [Google Scholar]
  169. Zipf, G.K
    (1949) Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  170. Zolotova, G.A
    (2001) Sintaksicheskij slovar’. Repertuar Elementarnyx Edinits Russkogo Sintaksisa.Iz-e 2-oe. Moskva.
     [Google Scholar]
  171. Zubin, D
    (1972) The German Case System: Exploitation of the Dative-Accusative Opposition for Comment. Unpublished MA essay, Columbia University.
     [Google Scholar]
  172. (1977) The Semantic Basis of Case Alternation in German. In R.W. Fasold & R. W. Shuy (Eds.), Studies in Language Variation (pp. 88–99). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  173. (1979) Discourse Function of Morphology: The Focus System in German. In 
 T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax (pp. 469–504). New York: Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  174. Chekhov, A.P
    (1983) On i Ona (He and She). Retrieved17/3/2008, ilibrary.ru/text/84/p.1/index.html.
  175. Gaidar, A.P
    . Gorjachij Kamen’. Retrieved8/5/2013, www.arkadiygaydar.ru/ll-al-
kniga-2801/
  176. . Most. Retrieved8/5/2013, www.arkadiygaydar.ru/ll-al-kniga-2793/.
  177. de Maupassant, G
    . Ozherel’je. Retrieved28/2/2013, www.lib.ru/INPROZ/MOPASSAN/
r_ozherelie.txt
  178. Stevenson, R.L
    (1962) The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde. London: J. M. Dent & Sons LTD.
     [Google Scholar]
  179. . Strannaya Istoriya Doktora Dzhekila i Mistera Xajda. Retrieved25/07/2006, www.lib.com.ua/books/5/735n1.html.
     [Google Scholar]
  180. Tolstoy, L.N
    . Smert’ Ivana Ilyicha. Retrieved12/9/2006, az.lib.ru/t/tolstoj_lew_
nikolaewich/text_0136.shtml.
  181. . The Death Of Ivan Ilyich. Retrieved12/9/2006, www.classicallibrary.org/tolstoy/ivan/2.htm. doi: 10.1097/00001888‑200509000‑00014
     https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200509000-00014 [Google Scholar]
  182. Retrieved24/10/2008, www.materinstvo.ru/art/1915/.
  183. Retrieved11/10/2008, ratanews.aplex.ru/asp/news.asp?n=1351.
  184. Retrieved11/10/2008, futbol-1960.ru/russia/news/38830.html.
  185. Retrieved21/1/2011, www.cooking.ru/interceate_exchange/board41/printall.html?id=822607.
  186. Retrieved21/1/2011, www.liveinternet.ru/users/3707322/post125332283/.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/books/9789027268167
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027268167
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027268167
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027268167
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error