Cover not available
Part of
General Phraseology: Theory and Practice
Igor Mel’čuk
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 36] 2023
► pp. 229–237

References

Abeillé, Anne. 1995. The Flexibility of French Idioms: A Representation with Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar. In Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, André Schenk & Rob Schreuder, eds, Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives, Hillsdale, N.J. – Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum, 15–42.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude. 2001. L’analyse de la construction En tout N par D. Leeman : quelques remarques. Travaux de linguistique, No. 1–2 (No. 42–43), 183–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apresjan, Jurij. 1990. Tipy leksikografičeskoj informacii ob označajuščem leksemy [Types of Lexicographic Information Concerning the Signifier of a Lexeme]. In Viktor Xrakovskij, ed., Tipologija i grammatika, 91–108, Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
. 1995. Izbrannye trudy. Tom II. Integralʹnoe opisanie jazyka i sistemnaja leksikografija [Selected Works. Volume II. An Integral Desctiption of Language and Systemic Lexicography]. Moskva: Škola «Jazyki russkoj kulʹtury».Google Scholar
. 2014. Ob Aktivnom slovare russkogo jazyka [On Active Dictionary of Russian]. In Jurij Apresjan, ed. 2014. Aktivnyj slovarʹ russkogo jazyka. Tom 1. A – B. [Active Dictionary of Russian. Vol. 1. A– B]. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʹtury. 5–34.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Jurij & Mednikova, Èsfirʹ, eds. 2002. Novyj bolʹšoj anglo-russkij slovarʹ [New Big English-Russian Dictionary]. Moskva: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Valentina. 2014. Syntactic Idioms across Languages: Corpus Evidence from Russian and English. Russian Linguistics, 38: 2, 187–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Ustupitelʹnostʹ: mexanizmy obrazovanija i vzaimodejstvija složnyx značenij v jazyke [Concessivity: Some Mechanisms of Formation and Interaction of Complex Meanings in Language]. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʹtury.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Sridhar, Shikaripur. 1984. Agglutination and Composition in Kannada Verb Morphology. In David Testen, Veena Mishra & Joseph Drogo, eds, Lexical Semantics, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 3–20.Google Scholar
Avgustinova, Tania & Iomdin, Leonid. 2019. Towards a Typology of Microsyntactic Constructions. In Gloria Corpas-Pastor & Ruslan Mitkov, eds, Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology. Cham: Springer, 15–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bargmann, Sascha & Sailer, Manfred. 2018. The syntactic flexibility of semantically non-decomposable idioms. In Manfred Sailer & Stella Markantonatou, eds, Multiword Expressions: Insights from a Multi-Lingual Perspective, Berlin: Language Science Press, 1–29.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1955. Idioms. In William N. Locke & Andrew D. Booth, eds, Machine Translation of Languages, New York/London: Technology Press of the MIT/John Wiley – Chapman and Hall, 183–193.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2019. Phraseology in Morphology: It’s a Sign! Linguistica Atlantica, 37: 2, 1–19.Google Scholar
Beck, David & Mel’čuk, Igor. 2011. Morphological Phrasemes and Totonacan Verbal Morphology. Linguistics, 49: 1, 175–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Joseph D. 1975. The Phrasal Lexicon. TINLAP 1 (Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing), 60–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berger, Hermann. 1974. Das Yasin-Burushaski (Werchikwar) [Yasin-Burushaski (Wershikwar).] Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Blanco Escoda, Xavier. 2013. Équivalents de traduction pour les pragmatèmes dans la lexicographie bilingue Français-Espagnol. Lexicographica, 29: 1, 5–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Inventaire lexicographique d’une sous-classe de phrasèmes délaissée : les pragmatèmes. Cahiers de lexicologie, 104: 1, 135–156.Google Scholar
Blanco Escoda, Xavier & Mejri, Salah. 2018. Les pragmatèmes. Paris: Garnier.Google Scholar
Boguslavsky, Igor. 2011. Remarks on Compositionality (with Reference to Gennadij Zeldovič’s article “On Russian Dative Reflexive Constructions: Accidental or Compositional”). Studies in Polish Linguistics, 6, 173–179.Google Scholar
Bosredon, B. 2011. Dénominations monoréférentielles, figement et signalétique. In Jean-Claude Anscombre & Salah Mejri, eds, Le figement linguistique: la parole entravée, Paris: Honoré Champion, 156–169.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Translatability and Language Universals. In Michel Kefer & Johan van der Auwera, eds, Universals of Language [= Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 4], Brussels: Free University of Brussels, 53–67.Google Scholar
Constant, Mathieu, Eryiğit, Gülşen, Monti, Johanna, van der Plas, Lonneke, Ramisch, Carlos, Rosner Michael & Todirascu, Amalia. 2017. Multiword Expression Processing: A Survey. Computational Linguistics, 43: 4, 837–892. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, William & Ross, John Robert. 1975. World Order. In Robin Grossman, James San & Tymothy Vance, eds, Papers from the Parasession on the Functionalism, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 63–111.Google Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria, Monti, Johanna, Seretan, Violeta & Mitkov, Ruslan, eds. 2016. Workshop Proceedings: Multi-word Units in Machine Translation and Translation Technologies. MUMTTT2015. Geneva: Editions Tradulex.Google Scholar
Cowie, Anthony. 2001. Speech Formulae in English: Problems of Analysis and Dictionary Treatment. In Geart van der Meer & Alice G. B. ter Meulen, eds, Making Sense: From Lexeme to Discourse, in Honor of Werner Abraham at the Occasion of his Retirement [Groningen Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, nº 44], 1–12. See also: [URL]
Cowie, Anthony, Mackin, Ronald & McCaig, Isabel. 1993. Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Čermák, František. 2007. Idioms and Morphology. In Harald Burger, Dmitrij Dobrovol’skij, Peter Kühn & Neal Norrick, eds, Phraseology. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 20–26.Google Scholar
Dillon, George. 1977. Introduction to Contemporary Linguistic Semantics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Dobrovolʹskij, Dmitrij, Kopotev, Mixail & Pëppel, Ljudmila. 2019. Gruppa konstrukcij nu i Х: semantika, pragmatika, sočetaemostʹ [The Group of Constructions of nu i X Type: Semantics. Pragmatics, Combinatorics]. Scando-Slavica, 65: 1, 5–25.Google Scholar
Drosdowski, Günther. 1977. Nachdenken über Wörterbücher: Theorie und Praxis. In Günther Drosdowski, Helmut Henne & Herbert Wiegand, eds, Nachdenken über Wörterbücher, Mannheim etc.: Bibliographisches Institut, 103–143.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions. Language, 64: 3, 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fléchon, Geneviève, Frassi, Paolo & Polguère, Alain. 2012. Les pragmatèmes ont-ils un charme indéfinissable? In Pierluigi Ligas & Paolo Frassi, eds, Lexiques. Identités. Cultures, Verona: QuiEdit, 81–104.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Idioms within a Transformational Grammar. Foundations of Language, 6, 22–42.Google Scholar
Gaatone, David. 1993. Les locutions verbales et les deux passifs du français. Langage, No. 109, Sur le passif, 37–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff & Wierzbicka, Anna. 2014. Words and Meanings. Lexical Semantics across Domains, Languages and Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 185–204.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago/London: The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. English Resultative as a Family of Constructions. Language, 80: 3, 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holden, Joshua. 2009. Towards a New Meta-language for Athapaskan Linguistics: The Case of Morphological Phrasemes. In David Beck, Kim Gerdes, Jasmina Milićević & Alain Polguère, eds, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory, Montreal: University of Montreal, 157–165.Google Scholar
Iomdin, Leonid. 2006a. Mnogoznačnye sintaksičeskie frazemy: meždu leksikoj i sintaksisom [Polysemous Syntactic Phrasemes: Between Lexicon and Syntax]. In Natalʹja Laufer, Aleksandr Narinʹjani & Vladimir Selegej, eds, Kompʹjuternaja lingvistika i intellektualʹnye texnologii 2006, Moskva: RGGU Publisher, 202–206.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Novye nabljudenija nad sintaksisom russkix frazem [New Observations on the Syntax of Russian Phrasemes]. In Bożena Chodźko, Elżbieta Feliksiak, Marek Olesiewicz, eds, Obecność, Białystok: Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, 247–281.Google Scholar
. 2010a. Gipoteza o dvux sintaksičeskix načalax [Hypotesis about Two Syntactic Starts]. In Jurij Apresjan, Igorʹ Boguslavskij, Leonid Iomdin, Vladimir Sannikov, Teoretčeskie problemy russkogo sintaksisa. Vzaimodejstvie grammatiki i slovarja, Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskix kulʹtur, 129–140.Google Scholar
. 2010b. Sintaksičeskie frazemy: meždu leksikoj i sintaksisom [Syntactic Phrasemes: Between the Lexicon and the Syntax]. In Jurij Apresjan, Igorʹ Boguslavskij, Leonid Iomdin, Vladimir Sannikov, Teoretičeskie problemy russkogo sintaksisa. Vzaimodejstvie grammatiki i slovarja, Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskix kulʹtur, 141–190.Google Scholar
. 2013. Čitatʹ ne čital, no…: ob odnoj russkoj konstrukcii s povtorjajuščimisja slovesnymi èlementami [Čitatʹ ne čital, no…: On a Russian Construction with Repeated Lexical Elements]. Kompʹjuternaja lingvistika i intellektualʹnye texnologii, 12: 1, 297–310.Google Scholar
. 2017. Meždu sintaksičeskoj frazemoj i sintaksičeskoj konstrukciej. Netrivialʹnye slučai mikrosintaksičeskoj neodnoznačnosti [Between a Syntactic Phraseme and a Syntactic Construction. Nontrivial Cases of Microsyntactic Ambiguity]. Slavia, 68: 2/3, 230–243.Google Scholar
Iordanskaja, Lidija & Mel’čuk, Igor. 1995. Traitement lexicographique de deux connecteurs textuels du français contemporain: ˹en fait˺ vs ˹en rÉalitÉ˺. In Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot & Lucien Kupferman, eds, Tendances récentes en linguistique française et générale (volume dédié à David Gaatone), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Semantics of the Russian Conjunction poka ‘while, before, until’. In Tilmann Berger, Markus Giger, Sybille Kurt & Imke Mendoza, eds, Von grammatischen Kategorien und sprachlichen Weltbildern – Slavia von der Sprachgeschichte bis zur Politsprache. Festschrift für Daniel Weiss zum 60. Gebursttag, München – Wien, 233–262 [= Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 73].Google Scholar
. 2011. Illocutive Parenthetical Verbs in Russian. In Igor Boguslavsky & Leo Wanner, eds, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory, Barcelona, September 8–9 2011, 120–133. See also: [URL]
. 2021a. Minimodel of Semantic Synthesis of Russian Sentences. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 44: 1, 102–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021b. Names of Feelings in the Dictionary. International Journal of Lexicography, 35: 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
. 2021c. Neobyčnye russkie parnye podčinitelʹnye sojuzy (tipa ne uspel…, kak… ili edva…, kak…) [Some Unusual Russian Binary Subordinating Conjunctions (of the Type of ne uspel…, kak… ≈ ‘no sooner…, than…’ or edva…, kak… ≈ ‘no sooner…, than…’)]. Izvestija Rossijskoj Akademii nauk. Serija literatury i jazyka, 80: 4, 5–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2008. Construction After Construction and its Theoretical Challenges. Language, 84: 1, 8–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura, Kopotev, Mihail & Nesset, Tore. 2020. Constructions, their Families and their Neighborhoods: The Case of durak durakom ‘a fool times two’. Russian Linguistics, 44: 1, 109–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard & Manandise, Esmeralda. 1984. Zero Really is Nothing. Basque Evidence against “Ø-morphemes” (and Also against “Morphologically-Conditioned Phonological Rules”). Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics [= ESCOL-84], 222–237.Google Scholar
Kajgorodova, Irina. 1999. Problemy sintaksičeskoj idiomatiki: na materiale russkogo jazyka [Problems of Syntactic Idioms: Based on Russian Material]. [PhD Thesis].
Kleiber, Georges. 2000. Sur le sens des proverbes. Langages, 34, Nº 139, 39–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Proverbes : transparence et opacité. Meta, 55:1, 136–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Jean-René & Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2011. Routines conversationnelles et figement. In Jean-Claude Anscombre & Salah Mejri, eds, Le figement linguistique : la parole entrâvée, Paris: Honoré Champion, 195–209.Google Scholar
Kopotev, Mixail. 2005. ГУЛЯТЬ ТАК ГУЛЯТЬ: between Grammar and Dictionary. In Jurij Apresjan & Leonid Iomdin, eds, East West Encounter. Second International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory, Moscow: Slavic Culture Languages Publishing House, 225–236.Google Scholar
. 2008. Principy sintaksičeskoj idiomatizacii [Principles of Syntactic Idiomatization]. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar
Kopotev, Mixail & Fajnvejc, Aleksandra. 2007. Izučatʹ tak izučatʹ: sinxronija i diaxronija [Izučatʹ tak izučatʹ: Synchrony and Diachrony]. Naučno-texničeskaja informacija, serija 2. Informacionnye processy i sistemy, № 9, 103–123.Google Scholar
Kopotev, Mixail & Steksova, Tatʹjana. 2016. Isključenie kak pravilo: perexodnye edinicy v grammatike i slovare [An Exception as a Rule: Intermediate Units in the Grammar and the Lexicon]. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʹtury. Rukopisnye pamjatniki Drevnej Rusi.Google Scholar
Krejdlin, Grigorij. 1994. Ob odnoj lakune v sisteme russkix mestoimenij: vosklicatelʹnye mestoimenija russkogo jazyka [On a Lacuna in the System of Russian Pronouns: Exclamative Pronouns in Russian]. Rusistika segodnja, № 1, 56–65.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1984. Formulaicity, Frame Semantics, and Pragmatics in German binomial expressions. Language, 60: 4, 753–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim, Su-Ën. 2001. Principy lingvističeskogo opisanija sintaksičeskix frazeologizmov: na materiale sintaksičeskix frazeologizmov s obščim značeniem ocenki [Principles of Linguistic Description of Syntactic Phraseologisms: Syntactic Phraseologisms with the General Meaning of Evaluation]. [PhD thesis]. Moskva/Volgograd.
Lubensky, Sophia. 1995. Russian–English Dictionary of Idioms. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Makkai, Adam. 1972. Idiom Structure in English. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1959. Studies in Irreversible Binomials. Lingua, 8, 113–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malyj Akademičeskij slovarʹ. 1984. Slovarʹ russkogo jazyka [Dictionary of Russian Language]. Moskva: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igorʹ. 1960. O terminax “ustojčivost’” i “idiomatičnost’” [On the Terms “Fixedness” and “Idiomaticity”]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, № 4, 73–80.Google Scholar
. 1964. Obobščenie ponjatija frazeologizma (morfologičeskie “frazeologizmy”) [Generalizing the Notion of Phraseologism (Morphological “Phraseologisms”)]. In Leonid Rojzenzon, ed., Materialy konferencii “Aktualʹnye voprosy sovremennogo jazykoznanija i lingvističeskoe nasledie E.D. Polivanova” [Proceedings of the Conference “Current Problems in Modern Linguistics and the Linguistic Heritage of E.D. Polivanov”], vol. I, Samarkand: Samarkandskij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet, 89–90.Google Scholar
. 1974. Opyt teorii lingvističeskix modelej tipa Smysl ⇔Tekst [Outline of a Theory of Meaning-Text Type Linguistic Models]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor. 1982. Towards a Language of Linguistics. A System of Formal Notions for Theoretical Morphology. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
. 1987. Un affixe dérivationnel et un phrasème syntaxique du russe moderne. Essai de description formelle. Revue des études slaves, 59: 3, 631–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice, Albany, N.Y.: The SUNY Press.Google Scholar
. 1993–2000. Cours de morphologie générale, vols. 1–5. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal / Paris: CNRS Éditions.Google Scholar
. 1995. Phrasemes in Language and Phraseology in Linguistics. In Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, André Schenk & Rob Schreuder, eds, Idioms. Structural and Psychological Perspectives, Hillsdale, N.J. – Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 167–232.Google Scholar
. 1996. Lexical Functions: A Tool for the Description of Lexical Relations in the Lexicon. In Leo Wanner, ed., Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 37–102.Google Scholar
. 1998. Collocations and Lexical Functions. In Antony Cowie, ed., Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–53.Google Scholar
. 2001. Communicative Organization in Natural Language. The Semantic-Communicative Structure of Sentences. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Levels of Dependency in Linguistic Description: Concepts and Problems. In Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig Eichinger, Hans Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Herringer & Henning Lobin, eds, Dependency and Valency. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, vol. 1, Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 188–229.Google Scholar
. 2004. La non-compositionnalité en morphologie linguistique. Verbum, 26: 4, 439–458. See also: [URL]
. 2006a. Aspects of the Theory of Morphology. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary. In Giandomenico Sica, ed., Open Problems in Linguistics and Lexicography, Monza (Italy): Polimetrica Publisher, 225–355. See also: [URL]
. 2006c. Parties du discours et locutions. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 101: 1, 29–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Lexical Functions. In Harald Burger et al., eds, Phraseologie/ Phraseology: Ein Internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung / An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 119–131.Google Scholar
. 2008. Zero Affixes and Nominal Cases in Daghestanian Languages. In Aleksandr Arxipov, Leonid Zaxarov, Andrej Kibrik, Aleksandr Kibrik, Irina Kobozeva, Olʹga Krivnova, Ekaterina Ljutikova & Olʹga Fëdorova, eds, Fonetika i nefonetika. K 70-letiju Sandro V. Kodzasova, Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskix kulʹtur.Google Scholar
. 2009. Dependency in Natural Language. In Alain Polguère & Igor Mel’čuk, eds, Dependency in Linguistic Description, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012a. Phraseology in the Language, in the Dictionary, and in the Computer. Yearbook of Phraseology, 3, 31–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Mestoimennye vyraženija s imenem čertyxatelʹnym tipa [Ona uexala] čërt znaet kuda i im podobnye v russkom jazyke [Pronominal Expressions with a «Blasphemous» Name of the Type [On uexala] čërt znaet kuda ‘She left for devil knows where’ and Similar Ones in Russian]. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii, № 2 (№ 24), 5–22.Google Scholar
. 2012–2015. Semantics: From Meaning to Text. Volumes 1–3. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Clichés, an Understudied Subclass of Phrasemes. Yearbook of Phraseology, 6, 55–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Dependency Structure of Binary Conjunctions (of the IF…, THEN… Type). In Simonetta Montemagni & Joakim Nivre, eds, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling2017), 127–134.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Wordlets”: One of Zholkovsky’s Major Contributions to the Notion of Deep-Syntactic Structure. In Dennis Ioffe, Marcus Levitt, Joe Peschio, & Igor Pilshchikov, eds, A/Z: Essays in Honor of Alexander Zholkovsky, Boston: Academic Studies Press, 350–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019a. KAK …, TAK I …: Syntactic Description of Binary Conjunctions in Russian. In Dmitrij Gerasimov, Sergej Dmitrenko & Natalʹja Zaika, eds, Sbornik statej k 85-letiju V. S. Xrakovskogo, Moskva: Izdatelʹskij dom JaSK, 349–360.Google Scholar
. 2019b. Russian U Y-a estʹ/– X Constructions. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii, № 1 (№ 37), 7–45.Google Scholar
. 2020. Clichés and Pragmatemes. Neophilologica, No. 32, 9–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021a. Morphemic and Syntactic Phrasemes. Yearbook of Phraseology, 12, 33–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021b. Ten Studies in Dependency Syntax. Berlin: Mouton/de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Reduplicative Surface-Syntactic Relations in the Perspective of General Syntax. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 26: 4, 881–907. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. Čto èto za X? ‘What is this X?’. In Svetlana Pereverzeva, ed., Grani estestvennogo jazyka i kinesiki. Sbornik statej k 75-letiju G. E. Krejdlina. Moskva: Labirint, 155–163.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor & Milićević, Jasmina. 2020. An Advanced Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor & Pertsov, Nikolaj. 1987. Surface Syntax of English. A Formal Model within the Meaning-Text Framework, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor & Polguère, Alain. 2018. Theory and Practice of Lexicographic Definition. Journal of Cognitive Science, 19: 4, 417–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Les fonctions lexicales dernier cri. In Sébastien Marengo, ed., La Theorie Sens-Texte et ses applications. Concepts-clés et applications, Paris: L’Harmattan, 73–153.Google Scholar
Monti, Johanna, Mitkov, Ruslan, Corpas Pastor, Gloria & Seretan, Violeta, eds. 2013. Workshop Proceedings for Multi-word Units in Machine Translation and Translation Technologies (Organised at the 14th Machine Translation Summit). Allschwil: The European Association for Machine Translation.Google Scholar
Moon, Rosamund. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 1972. The Insertion of Idioms. Chicago Linguistic Society, 8: 294–302.Google Scholar
. 1974. The Regularity of Idiom Behavior. Lingua, 34, 327–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikunlassi, Ahti. 2008. K voprosu o vosklicatelʹnyx konstrukcijax v russkom jazyke [Exclamative Constructions in Russian]. In Jouko Lindstedt et al., eds, Slavica Helsingiensia 35. S ljubovʹju k slovu. Festschrift in Honour of Professor Arto Mustajoki on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 252–261.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A. & Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language, 70: 3, 491–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pausé, Marie-Sophie. 2017. Structure lexico-syntaxique des locutions du français et incidence sur leur combinatoire. PhD Thesis, Université de Lorraine (Nancy). [URL]
Pausé, Marie-Sophie & Polguère, Alain. 2020. Séparation phraséologique : quand les locutions s’éclatent. Cahiers de lexicologie, n° 116, 233–271.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Jeff. 2011. Compositionality. In Oxford Bibliographies, [URL]. DOI logo
Pike, Kenneth. 1961. Compound Affixes in Ocaina. Language, 37: 4, 570–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Podlesskaja, Vera. 2007. Mnogoznačnostʹ konstrukcii “Čto plus za plus imennaja gruppa” v svete dannyx Nacionalʹnogo korpusa russkogo jazyka: čto že èto za konstrukcija [A Family of chto ‘what’ + za ‘for’ + NP Constructions in Russian: A Corpus Analysis]. In Leonid Iomdin, Natalʹja Laufer, Aleksandr Narinʹjani & Vladimir Selegej, eds, Kompʹjuternaja lingvistika i intellektualʹnye texnologii: Trudy meždunarodnoj konferencii “Dialog 2007”, Moskva: Izdatelʹstvo RGGU, 460–469.Google Scholar
Polguère, Alain. 2015a. Lexical Contextualism: The Abélard Syndrome. In Núria Gala, Reinhard Rapp & Gemma Bel-Enguix, eds, Language Production, Cognition, and the Lexicon, “Text, Speech and Language Technology” 48, Cham/Heidelberg/New York/ Dordrecht/London: Springer, 53–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. Non-compositionnalité : ce sont toujours les locutions faibles qui trinquent. Verbum, 37: 2, 257–280.Google Scholar
. 2016a. Il y a un traître par minou : le statut lexical des clichés linguistiques. Corela [online], HS-19 | [URL]. DOI logo
. 2016b. Lexicologie et sémantique lexicale. Notions fondamentales. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Traitement lexicographique des collocations à collocatif actanciel. In Inès Sfar & Pierre-André Buvet, eds, La phraséologie entre fixité et congruence. Hommage à Salah Mejri. Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia-L’Harmattan, 265–287.Google Scholar
Quang Phuc Dong [= McCawley, James]. 1971. The Applicability of Transformations to Idioms. Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 198–205.Google Scholar
Raxilina, Ekaterina, ed. 2010. Grammatika konstrukcij [Construction Grammar]. Moskva: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Rey, Alain & Chantreau, Sophie. 1993. Dictionnaire des expressions et locutions. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Russell. 2009. Tautological Constructions in English… and Beyond. [URL]
Ruhl, Charles. 1980. The noun ICE. In James Copeland & Philip Davis, eds, The Seventh LACUS Forum, Columbia, SC: Hornbeam, 257–269.Google Scholar
Rygaloff, Alexis. 1973. Grammaire élémentaire du chinois. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Savvina, Elena. 1984. O transformacijax kliširovannyx vyraženij v reči [On Transformations of Clichéed Expressions in Speech]. In Grigorij Permjakov, ed., Paremiologičeskie issledovanija, Moskva: Nauka, 200–222.Google Scholar
Schenk, André. 1992. The Syntactic Behaviour of Idioms. In Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, André Schenk and Rob Schreuder, eds, Proceedings of IDIOMS (vol. 1), ITK, Tilburg, 97–110.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna, Conklin, Kathy, Caffarra, Sendy, Kaan, Edith, & Heuven, Walter J. B. van. 2017. Representation and Processing of Multi-Word Expressions in the Brain. Brain and language, 175: 111–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorhus, Helen. 1977. To Hear Ourselves – Implications for Teaching English as a Second Language. English Language Teaching Journal, 33: 3, 211–2321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šmelëv, Aleksej. 2012. Suppletivizm ili sinonimija? [Suppletion or Synonymy?] In Jurij Apresjan, ed., Smysly, teksty i drugie zaxvatyvajuščie sjužety: sbornik statej v čestʹ 80-letija I.A. Mel’čuka, Мoskva: Jazyki slavjanskix kulʹtur, 573–586.Google Scholar
Šmelëv, Dmitrij. 1960. O «svjazannyx» sintaksičeskix konstrukcijax v russkom jazyke [On “Bound” Syntactic Constructions in Russian]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, № 5, 47–60.Google Scholar
Švedova, Natalʹja. 1960. Očerki po sintaksisu russkoj razgovornoj reči [Essays on the Syntax of Colloquial Russian]. Moskva: AN SSSR.Google Scholar
, ed. 1970. Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka [Grammar of Modern Literary Russian]. Moskva: AN SSSR.Google Scholar
, ed. 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Tom II. Sintaksis [Russian Grammar. Vol. II. Syntax]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tamba, Irène. 2011. Sens figé : idiomes et proverbes. In Jean-Claude Anscombre & Salah Mejri, eds, Le figement linguistique: la parole entrâvée, Paris: Honoré Champion, 109–126.Google Scholar
Testelec, Jakov & Bylinina, Elizaveta. 2005a. O nekotoryx konstrukcijax so značeniem neoprede-lennyx mestoimenij v russkom jazyke: amagalʹmy i kvazireljativy [Constructions with the Meaning of Indefinite Pronouns in Russian: Amalgams and Quasirerlatives]. Moskva: Seminar “Teoretičeskaja semantika”, IPPI RAN, 15.04.2005. [URL]
Testelets, Yakov & Bylinina, Elizaveta. 2005b. Sluicing-based Indefinites in Russian. In Steven Franks, Frank Gladney & Mila Tasseva-Kurkchieva, eds, Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 13: The South Carolina Meeting, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, 355–364.Google Scholar
Veličko, Alla. 1996. Sintaksičeskaja frazeologija dlja russkix i inostrancev [Syntactic Phraseology for Russians and Foreigners]. Moskva: Moskovskij Gosudarstvennyj universitet.Google Scholar
Vilinbaxova, Elena & Kopotev, Mixail. 2017. «Х estʹ Х» značit «Х èto Х»? Iščem otvet v sinxronii i diaxronii [Does «Х estʹ Х» Mean «Х èto Х»? Let Us Look for an Answer in Synchrony and Diachrony]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, № 3, 110–124.Google Scholar
Vinogradov, Vladimir. 1977 [1953]. Osnovnye tipy leksičeskix značenij slova [Major Types of Lexical Senses of a Word]. In Vladimir Vinogradov, Izbrannye trudy. Leksikologija i leksikografija, Moscow: Nauka, 162–161.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, Sag, Ivan & Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1983. Idioms: An Interim Report. In Shiro Hattori and Kazuko Inoue, eds, Proceeding of the XIIIth Congress of Linguists, CIPL, Tokyo, 102–115.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1969. Problems in the Analysis of Idioms. In Jaan Puhvel, ed., Substance and Structure of Language, Berkeley – Los Angeles: University of California Press, 23–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1987. Boys will be boys – ‘Radical Semantics’ vs. ‘Radical Pragmatics.’ Language, 63: 1, 95–114. [See also in: Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 391–452.]Google Scholar
. 1996. Semantics. Primes and Universals. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2012. What Do We (Think We) Know About Formulaic Language? An Evaluation of the Current State of Play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32: 231–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Žolkovskij, Aleksandr. 1971. Sintaksis somali [Somali Syntax]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Žolkovskij, Aleksandr & Melʹčuk, Igorʹ. 1966. O sisteme semantičeskogo sinteza. I. Stroenie slovarja [On a System for Semantic Synthesis. I. Structure of the Dictionary]. Naučno-texničeskaja informacija, No. 11: 48–55.Google Scholar