Case in Russian

A sign-oriented approach

HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027215802 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027268167 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
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.

[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 70]  2015.  xiii, 182 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Abbreviations
xi
Transliteration
xiii
Introduction
1–6
Chapter 1. Columbia School theory
7–15
Chapter 2. Previous analyses of case
17–51
Chapter 3. The System of Contribution
53–80
Chapter 4. The System of Involvement
81–105
Chapter 5. Cases and prepositions
107–145
Chapter 6. Text analysis
147–165
Concluding remarks
167
References
169–177
Index of names
179–180
Suject index
181–182
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Durst-Andersen, Per & Elena Lorentzen
2017. Pure case and prepositional case in Russian. Russian Linguistics 41:2  pp. 177 ff. Crossref logo
Durst-Andersen, Per & Elena Lorentzen
2018. The Russian Locative and Accusative and Their Relation to Time and Space. Scando-Slavica 64:2  pp. 200 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 october 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Adger, D.
(2003) Core syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J.M.
(1971) The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics; 4). Cambridge, UK: University Press.Google Scholar
(1977) On Case Grammar: Prolegomena to a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London Atlantic Highlands: Croom Helm Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, E.
(1990) Markedness Theory. London: Duke University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Apresjan, V.Y.
(1995)  Dlja i Radi: Sxodstva i Razlichija. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 3, 17–27.Google Scholar
Babby, L.H.
(1980) Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian (Linguistica extranea. Studia; 8). Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
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
(1987) Case, Prequantifiers, and Discontinuous Agreement in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5, 91–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989) Reviewed work(s): The Role of Case in Russian Syntax by Carol Neidle. Language, 65(4), 832–838. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Three-case Prepositions in Polish: The Semantics of po. LACUS Forum, 25, 137–147.Google Scholar
(2002) On the Image-Schema Proposals for the Preposition PO in Polish. Glossos, 3, 1–19. www​.seelrc​.org​/glossos​/issues​/3/.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J.
(1995) Configurational Case Assignment in Russian Syntax”. The Linguistic Review, 12(4), 315–360. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R.J., and Pickering M.J.
(2009) Persistence of Emphasis in Language Production: A cross-linguistic approach. Cognition, 112, 300–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Blake, F.R.
(1930) A Semantic Analysis of Case. Language, 6(4), 34–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borkovsky, V.I., & Kuznetsov, P.S.
(1965) Istoricheskaja Grammatika Russkogo Jazyka (2nd ed.). Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Borschev, V., & Partee, B.H.
(1999) Semantic Type and the Russian Genitive Modifier Constructions. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting (pp. 39–57). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borschev, V.., et al.
Russian Genitives, Non-Referentiality, and the Property-Type Hypothesis. Retrieved 12/04/2011, from https://​udrive​.oit​.umass​.edu​/partee​/FASL16FinalForPrinting​.pdf.
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
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
Butt, M.
(2006) Theories of case (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W.L.
(1970) Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1981) Lectures on Government and Binding (Studies in generative grammar; 9). Dordrecht, Holland; Cinnaminson, [N.J.]: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
(1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(1997) Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diver, W.
(1974) Substance and value in linguistic analysis. Semiotexte, 1(2), 13–30.Google Scholar
(1981) On defining the discipline. Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 59–117.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Dowty, D.
(1991) Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Aelection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dreer, I.
(2007) Expressing the Same by the Different: The Subjunctive vs the Indicative in French. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
(1970) Types of Lexical Information. In F. Kiefer (Ed.), Studies in Syntax and Semantics (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
(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
(1977) The Case for Case Reopened. In P. Cole & J.M. Sadock (Eds.), Grammatical Relations (pp. 59–81). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Franks, S.
(1994) Parametric Properties of Numeral Phrases in Slavic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 597–674. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, N.
(1990) Russian Reflexive Verbs: In Search of Unity in Diversity. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Goddard, C.
(1998) Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction (Oxford textbooks in linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2003)Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Latest perspectives. Theoretical Linguistics, 29(3), 227–236.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gorshkova, K.V., & Khaburgajev, G.A.
(1981) Istoricheskaja Grammatika Russkogo Jazyka. Moskva: Vysshaja Shkola.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gradinarova, A., & Zaretsky, E.
(2009) Tranzitivatsija Russkix Glagolov po novym medeljam: Jazykovaja Tendentsija ili Igra so Slovom? Retrieved 21/04/2011, http://​journals​.slavica​.org​/index​.php​/bulrus​/article​/view​/243​/381.
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
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
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
Heine, B.
(1997) Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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
Hornstein, N.
(2001) Move!: A Minimalist Theory of Construal (Generative Syntax; 5). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huffman, A.
(1997) The Categories of Grammar: French lui and le. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Israeli, A.
(1995) Syntactic and Pragmatic Studies of the Reflexive Verbs in Russian. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1936) Beitrag zur Allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutung der Russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 4, 240–288.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1985) K obshchemu Ucheniju o Padezhe: Obshcheje Znachenije Russkogo Padezha. In V.A. Zvegintsev (Ed.), Izbrannyje Raboty (pp. 133–175). Moskva: Progress.Google Scholar
(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
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. http://​www​.hum​.uit​.no​/lajanda​/mypubs​/Borderzones2​.docGoogle Scholar
Janda, L.A., & Clancy, S.J.
(2002) The Case Book for Russian. Bloomington, Ind.: Slavica.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1933) Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kagan, O.
(2005) Genitive Case: A Modal Account. In Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, 21 (IATL 21).
(2007) On the Semantics of Structural Case. Hebrew University.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, M.
(2002) The Use of Different Cases with Russian Verbs of Similar Meaning. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 22(2), 191–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kamynina, A.A.
(1999) Sovremennyj Russikij Jazyk. Morfologija. Moskva: Moskovskij Univer-
sitet.Google Scholar
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
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
Klenin, E.
(1975) The Pronoun sebja, Particle sebe, and Affix -sja. The Slavic and East European Journal, 19(2), 188–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Korn, D.
(1967) Case Selection: Genitive or Accusative after Negation in Contemporary Russian? Moderm Language Reviw, 62(3), 486–497. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krasovitsky A., Long, A., Baerman, M., Brown, D., & Corbett, G
(2008) Predicate nouns in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 32, 99–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz
J (1936) Dérivation Lexicale et Dérivation Syntactique. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris, 37, 79–92.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J.
(1949) Le problème du Classement des Cas. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego, 9, 20–43.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1986) An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J.S.
(1984) On the Dative of Possession in Contemporary Russian. The Slavic and East European Journal, 28(4), 493–501. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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
Lomtev, T.P.
(1954) Iz istorii sintaksisa russkogo Jazyka (Voprosy sovetskogo Jazykoznanija). Moskva: Gos. uchebno-pedogicheskoe izd-vo ministerstva prosveshchenija RSFSR.Google Scholar
Mal’chukov, A.L., & Spencer, A.
(2009) The Oxford handbook of case (Oxford handbooks in linguistics). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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
Mel’čuk, I.
(1988) Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice (SUNY series in linguistics). Albany: State University Press of New York.Google Scholar
(1998) Kurs Obshchej Morfologii (Plungjan, Trans. 2). Moskva: Jazyki Russkoj Kul’tury.Google Scholar
(2006) Aspects of the Theory of Morphology (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs; 146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Mikhailov, V.
(2007) Russian Copular Sentences: Case and Information Structure. [Beer Sheva]: [s.n.].Google Scholar
Mishlanov, V.A.
(2002) Glagol Byt’ v Russkom Sintaksisje. Retrieved 21/04/2011, http://​
language​.psu​.ru​/bin​/view​.cgi​?art​=0067​&lang​=rus.
Moore, J. & Perlmutter, D.M.
(2000) What Does It Take to be a Dative Subject? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 18, 373–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muravenko, E.V.
(2006) O Sintaksicheskix Arxaizmax. In Izmenenija v Jazyke i v Kommunikatsii: XXI Vek (pp. 209–224). Moskva: Izd-vo RGGU.
Muravenko, E., & Kalyuga, M.
(2008) Sistema i Uzuz v Istorii Glagola Skuchat’. Vestik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta, 3(13), 72–84.Google Scholar
Neidle, C.J.
(1982a) The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
(1982b) Case Agreement in Russian. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations (pp. 391–426). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1988) The role of Case in Russian Syntax (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic theory; [v. 10]). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nekrasov, N.P.
(1865) O Znachenii Form Russkago Glagola. Sanktpeterburg: V tipografii I. Paul’sona i ko.Google Scholar
New Oxford American Dictionary (version 2.1.3 (80.4)) [software] (2005–2009) Apple Inc.Google Scholar
Nilsen, D.L.F.
(1972) Toward a Semantic Specification of Deep Case (Janua Linguarum. Series Minor; 152). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
(1973) The Instrumental Case in English: Syntactic and Semantic Considerations (Janua Linguarum. Series Minor; 156). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, J.
(2004) Russian Cardinal Numerals: Meaning, Morphology, and Syntax. Scando-Slavica, 50, 75–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ozhegov, S.I., & Shvedova, N.
(1982) Slovar’ Russkogo Jazyka (Izd. 14-e, stereotipnoe. ed.). Moskva: Russkij Jazyk.Google Scholar
Panov, M.V.
(1968) Russkij Jazyk i Sovetskoje Obshchestvo: Sotsiologo-lingvisticheskoje Issledovanije. Morfologija i Sintaksis Sovremennogo Russkogo Literaturnogo Jazyka. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
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
Pattabhiraman, T.
(1992) Aspects of Salience in Natural Language Generation. Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Pavlović, V.
(2010) Cognitive Linguistics and English Language Teaching at English Departments. Linguistics and Literature, 8(1), 79–90.Google Scholar
Perelmutter, R.
(2005) Case Choice in Russian Genitive/Nominative Absence Constructions. Russian Linguistics, 29(3), 319–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya
(1998) Genitive of Negation in Russian. In Proceedings of IATL 13 , pp. 167–190.
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
Peshkovsky, A.M.
(1956) Russkij Sintaksis v Nauchnom Osveshchenii. (Izd. 7. ed.). Moskva: Gos. uchebno-pedagog. izd-vo.Google Scholar
Portner, P., & Partee, B.H.
(2002) Formal semantics: The essential readings. Oxford: Malden, MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Potebnja, A.A.
(1874) Iz Zapisok po Russkoj Grammatike (V. 1). Voronezh: N. D. Goldshtein.Google Scholar
RAN, In-t Lingvistich. Issledovanij
(Ed.) (1999) Tolkovyj Slovar’ Russkogo Jazyka. (4-e izd., ster. ed. Vol. 4). Moskva: Russkij Jazyk.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Riemer, N.
(2006) Reductive Paraphrase and Meaning: A Critique of Wierzbickian Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 347–379. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rozental’, D.E.
(1976) Sovremennyj Russkij Jazyk. Vol. 2, Syntax. Moscow: Vysshaja Shkola, 37.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B.
(1996) The Polish Dative. In W. v. Belle & W. v. Langendonck (Eds.), The Dative (pp. 341–394). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. http://​www​.seelrc​.org​/glossos​/issues​/3​/saric​.pdfGoogle Scholar
(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
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
(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
(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
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
(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
Shakhmatov, A.A.
(1963) Sintaksis Russkogo Jazyka. (Slavistic printings and reprintings, 41). Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
(1957) Istoricheskaja Morfologija Russkogo Jazyka. Moskva: Uchebno-pedagogicheskoje izdatel’stvo ministerstva prosvheshchenija RSFSR.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F.
(1916) Cours de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
(1983) Course in General Linguistics. (C. Bally, A. Sechehaye, A. Riedlinger, Eds., & R. Harris, Trans.) London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Shvedova, N., et al.
(1980) Russkaja Grammatika. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
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
Součkova, K.
(2004) Measure prefixes in Czech: Cumulative na- and Delimitative po-. Universitetet i Tromsø.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A.
(1975) Hierarchies in the Genitive of Negation. The Slavic and East European Journal, 19(2), 123–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Tobin, Y.
(1985) Case Morphology and Language Teaching Revisited. Papers in Linguistics, 18(2), 259–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) Semiotics and Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
(1993) Aspect in the English verb: Process and result in language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Phonology as Human Behavior: Applying Theory to the Clinic. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, 12(2), 115–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tolskaya, I.
(2007)Unifying prepositions and Prefixes in Russian: Conceptual Structure versus Syntax. Nordlyd, 34(2), 345–370.Google Scholar
Townsend, C.E.
(1967) Voice and Verbs in –sja. The Slavic and East European Journal, 11(2), 196–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J.
(1998) Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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
Valgina, N.S.
(2000) Sintaksis sovremennogo russkogo jazyka: Učebnik. Moskva: Agar.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D.
(2001) An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vinogradov, V.V.
(2001) Russkij Jazyk (Grammaticheskoje Uchenije o Slove) (Izd. 4. ed.). 
Moskva: Russkij Jazyk.Google Scholar
Vinokur, G.O.
(2010) Istorija Russkogo Literaturnogo Jazyka. Moskva: Librokom.Google Scholar
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
(1992) A comprehensive Russian grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
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
Wheeler, M., Unbegaun, B.O., Costello, D.P., & Ryan, W.F.
(1972) The Oxford Russian-English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1972) Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt: AthenäumGoogle Scholar
(1980) The Case for Surface Case. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
(1992) Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-specific Configurations. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1996) Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(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
Zalizniak, A.A.
(1967) Russkoe Imennoe Slovoizmenenie. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
(1992) Issledovanija po Semantike Predikatov Vnutrennego Sostojanija (Slavistische Beiträge; 298). München: O. Sagner.Google Scholar
Zholobov, O.F.
(2002) Morfositaksis Chislitel’nyx Dva, Tri, Chetyre: K Istorii Malogo Kvantitativa. Russian Linguistics, 26, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G.K.
(1949) Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar
Zolotova, G.A.
(2001) Sintaksicheskij slovar’. Repertuar Elementarnyx Edinits Russkogo Sintaksisa. Iz-e 2-oe. Moskva.Google Scholar
Zubin, D.
(1972) The German Case System: Exploitation of the Dative-Accusative Opposition for Comment. Unpublished MA essay, Columbia University.Google Scholar
(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
(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

Corpus

Chekhov, A.P.
(1983) On i Ona (He and She). Retrieved 17/3/2008, http://​ilibrary​.ru​/text​/84​/p​.1​/index​.html.
Gaidar, A.P.
de Maupassant, G.
Stevenson, R.L.
(1962) The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde. London: J. M. Dent & Sons LTD.Google Scholar
. Strannaya Istoriya Doktora Dzhekila i Mistera Xajda. Retrieved 25/07/2006, http://​www​.lib​.com​.ua​/books​/5​/735n1​.html.
Tolstoy, L.N.
. The Death Of Ivan Ilyich. Retrieved 12/9/2006, http://​www​.classicallibrary​.org​/tolstoy​/ivan​/2​.htm. DOI: Crossref
Subjects
BIC Subject: CF/2AGR – Linguistics/Russian
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2015019272 | Marc record