From meaning to text

Volume 3

| University of Montreal
| University of Alberta
| Université de Lorraine, CNRS, ATILF
ISBN 9789027259332 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
ISBN 9789027268969 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
This book presents an innovative and novel approach to linguistic semantics, starting from the idea that language can be described as a mechanism for the expression of linguistic Meanings as particular surface forms, or Texts. Semantics is specifically that system of rules that ensures a transition from a Semantic Representation of the Meaning of a family of synonymous sentences to the Deep-Syntactic Representation of a particular sentence. Framed in the terms of Meaning-Text linguistics, the present volume closes the publication of the three volume series. It discusses in detail several linguistic notions crucial to the development of Meaning-Text models of natural languages: semantic and syntactic actants, government pattern, lexical functions, linguistic connotations, phrasemes, the meaning of grammatical cases, and linguistic dependencies. The notions under analysis are illustrated from a variety of languages. Reflecting the author’s life-long dedication to the study of the semantics and syntax of natural language, this book is a paradigm-shifting contribution to the language sciences, whose originality and daring will make it essential reading for linguists, anthropologists, semioticians, and computational linguists.
[Studies in Language Companion Series, 168]  2015.  xx, 546 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Author’s Foreword
Abbreviations and Notations
Part V Linguistic Excursuses
Government Pattern: Government in the Lexicon
Lexical Functions: Description of Lexical Relations in a Lexicon
Lexical Connotation
Do Nominal Cases Have Meaning?
Dependency in Language
Concluding Remarks
General Acknowledgments
Index of Terms, Names and Concepts
Index of Linguistic Items
Language Index
Definition Index


Abeillé, A.
(1988) Light verb constructions and extraction out of NP in Tree Adjoining Grammar. Chicago Linguistic Society, Papers from the 24-th Annual Regional Meeting, vol. I: 1–16.Google Scholar
(1995) The flexibility of French idioms: a representation with Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar. In Everaert et al.., eds. 1995: 15–42.
Abraham, W.
(1973) The Ethic Dative in German. In Kiefer, F. & Ruwet, N., eds., Generative Grammar in Europe, pp. 1–19. D. Reidel, Dordrecht. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ed. (1978) Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Agel, V., Eichinger, L., Eroms, H.-W., Hellwig, P., Heringer, H. J., & Lobin, H.
eds. (2003) Dependency and Valency. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, vol. 1, W. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
Allerton, D.
(1982) Valency and the English Verb. Academic Press, London etc.Google Scholar
Alonso Ramos, M.
(1995) Description lexicographique des verbes supports dans le Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire . In Labelle, J., ed., Lexiques-grammaires comparés et traitements automatiques (Actes du Deuxième colloque international LGC, Montréal, 1995), pp. 95–111. Montréal.Google Scholar
(1998) Étude sémantico-syntaxique des constructions à verbe support. PhD thesis, Université de Montréal, Montréal.
(2001a) Constructions à verbe support dans des langues SOV. bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 96(1): 79–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001b) Détermination, incorporation et phraséologie dans les constructions à verbe support. In: X. Blanco, P.-A. Buvet, Z. Gavriilidou, eds., Détermination et formalisation [= Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa, 23], pp. 51–65. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Hacia un diccionario de colocacionnes del español y su codificación. In Fernández Montraveta, A., Martí Antonín, A & Vásquez García, G., eds., Lexicografía computacional y semántica, pp. 11–34. Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona.Google Scholar
(2004a) Las construcciones con verbo de apoyo. Visor Libros, Madrid.Google Scholar
(2004b) Elaboración del Diccionario de colocaciones en español y sus aplicaciones. In Bataner, P. & de Cesaris, J., eds., De Lexicographia. Actes del I Symposium interna-cional de Lexicografia, pp. 149–162. IULA–Edicions Petició, Barcelona.Google Scholar
(2006) Towards a dynamic way of learning collocations in a second language. In Corino, C., Marello, E. & Onesti, C., eds., Proceedings of the Twelfth EURALEX International Congress, Vol. 2, pp. 909–923. Orso Alessandria, Torino.Google Scholar
(2007) Towards the synthesis of support verb constructions: Distribution of syntactic actants between the verb and the noun. In Wanner, ed. 2007: 97–137.
Alonso Ramos, M. & Tutin, A.
(1992) Les fonctions lexicales du Dictionnaire Explicatif et combinatoire pour l’étude de la cohésion lexicale. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 17(1): 161–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alonso Ramos, M., Tutin, A. & Lapalme, G.
(1992) Lexical functions of Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary for lexicalization in text generation. In Saint-Dizier, P. & Viegas, E., eds., Proceedings of the 2nd Seminar on Computational Lexical Semantics, pp. 157–168. IRIT, Toulouse.Google Scholar
Anderson, J.
(1977) On Case Grammar. Prolegomena to a Theory of Grammatical Relations. Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C.
(1986) Article zéro, termes de masse et représentation d’événements en français contemporain. In David, J. & Kleiber, G., eds., Déterminants : Syntaxe et sémantique [Recherches linguistiques XI], pp. 5–32. Université de Metz, Metz.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Ju
(1974) Leksičeskaja semantika. Sinonimičeskie sredstva jazyka [Lexical Semantics. Synonymic Means of Language]. Nauka, Moskva. [Reprinted: 1998. See also the updated translation: Apresjan, Ju., Lexical Semantics: User’s Guide to Contemporary Russian Vocabulary, 1992, Karoma, Ann Arbor, MI.]Google Scholar
(1979) K ponjatiju glagol´nogo upravlenija [On the notion of verbal government]. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, 3: 197–205.Google Scholar
(1992a) O novom slovare sinonimov russkogo jazyka [On a new dictionary of Russian synonyms]. Izvestija Rossijskoj Akademii Nauk, 51(1): 18–39.Google Scholar
(1994) O jazyke tolkovanij i semantičeskix primitivax [On lexicographic definition language and semantic primitives]. Izvestija Rossijskoj Akademii Nauk, 53(4): 27–40. [Reprinted in Apresjan 1995a: 466–484.]Google Scholar
(1995a) Izbrannye trudy. Tom II. Integral´noe opisanie jazyka i sistemnaja leksikografija [Selected Writings. Vol. II. Integrated Description of Language and Systematic Lexicography]. Škola «Jazyki russkoj kul´tury», Moskva.Google Scholar
(1995b) Konnotacii kak čast´ pragmatika slova [Connotations as part of the word’s pragmatics]. In Apresjan 1995a: 156–177.
(2001) O leksičeskix funkcijax semejstva REAL – FACT [Lexical Functions of the Real – Fact Family]. In Gruszcziński, W. ed., nie bez znaczenia... Prace ofiarowane Profesorowi Zygmuntowi Saloniemu z okazji jubileuszu 15 000 dni pracy naukowej, pp. 23–40. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku.Google Scholar
(2004a) O semantičeskoj nepustote i motivirovannosti glagol´nyx leksičeskix funkcij [On semantic non-emptiness and motivated character of verbal lexical functions]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, No. 4: 3–18.Google Scholar
(2004b) Akcional´nost´ i stativnost´ kak sokrovennye smysly (oxota na OKAZYVAT´) [Actionality and stativity as secret meanings (Hunting for OKAZYVAT´)]. In Apresjan, Ju. ed., Sokrovennye smysly. Slovo.Tekst. Kul´tura. Sbornik statej v čest´ N.D. Arutjunovoj, pp. 13–33. Jazyki slavjanskoj kul´tury, Moskva.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Ju., Boguslavskij, I., Iomdin, L., Krysin, L., Lazurskij, A., Pertsov, N., & Sannikov, V.
(1982) Tipy leksikografičeskoj informacii v Tolkovo-Kombinatornom Slovare [Types of lexical information in the Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary]. In Andrjuščenko, V. & Šaljapina, Z., eds., Aktual´nye voprosy praktičeskoj realizacii sistem avtomatičeskogo perevoda, Čast´ II, 129–187. Izdatel´stvo MGU, Moskva.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Ju. & Cinman, L.
(2002) Formal´naja model´ perefrazirovanija predloženij dlja sistem pererabotki tekstov na estestvennyx jazykax [A formal model of sentence paraphrasing for natural language text processing systems]. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii, No. 2 [= 4]: 102–146.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Ju., Djačenko P., Lazurskij, A. & Cinman, L.
(2007) O komp´juternom učebnike leksiki russkogo jazyka [On a computerized manual of Russian lexicon], Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii, 2(14): 48–112.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Ju. & Páll, E.
(1982) Orosz ige – magyar ige. Vonzatok és kapcsolódások [Russian Verb—Hungarian Verb. Government and Cooccurrence]. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Ju. & Iomdin, L.
eds. (2005) East West Encounter: Second International Conference on Meaning ⇔ Text Theory [MTT’05]. Jazyki slavjanskoj kul´tury, Moskva.
Apresjan, V.
(2013) Pri vsëm X-e: a corpus study of a Russian syntactic idiom with concessive meaning. In Apresjan, V., Iomdin, B. & Ageeva, eds., Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Meaning-Text Theory, Prague, August 30–31 2013, pp. 1–10. See also http://​meaningtext​.net​/mtt2013​/proceedings​_MTT13​.pdf
Bally, Ch
(1951) Traité de stylistique française 3, vol. 1. Georg/Klincksieck, Génève/Paris.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Y.
(1955) Idioms. In Locke, W. & Booth, A., eds., Machine Translation of Languages, pp. 183–193. Technology Press/Wiley, New York/London.Google Scholar
Bartmiński, J.
ed. (1988) Konotacja. Uniwersytet Marie Curie-Skłodowskej, Lublin.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Perry, J.
(1983) Situations and Attitudes. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London.Google Scholar
Baumgärtner, K.
(1965) Spracherklärung mit den Mitteln der Abhängigkeitsstruktur. beiträge zur Sprachkunde und Informationsverarbeitung, 5: 31–53.Google Scholar
(1970) Konstituenz und Dependenz. Zur Integration der beiden grammatischen Prinzipien. In Steger H., ed., Vorschläge zu einer strukturellen Grammatik des Deutschen, pp. 57–77. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Beck, D.
(1997) Theme, Rheme, and Communicative Structure in Lushootseed and Bella Coola. In Wanner, ed. 1997: 93–135.
(2002) The Typology of Parts of Speech Systems: The Markedness of Adjectives. Routledge, New York/London.Google Scholar
Beck, D. & Mel’čuk, I.
(2011) Morphological phrasemes and Totonacan verbal morphology. Linguistics, 49(1): 175–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Becker, J. D.
(1975) The phrasal lexicon. In Schank, R. & Nash-Webber, B.L., eds., Theoretical Issues in natural Language Processing, pp. 60–63. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L.
(1933) Language. Henry Holt, New York.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, P. & Hausmann, F. J.
eds. (2006) Collocations, corpus, dictionnaires [= Langue française, 150], pp. 66–83.Google Scholar
Boguslavskij, I.
(1985) Issledovanija po sintaksičeskoj semantike[ Studies in Syntactic Semantics ]. Nauka, Moskva.Google Scholar
(1990) Vnešnjaja i vnutrennjaja sfera dejstvija nekotoryx temporal´nyx obstojatel´stv [External and internal scope of some temporal circumstantials]. In Saloni, Z., ed., Metody formalne w opisie języków słowiańskich (Ju.D. Apresjanu k šestidesjatiletiju), pp. 137–148. Filija Uniwersyteta Warszawskiego w Białymstoku, Białystok.Google Scholar
(1996) Sfera dejstvija leksičeskix edinic [The Scope of Lexical Units]. Škola «Jazyki russkoj kul´tury», Moskva.Google Scholar
(2003) Zamečanija ob aktantnoj strukture adverbial´nyx derivatov [Remarks on actantial structure of adverbial derivatives]. In Honselaar, W., de Haard, E. & Weststeijn, W., eds., Die het kleine eert, is het grote weerd [Festschrift voor Adrie Barentsen], pp. 23–39. Pegasus, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
(2005) Valentnosti kvantornyx slov [Valences of quantifier words]. In Arutjunova, N., ed., Logičeskij analiz jazyka. Kvantifikativnyj aspekt jazyka, pp. 139–165. Indrik, Moskva.Google Scholar
Boguslavskij, I. & Iomdin, L.
(1982) Bezuslovnye oboroty i frazemy v Tolkovo-Kombinatornom Slovare [‘Unconditional Strings’ and phrasemes in the Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary]. In Andrjuščenko, V., ed., Aktual´nye voprosy praktičeskoj realizacii system avtomatičeskogo perevoda, Čast´ 2, pp. 210–223. Izdatel´stvo MGU, Moskva.Google Scholar
Bolkenstein, M.
(1979) Subject-to-Object raising in Latin? Lingua, 48: 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolshakov, I.
(2002) Surface syntactic relations in Spanish. In Gelbukh, A., ed., Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. Third International Conference (CICLing 2002, Mexico City, February 2002) [= Lecture notes in Computer Science. Volume 2276/2002], pp. 210–219. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Bonami, O.
(1999) Les constructions du verbe : le cas des groupes prépositionnels argumentaux. Analyse syntaxique, sémantique et lexicale. PhD thesis, Université Paris 7, Paris.
Borillo, A.
(1992) Lexical and syntactic properties in the lexicon: an example of predicative nouns. In Saint-Dizier, P. & Viegas, E., eds., Proceedings of the 2nd Seminar on Computational Lexical Semantics, pp. 26–34. IRIT, Toulouse.Google Scholar
Borkin, A.
(1973) To be and not to be. Chicago Linguistic Society, Papers from the 9-th Annual Regional Meeting, pp. 44–56.
Bosque Muñoz, I.
ed. (2004) Diccionario combinatorio práctico del español contem-poráneo. Ediciones SM, Madrid.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J.
ed. (1982) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London.Google Scholar
Burger, H., Dobrovol’skij, D., Kühn, P. & Norrick, N.
eds. (2007) Phraseology. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. W. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
Butt, M.
(1995) The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Cattell, R.
(1984) Composite Predicates in English. [ Syntax & Semantics 17]. Academic Press, Sydney etc.Google Scholar
Comrie, B.
(1989) Translatability and language universals. In Kefer, M. & van der Auwera, J., eds., Universals of Language [= belgian Journal of Linguistics, 4], pp. 53–67. Free University of Brussels, Brussels.Google Scholar
Corbett, G.
(1993) The head of Russian numeral expressions. In Corbett et al.., eds. 1993: 11–35.
Corbett, G., Fraser, N. & McGlashan, S.
eds. (1993) Heads in Grammatical Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, E.
(1967) Lexikalische Solidaritäten. Poetica, 1: 293–303.Google Scholar
Cowie, A.
ed. (1998) Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
(1995) Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic viewpoint. In St-Dizier, P. & Viegas, E., eds, Computational Lexical Semantics, pp. 33–39. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Čermák, F.
(2007) Idioms and morphology. In Burger et al.., eds. 2007: 20–26.
Dahl, Ö.
(1980) Some arguments for higher nodes in syntax: a reply to Hudson’s ‘Constituency and Dependency.’ Linguistics, 18(5/6): 485–488. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. & Dubinsky, S.
eds. (2001) Objects and Other Subjects. Grammatical Functions, Functional Categories and Configurationality. Kluwer, Dordrecht etc.Google Scholar
Defrancq, B.
(1988) Embedded intrrrogatives and coordination in French. Syntaxis, 1: 113–127.Google Scholar
Deribas, V.
(1975) Ustojčivye glagol´no-imennye sočetanija russkogo jazyka [ Set Verbnoun Phrases in Russian ]. Russkij jazyk, Moskva.Google Scholar
Dillon, G.
(1977) Introduction to Contemporary Linguistic Semantics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Dryer, M.
(1983) Direct objects in Kinyarwanda revisited. In Perlmutter, D., ed., Relational Grammar 1, pp. 129–140. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.Google Scholar
(1989) Plural words. Linguistics, 27: 865–895. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Durie, M.
(1985) A Grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a Dialect of north Aceh. Foris, Dordrecht/Cinnaminson.Google Scholar
Eichinger, L. & Eroms, H.-W.
eds. (1995) Dependenz und Valenz. H. Buske, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Elnitsky, L. & Mel’čuk, I.
(1984) Toward the lexicographic description of the cooccurrence of “parametric” lexemes in French and Russian: numerical value actants and degree modifiers. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 8(2): 269–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Engel, U.
(1977) Syntax der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Erich Schmidt, Berlin. [3rd rev. ed.: 1994.]Google Scholar
(1988) Deutsche Grammatik. Julius Groos, Heidelberg/Sansyusya, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Engel, U. & Schumacher, H.
(1976) Kleines Valenzlexicon deutscher Verben [Forschungsberichte des Instituts für deutsche Sprache, Mannheim, 31]. Gunter Narr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Engel, U.., et al.
(1983) Valenzlexicon Deutsch-Rumänisch – Dicţionar de valenţa german-român [= Deutsch im Kontrast, Band 3]. Julius Groos, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Erman, B. & Warren, B.
(2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1): 29–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N.
(1988) Odd topic marking in Kayardild. In Austin, P., ed., Complex Sentence Construction in Australian Languages, pp. 219–266. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, M., van der Linden, E.-J., Schenk, A. & Schreuder, R.
eds. (1995) Idioms. Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J./Hove, UK.Google Scholar
Faulhaber, S.
2011Verb Valency Patterns. A Challenge for Semantics-based Accounts. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feuillet, J.
ed. (1998) Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Ch
(1968) The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R.T., eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory, pp. 1–89. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York etc.Google Scholar
(1986) Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. berkeley Linguistics Society. Proceedings of the 12-th Annual Meeting, pp. 95–107.
Fillmore, Ch., Baker, C. & Sato, H.
(2002) Seeing arguments through transparent structures. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-3) , pp. 787–791. Las Palmas.
Fillmore, Ch., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of ‘let alone’. Language, 64(3): 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitialov, S.
(1962) O modelirovanii sintaksisa v strukturnoj lingvistike [On modeling syntax in structural linguistics]. In Šaumjan, S., ed., Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki, pp. 100–114. AN SSSR, Moskva.Google Scholar
(1968) Ob èkvivalentnosti grammatik NS i grammatik zavisimostej [On equivalence of Phrase-Structure Grammars and Dependency Grammars]. In Šaumjan, S., ed., Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki-1967, pp. 71–102. AN SSSR, Moskva.Google Scholar
Fleischer, W.
(1982) Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. VEB Bibliographisches Institut, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, T.
(1993) Using a bilingual computerized dictionary to retrieve support verbs and combinatorial information. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 42(1-4): 109–121.Google Scholar
Fraser, B.
(1970) Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language, 6(1): 22–42.Google Scholar
Gaatone, D.
(1988) Cette coquine de construction: remarques sur trois structures affectives du français. Travaux de linguistique, 17: 159–176.Google Scholar
(1992) Les verbes événémentiels et les dictionnaires, quelques observations. In Clas, A., ed., Le mot, les mots, les bons mots, pp. 95–108. Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Montréal.Google Scholar
Gaifman, H.
(1965) Dependency systems and phrase structure systems. Information and Control, 8: 304–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gamkrelidze, T. & Ivanov, V.
(1984) Indo-evropejskij jazyk i indo-evropejcy [Indo-European Language and Indo-Europeans], Tom II. Izdatel´stvo Tbilisskogo universiteta, Tbilisi.Google Scholar
Gary, J. & Keenan, E.
(1977) On collapsing grammatical relations in Universal Grammar. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J., eds., Grammatical Relations [= Syntax and Semantics, 8], pp. 83–120. Academic Press, New York etc.Google Scholar
Garza-Cuarón, B.
(1991) Connotation and Meaning. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.
(1990) Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistics, 1: 417–451. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giry-Schneider, J.
(1978) Les nominalisations en français. L’opérateur «faire» dans le lexique. Droz, Genève/Paris.Google Scholar
(1987) Les prédicats nominaux en français : les phrases à verbe-support. Droz, Genève/Paris.Google Scholar
Gladkij, A.
(1966) Lekcii po matematičeskoj lingvistike dlja studentov NGU [Lectures on Mathematical Linguistics for novosibirsk University Students]. Izd-vo Novosibirskogo Gos. Uiniversiteta, Novosibirsk. [French translation: Leçons de linguistique mathématique, fasc. 1, 1970, Paris.]Google Scholar
(1968) Ob opisanii sintaksičeskoj struktury predloženija [On description of the syntactic structure of sentences]. Computational Linguistics [Budapest], 7: 21–44.Google Scholar
(2007) Sintaksičeskie struktury estestvennogo jazyka v avtomatizirovannyx sistemax obščenija [Syntactic Structures of Natural Language in Automated Communication Systems]. Nauka, Moskva.Google Scholar
Godard, D.
(1996) Les phrases compléments de nom sont-elles des arguments ? In Flaux, N., Glatigny, M. & Samau, D., eds., Les noms abstraits : histoire et théories, pp. 301–311. Presses du Septentrion, Villeneuve d’Ascq.Google Scholar
Goralčíková, A.
(1973) On one type of dependency grammar. In Klein, W. & von Stechow, A., eds., Functional Generative Grammar in Prague, pp. 64–81. Scriptor, Kronenberg.Google Scholar
Green, G.
(1974) Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN/London.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M.
(1993) Le bon usage. Grammaire française. Duculot, Paris/Louvaine-laNeuve.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J.
(1990) Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA/London, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gross, M.
(1974) A remark about plural agreement between determiner and noun. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(4): 620–622.Google Scholar
(1981) Les bases empiriques de la notion de prédicat sémantique. Langage, 63: 7–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, F. & Tutin, A.
eds. (2003) Les collocations : analyse et traitement. [= Travaux et recherches en linguistique appliquée, Série E : Lexicologie et lexicographie, nº 1]. De Werelt, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Gutman, E. & Čeremisina, M.
(1972) Zoomorfizmy v sovremennom francuzskom jazyke v sopostavlenii s russkim [Zoomorphisms in Modern French compared to Russian]. In Kuprejanova, V., ed., V pomošč´ prepodavateljam inostrannyx jazykov, 3, pp. 42–52. Nauka, Novosibirsk.Google Scholar
(1975) Soderžanie obraza «lošad´» ‘cheval’ v russkix i francuzskix tekstax [The content of the notion of “HORSE” in Russian and French texts]. In Kuprejanova, V., ed., V pomošč´ prepodavateljam inostrannyx jazykov, 6, pp. 56–70. Nauka, Novosibirsk.Google Scholar
Günther, E. & Förster, W.
(1987) Wörterbuch verbaler Wendungen. Deutsch-Russisch. Eine Sammlung verbal-nominaler Fügungen. Enzyklopädie, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Hagège, C.
(1983) Pour le retour d’exil des périphériques. Modèles linguistiques, 5(1): 107–116.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(1993) A Grammar of Lezgian. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hays, D.
(1960) basic Principles and Technical Variations in Sentence Structure Determination. Santa Monica, CA. [Reprinted in Cherry, C., ed., Information Theory, 1961, pp. 367–374. Butterworth, London.]Google Scholar
(1964a) Connectability calculations, syntactic functions and Russian syntax. Machine Translation, 8: 32–51. [Reprinted in Hays, D., ed., Readings in Automatic Language Processing, 1966, pp. 107–125. Elsevier, New York.]Google Scholar
(1964b) Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations. Language, 40(4): 511–525. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Helbig, G.
(1992) Probleme der Valenzund Kasustheorie. Niemeyer, Tübingen. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Helbig, G. & Schenkel, W.
(1983) Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. Niemeyer, Tübingen. [First edition: 1969.]Google Scholar
Hendriks, P.
(1980) Lexical functions in Albanian and Macedonian. In Barentsen, A., Groen, B. & Spreuger, R., eds., Studies in Slavic and General Linguistic (Festschrift Carl Ebeling), vol. 1, pp. 161–170. Instituut Jan M. Meijer, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Heringer, H. J.
(1970) Einige Ergebnisse und Probleme der Dependenzgrammatik. Der Deutschunterricht, 4: 42–98.Google Scholar
(1996) Deutsche Syntax Dependentiell. Stafenburg, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Herslund, M.
(1988) Le datif en français. Peeters, Louvain/Paris.Google Scholar
Hewson, J.
(1991) Determiners as heads. Cognitive Linguistics, 2(4): 317–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Ch
(1958) A Course in Modern Linguistics. MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
Hong, Ch.-S.
(1995) Description du lexique français dans le modèle Sens ⇔ Texte. The Journal of Humanities, No. 6: 15–45.Google Scholar
Hudson, R.
(1980a) Constituency and dependency. Linguistics, 18(3/4): 179–198.Google Scholar
(1980b) A second attack on constituency: A reply to Dahl. Linguistics, 18(5/6): 489–504.Google Scholar
(1984) Word Grammar. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
(1988a) Coordination and grammatical relations. Journal of Linguistics, 24: 303–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988b) Extraction and grammatical relations. Lingua, 76: 177–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) English Word Grammar. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
(1993a) Do we have heads in our minds? In: Corbett et al., eds. 1993: 266–291.
(1993b) Recent developments in Dependency Theory. In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternfeld, W. & Vennemann, T., eds. Syntax. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, pp. 329–338. W. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
Hyman, L.
(1977) The syntax of body parts. In Byarushengo, E., Duranti, A. & Hyman, L., eds., Haya Grammatical Structure, pp. 99–117. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, A.
(2002) Les verbes supports en arabe. bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 97(1): 315–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iomdin, B. & Iomdin, L.
(2013) Negation and valencies of Russian verbal predicates. In Apresjan, V., Iomdin, B. & Ageeva, V., eds., Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Meaning-Text Theory, Prague, August 30-31 2013, pp. 60–71. See also http://​meaningtext​.net​/mtt2013​/proceedings​_MTT13​.pdf.
Iomdin, L.
(2010) O modeli russkogo sintaksisa [Modelling Russian syntax]. In Apresjan, Ju., Boguslavskij, I., Iomdin, L. & Sannikov, V., Teoretičeskie problemy russkogo sintaksisa [Theoretical Problems of Russian Syntax], pp. 21–43. Jazyki slavjanskix kul´tur, Moskva.Google Scholar
Iordanskaja, L.
(1961) Dva operatora obrabotki sočetanij s “sil´nym upravleniem” [Two Operators for the Processing of Phrases with ‘Strong Government’]. Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moskva.Google Scholar
(1963) O nekotoryx svojstvax pravil´noj sintaksičeskoj struktury (na materiale russkogo jazyka) [On certain properties of a well-formed syntactic structure (based on Russian data)]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, No. 4: 102–112.Google Scholar
(1967) Avtomatičeskij sintaksičeskij analiz. Tom II: Mežsegmentnyj sintaksičeskij analiz. [Automatic Syntactic Analysis. II. Intersegmental Syntactic Analysis]. Nauka, Novosibirsk.Google Scholar
Iordanskaja, L., Kim, M. & Polguère, A.
(1996) Some procedural problems in the implementation of lexical functions for text generation. In Wanner, ed. 1996: 279–297.
Iordanskaja, L. & Mel’čuk, I.
(1990) Semantics of two emotion verbs in Russian: bOJAT´SJA ‘to be afraid’ and NADEJAT´SJA ‘to hope’. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 10: 307–357. [Reprinted in Mel’čuk 1995: 81–124.] CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) The notion of surface-syntactic relation revisited (valence-controlled surface-syntactic relations in French). In Iomdin, L. & Krysin, L., eds., Slovo v tekste i v slovare. Sbornik statej k semidesjatiletiju akademika Ju.D. Apresjana, pp. 391–433. Jazyki russkoj kul´tury, Moskva.Google Scholar
(2009a) Connotation (in linguistic semantics). In Kempgen, S., Kosta, P., Berger, T. & Gutschmidt, K., eds., The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of their History, their Structure and their Investigation, pp. 875–882. W. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
(2009b) Establishing an inventory of surface-syntactic relations: valence-controlled surface-dependents of the verb in French. In: Polguère & Mel’čuk, eds. 2009: 151–234.
Iordanskaja, L. & Polguère, A.
(2005) Hooking up syntagmatic lexical functions to lexicographic definitions. In Apresjan & Iomdin, eds. 2005: 176–186.
Isačenko, A.
(1972) Figurative meaning, derivation, and semantic features. In Worth, D., ed., The Slavic Word, pp. 76–91. Mouton, The Hague/Paris.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1956) Two aspects of language. In Jakobson, R., Fundamentals of Language, Mouton, The Hague. [Reprinted in Jakobson 1971: 239–259.]Google Scholar
(1971) Selected Writings. II. Word and Language. Mouton, The Hague/ Paris.Google Scholar
Janus, E.
(1981)  Wykładniki intensywności cechy (na materiale polskim i rosyjskim) [Exponents of the Intensity of a Feature (in Polish and Russian)]. Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Wrocław etc.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A.
(1993) Sardinian Syntax. Routledge, London/New York.Google Scholar
Kahane, S.
(1997) Bubble trees and syntactic representations. In Becker, T. & Krieger, H.-U., eds., Proceedings MOL’ 5, pp. 70–76. DFKI, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
(1998) Le calcul des voix grammaticales. bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 93(1): 325–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) The Meaning-Text Theory. In: Agel et al.., eds. 2003: 546–570.
Kahane, S. & Mel’čuk, I.
(1999) Synthèse des phrases à extraction en français contemporain. t.a.l., 40(2): 25–85.Google Scholar
(2006) Les sémantèmes de causation en français. LInX, No. 54: 247–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahane, S. & Nasr, A.
eds. (2003) First International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory [MTT’03]. École Normale Supérieure, Paris.Google Scholar
Kahane, S. & Polguère, A.
(2001) Formal foundations of lexical functions. In Proceedings of “COLLOCATION: Computational Extraction, Analysis and Exploitation”, 39th Annual Meeting and 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 8–15. Toulouse.
Kallulli, D. & Tasmowski, L.
eds. (2008) Clitic Doubling in the balkan Languages. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, S.
(1997) Persian complex verbs: idiomatic or compositional? Lexicology, 3(2): 273–318.Google Scholar
Kathman, D.
(1993) Expletive verb marking in Abkhaz. berkeley Linguistics Society. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting, 193–204.
Keenan, E.
(1974) The functional principle: generalizing the notion of ‘Subject-of’. Chicago Linguistic Society, Papers from the 10th Annual Regional Meeting, 298–310.
(1976) Towards universal definition of ‘Subject’. In Ch. Li, ed., Subject and Topic, pp. 303–334. Academic Press, New York etc.Google Scholar
(1978) Logical semantics and universal grammar. Theoretical Linguistics, 5: 83–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B.
(1977) Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1): 63–98.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.
(1977) La connotation. Presses Universitaires de Lyon, Lyon. Google Scholar
Kern, F.
(1883) Die deutsche Satzlehre. Eine Untersuchung ihrer Grundlagen [German Syntax. A Study into its Foundations]. Nicolaische Verlags-Buchhandlung, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kibrik, A.
(1977) O sootnošenii ponjatija sintaksičeskogo podčinenija s ponjatijami soglasovanija, upravlenija i primykanija [On relations between the notion of syntactic subordination with the notions of agreement, government, and adjunction]. In Problemy teoretičeskoj i èksperimental´noj lingvistiki, pp. 161–179. Izd-vo MGU, Moskva. [Reprinted in Kibrik, A., Očerki po obščim i prikladnym voprosam jazykoznanija (universal´noe, tipovoe i specifičeskoe v jazyke), 1992, pp. 102–123. Izdatel´stvo MGU, Moskva.]Google Scholar
Kim, A.
(1995) Word order at the noun phrase level in Japanese: quantifier construction and discourse function. In Downing, P. & Noonan, M., eds., Word Order in Discourse, pp. 199–246. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kimenyi, A.
(1980) Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. UCLA Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Koch, P. & Krefeld, T.
eds. (1991) Connexiones Romanicae. Dependenz und Valenz in den romanischen Sprachen. Niemeyer, Tübingen.Google Scholar
König, E. & Haspelmath, M.
(1998) Les construction à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe. In Feuillet, ed. 1993: 525–606.
Korhonen, J.
(1977) Studien zu Dependenz, Valenz und Satzmodell. Teil I. Theorie und Praxis der beschreibung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. P. Lang, Bern etc.Google Scholar
Krejdlin, G. & Raxilina, E.
(1984) Semaničeskij analiz voprosno-otvetnyx struktur so slovom “kakoj” [Semantic analysis of question-answer structures with the word KAKOJ ‘what a’]. Izvestija Akademii Nauk, 43(5): 457–470.Google Scholar
Kuno, S.
(1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London.Google Scholar
Kulagina, O. & Mel´čuk, I.
(1968) Sovremennoe sostojanie problemy mašinnogo perevoda [Machine Translation: the present state]. Problemy kibernetiki, 20: 297–308.Google Scholar
Kunze, J.
(1972) Die Komponenten der Darstellung syntaktischer Strukturen in einer Abhängigkeitsgrammatik. Prague bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 18: 15–27. Google Scholar
(1975) Abhängigkeitsgrammatik. Akademieverlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kunze, J. & Priess, W.
(1967–1971) Versuch eines objektivierten Grammatikmodells. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 20(5/6): 415–448, 21(5): 421–466, 23(4): 347–378, 24(5): 373–402.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y.
(1965) Causative forms in Japanese. Foundations of Language, 1(1): 20–40.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J.
(1949) Le problème de classement des cas. biuletyn Polskiego Towarzy-stwa Językoznawczego, 9: 20–49. [Reprinted in: Kuryłowicz, J., Esquisses linguistiques, 1960, pp. 131–50. Ossolineum, Wrocław.] Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Ross, J.
(1976) Why you can’t do so into the sink. In McCawley, J., ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. 7: notes from the Linguistic Underground, pp. 101–111. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
(1990) “What, me worry?!” – ‘Mad Magazine’ sentences revisited. berkeley Linguistics Society, Proceedings of the 16-th Annual Meeting, pp. 215–228.
Langacker, R.
(1997) Constituency, Dependency, and Conceptual Grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1): 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, G.
(1994) L’actance. Les Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. [English translation: 1998. Actancy. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.]Google Scholar
(1995) La définition des actants. In Madray-Lesigne, F. & Richard-Zappella, J., eds., Lucien Tesnière aujourd’hui, pp. 151–158. Peeters, Paris/Louvain.Google Scholar
(1998) Définition des actants dans les langues européennes. In Feuillet, ed. 1998: 12–146.
LDOCE Online
. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online: http://​www​.ldoceonline​.com.
Lecerf, Y.
(1960) Programme des conflits, modèle des conflits. Traduction Automatique, 1(4): 11–18; 1(5): 17–36.Google Scholar
Leclère, C.
(1979) Syntactic Datives and Ethic Datives. Statistical Methods in Linguistics, 1(2): 122–147.Google Scholar
Lee, W. & Evens, M.
(1996) Generating cohesive text using lexical functions. In Wanner, ed. 1996: 299–306.
Leech, G.
(1975) Semantics. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Ch
(1985) On grammatical relationality. Folia Linguistica, 19: 67–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Relationality and the grammatical operation. In Seiler, H. & Premper, W., eds., Partizipation. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten, pp. 13–28. Gunter Narr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Lobin, H.
(1993) Koordinationssyntax als prozedurales Phänomen. Gunter Narr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Lyons, J.
(1963) Structural Semantics: An Analysis of Part of the Vocabulary of Plato. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
(1977) Semantics. Vols 1–2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge etc.Google Scholar
Machová, S.
(1975) Die Abhängigkeitsgrammatiken. Einführung in die generative Grammatik (Prager Autorengruppe). Scriptor, Kronenberg.Google Scholar
Makkai, A.
(1972) Idiom Structure in English. Mouton, Hague/Paris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A.
(2000) Dependency Reversal in noun-Attributive Constructions: Towards a Typology. Lincom Europa, München.Google Scholar
Marcus, S.
(1965a) Sur la notion de projectivité. Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 11: 181–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1965b) Sur une description axiomatique des liens syntaxiques. Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 11: 291–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P.
(1981) Syntax.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge etc.Google Scholar
Maxwell, D. & Schubert, K.
(1989) Metataxis in Practice. Dependency Syntax for Multilingual Machine Translation. Foris, Dordrecht/Providence, RI. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J.
(1970) Semantic representation. In Garvin, P., ed., Cognition: A Multiple View, pp. 227–247. Spartan Books, New York/Washington.Google Scholar
(1992/1993) How to achieve lexicographic virtue through judicious and selective sinning. In Frawley, W., ed., Forum on the Theory and Practice of Lexicography [= Dictionaries, 14], pp. 120–129.Google Scholar
Mel´čuk, I.
(1960) O terminax “ustojčivost´” i “idiomatičnost´” [About the terms ‘set character’ and ‘idiomaticity’]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, No. 4: 73–80.Google Scholar
(1962) Ob algoritme sintaksičeskogo analiza jazykovyx tekstov (obščie principy i nekotorye itogi) [An algorithm for syntactic analysis of texts (general principles and some results)]. Mašinnyj perevod i prikladnaja lingvistika, 7: 45–87.Google Scholar
(1963) Avtomatičeskij analiz tekstov (na materiale russkogo jazyka) [Automatic text analysis (based on Russian data)]. In Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie, pp. 477–509. Moskva, Nauka.Google Scholar
(1964a) Tipy svjazej meždu èlementami teksta i tipologija jazykov [Types of links between text elements and linguistic typology]. In Rojzenzon, L., ed., Materialy konferencii «Aktual´nye voprosy sovremennogo jazykoznanija i lingvističeskoe nasledie E.D. Polivanova», vol. I, pp. 57–59. Samarkandskij Universitet, Samarkand.Google Scholar
(1964b) Obobščenie ponjatija frazeologizma (morfologičeskie “frazeologizmy”) [Generalization of the phraseologism concept (morphological “phraseologisms”)]. In Rojzenzon, L., ed., Materialy konferencii “Aktual´nye voprosy sovremennogo jazykoznanija i lingvističeskoe nasledie E.D. Polivanova”, vol. I, pp. 89–90. Samarkandskij Universitet, Samarkand.Google Scholar
(1964c) Avtomatičeskij sintaksičeskij analiz. Tom I: Obščie principy. Vnutrisegmentnyj sintaksičeskij analiz [Automatic Syntactic Analysis. Vol. I. Intrasegmental Syntactic Analysis]. Nauka, Novosibirsk.Google Scholar
(1974) Opyt teorii lingvističeskix modelej Smysl⇔Tekst [Outline of a Theory of Linguistic Meaning-Text Models]. Nauka, Moskva.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I.
(1976) On Suppletion. Linguistics, 170: 45–90.Google Scholar
(1979) Studies in Dependency Syntax. Karoma, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
(1981) Types de dépendance syntagmatique entre les mots-formes d’une phrase. bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 76(1): 1–59.Google Scholar
(1982a) Lexical functions in lexicographic description. berkeley Linguistics Society , Proceedings of the 8 -th Annual Meeting , pp. 427–444.
(1982b) Towards the Language of Linguistics. W. Fink, München.Google Scholar
(1985) Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix čislovyx vyraženij [Surface Syntax of Russian numeral Expressions]. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Wien.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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
(1993) Agreement, government, congruence. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 17: 307–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993–2000) Cours de morphologie générale. Vol. 1–5. Université de Montréal/ C.N.R.S., Montréal/Paris.Google Scholar
(1995) The Russian Language in the Meaning-Text Perspective. Škola «Jazyki russkoj kul´tury»/Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Moskva/Wien.Google Scholar
(1996) Lexical functions: a tool for the description of lexical relations in a lexicon. In Wanner, ed. 1996: 37–102.
(2001) Communicative Organization in natural Language. The SemanticCommunicative Structure of Sentences. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Language: Dependency. In Smelser, N. & Baltes, P., eds., International Encyclopedia of the Social and behavioral Sciences, pp. 8336–8344. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
(2003a) Levels of Dependency in Linguistic Description: Concepts and Problems. In Ágel, V., Eichinger, L., Eroms, H.-W., Hellwig, P., Herringer, H. J. & Lobin H., eds., Dependency and Valency. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, vol. 1, pp. 188–229. W. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
(2003b) Collocations dans le dictionnaire. In Szende, Th., ed., Les écarts culturels dans les dictionnaires bilingues, pp. 19–64. Honoré Champion, Paris.Google Scholar
(2003c) Les collocations : définition, rôle et utilité. In Grossmann & Tutin, eds. 2003: 23–31.
(2004) Verbes supports sans peine. Lingvisticæ investigationes, 27(2): 203–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006a) Aspects of the Theory of Morphology. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
(2006b) Parties du discours et locutions. bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 101(1): 29–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Dependency in natural language. In Polguère & Mel’čuk, eds. 2009: 1–110.
(2011) Word order in Russian. In Boguslavskij, I., Iomdin, L. & Krysin, L., eds., Slovo i jazyk (Sbornik statej k vos´midesjatiletiju akademika Ju. D. Apresjana), pp. 499–525. Jazyki slavjanskix kul´tur, Moskva.Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, I.
(2012) Jazyk: ot smysla k tekstu [Language: From Meaning to Text]. Jazyki slavjanskoj kul´tury, Moskva.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I.
(2013) Syntactic subject, once again. In Apresjan, V., Iomdin, B. & Ageeva, V., eds., Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory Prague, August 30-31, 2013, iii–xxxiii. See http://​meaningtext​.net​/mtt2013​/proceedings​_MTT13​.pdf.
(2014) Syntactic subject: Syntactic relations, once again. In V. Plungjan with M. Daniel, E. Ljutikova, S. Tatevosov & O. Fedorova, eds., 2014, Jazyk. Konstanty. Peremennye. Pamjati Aleksandra Evgen´eviča Kibrika [La langue. Les constantes. Les variables. À la mémoire d’Alexandre Kibrik], pp. 169–216. Aletejja, Sankt-Peterburg.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I., Clas, A. & Polguère, A.
(1995) Introduction à la lexicologie explicative et combinatoire. Duculot, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. & Pertsov, N.
(1987) Surface Syntax of English. A Formal Model within the Meaning-Text Framework. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. & Polguère, A.
(2007) Lexique actif du français. L’apprentissage du vocabulaire fondé sur 20 000 dérivations sémantiques et collocations du français. De Boeck, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. & Reuther, T.
(1984) Bemerkungen zur lexikographischen Beschreibung von Phraseologismen und zum Problem unikaler Lexeme (an Beispielen aus dem Deutschen). Wiener linguistische Gazette, No. 33/34: 19–34.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. & Wanner, L.
(1996) Lexical functions and lexical inheritance for emotion lexemes in German. In Wanner, ed. 1996: 209–278.
(2006) Syntactic mismatches in machine translation. Machine Translation, 20: 81–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mel´čuk, I. & Xolodovič, A.
(1970) Zalog (Opredelenie. Isčislenie) [Voice (Definition. Calculus)]. narody Azii i Afriki, No. 4: 111–124.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. & Zholkovsky, A.
(1984) Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary of Modern Russian. Semantico-syntactic Studies of Russian Vocabulary. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Wien.Google Scholar
(1988) The Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary. In Evens, M., ed., Relational Models of the Lexicon, pp. 41–74. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge etc.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I.., et al.
(1984, 1988, 1992, 1999) Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain. Recherches lexico-sémantiques I–IV. Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Montréal.Google Scholar
Milićević, J.
(2003) Modélisation sémantique, syntaxique et lexicale de la paraphrase. PhD thesis, Université de Montréal, Montréal.
(2007) La paraphrase. Modélisation de la paraphrase langagière. Peter Lang, Bern etc.Google Scholar
(2009a) Serbian auxiliary verbs—syntactic heads or dependents? In Cichocki, W., ed., Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistics Association, Fredericton , november 2-3, 2007, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, pp. 43–53.
(2009b) Lexical functions and paraphrasing rules as a bridge between L1 and L2. In Online Proceedings of the Conference ‘First and Second Languages: Exploring the Relationship in Pedagogy-related Contexts’ , http://​meaningtext​.net​/mtt2013​/proceedings​_MTT13​.pdf.
Molino, J.
(1971) La connotation. La linguistique, 7(1): 5–30.Google Scholar
Morgan, J.
(1978) Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Cole, P., ed., Syntax and Semantics, v. 9. Pragmatics, pp. 261–280. Academic Press, New York etc.Google Scholar
Mosel, U.
(1991) Towards a typology of valency. In Seiler, H. & Premper, W., eds., Partizipation. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten, pp. 240–251. Gunter Narr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Müller-Gotama, F.
(1994) Grammatical Relations. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on their Syntax and Semantics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myamoto, T.
(1999) The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, V.
(1977) Possessivnost´ i inkorporacija v čukotskom jazyke (inkorporacija podležaščego). In Xrakovskij, V., ed., Problemy lingvističeskoj tipologii i struktury jazyka, pp. 108–138. Nauka, Leningrad.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F.
(1972) The insertion of idioms. Chicago Linguistic Society, Papers from the 8-th Annual Regional Meeting , pp. 294–302.
(1974) The regularity of idiom behavior. Lingua, 34: 327–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J.
(1978) Double Dependency? Chicago Linguistic Society, Papers from the 14-th Annual Regional Meeting, pp. 326–339.
(1986) Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62(1): 56–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Heads in discourse: structural versus functional centricity. In: Corbett et al.., eds. 1993: 164–185.
(2002) Oxford Collocations Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Google Scholar
(2007) Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W.
(1991) Categories and Case. The Sentence Structure of Korean. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Owens, J.
(1988) The Foundations of Grammar: An Introduction to Mediaeval Arabic Grammatical Theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Padučeva, E.
(1964) O sposobax predstavlenija sintaksičeskoj struktury predloženija [On methods for representing the syntactic structure of a sentence]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, No. 2: 99–113.Google Scholar
(1997) Semantičeskie roli i problema soxranenija invarianta pri leksičeskoj derivacii [Semantic roles and the preservation of the invariant under lexical derivation]. Naučno-texničeskaja informacija, Serija 2, No. 1: 18–30.Google Scholar
(1998) Kommunikativnoe vydelenie na urovne sintaksisa i semantiki [Communicative emphasis in syntax and semantics]. Semiotika i informatika, 36: 82–107.Google Scholar
(2002) Diateza i diatetičeskij sdvig [Diathesis and diathetic shift]. Russian Linguistics, 26(2): 179–215. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) O parametrax leksičeskogo značenija glagola: taksonomičeskij klass učastnika [On the parameters of a verb’s lexical meaning: The taxonomic class of a participant]. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii, No. 1 [= 3]: 87–111.Google Scholar
(2005) Sootvetstvie «smysl ⇔ tekst» v istoričeskoj perspektive [Meaning-Text correspondence in a historical perspective]. In Apresjan, Ju. & Iomdin, L., eds., East West Encounter: Second International Conference on Meaning ⇔ Text Theory, pp. 330–349. Jazyki slavjanskoj kul´tury, Moskva.Google Scholar
Panevová, J.
(1974) On verbal frames in Functional Generative Description, Part I. The Prague bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 22: 3–40.Google Scholar
(1975) On verbal frames in Functional Generative Description, Part II. The Prague bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 23: 17–40.Google Scholar
(1994) Valency frames and the meaning of the sentence. In Luelsdorff, Ph., ed., The Prague School of Structural and Functional Linguistics, pp. 223–243. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew
(1985) On speech formulas and linguistic competence. Lenguas modernas, 12: 84–104.Google Scholar
(1992) Formulaic speech. In Bright, W., ed., Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 184–188, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D.
ed. (1983) Studies in Relational Grammar I. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.Google Scholar
Petkevič, V.
(1995) A new formal specification of underlying structures. Theoretical Linguistics, 21(1): 7–61.Google Scholar
Plank, F.
(1990) Objets trouvés. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 43(1): 59–85.Google Scholar
ed. (1984) Objects. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. Academic Press, London etc.Google Scholar
Plungjan, V. & Raxilina, E.
(1990) Sirkonstanty v tolkovanii? [Circumstantials in lexicographic definitions?] In Z. Saloni, ed., Metody formalne w opisie języków słowiańskich (Ju.D. Apresjanu k šestidesjatiletiju), pp. 201–210. Filija Uniwersyteta Warszawskego w Białymstoku, Białystok.Google Scholar
(1998) Paradoksy valentnostej [Valence paradoxes]. Semiotika i informatika, 36: 108–119.Google Scholar
Polenz, von, P.
(1963) Funktionsverben im heutigen Deutsch — Sprache in der razionalisierten Welt (= Beihefte zur Zeitschrift “Wirkendes Wort”, 5), Schwann, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
(1987) Funktionsverben, Funktionsverbgefüge und Verwandtes: Vorschläge zur satzsemantischen Lexikographie. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 15(2): 169–189.Google Scholar
Polguère, A.
(2004) La paraphrase comme outil pédagogique de modélisation des liens lexicaux. In Calaque, E. & David, J., eds, Didactique du lexique : contextes, démarches, supports, pp. 115–125. De Boeck, Bruxelles. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Lexical function standardness. In: Wanner, ed. 2007: 43–95.
Polguère, A. & Mel’čuk, I.
eds. (2009) Dependency in Linguistic Description. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Premper, W.
(2001) Universals of the linguistic representation of situations (‘Participation’). In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Österreicher, W. & Raible W., eds., Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, vol. 1, pp. 477–495. W. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
Raxilina, E.
(1990) Semantika ili sintaksis? (K analizu častnyx voprosov v russkom jazyke) [Semantics or syntax? (Towards the Analysis of Specific Questions in Russian)]. Otto Sagner, München.Google Scholar
(2000) Kognitivnyj analiz predmetnyx imen: semantika i sočetaemost´ [ A Cognitive Analysis of Concrete nouns: Semantics and Cooccurrence ]. Russkie slovari, Moskva.Google Scholar
Recanati, F.
(2007) It is raining (somewhere). Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(1): 123–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reuther, T.
(1996) On dictionary entries for support verbs: the case of Russian VESTI, PROVODIT´ and PROIZVODIT´. In Wanner, ed. 1996: 181–208.
(2003) Support verb combinations with existential verbs (German and Russian). In Kahane & Nasr, eds. 2003: 1–10.
Robinson, J.
(1970a) A dependency-based transformational grammar. In Actes du X-ème Congrès international des linguistes (bucarest, 1967), vol. 2, pp. 807–813. Bucarest.Google Scholar
(1970b) Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language, 46(2): 259–285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rooryck, J.
(1988) Formal aspects of French non-lexical datives. Folia Linguistica, 22(3-4): 373–386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothkegel, A.
(1973) Feste Syntagmen. Grundlagen, Strukturbeschreibung und automatische Analyse. Nimeyer, Tübingen. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruhl, C.
(1980) The noun ICE. In Copeland, J. & Davis, Ph., eds., The Seventh LACUS Forum, pp. 257–269. Hornbeam, Columbia, SC.Google Scholar
Sag, I., Gazdar, G., Wasow, T., & Weisler, S.
(1985) Coordination and how to distinguish categories. natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3(2): 117–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. & Pollard, C.
(1989) Subcategorization and Head-driven Phrase Structure. In Baltin, M. & Kroch, A., eds., Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, pp. 139–181. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.Google Scholar
Samvelian, P.
(2012) Grammaire des prédicats complexes. Les constructions nom–verb. Hermes Science/Lavoisier, Paris.Google Scholar
Saksena, A.
(1982) Case marking semantics. Lingua, 56(3/4): 335–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sannikov, V.
(1989) Russkie sočinitel´nye konstrukcii: semantika, pragmatika, sintaksis [Coordinate Constructions in Russian: Semantics, Pragmatics, Syntax]. Nauka, Moskva.Google Scholar
Sansome, R.
(1986) Connotation and lexical field analysis. Cahiers de lexicologie, 49(2): 13–33.Google Scholar
Savisaar, R.
(2013) The colorative construction in Estonian. In Apresjan, V., Iomdin, B. & Ageeva, V., eds., Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Meaning-Text Theory , Prague, August 30-31 2013, pp. 176–184. See also http://​meaningtext​.net​/mtt2013​/proceedings​_MTT13​.pdf
Savvina, E.
(1976) Fragment modeli russkogo poverxnostnogo sintaksisa. III. Sravnitel´nye konstrukcii (sravnitel´nye i sojuznye sintagmy) [A fragment of a Russian surface-syntax model. III. Comparative constructions (comparative and conjunctional syntagms)]. Naučno-texničeskaja informacija, serija 2, No. 1, 38–43.Google Scholar
(1984) O transformacijax kliširovannyx vyraženij v reči [On transformations of clichéd expressions in speech]. In Permjakov, G., ed., Paremiologičeskie issledovanija, pp. 200–222. Nauka, Moskva.Google Scholar
Schenk, A.
(1995) The syntactic behaviour of idioms. In Everaert et al.., eds. 1995: 253–271.
Schubert, K.
(1987) Metataxis. Contrastive Dependency Syntax for Machine Translation. Foris, Dordrecht/Providence, RI. [Review: B. Sigurd, Studia Linguistica, 1988, 42(2): 181–184.]Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, E.
(2006).Taking a closer look at function verbs: Lexicon, grammar, or both? In Ameka, F., Dench, A. & Evans, N., eds., Catching Lnaguage. The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, pp. 359–391. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
Sgall, P., Hajičová, E. & Panevová, J.
(1986) The Meaning of the Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. D. Reidel, Dordrecht/Boston—Akademia, Praha.Google Scholar
Sgall, P., Nebeský, L., Goralčíková, A. & Hajičová, E.
(1969) A Functional Approach to Syntax in Generative Description of Language. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Sgall, P. & Panevová, J.
(1988–89) Dependency Syntax—A Challenge. Theoretical Linguistics, 15(1): 73–86.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M.
(1990) The Languages of Japan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Siepmann, D.
(2005) Collocation, colligation and encoding dictionaries. Part I: Lexicological aspects. International Journal of Lexicography, 18(4): 409–443. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Collocation, colligation and encoding dictionaries. Part II: Lexicographical aspects. International Journal of Lexicography, 19(1): 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) Semiotika i informatika [Semiotics and Informatics], 36. Jazyki russkoj kul´tury/Russkie slovari, Moskva.Google Scholar
Somers, H.
(1984) On the validity of the Complement-Adjunct distinction in Valency Grammar. Linguistics, 22(4): 507–530. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) Valency and Case in Computational Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Starosta, S.
(1988) The Case for Lexicase. Pinter, London.Google Scholar
Suárez, J.
(1971) A case of absolute synonyms. International Journal of American Linguistics, 37(7): 192–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M.
(1998) Resumptive restrictive relatives: a crosslinguistic perspective. Language, 74(2): 335–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Székely, G.
(2001) A lexikai fokozás [Lexical Intensification]. Scholastica, Budapest. Google Scholar
Tarvainen, K.
(1981) Einführung in die Dependenzgrammatik. Max Niemeyer, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L.
(1934) Comment construire une syntaxe. bulletin de la Faculté des lettres, Université de Strassbourg, 7: 219–229.Google Scholar
(1959) Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Klincksieck, Paris.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N.
(1939) Grundzüge der Phonologie [= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague. 7]. Prag. [French translation (by J. Cantineau): Principes de phonologie, 1949, Klincksieck, Paris.]Google Scholar
Ubin, I.
(1995) Slovar´ usilitel´nyx slovosočetanij russkogo i anglijskogo jazykov [Dictionary of Russian and English Lexical Intensifiers]. Vserossijskij Centr Perevodov, Moskva.Google Scholar
Van Belle, W. & Van Langendonck, W.
eds. (1996) The Dative. Vol. 1. Descriptive Studies. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, W.
(1994) Determiners as heads? Cognitive Linguistics, 5(3): 243–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, W. & Van Belle, W.
eds. (1999) The Dative. Vol. 2. Theoretical and Contrastive Studies. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R.
(2001) An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. & LaPolla, R.
(1997) Syntax, Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T.
(1977) Konstituenz und Dependenz in einigen neueren Grammatiktheorien. Sprachwissenschaft, 2(3): 259–301.Google Scholar
Vinogradov, V.
(1947) Ob osnovnyx tipax frazeologičeskix edinic v russkom jazyke [Major types of phraseological units in Russian]. Reprinted in Vinogradov, V., Izbrannye trudy. Leksikologija i leksikografija, 1977, pp. 140–161. Nauka, Moskva.Google Scholar
(1953) Osnovnye tipy leksičeskix značenij slova [Major types of lexical meaning of words]. Reprinted in Vinogradov, V., Izbrannye trudy. Leksikologija i leksikografija, 1977, pp. 162–161. Nauka, Moskva.Google Scholar
Wanner, L. & Bateman, J.
(1990) A collocational based approach to salience-sensitive lexical selection. In Proceedings of the 5th. natural Language Generation Workshop , June 1990, Pittsburgh, PA , pp. 31–38. [See also a shorter version: Lexical cooccurrence relations in text generation, in Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Cambridge, MA.]
Wanner, L.
ed. (1996) Lexical Functions in Lexicography and natural Language Processing, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ed. (1997) Recent Trends in Meaning-Text Theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ed. (2007) Selected Lexical and Grammatical Issues in the Meaning–Text Theory: In honour of Igor Mel’čuk. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, T., Sag, I. & Nunberg, G.
(1983) Idioms: An interim report. In Hattori, Sh. & Inoue, K., eds., Proceeding of the XIIIth Congress of Linguists (Tokyo 1982), pp. 102–115. Tokyo.Google Scholar
Weber, H.
(1992) Dependenzgrammatik. Ein Arbeitsbuch. Gunter Narr, Tübingen. Google Scholar
Wechsler, S.
(1995) The Semantic basis of Argument Structure. CSLI, Stanford, CA.
Weinreich, U.
(1969) Problems in the analysis of idioms. In Puhvel, J., ed., Substance and Structure of Language, pp. 23–81. University of California Press, Berkeley—Los Angeles, CA [Reprinted in U. Weinreich, On Semantics, 1980, pp. 208–264. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.]Google Scholar
Whaley, L.
(1997). Introduction to Typology. The Unity and Diversity of Language. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA/London/New Delhi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1980) The Case for Surface Case. Karoma, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
(1982) Why can you have a drink when you can’t *Have an Eat? Language, 58(4): 753–799. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986) The semantics of ‘Internal Dative’ in English. Quaderni di semantica, 7(1): 121–135, 155–165.Google Scholar
(1988) The Semantics of Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Semantics. Primes and Universals. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York.Google Scholar
Xolodovič, A.
(1966) K tipologii porjadka slov [Towards a Word Order Typology]. Naučnye doklady vysšej školy—Filologičeskie nauki, No. 3. [Reprinted in Xolodovič, A., Problemy grammatičeskoj teorii, 1979, pp. 255–268. Nauka, Leningrad.]Google Scholar
(1971) Nekotorye voprosy upravlenija v japonskom jazyke [Some problems of government in Japanese]. In Vardul´, I., ed., Voprosy japonskogo jazyka, pp. 113–132. Nauka, Moskva.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej
(1967) Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie [Russian Nominal Inflection]. Nauka, Moskva.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Anna
(1992) Issledovanija po semantike predikatov vnutrennego sostojanija [Explorations into the Semantics of Predicates of Internal State]. Otto Sagner, München.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A.
(1993) Heads, bases and functors. In Corbett et al.., eds. 1993: 292–315.
Žolkovskij, A.
(1964) O pravilax semantičeskogo analiza [On rules of semantic analysis]. Mašinnyj perevod i prikladnaja lingvistika, 8: 17–32. [In English: Rozencvejg, V., ed., Essays on Lexical Semantics, v. I, 1974, pp. 155–169. Scriptor, Stockholm.]Google Scholar
Žolkovskij, A., Leont´eva, N. & Martem´janov, Ju
(1961) O principial´nom ispol´zovanii smysla pri mašinnom perevode [On essential use of meaning in Machine Translation]. In Mašinnyj perevod, 2 , pp. 17–46. Institut točnoj mexaniki i vyčislitel´noj texniki AN SSSR, Moskva.Google Scholar
Žolkovskij, A. & Mel’čuk, I.
(1965) O vozmožnom metode i instrumentax semantičeskogo sinteza [On a possible method and tools for semantic synthesis]. Naučnotexničeskaja informacija, No. 5: 23–28.Google Scholar
(1966) O sisteme semantičeskogo sinteza. I. Stroenie slovarja [On a system for semantic synthesis. I. Structure of the dictionary]. Naučnotexničeskaja informacija, No. 11: 48–55.Google Scholar
(1967) O semantičeskom sinteze [On semantic synthesis]. Problemy kibernetiki, 19: 177–238. [Translated into French as: Zholkovskij, A. & Mel’chuk, I. 1970. Sur la synthèse sémantique. T.A.Informations, 1970, No. 2: 1–85.]Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Barrios Rodríguez, María Auxiliadora
2020.  In Studies in Ethnopragmatics, Cultural Semantics, and Intercultural Communication,  pp. 191 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.

BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2012017459 | Marc record