Advertisement

Russian Linguistics

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 177–221 | Cite as

Pure case and prepositional case in Russian

  • Per Durst-AndersenEmail author
  • Elena Lorentzen
Article

Abstract

By considering Russian case as the nominal equivalent to mood whereby its semantic functions are emphasized at the expense of its syntactic functions, it is demonstrated that the nominative, accusative, vocative and genitive cases constitute a mini system in which the nominative and the accusative function as the indicative denoting local reference, the vocative as the imperative demanding local reference and the genitive as the subjunctive denoting non-local reference. At the same time, the genitive enters into another subsystem together with the dative and the instrumental in which they express three different viewpoints, which equally apply to the pure as well as the prepositional case systems. Within the prepositional case system, the accusative and the locative are treated by the notion of contact, while the genitive, dative and the instrumental are treated by the lack of contact—prepositional analogues to the notion of local reference and non-local reference. It is suggested that the notion ‘contact’ has had a clear retroactive influence on the function of the accusative in the pure case system.

Keywords

Local Reference Case System Prepositional Phrase Accusative Case Pure Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Системы беспредложных и предложных падежей в русском языке

Аннотация

Рассматривая категорию падежа в русском языке как эквивалент глагольной категории наклонения и акцентируя тем самым внимание на семантических, а не на синтаксических функциях падежей, авторы статьи показывают, что именительный, винительный, звательный и родительный падежи образуют подсистему, в которой именительный и винительный падежи ведут себя подобно индикативу, обозначая локальную референцию, звательный падеж—подобно императиву, предписывая локальную референцию, и родительный падеж—подобно конъюнктиву, обозначая нелокальную (глобальную) референцию. При этом родительный падеж вместе с дательным и творительным падежами образует другую подсистему, в которой каждый из них обозначает определенную перспективу, что характеризует их употребление как с предлогами, так и без предлогов. Употребление винительного и предложного падежей с предлогами трактуется через понятие контакта, являющегося в предложно-падежной системе аналогом локальной референции, тогда как употребление родительного, дательного и творительного падежей трактуется через понятие отсутствия контакта, являющегося в предложно-падежной системе аналогом глобальной референции. В статье выдвигается гипотеза об обратном влиянии признака ‘контакт’ на функционирование винительного падежа без предлога.

References

  1. Agafonova, K. (2000). O konstrukcii ‘predlog s + genitiv’ (perevod s francuzskogo V. A. Plungjana). In D. Pajar & O. N. Seliverstova (Eds.), Issledovanija po semantike predlogov. Sbornik statej (pp. 313–337). Moskva. Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, H. (2012). The new Russian vocative: synchrony, diachrony, typology. Scando-Slavica, 58(1), 122–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. M. (1971). The grammar of case. Towards a localistic theory (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 4). Cambridge. Google Scholar
  4. Apresjan, V. Ju. (1995). Dlja i radi: sxodstva i različija. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 3, 17–27. Google Scholar
  5. Babby, L. H. (1980). Existential sentences and negation in Russian. Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  6. Babby, L. H. (2002[1989]). Subjectlessness, external subcategorization, and the projection principle. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku, 32(2), 7–40. [Reprinted Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 10(1/2), 341–388.] Google Scholar
  7. Belošapkova, V. A. et al. (Eds.) (1997[1981]). Sovremennyj russkij jazyk (3-e izd., ispr. i dop.). Moskva. Google Scholar
  8. Bethin, Ch. Y. (1983). The meaning of po + dative case in spatial sentences. Russian Language Journal, 37(128), 27–34. Google Scholar
  9. Beytenbrat, A. (2015). Case in Russian. A sign-oriented approach (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 70). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bilý, M. (1990). The case remains open. Some notes on a new book on morphological case in Russian. [Review of: Seidel, H.-E. (1988). Kasus. Zur Explikation eines sprachwissenschaftlichen Terminus (am Beispiel des Russischen). Tübingen]. Russian Linguistics, 14(2), 185–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borščev, V. B., & Parti, B. X. (1999). Semantika genitivnoj konstrukcii: raznye podxody k formalizacii. In E. V. Rakhilina & Y. G. Testelets (Eds.), Tipologija i teorija jazyka. Ot opisanija k ob”jasneniju. K 60-letiju Aleksandra Evgen’eviča Kibrika (pp. 159–172). Moskva. Google Scholar
  12. Cejtlin, S. N. (2000). Jazyk i rebenok: lingvistika detskoj reči (učebnoe posobie dlja studentov vysšix učebnyx zavedenij). Moskva. Google Scholar
  13. Cienki, A. (1993). Experiencers, possessors, and overlap between Russian dative and u + genitive. In J. S. Guenter, B. A. Kaiser, & Ch. C. Zoll (Eds.), Proceedings of the nineteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. February 12–15, 1993 (General session and parasession on semantic typology and semantic universals, pp. 76–89). Berkeley. Google Scholar
  14. Cienki, A. (1995). The semantics of possessive and spatial constructions in Russian and Bulgarian: a comparative analysis in Cognitive Grammar. The Slavic and East European Journal, 39(1), 73–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Comrie, B. (1986). On delimiting cases. In R. D. Brecht & J. S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 86–106). Columbus. Google Scholar
  16. Corbett, G. G. (2008). Determining morphosyntactic feature values. The case of case. In G. G. Corbett & M. Noonan (Eds.), Case and grammatical relations. Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie (Typological Studies in Language, 81, pp. 1–34). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daniėl’, M. A. (2008). Zvatel’nost’ kak diskursivnaja kategorija. Neskol’ko gipotez. In V. A. Plungjan (Ed.), Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki. Vypusk 4: Grammatičeskie kategorii v diskurse (pp. 439–466). Moskva. Google Scholar
  18. Daniėl’, M. A. (2009). ‘Novyj’ russkij vokativ: istorija formy usečennogo obraščenija skvoz’ prizmu korpusa pis’mennyx tekstov. In K. L. Kiseleva, V. A. Plungjan, E. V. Raxilina, & S. G. Tatevosov (Eds.), Korpusnye issledovanija po russkoj grammatike. Sbornik statej (pp. 224–244). Moskva. Google Scholar
  19. Daniel, M., & Spencer, A. (2009). The vocative—an outlier case. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (Oxford handbooks in linguistics, pp. 626–634). Oxford. Google Scholar
  20. Diver, W. (1974). Substance and value in linguistic analysis. Semiotext(e), 1(2), 13–30. Google Scholar
  21. Diver, W. (1981). On defining the discipline. Columbia University working papers in linguistics, 6, 59–117. Google Scholar
  22. 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. Google Scholar
  23. Durst-Andersen, P. (1996). Russian case as mood. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 4(2), 177–273. Google Scholar
  24. Durst-Andersen, P. (2000). Predložno-padežnaja sistema russkogo jazyka. Ponjatie ‘kontakt vs. nekontakt’. In N. D. Arutjunova & I. B. Levontina (Eds.), Jazyki prostranstv (Logičeskij analiz jazyka, 13, pp. 135–151). Moskva. Google Scholar
  25. Durst-Andersen, P. (2001). Possessum-oriented and possessor-oriented constructions in Russian. In I. Baron, M. Herslund, & F. Sørensen (Eds.), Dimensions of possession (Typological studies in language, 47, pp. 99–113). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Durst-Andersen, P. (2002). Russian and English as two distinct subtypes of accusative languages. Scando-Slavica, 48(1), 103–126. Google Scholar
  27. Durst-Andersen, P. (2006). From propositional syntax in Old Russian to situational syntax in Modern Russian. In O. Nedergaard Thomsen (Ed.), Competing models of linguistic change. Evolution and beyond (pp. 211–234). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Durst-Andersen, P. (2011). Linguistic supertypes. A cognitive-semiotic theory of human communication (Semiotics, Communication and Cognition, 6). Berlin, New York. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Durst-Andersen, P., & Lorentzen, E. (2015). The syntax and semantics of Russian non-sentence adverbials. Scando-Slavica, 61(2), 221–260. doi: 10.1080/00806765.2015.1109190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York, Oxford. Google Scholar
  31. Gagarina, N., & Voeikova, M. (2009). Acquisition of case and number in Russian. In U. Stephany & M. Voeikova (Eds.), Development of nominal inflection in first language acquisition. A cross-linguistic perspective (Studies on Language Acquisition, 30, pp. 179–215). Berlin, New York. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gvozdev, A. N. (1961[1949]). Formirovanie u rebenka grammatičeskogo stroja russkogo jazyka. In A. N. Gvozdev (Ed.), Voprosy izučenija detskoj reči (pp. 149–467). Moskva. Google Scholar
  33. Harves, S. (2013). The genitive of negation in Russian. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(12), 647–662. doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12056. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Herslund, M. (1994). La notion d’incorporation en danois et en français. In G. Kleiber & G. Roques (Eds.), Travaux de linguistique et de philologie, XXXII (pp. 7–18). Strasbourg, Nancy. Google Scholar
  35. Hjelmslev, L. (1972[1935–1937]). La catégorie des cas. Étude de grammaire générale. München. Google Scholar
  36. Jakobson, R. (1971[1936]). Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. In R. Jakobson, Selected writings II. Word and language (pp. 23–71). The Hague. Google Scholar
  37. Jakobson, R. (1971[1958]). Morfologičeskie nabljudenija nad slavjanskim skloneniem. In R. Jakobson, Selected writings II. Word and language (pp. 152–186). The Hague. Google Scholar
  38. Janda, L. A. (1993). A geography of case semantics. The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental (Cognitive Linguistic Research, 4). Berlin. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Janda, L. A., & Clancy, S. J. (2002). The case book for Russian. Bloomington. Google Scholar
  40. Karcevski, S. (1927). Système du verbe russe. Essai de linguistique synchronique. Prague. Google Scholar
  41. Kiebzak-Mandera, D. (2000). Formation of the verb system in Russian children. Psychology of Language and Communication, 4(1), 27–46. Retrieved from http://www.plc.psychologia.pl/plc/plc/contents/fulltext/04-1_2.pdf (12 May 2016). Google Scholar
  42. 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. Google Scholar
  43. Klobukov, E. V. (1986). Semantika padežnyx form v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke. (Vvedenie v metodiku pozicionnogo analiza). Moskva. Google Scholar
  44. Knorina, L. V. (1996[1981]). Ocenka semantičeskoj nagruzki padeža. In L. V. Knorina, Grammatika. Semantika. Stilistika (Ed. V. A. Uspenskij). Moskva. Retrieved from: http://lidiaknorina.narod.ru/lingva.htm (7 May 2016).
  45. Kuryłowicz, J. (1949). Le problème du classement des cas. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego, 9, 20–43. Google Scholar
  46. Kustova, G. I. (2011). Padež. In Materialy dlja proekta korpusnogo opisanija russkoj grammatiki. Na pravax rukopisi. Moskva. Retrieved from: http://rusgram.ru (22 April 2016). Google Scholar
  47. Kustova, G. I. (2012). Datel’nyj padež. In Materialy dlja proekta korpusnogo opisanija russkoj grammatiki. Na pravax rukopisi. Moskva. Retrieved from: http://rusgram.ru (22 April 2016). Google Scholar
  48. Kuznetsova, Ju., & Rakhilina, E. (2015). Genitive of cause and cause of genitive. In P. Arkadiev, I. Kapitonov, Ju. Lander, E. Rakhilina, & S. Tatevosov (Eds.), Donum semanticum: opera linguistica et logica in honorem Barbarae Partee a discipulis amicisque Rossicis oblata (pp. 137–147). Moskva. Retrieved from: https://publications.hse.ru/en/books/150350895 (14 May 2016). Google Scholar
  49. Kuznetsova, Ju., Plungian, V., & Rakhilina, E. (2013). Time as secondary to space: Russian pod ‘under’ and iz-pod ‘from-under’ in temporal constructions. Russian Linguistics, 37(3), 293–316. doi: 10.1007/s11185-013-9116-8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford. Google Scholar
  52. Levine, J. S. (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. Google Scholar
  53. Levine, J. S. (1990). Pragmatic implicatures and case: The Russian dative revisited. Russian Language Journal, 44(147–149), 9–27. Google Scholar
  54. Lopatin, V. V., & Švedova, N. Ju. (Eds.) (1989). Kratkaja russkaja grammatika. Moskva. Google Scholar
  55. Makarova, A., & Nesset, T. (2013). Space-time asymmetries: Russian v ‘in(to)’ and the North Slavic temporal adverbial continuum. Russian Linguistics, 37(3), 317–345. doi: 10.1007/s11185-013-9115-9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Malchukov, A., & Spencer, A. (Eds.) (2009). The Oxford handbook of case (Oxford handbooks in linguistics). Oxford. Google Scholar
  57. Manova, S. (2011). Understanding morphological rules. With special emphasis on conversion and subtraction in Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian (Studies in Morphology, 1). New York, Heidelberg. Google Scholar
  58. Mathiassen, T. (1996). Russisk grammatikk. Revidert utgave. Oslo. Google Scholar
  59. Mel’čuk, I. A. (1986). Toward a definition of case. In R. D. Brecht & J. S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 35–85). Columbus. Google Scholar
  60. Mel’čuk, I. A. (1997). Kurs obščej morfologii. Tom II (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. Sonderband, 38/2). Moskva, Vena. Google Scholar
  61. Mulisch, H. (1975). Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Band 2. Leipzig. Google Scholar
  62. Mulisch, H. (1993). Handbuch der russischen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig. Google Scholar
  63. Nesset, T. (2004). Case assignment and image schemas. Russian temporal adverbials. Studies in Language, 28(2), 285–319. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Padučeva, E. V. (1960). Ob opisanii padežnoj sistemy russkogo suščestvitel’nogo (Nekotorye problemy omonimii pri mašinnom perevode). Voprosy jazykoznanija, 5, 104–111. Google Scholar
  65. Padučeva, E. V. (2013). Russkoe otricatel’noe predloženie. Moskva. Google Scholar
  66. Pajar, D., & Plungjan, V. A. (2000). Predlog nad: fakty i interpretacii. In D. Pajar & O. N. Seliverstova (Eds.), Issledovanija po semantike predlogov. Sbornik statej (pp. 83–114). Moskva. Google Scholar
  67. Panov, M. V. (1980). O paradigmatike i sintagmatike. Izvestija AN SSSR. Serija literatury i jazyka, 39(2), 128–137. Google Scholar
  68. Panov, M. V. (1999). Pozicionnaja morfologija russkogo jazyka. Moskva. Google Scholar
  69. Parrott, L. (2010). Vocatives and other direct address forms: a contrastive study. In A. Grønn & I. Marijanović (Eds.), Russian in contrast. Grammar. Oslo Studies in Language, 2(1), 211–229. Google Scholar
  70. Partee, B., Borschev, V., Paducheva, E., Testelets, J., & Yanovich, A. (2012). The role of verb semantics in genitive alternations: genitive of negation and genitive of intensionality. In A. Grønn & A. Pazelskaya (Eds.), The Russian Verb [special issue]. Oslo Studies in Language, 4(1), 1–29. Retrieved from: https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/osla/article/view/229 (14 May 2016). Google Scholar
  71. Paus, Ch. (1994). Social and pragmatic conditioning in the demise of the Russian partitive case. Russian Linguistics, 18(3), 249–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pesetsky, D. (2013). Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 66). Cambridge, Massachusetts. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Plungjan, V. A. (2002). K semantike russkogo lokativa (‘vtorogo predložnogo’ padeža). Semiotika i informatika, 37, 229–254. Google Scholar
  74. Plungjan, V. A. (2011). Vvedenie v grammatičeskuju semantiku: grammatičeskie značenija i grammatičeskie sistemy jazykov mira. Moskva. Google Scholar
  75. Plungjan, V. A., & Raxilina, E. V. (2000). Po povodu ‘lokalistskoj’ koncepcii značenija: predlog pod. In D. Pajar & O. N. Seliverstova (Eds.), Issledovanija po semantike predlogov. Sbornik statej (pp. 115–133). Moskva. Google Scholar
  76. Podlesskaya, V. I., & Rakhilina, E. V. (1999). External possession, reflexivization and body parts in Russian. In D. L. Payne & I. Barshi (Eds.), External possession (Typological Studies in Language, 39, pp. 505–521). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Popova, Z. D. (1970). K teorii padežnogo značenija. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 4, 92–101. Google Scholar
  78. Pul’kina, I. M., & Zaxava-Nekrasova, E. B. (1975). Učebnik russkogo jazyka dlja studentov-inostrancev. Praktičeskaja grammatika s upražnenijami (izd. 5-e, ispravlennoe). Moskva. Google Scholar
  79. Pupynin, Ju. A. (1996). Usvoenie sistemy russkix glagol’nyx form rebenkom (rannie ėtapy). Voprosy jazykoznanija, 3, 84–94. Google Scholar
  80. Rakhilina, E. (2004). On genitive and ‘stability’: evidence from Russian. In J.-Y. Kim, Y. A. Lander, & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Possessives and beyond: semantics and syntax (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 29, pp. 45–58). Amherst. Google Scholar
  81. Rakhilina, E., & Tribushinina, E. (2011). The Russian instrumental-of-comparison: constructional approach. In M. Grygiel & L. A. Janda (Eds.), Slavic linguistics in a cognitive framework (pp. 145–174). Frankfurt. Google Scholar
  82. Raxilina, E. V. (2008). Semantika russkix imennyx konstrukcij s genitivom: ‘ustojčivost’ ’. In J. Lindstedt et al. (Eds.), S ljubov’ju k slovu. Festschrift in honour of Professor Arto Mustajoki on the occasion of his 60th birthday (Slavica Helsingiensia, 35, pp. 338–349). Helsinki. Google Scholar
  83. Raxilina, E. V., & Plungjan, V. A. (2014). Semantiko-sintaksičeskie svojstva russkix konstrukcij s predlogom pod. Prjamye (prostranstvennye) i perenosnye (vremennye) upotreblenija. Die Welt der Slaven, 59(1), 22–56. Google Scholar
  84. Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rozental’, D. Ė. (Ed.) (1984). Sovremennyj russkij jazyk (4-e izd. ispr. i dop.). Moskva. Google Scholar
  86. 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 Journal, 3, 1–22. Retrieved from: http://slaviccenters.duke.edu/uploads/media_items/3saric.original.pdf (15 May 2016) Google Scholar
  87. Seliverstova, O. N. (1997). K voprosu o semantičeskoj strukture jazykovoj edinicy (na primere slov u i rjadom). In L. P. Krysin (Ed.), Oblik slova. Sbornik statej pamjati Dmitrija Nikolaeviča Šmeleva (pp. 92–104). Moskva. Google Scholar
  88. Seliverstova, O. N. (2000). Semantičeskaja struktura predloga na. In D. Pajar & O. N. Seliverstova (Eds.), Issledovanija po semantike predlogov. Sbornik statej (pp. 189–242). Moskva. Google Scholar
  89. Šeljakin, M. A. (2001). Funkcional’naja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moskva. Google Scholar
  90. Stepanov, Ju. S. (1968). Problema klassifikacii padežej (Sovmeščenie klassifikacij i ego sledstvija). Voprosy jazykoznanija, 6, 36–48. Google Scholar
  91. Švedova, N. Ju. (Eds.) (1980). Russkaja grammatika. Vol. 1. Moskva. Google Scholar
  92. Timberlake, A. (1986). Hierarchies in the genitive of negation. In R. D. Brecht & J. S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 338–360). Columbus. Google Scholar
  93. Timberlake, A. (2004). A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge. Google Scholar
  94. Tobin, Y. (1985). Case morphology and language teaching revisited. Papers in linguistics, 18(2), 259–294. doi: 10.1080/08351818509389234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ufimceva, N. V. (1979). Psixolingvističeskie xarakteristiki funkcionirovanija kategorii padeža suščestvitel’nogo v russkom jazyke. In E. F. Tarasov, Ju. A. Sorokin, & N. V. Ufimceva (Eds.), Psixolingvističeskie problemy grammatiki (pp. 5–65). Moskva. Google Scholar
  96. Uspenskij, V. A. (1957). K opredeleniju padeža po A. N. Kolmogorovu. Bjulleten’ Ob”edinenija po problemam mašinnogo perevoda, 5, 11–18. Google Scholar
  97. Voejkova, M. D. (2011). Imenitel’nyj padež. In Materialy dlja proekta korpusnogo opisanija russkoj grammatiki. Na pravax rukopisi. Moskva. Retrieved from: http://rusgram.ru (7 May 2016). Google Scholar
  98. Wade, T. (1992). A comprehensive Russian grammar. Oxford. Google Scholar
  99. Wade, T. (2011). A comprehensive Russian grammar (3rd ed.). Malden. Google Scholar
  100. Whorf, B. L. (1936). The Punctual and segmentative aspects of verbs in Hopi. Language, 12(2), 127–131. doi: 10.2307/408755. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Whorf, B. L. (1950). An American Indian model of the universe. International Journal of American Linguistics, 16(2), 67–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wierzbicka, A. (1980). The case for surface case (Linguistica Extranea Studia, 9). Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  103. Wierzbicka, A. (1983). The semantics of case marking. Studies in Language, 7(2), 247–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wierzbicka, A. (1986). The meaning of a case: a study of the Polish dative. In R. D. Brecht & J. S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 386–426). Columbus. Google Scholar
  105. Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar (Studies in Language Companion Series, 18). Amsterdam. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Yadroff, M. (1996). Modern Russian vocatives: a case of subtractive morphology. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 4(1), 133–153. Google Scholar
  107. Zaliznjak, A. A. (1967). Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. Moskva. Google Scholar
  108. Zaliznjak, A. A. (1973). O ponimanii termina ‘padež’ v lingvističeskix opisanijax. In A. Zaliznjak (Ed.), Problemy grammatičeskogo modelirovanija (pp. 53–87). Moskva. Google Scholar
  109. Zaliznjak, A. A. (1996). The case for surface case reopened ili ešče raz o značenii russkogo tvoritel’nogo padeža. Die Welt der Slaven, XVI(1), 167–184. Google Scholar
  110. Zel’dovič, G. M. (2012). Pragmatika grammatiki. Moskva. Google Scholar
  111. Zubin, D. A. (1979). Discourse function of morphology: the focus system in German. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 469–504). New York. Google Scholar
  112. Žurinskaja, M. A. (1977). Imennye posessivnye konstrukcii i problema neottoržimoj prinadležnosti. In V. N. Jarceva (Ed.), Kategorija bytija i obladanija v jazyke (pp. 194–258). Moskva. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Copenhagen Business SchoolCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations