Advertisement

Russian Linguistics

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 329–348 | Cite as

External vs. Internal Possessor Structures and Inalienability in Russian

  • Katia Paykin
  • Marleen van Peteghem
Article

Keywords

Cultural Study Historical Linguistic 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  1. Babby, L. H.: 1980, Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  2. Bachman, R. D.: 1980, The Subject Potential of the Dative Case in Modern Russian, Ohio State University, Ph. D. Dissertation.Google Scholar
  3. Bally, C.: 1926, ‘L'expression des idées de sphère personnelle et de solidarité dans les langues indoeuropéennes', F. Frankhauser, J. Jud (eds.), Festschrift Louis Gauchat, Arau, 68-78.Google Scholar
  4. Benoist, J.-P.: 1983, ‘Expression de l'expérienceur en russe', Revue des études slaves, 55/1, 71-77.Google Scholar
  5. Benoist, J.-P.: 1986, ‘De l'opposition Datif/Nominatif de I'Expériencer', M. Comtet (ed.), IVe Colloque de linguistique russe, Toulouse 1984, Paris, 11-19.Google Scholar
  6. Benoist, J.-P.: 1999, ‘Datif de l'expérient des situations statiques en russe', Cahiers de linguistique de l'INALCO, 1999/2, 175-206.Google Scholar
  7. Benveniste, E.: 1966, ‘《Être》 et 《avoir》 dans leurs fonctions linguistiques', E. Benveniste, Problèmes de linguistique générale 1, Paris, 187-208.Google Scholar
  8. Bethin, C. Y.: 1983, ‘On the Spatial Dative in Russian', Slavic and East European Journal 27, 465-477.Google Scholar
  9. Broekhuis, H., Cornips, L.: 1996, ‘Inalienable Possession in Locational Constructions: an Apparent Problem', C. Cremers, M. den Dikken, Linguistics in the Netherlands, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 37-48.Google Scholar
  10. Broekhuis, H., Cornips, L.: 1997, ‘Inalienable Possession in Locational Constructions', Lingua 101, 185-209.Google Scholar
  11. Chappell, H., McGregor, W.: 1996, The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  13. Chvany, C.: 1975, On the Syntax of BE-sentences in Russian, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  14. Comtet, M.: 1984, ‘Svoj et les séries moj/naš, tvoj/vaš: concurrence ou functions différentes?', L'enseignement du russe 31/1, 15-28.Google Scholar
  15. Draye, L.: 1996, ‘The German Dative', W. Van Belle, W. Van Langendonck (eds.), 155-215.Google Scholar
  16. Durst-Andersen, P.: 1996, ‘Russian Case as Mood', Journal of Slavic Linguistics 4/2, 177-273.Google Scholar
  17. Fillmore, C. J.: 1968, ‘The Case for Case', E. Bach, R. T. Harms, Universals in Linguistic Theory, New York, 1-88.Google Scholar
  18. Garde, P.: 1987, ‘《Avoir》 en russe. Remarques typologiques', Revue des études slaves 59/3, 557-564.Google Scholar
  19. Giusti, F.: 1981, ‘La referenza nominale in una lingua senza articolo. Analisi comparativa del russo e dell'italiano', Studi di grammatica italiana 10, 109-214.Google Scholar
  20. Guéron, J.: 1985, ‘Inalienable Possession, PRO-inclusion and Lexical Chains', H.-G. Obenauer, J.-Y. Pollock, J. Guéron (eds.), 43-86.Google Scholar
  21. Guiraud-Weber, M.: 1996, ‘L'appartenance: le cas du russe', Faits de langue 7, 139-148.Google Scholar
  22. Heine, B.: 1997, Possession. Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  23. Herslund, M.: 1988, Le Datif en français, Louvain/Paris.Google Scholar
  24. Jakobson, R.: 1936/1971, ‘Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus', Selected Writings II. Word and Language, The Hague, 23-71.Google Scholar
  25. Janda, L. A.: 1993, A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
  26. Julien, J.: 1983, ‘Sur une règle de blocage de l'article défini avec les noms des parties du corps', Le Français moderne 2, 135-156.Google Scholar
  27. Kayne, R. S.: 1977, Syntaxe du français. Le Cycle transformationnel, Paris.Google Scholar
  28. Kibly, D. A.: 1977, Deep and Superficial Cases in Russian, Munich.Google Scholar
  29. Lamiroy, B., Delbecque, N.: 1998, ‘The Possessive Dative in Romance and Germanic Languages', W. Van Langendonck, W. Van Belle (eds.), 29-75.Google Scholar
  30. Landau, I.: 1999, ‘Possessor Raising and the Structure of VP', Lingua 107, 1-37.Google Scholar
  31. Levine, J.: 1980, ‘Observations on “Inalienable Possession” in Russian', Folia Slavica 4, 7-24.Google Scholar
  32. Levine, J.: 1984, ‘On the Dative of Possession in Contemporary Russian', Slavic and East European Journal 28/4, 493-501.Google Scholar
  33. Levine, J.: 1986, ‘Remarks on the Pragmatics of the “Inalienable Dative” in Russian', Russian Language Journal 40/135, 11-24.Google Scholar
  34. Levine, J.: 1990, ‘Pragmatic Implicatures and Case: the Russian Dative Revisited', Russian Language Journal 44/147–149, 9-27.Google Scholar
  35. Mazon, A.: 1995, Grammaire de la langue russe, Paris.Google Scholar
  36. Mikaelian, I., Roudet, R.: 1999, ‘Русский датив: от адресата к субъекту', Russian Linguistics 23/1, 11-40.Google Scholar
  37. Neidle, C.: 1988, The Role of Case in Russian Syntax, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  38. Obenauer, H.-G., Pollock, J.-Y., Guéron, J. (eds.): 1985, Grammatical Representations, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  39. Рахилина, Е. В.: 1982, ‘Отношения принадлежности и способы его выражения в русском языке (дательный посессивный)', Нaучно-mехнuческaя uнформaцuя 2/6, 27-30.Google Scholar
  40. Reinhart, T.: 1981, ‘Definite NP anaphora and c-command domains', Linguistic Inquiry 12, 605-635.Google Scholar
  41. 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, http://seelrc.org/glossos/issues/3/saric.pdf.Google Scholar
  42. Van Belle, W., Van Langendonck, W. (eds.): 1996, The Dative and its Counterparts. Vol. I. Descriptive Studies, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  43. Van Langendonck, W., Van Belle, W. (eds.): 1998, The Dative, vol. 2, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  44. Van Peteghem, M.: 1999, ‘Accusatif vs datif. Etude français-russe', Verbum 21/1, 81-92.Google Scholar
  45. Van Peteghem, M.: 2000, ‘Datif possessif et inaliénabilité en français, en roumain et en russe', L. Tasmowski (ed.), The Expression of Possession in Romance and Germanic Languages, Cluj, 149-162.Google Scholar
  46. Vergnaud, J.-R., Zubizaretta, M.-L.: 1992, ‘The Definite Determiner and the Inalienable Construction in French and English', Linguistic Inquiry 23/4, 595-652.Google Scholar
  47. Wierzbicka, A.: 1988, The Semantics of Grammar, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  48. Заичкова, И.: 1972, Дamельны{ie348-1} бесnре{ie348-2}ложны{ie348-3} в современном русском лumерamурном языке, Praha.Google Scholar
  49. Золотова, Г. А.: 1985, ‘К теории падежных значений', Russian Linguistics 9, 197-208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katia Paykin
  • Marleen van Peteghem

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations