Part of
Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcin Grygiel
[Human Cognitive Processing 73] 2022
► pp. 303340
Albright, A.
2002The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. Ph.D. dissertation. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
2008Explaining universal tendencies and language particulars in analogical change. In J. Good (Ed.), Linguistic universals and language change (144–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baš, L. M.
2009Sovremennyj slovar’ inostrannyx slov: tolkovanie, slovoupotreblenie, slovoobrazovanie, ètimologija. Moscow: Feniks.Google Scholar
Bauer, L.
1983English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005Conversion and the notion of lexical category. In L. Bauer, & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation (19–30). Munster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., & Huddleston, R.
2002Lexical word-formation. In R. Huddleston, & G. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (1621–1721). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belikov, V., Kopylov, N., Piperski, A., Selegey, V., & Sharoff, S.
2013Big and diverse is beautiful: A large corpus of Russian to study linguistic variation. Web as Corpus Workshop (WAC-8): [URL]Google Scholar
Benigni, V.
2003Produktivnye modeli v razvitii klassa analitičeskix prilagatel’nyx. In L. P. Krysin (Ed.), Russkij jazyk segodnja 2: Aktivnye jazykovye processy konca XX veka (339–342). Moscow: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Benigni, V., & Masini, F.
2009Compounds in Russian. Lingue e linguaggio, 2, 171–194.Google Scholar
Billings, L. A.
1998Morphology and syntax: Delimiting stump compounds in Russian. In G. Booij, A. Ralli, & S. Scalise (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (99–110). Patras: University of Patras.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P., & Blevins, J.
2009Introduction: Analogy in grammar. In J. P. Blevins & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (1–12). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bondarevskij, D. V.
2010Vlijanie progressirujuščej analitizacii na formirovanie kategorii neizmenjaemyx prilagatel’nyx. Vestnik Pjatigorskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvističeskogo universiteta, 1, 137–141.Google Scholar
2009Neizmenjaemost’ – ključevoe javlenie analitizma. Vestnik Čeljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 7, 8–12: [URL]Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
2001Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V.
2007Conventionality and contrast in language and language acquisition. New directions for child and adolescent development, 115, 11–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B., & Stone, G.
1978The Russian language since the revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Edberg, B. H.
2014Analiticeskie prilagatel’nye i analitism v sovremennom russkom jazyke. MA thesis. UiT The Arctic Univeristy of Norway.Google Scholar
Egorova, T. V.
2012Slovar’ inostrannyx slov sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow.Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J.
1997Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 23, 71–87.Google Scholar
2002Priming relations in ambiguous noun-noun combinations. Memory and Cognition, 30, 637–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
2004Effect of relation availability on the interpretation and access of familiar noun-noun compounds. Brain and Language, 90, 478–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gorbov, A. A.
2015Atributivnye komponenty sočetanij tipa biznes-plan: analitičeskie prilagatel’nye? Vestnik SPbGU, 9(3), 36–48.Google Scholar
2010Top-metod ekspress-nominacii ekonom-klassa: o russkix imennyx kompositax s atributivnym èlementom v preposicii k veršine. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 6, 26–36.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H.
1966Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Flach, S.
This volume. A case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passive.
Kamynina, A. A.
1999Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Morfologija. Moscow: MGU.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, V.
2019Constructional change and relational structure in Slavic compounds. Paper presented at the 21st Nordic Conference of Slavic Studies, Joensuu, Finland, August 14–18.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, V., & Vakareliyska, C. M.
2013[N[N]] compounds in Russian. A growing family of constructions. Constructions and Frames, 5(1), 69–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, F.
2005Types of conversion in Hungarian. In L. Bauer, & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation (51–65). Munster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Kim, L. A.
2009Vopros ob analitičeskix prilagatel’nyx v sovremennoj rusistike. Movoznavstvo, 15(3), 47–54.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P.
1968Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (171–202). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Klimov, M. V.
2013Orfograficeskij slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Adelant.Google Scholar
Krott, A.
2009The role of analogy for compound words. In J. P. Blevins, & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (118–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krott, A., Gagné, C. L., & Nicoladis, E.
2009How the parts relate to the whole: Frequency effects on children’s interpretation of novel compounds. Journal of Child Language, 36, 85–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krott, A., Krebbers, L., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H.
2002Semantic influence on linkers in Dutch noun-noun compounds. Folia Linguistica, 36, 7–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krott, A., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H.
2002aAnalogical hierarchy: Exemplar-based modeling of linkers in Dutch noun-noun compounds. In R. Skousen, D. Londsdale, & D. B. Parkinson (Eds.), Analogical modeling: An examplar-based approach to language (181–206). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002bLinking elements in Dutch noun-noun compounds: Constituent families as analogical predictors for response latencies. Brain and Language, 81, 708–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krott, A., Schreuder, R., Baayen, R. H., & Dressler, W. U.
2007Analogical effects on linking elements in German compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 25–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsov, S. A.
1998Bol’šoj tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Sankt-Peterburg: Norint.Google Scholar
Lopatin, V. V., & Uluxanov, I. S.
2016Slovar’ slovoobrazovatel’nyx affiksov sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Mańczak, W.
1980Laws of analogy. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical morphology (283–288). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1958Tendences générales des changements analogiques. Lingua, 7, 298–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marinova, E. V.
2010Vopros ob analitičeskix prilagatel’nyx v otečestvennoj i zarubežnoj lingvistike. Lingvistika, 4(2), 628–630.Google Scholar
Masini, F., & Benigni, V.
2012Phrasal lexemes and shortening strategies in Russian: the case for constructions. Morphology, 22(3), 417–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molinsky, S. J.
1973Patterns of ellipsis in Russian compound noun formations. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesset, T.
2017Compounds in contrast. Paper presented at the Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Conference, St. Petersburg, Russia, October 12–14, 2017.Google Scholar
Nesset, T., & Sokolova, S.
2019Compounds and culture: Conceptual blending in Norwegian and Russian. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 257–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsen, S.
2015Composition. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Volume 4 (364–386). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panov, M. V.
1960O častjax reči v russkom jazyke. In E. A. Zemskaja, & S. M. Kuz’mina (Eds.), Trudy po obščemu jazykoznaniju i russkomu jazyku. Volume 2 (151–164). Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
1971Ob analitičeskix prilagatel’nyx. In F. P. Filin (Ed.), Fonetika. Fonologija. Grammatika (240–253). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
1999Pozicionnaja morfologija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Patton, D. P.
1999Analytism in modern Russian: A study of the spread of non-agreement in noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F.
2016Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I.
2006The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic, and analogical factors. Part 1. English Language and Linguistics, 10, 143–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P.
2012Introduction: A bird’s-eye view of lexical blending. In V. Renner, F. Maniez, & P. Arnaud (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending (Trends in Linguistics – Studies and Monographs) (1–9). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E.
2015Judgment evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(3), 467–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, D.
2005Zero-derivation – Functional change – Metonymy. In L. Bauer, & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation (131–159). Munster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Seliščev, A. M.
1928Jazyk revoljucionnoj èpoxi. Мoscow: Rabotnik prosveščenija.Google Scholar
Sokolova, S., & Edberg, B. H.
2019Are there analytical adjectives in Russian? Evidence from a corpus study and experimental data. Poljarnyj Vestnik, 22, 57–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016Čto takoe valjut-rynok? Xarakteristika imennyx kompositov v russkom jazyke po resultatam korpusa i èksperimenta. Proceedings of the conference New Russia: traditions and innovations in language and language science. Ural Federal University, Ekaterinburg, September 28–30, 2016, 178–186.Google Scholar
Sokolova, S., & Petrukhina, E.
2019Složenie ili atributivnaja gruppa? Dinamika russkogo slovosloženija po dannym korpusa i èksperimenta. Paper presented at the 21st Nordic Conference of Slavic Studies, Joensuu, Finland, August 14–18.Google Scholar
Spencer, A.
1991Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
2015Should Cognitive Linguistics be contrastive? Plenary presentation at Language in Contrast: Diachronic, variationist and cross-linguistic studies, Paris, France, December 4–5, 2015.Google Scholar
Švedova, N. J.
et al. (Eds.) 1980Russkaja grammatika. Volume 1. Moscow: Akademija nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Townsend, C. E.
1968Russian word-formation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ušakov, D. N.
2011Bol’šoj tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Dom Slavjanskoj knigi.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T.
1972Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. In T. Vennemann, & T. H. Wilbur (Eds.), Schuchhardt, the Neogrammarians, and the Transformational Theory of Phonological Change: Four essays by Hugo Schuchhardt, Theo Vennemann, Terence H. Wilbur (Linguistische Forschungen, 26, 115–179). Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Vinogradov, V. A.
1990 Slovosloženie. In V. N. Jarceva. (Ed.), Lingvističeskij ènciklopedičeskij slovar’. Moscow: Sovetskaja ènciklopedija: [URL]Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A.
1977Grammaticeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar