Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 21:2 (2023) ► pp.331350
References (37)
References
Blank, A. (1997). Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen, Tubingen: Niemeye. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baldinger, K. (1980). Semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chernjak, V. (Ed.) (2015). Russkij jazyk i kul’tura rechi. Praktikum. Slovar’ [Russian language and culture of speech. Training. Dictionary]. Moscow, Jurajt.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. (1998). Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ermakova, O. (2000). Semanticheskie processy v leksike [Semantic processes in vocabulary]. In E. Zemskaja (Ed.), Russkij jazyk XX stoletija (1985–1995) [Russian language in the 20th century] (pp. 32–66). Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxfor & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2018). Ten lectures on cognitive sociolinguistics. Leiden; Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glebkin, V. (2007). Sovetskaja kul’tura 20-30-h godov: poisk metodologicheskih orientirov [Soviet culture of the 20s – 30s: search for methodological guidelines]. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 3 (4), 50–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007a). Sovetskaja kul’tura [Soviet culture]. In S. Levit (Ed.), Kul’turologiya. Enciklopediya. [Cultural studies. Encyclopedia]. V 2 t., 21 (pp. 510–520). M.: ROSSPEN.Google Scholar
(2014). Smena paradigm v lingvisticheskoj semantike: ot izoljacionizma k sociokul’turnym modeljam [Change of paradigms in linguistic semantics: from isolationism to sociocultural models]. Moscow: Centr gumanitarnyh iniciativ.Google Scholar
(2018). Kategorii russkoj kul’tury XVIII-XX vv. Skuka. [Categories of Russian culture of 18th – 20th centuries. Boredom]. Moscow; Sankt-Petersburg: Centr gumanitarnyh iniciativ.Google Scholar
(2021). Otkryvanie butylok kak predmet lingvokul’turnogo analiza [Opening bottles as a subject of linguocultural analysis]. Russkij jazyk v nauсhnom osveshchenii [Russian Language and Linguistic Theory], 41 (1), 64–86.Google Scholar
Gregory, P. (2009). Terror by quota: State security from Lenin to Stalin (an archival study). New Haven: Yale University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grzega, J. (2002). Some Thoughts on a Cognitive Onomasiological Approach to Word-formation with Special Reference to English. Onomasiology Online, 3 1, 1–29.Google Scholar
(2004a). Bezeichnungswandel: Wie, Warum, Wozu? Ein Beitrag zur englischen und allgemeinen Onomasiologie, Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
(2004b). A qualitative and quantitative presentation of the forces for lexemic change in the history of English. Onomasiology Online, 5 1, 15–55.Google Scholar
(2007). Summary, Supplement and Index for Grzega, Bezeichnungswandel, 2004. Onomasiology Online, 8 1, 18–196.Google Scholar
Kostomarov, V. (1999). Jazykovoj vkus jepohi [Language taste of the era]. Sankt-Petersburg: Zlatoust.Google Scholar
Lee, St. J. (1999). Stalin and the Soviet Union. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lotman, Ju. M. (1996). Ocherki po istorii russkoj kul’tury XVIII – nachala XIX veka [Essays on the history of Russian culture of the 18th and early 19th centuries]. In Iz istorii russkoj kul’tury, T. 4 (XVIII – nachalo XIX veka) [From the history of Russian culture, V. 4 (the 18th and early 19th centuries)] (pp. 13–348). Мoscow: Shkola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury”.Google Scholar
(1996a). Pojetika bytovogo povedenija v russkoj kul’ture veka [Poetics of everyday behavior in Russian culture of the 18th century]. In Iz istorii russkoj kul’tury, T. 4 (XVIII – nachalo XIX veka) [From the history of Russian culture, V. 4 (the 18th and early 19th centuries)] (pp. 537–574). Мoscow: Shkola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury”.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. (1992). Semantic theories in Europe, 1830–1930: From etymology to contextuality. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niva, Zh. (1995). Russkij simvolizm [Russian symbolism]. In Zh. Niva, I. Serman, V. Strada, & E. Jetkind (Eds.), Istorija russkoj literatury: XX vek: Serebrjanyj vek [History of Russian literature: 20th century: Silver century] (pp. 73–105). Moscow: Izd. gruppa “Progress” – “Litera”.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. (1989). Politics, language, and time: essays on political thought and history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pyman, A. (2006). A history of Russian symbolism. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1905). Philosophie der Mode. Berlin: Pan-Verlag.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. (1998). An onomasiological theory of word-formation in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). English word-formation: A history of research (1960–1995). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
(2005). Meaning predictability in word formation: Novel, context-free naming units. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P., Salvador, V., & Körtvélyessy, L. (2012). Word-formation in the world’s languages: a typological survey. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valgina, N. (2003). Aktivnye processy v sovremennom russkom jazyke [Active processes in modern Russian]. Moscow: Logos.Google Scholar
Vajl’, P., & Genis, A. (2001). 60-e. Mir sovetskogo cheloveka [60s. The world of the Soviet man]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.Google Scholar
Volkov, V. (1999). The Concept of Kul’turnost’: Notes on the Stalinist Civilizing Process. In S. Fitzpatrick (Ed.), Stalinism: New directions (pp. 210–230). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Winter-Froemel, E. (2013). Formal variance and semantic changes in borrowing: Integrating semasiology and onomasiology. In E. Zenner & G. Kristansen (Eds.), New perspectives on lexical borrowing: Onomasiological, methodological and phraseological innovations (pp. 65–100). Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zauner, A. (1903). Die romanischen Namen der Körperteile: eine onomasiologische Studie. Romanische Forschungen, 14 1, 339–530.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Vladimir V. Glebkin & Elizaveta A. Evchuk
2024. Experimental Study of Lexical Choice Situation (on the Material of the Constructions otkryvat’ butylku ‘open a bottle’ and otkuporivat’ butylku ‘uncork a bottle’). Russkaia rech :1  pp. 7 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 2024. 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.