Part of
Space in Diachrony
Edited by Silvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina and Chiara Zanchi
[Studies in Language Companion Series 188] 2017
► pp. 347368
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elisabeth C.
2005Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
1985Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Stone, Gerald & Polinsky, Maria
1996The Russian Language in the Twentieth Century, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gahl, Suzanne & Garnsey, Susan M.
2006Knowledge of grammar includes knowledge of syntactic probabilities. Language 82(2): 405–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitrij S.
2002Tipologija padežnich značenij: semantičeskaja zona prolativa (Typology of case meanings: semantic zone of prolative). In Grammatikalizacija prostranstvennych značenij. Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki 2, Vladimir A. Plungian (ed), 35–55. Moskva: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A.
2006Totally normal chaos: The aspectual behavior of Russian motion verbs. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 28(1): 183–193.Google Scholar
2008Semantic motivations for aspectual clusters of Russian verbs. In American Contributions to the 14th International Congress of Slavists, Ohrid, Vol. 1: 181–196, Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana
2008Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals. In Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 120], Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil & Berit Gehrke DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010Variation in the encoding of endpoints of motion in Russian. In New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion [Studies in Language Companion Series 115], Victoria Hasko & Renee Perelmutter (eds), 267–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, Ekaterina V.
2000Kognitivnyj analiz predmetnych imen: Semantika i sočetaemost’ (Cognitive analysis of object names: Semantics and compatibility), 2nd edn. Moscow: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
Rakhilina, Ekaterina V. & Tribushinina, Elena
2010The Russian instrumental-of-comparison: Constructional approach. In Slavic Linguistics in a Cognitive Framework, Marcin Grygiel & Laura A. Janda (eds), 145–174. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I.
1996Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, Masayoshi, Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson, (eds), 195–219. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2004The many ways to search for a frog. In Relating Events in Narrative, Vol. 2: Typological and Contextual Perspectives, Sven Strömqvist & Ludo Verhoeven (eds), 219–257. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2006What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories [Typological Studies in Language 66], Maya, Hickmann & Stéphane Robert (eds), 59–81. Amsterdam: John Bejamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1983How language structures space. In Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application, Herbert L. Pick & Linda P. Acredolo (eds), 225–282. New York NY: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3 Vols, Timothy Shopen (ed), 57–149. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1991Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on the Grammar of Event Structure, 480–519. Berkeley CA: BLS.
2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tily, Harry, Gahl, Susanne, Arnon, Inbal, Snider, Neal, Kothari, Anubha & Bresnan, Joan
2009Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech. Language and Cognition 1(2): 147–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar