1. Van Baar, T.M. Phasal Polarity. Amsterdam: IFOTT. 1997.
2. Van der Auwera, J. Phasal adverbials in the languages of Europe J. van der Auwera, D. Ó Baoill (Eds). Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1998.
3. Plungian, V.A. A typology of phasal meanings. Abraham W., Kulikov L. (Eds). Tense-aspect, transitivity, and causativity: Essays in honor of Vladimir Nedjalkov.Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
4. Givón, T. Forward Implications, Backward Presuppositions, and the Time Axis of Verbs. John P. Kimball (Ed). Syntax and Semantics. New York and London: Seminar Press, 1972, pp. 29–50.
5. Paducheva, E.V. Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesjonnost s dejstvitelnostju [Statement and Its Correla-tion with Reality]. Moscow, Nauka, 1985. (In Russ.)
6. Mustajoki, A. O semantike russkogo temporalnogo ešče [On the Semantics of Russian Temporal Ešče]. Studia Slavica Finlandesia, 5.1988, pp. 99–142. (In Russ.)
7. Boguslavskiy, I.M. Sfera dejstvija leksicheskih edinic [Scope of Lexical Items]. Moscow, 1996. (In Russ.)
8. Boguslavskiy, I.M. “Sandhi” v sintaksise: zagadka uzhe ne. [Sandhi in Syntax: The Puzzle of the Russian Phrase uzhe ne]. Voprosy jazykoznanija [Topics in the Study of Language]. 2002. No. 5, pp. 19–37. (In Russ.)
9. Pertsov, N.V. O vozmozhnom semanticheskom invariante russkih frazovyh chastic uzhe I eshhjo [On the Hypothetical Semantic Invariant of Russian Phrasal Particles uzhe and eshhjo]. Logicheskij analiz jazyka. Semantika nachala I konca [Logical Analysis of Language. Semantics of Beginnings and Ends]. Moscow, 2002, pp. 137–144. (In Russ.)
10. Trub, V.M. Temporalnye chasticy kak znaki nachala I konca situacii [Temporal Particles as Indicators for Beginnings and Endings of Situations]. Logicheskij analiz jazyka. Semantika nachala I konca [Logical Analysis of Language. Semantics of Beginnings and Ends]. Moscow, 2002, pp. 334–447. (In Russ.)
11. Trub, V.M. Osobennosti interpretacii vyskazyvanij s zapolnennymi temporalnymi valentnostjami chastic eshhjo I uzhe [Pecularities of Interpretation of Particles eshhjo and uzhe with Temporal and Polar Dependendents]. Sokrovennye smysly. Slovo. Tekst. Kultura. Sbornik statej v chest N. D. Arutjunovoj [Sacred Meanings. Word. Text. Culture. Collected Paper in Honour of N.D. Arut-junova]. Moscow, 2004, pp. 333–343. (In Russ.)
12. Israeli, A. The expression of temporal still in Russian. // Studies in Polish Linguistics, 3, 2006. pp. 113–125.
13. Uryson, E.V. Uzhe i uzh: variativnost, polisemija, omonimija? [Russian Particles uzhe and uzh: Variants, Homonyms, or Related Words?]. Trudy mezhdunarodnoj konferencii “Dialog 2007” [Proceedings of the International Conference “Dialog 2007”]. URL: http://www.dialog-21.ru/digests/dialog2007/materials/html/81.htm (In Russ.)
14. Levontina, I. B. Zagadki chasticy uzh [The Riddles of Russian Particle uzh]. Trudy mezhdu-narodnoj konferencii “Dialog 2008” [Proceedings of the International Conference “Dialog 2008”], 2008. URL: http://www.dialog-21.ru/digests/dialog2008/materials/html/47.htm (In Russ.)
15. Rakhilina, E.V. K aspektualnym svojstvam russkogo uzhe [Towards Aspectual Characteristics of Russian uzhe]. Aspektualnaja semanticheskaja zona: Tipologija system I scenario diahronich-eskogo razvitija. Sb. statej V Mezhdunarodnoj konferencii Komissii po aspektologii Mezhdunarod-nogo komiteta slavistov [Aspectual Semantic Zone: Typology and Diachronic Scenarios]. Kyoto, University Kyoto Sangjo, 2015, pp. 214–220. (In Russ.)
16. Krifka, M. Alternatives for aspectual particles: Semantics of still and already. Paper presented at the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 2000.
17. Plungian, V.A., Van der Auwera, J. Towards a typology of discontinuous past marking. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung. 2006, 59, No. 4, pp. 317–349.
18. Stoynova, N. M. Budu delat vs. stanu delat: korpusnye dannye [Budu delat' and stanu delat': Corpus Data]. Paper presented at the conference “Approaches to Russian Language: Construc-tions and Lexico-Semantics”, ILI RAN, St. Petersburg, 2013. (In Russ.)
19. Olsson, B. Iamitives: Perfects in Southeast Asia and beyond. MA Thesis, University of Stock-holm, 2013.
20. Besnier, N. Tuvaluan. London and New York: Routledge, 2000.
21. Hooper, R. Tokelauan. Lincom Europa, 1996.
22. Bauer, W. Maori. London and New York: Routledge, 1993.
23. Mosel, U., Hovdhaugen, E. Samoan Reference Grammar. Oslo: ScandinavianUniversityPress. 1992.
24. Vonen, A.M. The expression of temporal and aspectual relations in Tokelau narratives. Bache, Basbøll, Lindberg (Eds). Tense, Aspect and Action. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994. pp 371–397.
25. Hooper, R. Universals of narrative pragmatics: A Polynesian case study. Linguistics, 1998, 36, pp. 119–160.
26. Matthewson, L., Quinn, H., Talagi, L. Inchoativity meets the perfect time span: The Niuean perfect. Lingua. 2015, No. 168 (1), pp. 1–36.
27. Plungian V. A. Vvedenie v grammaticheskuju semantiku. Grammaticheskie znachenija i gram-maticheskie sistemy jazykov mira [Introduction to Grammatical Semantics: Grammatical Mean-ings and Grammatical Systems in the Languages of the World]. Мoscow, Izdatelstvo RGGU Publ., 2011. (In Russ.)
28. Mikhaylov, S.K. Fantasticheskie aspektualnye tvari I otkuda oni voznikajut: inkompletiv [Fantastic Aspectual Beasts and Where They Come from: The Case of Incompletive]. VAProsy jazykoznani-ja: Megasbornik nanostatej. Sb. st. k jubileju V.A. Plungiana [Collected Papers for the Anniver-sary of V.A. Plugian]. 2020, pp. 415–420. (In Russ.)
Comments
No posts found