Apresjan, Ju. (2009). Issledovanija po semantike i leksikografii. Tom I. Paradigmatika. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar

Arutjunova, Nina D. (1976). Predloženie i ego smysl. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar

Arutjunova, Nina D. (1997). Bytijnye predloženija. Enciklopedija ‘Russkij jazyk’. Moskva: Bol’šaja Rossijskaja Enciklopedija, 57–59.Google Scholar

Babby, Leonard. (1980). Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. (2001). The Atoms of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Ball, Douglas. (2005). Tongan Noun Incorporation: Lexical Sharing or Argument Inheritance. In: Müller, Stefan, ed., Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Department of Informatics, University of Lisbon. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 7–27.Google Scholar

Bartsch, Renate. (1998). Dynamic Conceptual Semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Bergsland, Knut. (2010). Eskimo-Aleut Languages. Retrieved 02–03-2017 from: http://universalium.academic.ru/239056/Eskimo-Aleut_languages.Google Scholar

Borschev, Vladimir and Partee, Barbara H. (2002). The Russian Genitive of Negation in Existential Sentences: The Role of Theme-Rheme Structure Reconsidered. In: Hajicová, Eva, Sgall, Petr, Hana, Jirí and Hoskovec, Tomáš, eds, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague (nouvelle série). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 185–250.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, ed. (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar

Broekhuis, Hans and Keizer, Evelien. (2012). Syntax of Dutch: Nouns and Noun Phrases,Volume I. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. (1989). Language Universals & Linguistic Typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, William. (2003). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William and Cruse, D. Alan. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crowley, Terry. (2006). The Avava Language of Central Malakula (Vanuatu) (Lynch, John, ed.). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics 574.Google Scholar

Culicover, Peter W. and Jackendoff, Ray. (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dik, Simon C. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Duffley, Patrick. (1992). The English Infinitive. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Ebeling, Carl L. (1954). On the Semantic Structure of the Russian Sentence. Lingua IV, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ebeling, Carl L. (1978). Syntax and Semantics. A Taxonomic Approach. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ebeling, Carl L. (1980). How Many Valences? In: Voz’mi na radost’: To Honour Jeanne van der Eng-Liedmeier. Amsterdam: Slavic Seminar, 361–371.Google Scholar

Ebeling, Carl L. (1994). Een inleiding tot de syntaxis [An Introduction to Syntax]. Leiden: The Hakuchi Press.Google Scholar

Ebeling, Carl L.. (2006). Semiotaxis. Over theoretische en Nederlandse syntaxis [Semiotactics. On Theoretical and Dutch Syntax]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Egan, Thomas. (2008). Non-finite Complementation. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B. V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul and O’Connor, Catherine. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity. In: Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language, 64, 501–538.Google Scholar

Fortuin, Egbert. (2000). Polysemy or Monosemy: Interpretation of the Imperative and Dative-Infinitive Construction in Russian. Amsterdam: ILLC Dissertation Series.Google Scholar

Fortuin, Egbert. (2011). Meaning without Form. In: Geerdink-Verkoren, Hetty and van Engelenhoven, Aone, eds, Searching the Invariant. Semiotactic Explorations into Meaning. Munich: Lincom Europa, 17–32.Google Scholar

Fortuin, Egbert. (2014). The Existential Construction in Russian: A Semantic-Syntactic Approach. In: Fortuin, E. L. J., Houtzagers, P., Kalsbeek, J., Dekker, S., eds, Dutch Contributions to the Fifteenth International Congress of Slavists. Minsk. August 20–27, 2013. no. 40. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 25–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geerdink-Verkoren, Hetty. (2009). A Semiotactic Approach to Modern Japanese. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Geerdink-Verkoren, Hetty and van Engelenhoven, Aone, eds (2011). Searching the Invariant. Semiotactic Explorations into Meaning. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Gil, David. (1992). Scopal Quantifiers: Some Universals of Lexical Effability. In: Kefer, Michel and van der Auwera, Johan, eds, Meaning and Grammar: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 303–346.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gorelova, Liliya M. (2002). Manchu Grammar. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grønbech, Kaare and Krueger, John R. (1993). An Introduction to Classical (Literary) Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. (2008). Frequency vs. Iconicity in Explaining Grammatica Asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. (2010). Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Cross-Linguistic Studies. Language 86(3), 663–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. (2015). Ditransitive Constructions in the World’s Languages. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1(1), 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hauer, Eric. (2007). Handwörterbuch der manchusprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. (1978). Definiteness and Indefiniteness. A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Helden, Andries van. (2017). Not the Last Word on the Short Form: A Deictic Approach. In: Genis, René, de Haard, Eric, Lučić, Radovan, eds, Definitely Perfect: Festschrift for Janneke Kalsbeek (= Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies, 29). Amsterdam: Pegasus, 255–291.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees. (1990). The Hierarchical Structure of Utterances. In: Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory: A Functional View. Nuyts, Jan, Machteld Bolkestein, A. and Vet, Co. (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1–24.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds, 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Honselaar, Wim and Keizer, Evelien. 2011. Lexical Stratification. In: Searching the Invariant. Semiotactic Explorations into Meaning. Geerdink-Verkoren, Hetty and van Engelenhoven, Aone, eds. Munich: Lincom Europa, 73–84.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2016 [2002]. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard A. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard A. (1992). So-Called ‘Double Objects’ and Grammatical Relations. Language, 68(2), 251–276.Google Scholar

Iwasaki, Shoichi and Inkapiromu, Preeya. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1990 [1937]. Contribution to the General Theory of Case. In: On Language. Waugh, Linda R. & Monville-Burston, Monique, eds. Notes: 533–537. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 332–385.Google Scholar

Janda, Laura A. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics. The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1965 [1924]. The Philosophy of Grammar. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. (1984 [1937]). Analytic Syntax. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. (1940). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part 5. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Kortlandt, Frederik. 1980. Temporal Gradation and Temporal Limitation. In: Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 1 [Fs. Ebeling], 237–246.Google Scholar

Kortlandt, Frederik. (2008). Russian Syntax and Semantics. In: Russian Linguistics 32: 115–123. Springer.Google Scholar

Kroeger, Paul R. 2004. Analyzing Syntax: A Lexical-Functional Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey, Cruickshank, Benita and Ivanič, Roz. 2001. An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar

Makino, Seiichi and Tsutsui, Michio. 2008. A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar. Tokyo: The Japan Times.Google Scholar

Matthews, Peter H. (1996) [1981]. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Mey, Jacob. (1970). Possessive and Transitive in Eskimo. Journal of Linguistics, 47–56.Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. (1984). The Evolution of Noun Incorporation. Language, 60(4), 847–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Padučeva, Elena V. (1992). O semantičiskeskom podxode k sintaksisu i genitivnom sub”ekte glagola BYT’. Russian Linguistics 16, 53–63.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H., Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Testelets, Yakov and Yanovich, Igor. (2012). The Role of Verb Semantics in Genitive Alternations: Genitive of Negation and Genitive of Intensionality. In: The Russian Verb. Oslo Studies in Language 4(1). Grønn, A. Pazel’skaya, A., eds, 1–29. Retrieved from: www.journals.uio.no/index.php/osla/article/view/229/286]Google Scholar

Plaisier, Heleen. (2006). A Grammar of Lepcha. (PhD) Leiden: Leiden University.Google Scholar

Pollard, Carl and Sag, Ivan A. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Romeu, Juan. (2015). Ser, Estar and Two Different Modifiers. In: New Perspectives on the Study of Ser and Estar. Pérez-Jiménez, Isabel, Leonetti, Manuel and Gumbel-Molina, Sylvia, eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51–84.Google Scholar

Rosch, Eleanor. (1973). Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology 4(3), 328–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1966). Course in General Linguistics [orig. (1916) Course linguistique générale]. Bally, Charles, Sechehay, Albert and Riedlinger, Albert (Eds). Lausanne: Payot.Google Scholar

Seuren, Pieter, A.M. (1996). Semantic Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Shopen, Timothy. (1985). Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Volume 1, Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stainton, Robert J. (2006). Neither Fragments nor Ellipsis. In: The Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Progovac, Ljiljana, Paesani, Kate, Casielles, Eugenia and Barton, Ellen, eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Švedova, N. Ju. (1967). Paradigmatika prostogo predloženija v sovremennom russkom jazyke. In: Russkij jazyk. Grammatičeskie issledovanija. (Reprinted in: Švedova, N. Ju. 2005. Russkij jazyk. Izbrannye raboty. Ross. akad. nauk; Otdelenie istoriko-filolog. nauk; In-t russkogo jazyka im. V. V. Vinogradova. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury (Studia Philologica), 55–115).Google Scholar

Sweet, H. (1913). Collected Papers. Arranged by Wild, H. C.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Tallerman, Maggie. 1998. Understanding Syntax. London: Arnold Publishers.Google Scholar

Tesnière, Lucien. (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Wells, Rulon S. (1947). Immediate Constituents. Language 23, 81–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zipf, George. (1949). Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar