Advertisement

Conversion

  • Stela ManovaEmail author
Chapter
  • 452 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 1)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the non-iconic morphological technique of conversion. The aim is to illustrate one of the main theoretical claims of the present book, namely that a given morphological change is not a set of uniform realizations but varies and exhibits deviations that are best describable in terms of clines, the latter constitutive parts of the derivation-inflection continuum. After a discussion on terminological matters (Section 3.1), a definition of conversion is given (Section 3.2). In Section 3.3, with the help of the definition of conversion assumed, the morphological technique is set apart from lexical, (mor)phonological and morphological changes that, without being conversion, look conversion-like. Section 3.4 suggests a number of well-known and novel criteria for establishing the direction of conversion. Section 3.5 provides a classification of conversion; the various subsections treating in detail conversion in derivation, conversion in inflection and syntactic conversion, suggesting further subdivisions of these major types of conversion. In the last Section 3.6, the discussion on the classification of conversion is summarized and conclusions are drawn.

Keywords

Word Class Formal Conversion Abstract Noun Inflectional Form Conversion Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams, Valerie. 1973. An Introduction to Modern English Word-Formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. Morphological Theory. In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. I: Linguistic Theory: Fondations, ed. Frederick J. Newmeyer, 146–191. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Andrejčin, Ljubomir. 1962. K morfologičeskoj xarakteristike vidovoj sistemy sovremennogo bolgarskogo jazyka. In Voprosy glagol’nogo vida, ed. Jurij Maslov, 231–237. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoj literatury.Google Scholar
  5. Andrejčin, Ljubomir. 1978. Osnovna bălgarska gramatuka. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar
  6. Andrejčin, Ljubomir, Petja Asenova, Elena Georgieva, Kalina Ivanova, Ruselina Nicolova, Petăr Pašov, Xristo Părvev, Rusin Rusinov, Valentin Stankov, Stojan Stojanov, and Kristalina Čolakova. 1983. Gramatika na săvremennija bălgarski knižoven ezik. Tom II. Morfologija. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na BAN.Google Scholar
  7. Andrejčin, Ljubomir, L. Georgiev, St. Ilčev, N. Kostov, Iv. Lekov, St. Stojkov, and Cv. Todorov. 1999. Bălgarski tălkoven rečnik, IV izdanie, dopălneno i preraboteno ot D. Popov. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar
  8. Anić, Vladimir. 1991. Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Novi Liber.Google Scholar
  9. Anić, Vladimir, Dunja Brozović Rončević, Ivo Goldstein, Slavko Goldstein, Ljiljana Jojić, Ranko Matasovič, and Ivo Pranjković. 2002. Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik. Zagreb: Novi Liber.Google Scholar
  10. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Aronoff, Mark and Nanna Fuhrhop 2002. Restricting suffix combinations in German and English: Closing suffixes and the monosuffix constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 451–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Assenova, Petja 2002. Balkansko ezikoznanie. V. Tǎrnovo: Faber.Google Scholar
  14. Babić, Stjepan. 1991 [1986]. Tvorba riječi u hrvatskom književnom jeziku: nacrt za gramatiku. 2 izd. Zagreb: Djela Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti.Google Scholar
  15. Babić, Stjepan, Dalibor Brozović, Milan Moguš, Slavko Pavešić, Ivo Škarić, and Stjepko Težak. 1991. Povijesni pregled, glasovi i oblici hrvatskoga književnog jezika: nacrt za grammatiku. Zagreb: Djela Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti.Google Scholar
  16. Barić, Eugenija, Mijo Lončarić, Dragica Malić, Slavko Pavešić, Mirko Peti, Vesna Zečević, and Marija Znika. 1997 [1995]. Hrvatska gramatika. II. promijeneno izdanje. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.Google Scholar
  17. Battistella, Edwin L. 1990. Markedness. The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  18. Battistella, Edwin L. 1996. The Logic of Markedness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-formation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Bauer, Laurie. 2005. Conversion and the notion of lexical category. In Approaches to Conversion/Zero-Derivation, eds. Laurie Bauer and Salvador Valera, 19–30. Münster/New York: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  21. Baxturina, R.V. 1966a. Značenie i obrazovanie otimennyx glagolov s suffiksom -Ø- // -i-(t’). In Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka, eds. Elena A. Zemskaja and D. N. Šmeleva, 74–112. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
  22. Baxturina, R. V. 1966b. Morfonologičeskie uslovija obrazovanija otymennyx glagolov s suffiksom -Ø- // -i-(t’). In Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka, eds. Elena A. Zemskaja and D. N. Šmeleva, 113–126. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
  23. Beard, Robert. 1982. The plural as a lexical derivation. Glossa 16(2), 133–148.Google Scholar
  24. Beard, Robert. 1987. Morpheme order in a lexeme/morpheme-based morphology. Lingua 72, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  26. Becker, Thomas. 1990. Analogie und morphologische Theorie. München: Fink.Google Scholar
  27. Becker, Thomas. 1993. Back-formation, cross-formation, and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in paradigmatic morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 1993, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 1–25. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. Bergenholtz, H. and J. Mugdan. 1979. Ist liebe primär? – Über Ableitung und Wortarten. In Deutsche Gegenwartssprache, ed. Peter Braun, 339–354. München: Fink.Google Scholar
  29. Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms. Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. Blevins, J. P. 2005. Word-based declensions in Estonian. In Yearbook of Morphology 2005, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 1–25. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Blevins, J. P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York, NY: Holt [British edition 1935]: London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  33. Bojadžiev, Todor, Ivan Kucarov, and Jordan Penčev. 1999. Săvremenen bălgarski ezik. Fonetika. Leksikologija. Slovoobrazuvane. Morfologija. Sintaksis. Sofija: P. Beron.Google Scholar
  34. Bojadžiev, T. 1999. Slovoobrazuvane. In Săvremenen bălgarski ezik. Fonetika. Leksikologija. Slovoobrazuvane. Morfologija. Sintaksis, eds. Bojadžiev, Todor, Ivan Kucarov, and Jordan Penčev, 227–276. Sofija: P. Beron.Google Scholar
  35. Booij, G. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  36. Booij, G. 2000. Inflection and derivation. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 360–369. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. Booij, Geert, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan. (eds.). 2000. Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  38. Browne, W. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In The Slavonic Languages, eds. Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, 306–387. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Bulgarian Academy Grammar = Andrejčin et al. (1983).Google Scholar
  40. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  41. Bybee, J. L. 1988. Morphology as lexical organization. In Theoretical Morphology, eds. Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 119–141. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Bybee, Joan L. and Carol L. Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59, 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Bybee, Joan, R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Cannon, G. 2000. Blending. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 952–956. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  45. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1992. Current Morphology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2000. Lexeme, word-form, paradigm. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 595–607. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  47. Cetnarowska, Bożena. 1993. The Syntax, Semantics and Derivation of Bare Nominalisations in English. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar
  48. Coleman, Linda and Paul Kay. 1981. Prototype semantics: The English verb lie. Language 57/1, 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  51. Comrie, Bernard. 1990. Russian. In The Major Languages of Eastern Europe, ed. Bernard Comrie, 63–81. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Comrie, Bernard. 2001. Different views of language universals. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 1, eds. Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible, 25–39. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  53. Comrie, Bernard and Greville G. Corbett. (eds.). 1993. The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Comrie, Bernard, Gerald Stone, and Maria Polinsky. 1996. The Russian Language in the Twentieth Century, 2nd ed., Revised and Expanded, of The Russian Language Since the Revolution, eds. Bernard Comrie and Gerald Stone [1978]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  55. Corbett, G. G. 1990. Serbo-Croat. In The Major Languages of Eastern Europe, ed. Bernard Comrie, 125–143. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Corbett, Greville G. and Norman M. Fraser. 1993. Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Crocco-Galèas, G. 1990. Conversion as morphological metaphor. In Naturalists at Krems, eds. J. Méndez Dosuna and C. Pensado, 23–32. Salamanca: Acta Salamanticensia (Estudios Filológicos 227).Google Scholar
  60. De Bray, R. G. A. 1951. Guide to the Slavonic Languages. London: Dent. (Third edition 1980 in three volumes: Guide to the South Slavonic Languages; Guide to the West Slavonic Languages; Guide to the East Slavonic Languages. Columbus, OH: Slavica).Google Scholar
  61. Dilevski, Nikolaj. 1985. Ruska gramatika. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar
  62. Dokulil, Miloš. 1968a. Zur Frage der Konversion und verwandter Wortbildungsvorgänge und –beziehungen. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 3, 215–239.Google Scholar
  63. Don, Jan. 1993. Morphological Conversion. Utrecht: OTS (Research Institute for Language and Speech, University of Utrecht).Google Scholar
  64. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1987a. Subtraction in a polycentristic theory of Natural Morphology. In Rules and the lexicon, ed. E. Gussmann, 67–78. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiege Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.Google Scholar
  65. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1987b. Word formation (WF) as part of natural morphology. In Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology, eds. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl, and Wolfgang U. Wurzel, 99–126. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  66. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft and Kommunikationsforschung 42, 3–10.Google Scholar
  67. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1997. On productivity and potentiality in inflectional morphology. CLASNET Working Papers 7, 2–22.Google Scholar
  68. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and L. Merlini Barbaresi. 1993. Italian diminutives as non-prototypical word formation. In Natural Morphology. Perspectives for the Nineties, eds. Livia Tonelli and Wolfgang U. Dressler, 21–29. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
  69. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  70. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and N. V. Gagarina. 1999. Basic questions in establishing the verb classes of contemporary Russian. In Essays in Poetics, Literary History and Linguistics. Presented to V. V. Ivanov on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, eds. L. Fleishman et al., 754–760. Moscow: OGI.Google Scholar
  71. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Maria Ladányi. 2000. Productivity in word formation (WF): A morphological approach. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 47, 103–144.Google Scholar
  72. Ford, A. and R. Singh. 1984. Remarks on the directionality of word formation processes. In Proceedings of the Eastern State Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 1, 205–213, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  73. Galkina-Fёdoruk, Evdokija M., K. V. Gorškova, and N. M. Šanskij. 1957. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk: Leksikologija, fonetika, morfologija. Moskva: Gos. uchebno-pedagog. izd-vo.Google Scholar
  74. Georgiev, Vladimir I. 1985. Problemi na bălgarskija ezik. Sofija: BAN.Google Scholar
  75. Goldsmith, John A. 1990. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  76. Harrison, William and Stephen le Fleming. 2000. Intermediate Russian Grammar. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
  77. Hurch, B. 1996. Morphoprosody: Some reflections on accent and morphology. In Trubetzkoy  ´s Orphan. Proceedings of the Montréal Roundtable “Morphonology: Contemporary responses” (Montreal, September 30 – October 2, 1994), ed. Rajendra Singh, 189–221. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  78. Iacobini, C. 2000. Base and direction of derivation. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 865–876. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  79. Jakobson, Roman. 1932. Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. Reprinted in Selected Writings II, 1971, 3–15.Google Scholar
  80. Jakobson, Roman. 1948. Russian conjugation. Word IV. Reprinted in Selected Writings II, 119–129.Google Scholar
  81. Jakobson, Roman. 1984. Russian and Slavic Grammar (Studies 1931–1981), eds. Linda R. Waugh and Morris Halle. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
  82. Kucarov, Ivan. 1983. Po văprosa za kategorialnata xarakteristika na glagolnija vid v săvremennija bălgarski ezik. Naučni trudove na Plovdivskija universitet “Paisij Xilendarski”, t. 21, kn. 5 – Filologija, 45–54.Google Scholar
  83. Lieber, Rochelle. 1981a. On the Organisation of the Lexicon. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistic Club.Google Scholar
  84. Lieber, Rochelle. 1981b. Morphological conversion within a restricted theory of the lexicon. In The Scope of Lexical Rules, eds. Moortgat, Michael, Harry van der Hulst, and Toen Hoekstra. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  85. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  86. Luraghi, S. 2000. Syncretismus. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1, eds. Booij, Geert, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 638–647. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  87. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Vol. 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Manova, Stela. 2003b. Conversion and Subtraction in Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  89. Manova, S. 2005a. Derivation versus inflection in three inflecting languages. In Morphology and its Demarcations. Selected Papers from the 11th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2004, eds. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, Oskar Pfeiffer, and Franz Rainer, 233–252. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  90. Manova, Stela. 2005c. Towards a theory of conversion in Slavic: Evidence from Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian. Glossos 6. http://seelrc.org/glossos/issues/6/manova.pdf. Accessed 26.01.2010.
  91. Manova, Stela and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 2001. Gender and declensional class in Bulgarian. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 67–69, 45–81.Google Scholar
  92. Marchand, Hans. 1964a. A set of criteria for the establishing of derivational relationship between words unmarked by derivational morphemes. Indogermanische Forschungen 69, 10–19.Google Scholar
  93. Marchand, Hans. 1964b. Die Ableitung desubstantivischer Verben mit Nullmorphem im Englischen, Französischen und Deutschen. Die neueren Sprachen, N. F. 10, 105–118.Google Scholar
  94. Marchand, Hans. 1969 [1960]. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation, 2nd completely revised and enlarged edition. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  95. Marchand, Hans. 1974. Studies in Syntax and Word-Formation. Selected Articles. On the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, ed. Dieter Kastovsky. München: Fink.Google Scholar
  96. Maslov, Jurij S. (ed.). 1962a. Voprosy glagol’nogo vida. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoj literatury.Google Scholar
  97. Maslov, Jurij S. 1962b. Voprosy glagol’nogo vida v sovremennom zarubežnom jazykoznanii. In Voprosy glagol’nogo vida, ed. Jurij S. Maslov, 7–32, Moskva: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoj literatury.Google Scholar
  98. Maslov, Jurij S. 1981. Grammatika bolgarskogo jazyka. Moskva: Vysšaja škola. [Bulgarian translation: 1982. Gramatika na bălgarskija ezik. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo].Google Scholar
  99. Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1973. Konversija kak morfologičeskoe sredstvo. Reprinted in Mel’čuk, Ingor A. 1976. Das Wort [Die Konversion als morphologisches Mittel], 288–318.Google Scholar
  100. Mel’čuk, Igor A. 2000a. Kurs obščej morfologii. Tom III. Moskva – Vena: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 38/3.Google Scholar
  101. Mel’čuk, Igor A. 2002. Towards a formal concept ‘zero linguistic sign’. Applications in typology. In Morphology 2000. Selected papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000, eds. Sabrina Bendjaballah, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Maria D. Voeikova, 241–258. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  102. Mulisch, Herbert. (ed.). 1988. Morphologie. 1. Aufl. d. Neufassung. In Russische Sprache der Gegenwart, Bd. 2, ed. Gabka, Kurt Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
  103. Müller, Peter O. 1993. Substantiv-Derivation in den Schriften Albrecht Dürers. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  104. Pennanen, Esko V. 1988. Word-formation revisited. Topical aspects of English word-formation. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 21, 123–144.Google Scholar
  105. Polenz, Peter von. 1968. Ableitungsstrukturen deutscher Verben. Zeitschrift für deutsche Sprache 24, 1–15 and 129–160.Google Scholar
  106. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik 1985/1995. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  107. Russian Academy Grammar = Švedova et al. (1980).Google Scholar
  108. Sanders, G. 1988. Zero derivation and the overt analogue criterion. In Theoretical Morphology. Approaches in Modern Linguistics, eds. Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 155–175. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  109. Smirnickij, A. I. 1954. Po povodu konversii v anglijskom jazyke. Inostrannnye jazyki v škole 3, 12–24.Google Scholar
  110. Stampe, David. 1973b. A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
  111. Stojanov, Stojan. 1993 [1964]. Gramatika na bălgarskija knižoven ezik. V izdanie. Sofija: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kl. Oxridski”.Google Scholar
  112. Sweet, Henry. 1900 [1891]. A New English Grammar. Part I: Introduction, Phonology and Accidence, 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  113. Štekauer, Pavol. 1996. A Theory of Conversion in English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  114. Štekauer, Pavol. 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  115. Štekauer, Pavol. 2000. English Word-Formation. A History of Research (1960–1995). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  116. Švedova, Natalija Ju. et al. 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Tom I. Fonetika, Fonologija, Udarenie, Intonacija, Slovoobrazovanie, Morfologija. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’ (Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR).Google Scholar
  117. Timberlake, Alan. 1993. Russian. In The Slavonic Languages, eds. Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, 827–886. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  118. Vogel, Petra M. 1996. Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel. Berlin: Walter de Guyter.Google Scholar
  119. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1977. Grammatičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka: slovoizmenenie. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Russkij jazyk’.Google Scholar
  120. Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1972 [1947]. Russkij jazyk (grammatičeskoe učenie o slove). Izdanie II. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo “Vysšaja škola”.Google Scholar
  121. Zemskaja, Elena A. 1973a. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk: slovoobrazovanie. Moskva: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
  122. Zemskaja, Elena A. 1992. Slovoobrazovanie kak dejatel’nost’. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Slavic StudiesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations