The imperfective future tense in Russian

REFERENCES

• Andrews, Edna. 1990. Markedness theory: the union of asymmetry and semiosis in language. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barentsen, A. A. 1984. “Notes on ‘praesens pro futuro’ in modern Russian.” Signs of friendship. To honour A. G. F. van Hoik, slavist, linguist, semiotician. Ed. J. J. van Baak. Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 29–54.
   Google Scholar
• Bitov, Andrej. 1968. Aptekarskij ostrov. Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel’.
   Google Scholar
• Bondarko, A. V. 1962. “Opyt obščej xarakteristiki vidovogo protivopostavlenija russkogo glagola.” Učenye zapiski instituta slavjanovedenija AN SSSR. XXIII: 179–203.
   Google Scholar
• Bondarko, A. V. and L. L. Bulanin. 1967. Russkij glagol. Leningrad: Prosveš čenie.
   Google Scholar
• Caton, Steven C. 1987. “Contributions of Roman Jakobson.” Annual review of anthropology. 16: 223–60.
   Google Scholar
• Chafe, Wallace and Johanna Nichols, eds. 1986. Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of episte- mology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, Ranjit. 1988. Aspect and meaning in Slavic and Indie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Chung, Sandra and Alan Timberlake. 1985. “Tense, aspect and mood.” Language typology and syntactic description. Volume IU. Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Ed. Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 202–58.
   Google Scholar
• Chvany, Catherine. 1975. On the syntax of BE sentences in Russian. Slavica: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
   Google Scholar
• Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, Osten. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Durst-Andersen, Per. 1992. Mental grammar. Russian aspect and related issues. Columbus, OH: Slavica.
   Google Scholar
• Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. “An alternative to checklist theories of meaning.” Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society: Berkeley: University of California. pp. 123–31.
   Google Scholar
• Fillmore, Charles J. 1986.”‘U’-semantics, second round.” Quaderni di Semantica June 7/l(13): 49–58.
   Google Scholar
• Fillmore, Charles J. 1987. “A private history of the concept of frame.” Concepts of Case: Eds. Rene Dirven and Günter Radden. Tübingen: Narr. pp. 28–36.
   Google Scholar
• Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The future in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forsyth, John. 1970. A Grammar of aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galton, Herbert. 1976. The main functions of the Slavic verbal aspect. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
   Google Scholar
• Geeraerts, Dirk. 1989. “Introduction: Prospects and problems of prototype theory.” Linguistics 27: 587–612.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis. New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg, Gerald. 1985. The syntax and semantics of the Russian infinitive. Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University.
   Google Scholar
• Grenoble, Lenore. 1992. “Double negation in Russian.” Linguistics 30: 731–52.
   Google Scholar
• Grenoble, Lenore. 1989. “Tense, mood, aspect: the future in Russian.” Russian Linguistics 13/2: 97–110.
   Google Scholar
• Jsačenko, A. V. 1960. “La structure sémantique des temps en russe.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 55: 74–88.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobson, Roman. 1932/1971. “Zur Struktur des Russischen Verbums.” Selected writings. Vol II. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 3–15.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobson, Roman. 1957/1971. “Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb.” Selected writings of Roman Jakobson. Vol. II. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 130–47.
   Google Scholar
• Karcevski, Serge. 1927. Système du verbe russe. Essai de linguistique synchronique. Prague: Legiografie.
   Google Scholar
• Kipka, Peter F. 1990. Slavic aspect and its implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Kirsner, Robert S. 1984. “On determining the appropriateness of binary semantic features in grammatical analyses.” Quaderni di Semantica V(1): 161–70.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mel'cuk, Igor’. 1985. “Semantičeskie ètjudy. I. ‘Sejcas’ i ‘teper” v russkom jazyke.” Russian linguistics. 9(2–3): 257–79.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, F. R. 1987. The English verb. 2nd. ed. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Pasternak, B. 1985. “Pis'mo V. P. Polonskomu.” Izbrannoe v. v dvux tomax, vol. 2: 345. Moscow: Xudožestvennaja literatura.
   Google Scholar
• Rassudova, O. P. 1968. Upotreblenie vidov glagola v russkom jazyke. Moscow: Izd. Mosk-ovskogo universiteta.
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein, Robert. 1970. “Review of Rassudova 1968.” Slavic and East European journal 14: 389–92.
   Google Scholar
• Timberlake, Alan. 1982. “Invariance and the syntax of Russian aspect.” Tense-aspect. Between semantics and pragmatics. Ed. Paul Hopper. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 305–31.
   Google Scholar
• Vasilenko E., A. Egorova and E. Lamm. 1982. Russian verb aspects. Moscow: Russian Language Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Waugh, Linda R. 1976. Roman Jakobson's science of language. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka, Anna. 1989. “Prototypes in semantics and pragmatics: explicating attitudinal meanings in terms of prototypes.” Linguistics. 27: 731–69.
   Google Scholar
• Willett, Thomas. 1988. “A cross-linguistic survey of evidentiality.” Studies in language. 121: 51–97.
   Google Scholar
• Zemskaja, E. A. and L. P. Kapanadze. 1978. Russkaja razgovornaja reč. Teksty. Moscow: Nauka.
   Google Scholar