Tag: (E) remark
Wierzbicka, Anna (1987). English speech act verbs: A semantic dictionary. Sydney: Academic Press.
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
Tagged as: (E) absolve, (E) abuse, (E) accept, (E) accuse, (E) acknowledge, (E) acquit, (E) add, (E) admit, (E) admonish, (E) advise, (E) advocate, (E) affirm, (E) agree, (E) allow, (E) announce, (E) answer, (E) apologize, (E) appeal, (E) apply, (E) appoint, (E) approve, (E) argue, (E) ask, (E) assert, (E) assure, (E) attack, (E) authorize, (E) baptize, (E) bargain, (E) beg, (E) bemoan, (E) beseech, (E) bet, (E) bewail, (E) blackmail, (E) blame, (E) blaspheme, (E) bless, (E) boast, (E) book, (E) calculate, (E) call, (E) call for, (E) call on, (E) cancel, (E) challenge, (E) charge, (E) chat, (E) christen, (E) claim, (E) command, (E) comment, (E) compare, (E) complain, (E) compliment, (E) concede, (E) conclude, (E) condemn, (E) confess, (E) confide, (E) confirm, (E) congratulate, (E) conjecture, (E) consent, (E) consult, (E) content, (E) contradict, (E) converse, (E) convict, (E) convince, (E) counsel, (E) count, (E) counter, (E) credit, (E) criticize, (E) curse, (E) dare, (E) debate, (E) decide, (E) declare, (E) decline, (E) decree, (E) deduce, (E) defend, (E) defy, (E) demand, (E) denounce, (E) deny, (E) deplore, (E) describe, (E) direct, (E) disagree, (E) disapprove, (E) discuss, (E) dismiss, (E) dispute, (E) dissuade, (E) emphasize, (E) enquire, (E) enthuse, (E) estimate, (E) exclaim, (E) excommunicate, (E) excuse, (E) explain, (E) exult, (E) farewell, (E) forbid, (E) forecast, (E) forgive, (E) gather, (E) give, (E) gossip, (E) grant, (E) greet, (E) guarantee, (E) guess, (E) hint, (E) implore, (E) imply, (E) infer, (E) inform, (E) inform on, (E) inquire, (E) insinuate, (E) insist, (E) instruct, (E) insult, (E) intercede, (E) interrogate, (E) introduce, (E) invite, (E) joke, (E) justify, (E) lament, (E) lecture, (E) maintain, (E) moan, (E) mock, (E) nag, (E) name, (E) narrate, (E) negotiate, (E) note, (E) notify, (E) object, (E) observe, (E) offer, (E) order, (E) pardon, (E) permit, (E) persuade, (E) plead, (E) pledge, (E) point out, (E) praise, (E) predict, (E) prescribe, (E) presume, (E) proclaim, (E) profess, (E) prohibit, (E) promise, (E) pronounce, (E) prophesy, (E) propose, (E) protest, (E) prove, (E) quarrel, (E) query, (E) question, (E) reassure, (E) rebuff, (E) rebuke, (E) recant, (E) recapitulate, (E) reckon, (E) recommend, (E) recount, (E) refuse, (E) refute, (E) reject, (E) relate, (E) remark, (E) remind, (E) renounce, (E) repeat, (E) reply, (E) report, (E) reprimand, (E) reproach, (E) reprove, (E) request, (E) require, (E) reserve, (E) resign, (E) resolve, (E) retort, (E) reveal, (E) ridicule, (E) say goodbye, (E) scold, (E) sentence, (E) speculate, (E) state, (E) stress, (E) suggest, (E) sum up, (E) summarize, (E) summon, (E) suppose, (E) suspect, (E) swear, (E) talk, (E) tell, (E) testify, (E) thank, (E) threaten, (E) urge, (E) veto, (E) volunteer, (E) vote, (E) vouch for, (E) vow, (E) warn, (E) welcome, (E) wish, (E) wonder
Goddard, Cliff (1979). Particles and illocutionary semantics. Paper in Linguistics, 12(1-2), 185-229. DOI: 10.1080/08351817909370468
The aim of this paper is to come up with a semantic analysis of a number of English connective particles, including those usually referred to as “concessive” and “quasi-causal”. A semantic theory on the nature and representation of speech acts is argued to be a necessary preliminary to the semantic analysis of particles and other connectives. The paper seeks to discern the outlines of such an “illocutionary semantics”. The hypothesis that emerges is that particles are used as exponents of illocutionary force. Semantic representations for although, but, however, then and since are then developed on the basis of their role as exponents of illocutionary force.
Tagged as: (E) (whimperative), (E) although, (E) but, (E) hint, (E) however, (E) order, (E) remark, (E) request, (E) since, (E) then, (E) threat, (T) English