By Hidemitsu Takahashi
1. checklist of figures, photographs; 2. checklist of tables, pxi; three. Abbreviations, pxiii; four. Acknowledgments, pxv-xvii; five. 1. advent, p1-20; 6. 2. gazing English imperatives in motion, p21-56; 7. three. The which means of the English important, p57-92; eight. four. Accounting for a number of the findings in bankruptcy 2 and the alternative among imperatives and oblique directives, p93-119; nine. five. combined significant buildings: Passive, innovative, and perfective imperatives in English, p121-135; 10. 6. Conditional imperatives in English, p137-171; eleven. 7. English imperatives in concessive clauses, p173-196; 12. eight. jap imperatives, p197-219; thirteen. nine. Conclusions and clients, p221-224; 14. References, p225-236; 15. information assets, p237; sixteen. identify index, p239-240; 17. topic index, p241-242
Read or Download A cognitive linguistic analysis of the English imperative : with special reference to Japanese imperatives PDF
Best grammar books
This e-book provides an leading edge conception of syntactic different types and the lexical periods they outline. It revives the conventional concept that those are to be distinct notionally (semantically). It enables there to be peripheral contributors of a lexical category that could now not evidently agree to the final definition.
This learn offers the 1st description-oriented, theoretically-unaligned account of wh-clauses in smooth English. the writer employs a data-based method of research points of either generative and non-generative paintings as regards their relative strengths and weaknesses. Wh-clauses in English: elements of idea and outline is a special mix of statistical findings and qualitative research.
The essays amassed during this quantity, so much formerly unpublished, handle a couple of heavily interconnected concerns raised by way of the comparative syntax of useful heads in the Principles-and-Parameters process. the final idea of head move, the homes of derived buildings created by way of incorporation, and the parameterization concerned are the most theoretical foci.
Offering a unified resolution in the frameworks of building Grammar and body Semantics, Hans Boas develops an account of resultative buildings in English through grouping them in sessions: conventionalized and non-conventionalized. The usage-based version used the following proposes that every specific experience of a verb constitutes a conventionalized mini-construction, that's the most important details for the licensing of arguments.
- Editors-in-Chief, Edition: 1st ed
- Ergativity, Edition: First Edition
- Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (Typological Studies in Language)
- Improve Your English: The Essential Guide to English Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling
- New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing)
Extra resources for A cognitive linguistic analysis of the English imperative : with special reference to Japanese imperatives
Having no idea as to why B is upset and wanting to know if A can help, A addresses B] A: What’s up? B: I’m having a bad day. A: Tell me about it. According to the parameters in Table 1-1, the imperative Tell me about it in the context of (8) can be analyzed as to its Force Exertion as in (9): (9) The Force Exertion of Tell me about it in the context of (8): desire: [+1] or [+2] capability: [+1] power:  cost: [+1]~[+2] benefit:  obligation: [+1] TOTAL: [+4]~[+6] 15 16 A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of the English Imperative Four components are given plus scores, and two are given zero scores.
Let us look at some examples of each pattern: Chapter 2. Observing English imperatives in action (3) Action by Addressee(s) only a. ” He waited until there was silence. 46) b. ” (Deception, p. 408) c. “And the other thing I need are the negatives of the pictures you took. ” “Really now? ” “Let’s not play that game,” she said quietly. “You took plenty of pictures while I was awake, and I heard the camera clicking and flashing while I was woozy. ” (Malice, p. 199) d. “I’m afraid Donna’s care is going to be very expensive,” Anna DiTullio said timidly.
2%). In contrast, not surprisingly, the non-standard solo action use is 25 26 A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of the English Imperative Table 2-2. 5%) infrequent, accounting for only 16 tokens (12%). These results support the common observation that proposal for joint action is the “prototypical” function of let’s-imperatives (cf. Huddleston and Pullum 2002; Collins 2004). 5%). In the rest of this section, we label the first three functions of let’s-imperatives in Table 2-2 as an ordinary function and the last two as discourse organizational functions, respectively.