Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Pragmatics
Vol. 16:1 (2015) ► pp.109–141

Spelling out the obvious

Latin quidem and the expression of presuppositional polarity

| Ghent University
In Danckaert (2014), the Latin particle quidem was analysed as a marker of emphatic affirmative polarity. Building on this proposal, this paper elaborates on the pragmatic properties of this element. I argue that quidem is not a neutral but a so-called “presuppositional” polarity marker, which confirms a proposition which (i) is already part of the common ground but (ii) was not overtly spelled out in the (immediately) preceding context. In more formal terms, I propose that quidem gives rise to the conventional implicature that the speaker assumes that the content of his message might already be known to the addressee, or that it conveys information that the latter expects to hear or read. Quidem can be regarded as a “lexical marker of common ground”, in the sense of Fetzer and Fischer (2007).
Keywords: conventional implicatures, presuppositional polarity, discourse markers, grounding, Latin
Published online: 3 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.05dan
References (58)
Adams, James. 1994. Wackernagel’s Law and the Placement of the Copula esse in Classical Latin. Cambridge: Philological Society.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bassarak, Armin. 1987. “Parenthesen als illokutive Handlungen”. In Wolfgang Motsch (ed.), Satz, Text, sprachliche Handlungen, 163–78. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty. 1997. “The Linguistic Realization of Inferrable Information”. Language and Communication 171: 133–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006a. “Semantic and Pragmatic Contributions to Information Status”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 381: 14–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006b. “Inferential Relations and Noncanonical Word Order”. In Betty Birner and Gregory Ward (eds), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, 31–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty and Gregory Ward. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolkestein, Machtelt. 1991. “Causally Related Predications and the Choice between Parataxis and Hypotaxis in Latin”. In Robert Coleman (ed.), New Studies in Latin Linguistics, 427–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1991 [1976]. “Mica: note di sintassi e pragmatica”. Teoria linguistica e sintassi italiana, 311–23. Bologna: Il Mulino (originally published in Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Università di Padova 1: 101–112).Google Scholar
Danckaert, Lieven. 2012. Latin Embedded Clauses: The Left Periphery. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “ Quidem as a Marker of Emphatic Polarity”. Transactions of the Philological Society 1121: 97–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. In preparation. “ quidem and contrastivity”. Manuscript. Ghent University.
Declerck, Renaat and Susan Reed. 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole and Yordanka Kavalova (eds). 2007. Parentheticals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1996. “Focus, Pragmatic Presupposition and Activated Propositions”. Journal of Pragmatics 261: 475–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1973. La preuve et le dire. Paris: Maison Mame.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita and Kerstin Fischer. 2007. “Introduction”. In Anita Fetzer and Kerstin Fischer (eds), Lexical Markers of Common Grounds, 1–13. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fugier, Huguette. 1989. “ Quod, quia, quoniam et leurs effets textuels chez Cicéron”. In Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Subordination and Other Topics in Latin, 91–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1978. “Negation in Language: Pragmatics, Function, Ontology”. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, 69–112. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glare, Paul (ed.). 1968. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”. In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds), Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. “The Internal Syntax of Adverbial Clauses”. Lingua 1201: 628–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hernanz, M. Lluïsa. 2007. “From Polarity to Modality: Some (A)symmetries between bien and sí in Spanish”. In Luis Eguren and Olga Fernández Soriano (eds), Coreference, Modality and Focus, 133–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Assertive bien in Spanish and the Left Periphery”. In Paola Benincà and Nicola Munaro (eds), Mapping the Left Periphery, 19–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 2001. A Natural History of Negation. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1997. “I-Topikalisierung”. Linguistische Berichte 1691: 91–133.Google Scholar
Johnston, Michael. 1994. The Syntax and Semantics of Adverbial Adjuncts. PhD thesis. University of California at Santa Cruz.
Kaiser, Elsi. 2004. “Negation and the Left Periphery in Finnish”. Lingua 1161: 314–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1999. “Beyond ‘Oops’ and ‘Ouch’: How Descriptive and Expressive Meaning Interact.” Paper presented at the Cornell Conference on Theories of Context Dependency. Available online at: [URL])
Kroon, Caroline. 1995. Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. Amsterdam: Gieben. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Latin quidem and the Structure of the Move”. In Henk Aertsen, Mike Hannay and Rod Lyall (eds), Words in their Places: A Festschrift for J. Lachlann Mackenzie, 199–209. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.Google Scholar
. 2005. “The Relationship between Grammar and Discourse: Evidence from the Latin Particle quidem ”. In Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Papers on Grammar IX1, 577–90. Roma: Herder.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Latin Linguistics between Grammar and Discourse: Units of Analysis, Levels of Analysis”. In Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds), Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion und Diachronie, 143–58. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Latin Particles and the Grammar of Discourse”. In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, 176–95. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mellet, Sylvie. 1995. “ Quando, quia, quod, quoniam: analyse énonciative et syntaxique des conjonctions de cause en latin”. In Dominique Longrée (ed.), De usu: études de syntaxe latine offertes en hommage à Marius Lavency, 211–28. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2003. “Remarks on Stripping”. Ms. University of Chicago. Available online at: [URL]
Pasch, Renate. 1987. “Illokutionsstrukturtypen und Typen der Verknüpfung von Inhalten illokutiver Handlungen”. In Wolfgang Motsch (ed.), Satz, Text, sprachliche Handlungen, 119–61. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1972. On Latin Adverbs. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
. 1990. Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2009. “De Latijnse voegwoorden quia en quoniam (en Nederlands aangezien)”. In Egbert Beijk, Lut Colman, Marianne Göbel, Frans Heyvaert, Tanneke Schoonheim, Rob Tempelaars and Vivien Waszink (eds), Fons Verborum: feestbundel Fons Moerdijk, 313–20. Leiden: INL.Google Scholar
. 2010. “The Use of quia and quoniam in Cicero, Seneca, and Tertullian”. In D. Richard Page and Aaron D. Rubin (eds), Studies in Classical Linguistics in Honor of Philip Baldi, 81–95. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2002. “The Lexical Semantics of Parenthetical-as and Appositive-which ”. Syntax 51: 55–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. “Towards a Taxonomy of Given-New Information”. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 223–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1986. “On the Syntactic Marking of Presupposed Open Propositions”. Chicago Linguistic Society 221: 208–22.Google Scholar
. 1992. “The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness and Information-Status”. In William Mann and Sandra Thompson (eds), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rosén, Hannah. 2008. “Latin Epitaxis in Historical and Typological View”. In Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Papers on Grammar X1, 205–242. Roma: Herder.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. 2003. “ No and tampoco: A Pragmatic Distinction in Spanish Negation”. Journal of Pragmatics 351: 999–1030. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “The Pragmatics of Negation in Brazilian Portuguese”. Lingua 1151: 1427–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solodow, Joseph. 1978. The Latin Particle quidem. Boulder: Johnson Co.Google Scholar
Spevak, Olga. 2010. Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thim-Mabrey, Christiane. 1982. “Zur Syntax der kausalen Konjunktionen weil, da und denn ”. Sprachwissenschaft 71: 197–219.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2007. Rethinking the Coordinate–Subordinate Dichotomy: Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winkler, Susanne. 2005. Ellipsis and Focus in Generative Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Malte. 2011. “Discourse Particles”. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn and Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 21, 2012–38. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar