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
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