Article published in:
Journal of Historical Pragmatics
Vol. 19:1 (2018) ► pp. 55–91

The evolution of the Ancient Greek deverbal pragmatic markers áge, íthi and phére

| Ghent University, Belgium
In this paper, I look at the Ancient Greek expressions áge, íthi and phére, which are all usually translated as ‘come (on)’. After discussing some existing accounts of these items, I look at their structural – syntactic properties and argue that they can be regarded as pragmaticalized imperatives. Then, I propose a new interpretation of their function – on this analysis, they can be regarded as conversational “boosters”, increasing the degree of strength of the illocutionary point of the utterance. Finally, I look at their diachronic development – in the corpus under consideration, áge is gradually replaced by íthi as the expression used with other imperatives, while phére develops as the preferred expression for use with non-imperative directive utterances.
Keywords: Ancient Greek, imperatives, illocution, pragmatic markers, pragmaticalization, propositional attitude
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Earlier accounts
  • 3. Áge, íthi and phére as grammaticalized imperatives
    • 3.1The structural criteria
    • 3.2The semantic criteria
      • 3.2.1Conceptual > procedural
      • 3.2.2Non-subjective > (inter)subjective
  • 4.The semantics of áge, íthi and phére revisited
  • 5. Áge, íthi and phére: Synonyms or not?
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16009.zak
References
Allan, Rutger J.
2015 “Classifying Greek Particles: A Functional Discourse Grammar Approach”. Paper presented at the International Colloquium on Ancient Greek Linguistics . 23–27 March 2015. Rome.
Aijmer, Karine
1997 “I think – an English Modal Particle”. In Torial Swan and Olaf J. Westvik (eds), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent
1999 “The Myth of Conventional Implicature”. Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (4): 327–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent and Robert M. Harnish
1979 Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bakker, Egbert J.
1993 “Boundaries, Topics and the Structure of Discourse: An Investigation of the Ancient Greek Particle DÉ”. Studies in Language 17 (2): 275–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Stéphanie J.
2009 “On the Curious Combination of the Particles γάρ and οὖν”. In Stéphanie Bakker and Gerry Wakker (eds), Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, 41–61. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Stéphanie and Gerry Wakker
(eds) 2009 Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla, Cristina Bosco, Alessandro Garcea, Barbara Gili Fivela, Johanna Miecznikowski and Francesca Tini Brunozzi
2007 “Italian allora, French alors: Functions, Convergences and Divergences”. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 61: 9–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate and Ulrich Detges
(eds) 2014 Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bellocchi, Margherita
2015 “Comedy, Diction of”. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on 26 August 2016.Google Scholar
Biraud, Michèle
2010 Les interjections du théâtre grec antique. Étude sémantique et pragmatique. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987 Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1988 “ ‘So’ as a constraint on relevance”. In Ruth M. Kempson (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, 183–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2002 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolly, Catherine and Liesbeth Degand
2013 “Have You Seen What I Mean? From Verbal Constructions to Discourse Markers”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14 (2): 210–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.
2001 “From Matrix Clause to Pragmatic Marker: The History of look-forms”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (2): 177–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Processes Underlying the Development of Pragmatic Markers: The Case of (I) say ”. In Janne Skaffari, Matti Peikola, Ruth Carroll, Risto Hiltunen and Brita Wårvik (eds), Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past, 279–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia
1999 “On Mitigation”. Journal of Pragmatics 311: 881–909. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Billy
2013 Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Company Company, Concepción
2006 “Subjectification of Verbs into Discourse Markers: Semantic – Pragmatic Change Only?” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 20 (1): 97–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
1986 Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curcó, Carmen
2011 “On the Status of Procedural Meaning in Natural Language”. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern (eds), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, 33–54. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Des Places, Édouard
1929 Études sur quelques particules de liaison chez Platon. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2011 “Pragmaticalization (Defined) as Grammaticalization of Discourse Functions”. Linguistics 49 (2): 365–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, Regine
2006 Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara and Chiara Ghezzi
2014 “The Pragmaticalization of Verbs of Movement and Exchange in Latin and Italian: Paths of Development from Lexicon to Pragmatics”. In Ilona Badescu and Mihaela Popescu (eds), Studia Linguistica et Philologica in honorem Prof. Univ. Dr. Michaela Livescu, 116–39. Craiova: Editura Universitaria.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara, Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli
2012 “Constraining Pragmaticalization: Paths of Development from Lexicon to Discourse”. Paper presented at the conference New Reflections on Grammaticalization 5 . 16–19 July 2012. Edinburgh.
Frank-Job, Barbara
2006 “A Dynamic-Interactional Approach to Discourse Markers”. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles, 359–74. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fränkel, Eduard
1964 Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, vol. 1. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1980 “Conversational Mitigation”. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 341–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara and Piera Molinelli
2014 “Italian guarda, prego, dai: Pragmatic Markers and the Left and Right Periphery”. In Kate Beeching and Ulrich Detges (eds), Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, 117–50. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giannakis, Georgios K.
2015 Giannakis, “Indo-European Linguistic Background”. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on 26 August 2016.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard
2002 “Syntax in Interaction: Form and Function of Yes/No Interrogatives in Spoken Standard French”. Studies in Language 25 (3): 463–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2014a “Cyclicity in Semantic/Pragmatic Change: The Medieval Particle ja between Latin iam and Modern French déjà ”. In Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli (eds), Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages, 139–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014b “Phénomènes de cyclicité dans l’évolution des marqueurs pragmatiques”. Paper presented at the Journée d’études sur les particules discursives . 18–19 December 2014. Nancy.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Corinne Rossari
2005 “The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6 (2): 177–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
2013 “On Discourse Markers: Grammaticalization, Pragmaticalization or Something Else?” Linguistics 51 (6): 1205–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet
1984 “Modifying Illocutionary Force”. Journal of Pragmatics 81: 345–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1991 “On Some Principles of Grammaticalization”. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization I, 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization. (Second edition.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan
2007 Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janse, Mark
1993 “The Prosodic Basis of Wackernagel’s Law”. In André Crochetière, Jean-Claude Boulanger and Conrad Ouellon (eds), Actes du XVe Congrès international des linguistes IV, 19–22. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
2008 “Clitic Doubling from Ancient to Asia Minor Greek”. In Dalina Kallulli and Liliane Tasmowski (eds), Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages, 165–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaczko, Sara
2015 “Tragedy, Diction of”. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on 26 August 2016.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith
1985 “The Independence of Syntax and Phonology in Cliticization”. Language 611: 95–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kotzia, Paraskevi and Maria Chriti
2015 “Ancient Philosophers on Language”. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on 26 August 2016.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice and Pierre Swiggers
1991 “The Status of Imperatives as Discourse Signals”. In Suzanne Fleischman and Linda R. Waugh (eds), Discourse – Pragmatics and the Verb: The Evidence from Romance, 120–46. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1985 “Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change”. Lingua e Stile 201: 303–18.Google Scholar
Létoublon, Françoise
2015 “Formulaic Language”. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on 26 August 2016.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve
1997 “Conceptual and Procedural Encoding: Criteria for the Identification of Linguistically Encoded Procedural Information”. In Marjolein Groefsema (ed.), Proceedings of the University of Hertfordshire Relevance Theory Workshop, 47–56. Hatfield Peverel: Peter Thomas.Google Scholar
1998 “A Relevance Theory Perspective on Grammaticalization”. Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1): 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization”. In Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 322–8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reece, Steve
2015 “Formulas”. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on 26 August 2016.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Louis
2011 “On Some Methodological Issues in the Conceptual/Procedural Distinction”. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern (eds), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, 55–79. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Sbisà, Marina
2001 “Illocutionary Force and Degrees of Strength in Language Use”. Journal of Pragmatics 331: 1791–814. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheppers, Frank
2011 The Colon Hypothesis: Word Order, Discourse Segmentation and Discourse Coherence in Ancient Greek. Brussels: VUBPRESS.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence
1999 “Discourse Markers”. Lingua 1071: 227–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard
1950 Griechische Grammatik: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik (Zweiter Band). München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. and Daniel Vanderveken
1985 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sommerstein, Alan H.
2014 “Oratory and Rhetoric”. In Alan H. Sommerstein and Isabelle C. Torrance (eds), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, 230–39. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew and Ana R. Luís
2012 Clitics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. (Second edition.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita
2012 “Spanish Venga and its English Equivalents: A Contrastive Study of Teenage Talk”. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 61: 57–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, Verena
2012 “Mitigation as Modification of Illocutionary Force”. Journal of Pragmatics 441: 907–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1988 “Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization”. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 406–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 “The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of Grammaticalization”. Paper presented at ICHL XII , Manchester 1995 (Version of 11/97).
2010 “(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment”. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard B. Dasher
2005 Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vanderveken, Daniel
1998 “On the Logical Form of Illocutionary Acts”. In Asa Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics: Critical Concepts (Volume II: Speech Act Theory and Particular Speech Acts), 170–94. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Verano, Rodrigo
2015  La reformulación discursiva en griego antiguo . Un estudio sobre La Républica de Pláton. Dissertation. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jakob
1892 “Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung”. Indogermanische Forschungen 11: 333–436. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard
2006 “The Rise of Discourse Markers in Italian: A Specific Type of Language Change”. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles, 61–76. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wills, Jeffrey
1993 “Homeric Particle Order”. Historische Sprachforschung 106 (1): 61–81.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber
1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance”. Lingua 901: 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 “Mood and the Analysis of Non-Declarative Sentences”. In Asa Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics: Critical Concepts (Volume II: Speech Act Theory and Particular Speech Acts), 268–89. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zakowski, Samuel
2014 “εἰπέ μοι as a Parenthetical: A Structural and Functional Analysis, from Homer to Menander”. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 54 (2): 157–91.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

la Roi, Ezra
2021. The Insubordination of If- and That-Clauses from Archaic to Post-Classical Greek: A Diachronic Constructional Typology. Symbolae Osloenses ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
la Roi, Ezra
2022. Weaving together the diverse threads of category change. Diachronica 39:2 ► pp. 159 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.