Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 26:2/3 (2019) ► pp.215–238

Poly-procedural meaning and rhetoric

The case of afu in Modern Greek

| Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
The current paper aims to explore the meaning of one of the most elusive discourse markers in Modern Greek rhetorical discourse: afu. To address the challenge of a thorough and parsimonious account, the relevance-theoretic model of meaning analysis is deployed. The analysis undertaken ultimately reveals that the marker at hand encodes procedural meaning in standard relevance-theoretic terms. However, unlike traditional relevance-theoretic approaches linking a marker to a single procedural function, the current one proposes that afu encodes a poly-procedural constraint on the implicated content of the utterance containing the marker. Moreover, it is argued that this poly-procedural constraint is rhetorically exploited by the speaker in the interest of convincing argumentation.
Keywords: discourse markers, procedural meaning, relevance theory, rhetoric, non-truth-conditional meaning, mutual manifestness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Rhetorical afu and its co-textual varieties
  • 3. Afu: Some preliminary remarks
    • 3.1Epistemic and backgrounding functions
  • 4.Relevance theory
    • 4.1Mutual cognitive environment
    • 4.2Discourse markers and procedural meaning
  • 5.Rhetorical afu: A procedural marker
    • 5.1 Afu’s dual constraint on implicitly communicated content
    • 5.2The rhetorical use of afu
    • 5.3A parsimonious account of rhetorical afu
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19021.bar
References (41)
References
Babiniotis, Georgios. 1998. Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας [Dictionary of Modern Greek]. Athens: Center of Lexicology.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(4). 262–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardzokas, Valandis. 2012. Causality and connectives: From Grice to relevance. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The semantics and pragmatics of causal connectives: Conceptual and procedural aspects of Modern Greek γiati and epeiδi . In Istvan Kecskes & Jesús Romero-Trillo (eds.), Research Trends of Intercultural Pragmatics, 29–54. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Linguistic constraints on causal content: The case of Modern Greek markers. Journal of Pragmatics 601. 160–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Correction-but: A relevance-theoretic reappraisal. Language & Communication 451. 27–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Conceptual and procedural aspects of causal meaning: Corpus-analytic evidence from modern Greek. Corpus Pragmatics 1(3). 257–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Distinctions in procedural meaning: Evidence from Modern Greek contrast. International Review of Pragmatics 11(1). 79–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Communication and the representation of thought: The use of audience-directed expressions in free indirect thought representations. Journal of Linguistics 46(3). 575–599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Explicature and semantics. In Steven Davis & Brendan S. Gillon (eds.), Semantics: A Reader, 1–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2016. The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua 175–1761. 154–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1986. Conditionals: A typology. In Elisabeth Closs Traugott, Alice Ter Meulen, Judy Smitzer Reilly & Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), On conditionals, 77–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 1998. Conditionals and Prediction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2006. On the conceptual-procedural distinction. Style 40(1–2). 24–29.Google Scholar
Goutsos, Dionysis. 2010. The Corpus of Greek Texts: A Reference Corpus for Modern Greek. Corpora 5 (1): 29–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Alison. 2007. Do discourse connectives encode concepts or procedures? Lingua 117(1). 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoidas, Spyros. 1997. From time to cause: The case of since/afu. Athens 1997.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iten, Corinne. 2005. Linguistic meaning, truth conditions and relevance: The case of concessives. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalokerinos, Alexis. 2001. Αφού [αfu]. In Yioryia Angouraki, Amalia Arvaniti, Dionysis Goutsos (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. The justifying connection, mostly in Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 5(1). 27–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitis, Eliza. 1982. Problems connected to the notion of implicature. PhD Thesis, University of Warrick.Google Scholar
. 2001. The case of some temporal subordinative connectives: Existential and universal quantifiers. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Greek Linguistics, 268–276. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Connectives and subjectivity: Comparison of connectives an [if] and ama [if/when]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 221, 365–376. Institute of Modern Greek Studies: Manolis Triantaphyllidis.Google Scholar
. 2004. Conditional constructions as rhetorical structures. Working Papers in Linguistics 2004, 30–51. Altintzis, Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
. 2006. Causality and subjectivity: The causal connectives of Modern Greek. In Hanna Pishwa (ed.), Language and Memory: Aspects of Knowledge Representation (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 173), 223–267. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Semantics: Meaning in Language. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.Google Scholar
Kriaras, Emmanuel. 1995. Νέο Ελληνικό Λεξικό της Σύγχρονης Ελληνικής Δημοτικής Γλώσσας [Modern Greek Dictionary]. Athens: Athens Publishing.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robyn. 1971. If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. In Charles J. Fillmore & D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, 115–150. New York: Holt, Rinchart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stavropoulos, Dimitrios. 1988. Oxford Greek English Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tzartzanos, Achilleas. 1996. Syntax of Modern Greek [Νεοελληνική Σύνταξις], vol 21. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface), 3–31. Wagon Lane Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua 175–1761. 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90(1). 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar