Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek
Edited by Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak
[Studies in Language Companion Series 190] 2017
► pp. 213–234

Chapter 10
On the distribution of some interactive/conclusive discourse markers in Plato’s Theaetetus

| University for Foreigners of Siena

This paper focuses on the Greek particles ára, oukoûn, oûn and toínun in Plato’s Theaetetus and investigates them at the syntactic-pragmatic interface. Traditionally, these particles are regarded as semantically equivalent, because they express consequence or indicate a conclusion. However, they do not appear to be interchangeable within the speech turns of dialogues. I will show that (a) the distribution of the particles in turn-takings is due to different speech acts, which are reflected in different sentence types (questions, statements, etc.) and correlate with different verbal moods (imperative, subjunctive, etc.) and deictic categories (tense and person); (b) with respect to discourse cohesion, the four particles split into three classes: ára and oûn are relevant for the representational level, oukoûn for the presentational one and toínun for the interactional one.

Keywords: Ancient Greek, pragmatics-syntax interface, discourse markers, sentence modality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The main findings of previous studies and the results expected from the current study
    • 2.1A survey of previous studies on particles in Plato’s dialogues
    • 2.2Methodology and aims
  • 3.Data analysis
    • 3.1 Ára and oûn
    • 3.2 Oukoûn and toínun
  • 3.3To sum up
  • 4.Concluding remarks and some perspectives for further research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.190.10tro
References

References

Bakker, Stephanie
2009 On the curious combination of the particles γάρ and οὖν. In Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, Stephanie Bakker & Gerry Wakker (eds), 41–61. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Stephanie & Wakker, Gerry
(eds) 2009 Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Basset, Louis
1997 Réexamen des emplois de ἀλλά à la lumière de l’énonciation dans les Grenouilles d’Aristophane. In New Approaches to Greek Particles, Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), 75–99. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
2002 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denizot, Camille
2011 Donner des ordres en grec ancien. Étude linguistique des formes de l’injonction. Mont-Saint-Aignan: PURH.Google Scholar
Denniston, John D.
1954 The Greek Particles, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Drummen, Annemieke
2009 Discourse cohesion in dialogue. Turn-Initial ἀλλά in Greek drama. In Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, Stephanie Bakker & Gerry Wakker (eds), 135–54. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacquinod, Bernard
1997 Sur le rôle pragmatique de καίτοι. In New Approaches to Greek particles, Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), 131–56. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.Google Scholar
Kroon, Caroline
1995 Discourse Particles in Latin. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.Google Scholar
Kühner, Raphael & Gerth, Bernhardt
1904 Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Part 2: Satzlehre. Hannover: Hahn.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques
2002 Connecteurs, encodage conceptuel et encodage procédural. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 24: 265–91.Google Scholar
van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.
1993 οὖν, ἄρα, δή, τοίνυν: The linguistic articulation of arguments in Plato’s Phaedo . In Two Studies in Attic Particle Usage. Lysias and Plato, Christiaan Sicking & Johannes M. van Ophuijsen (eds), 67–164. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Oréal, Elsa
1997 Sur la fonction argumentative de quelques particules grecques. Lalies 17: 229–49.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm
1972 On Latin Adverbs. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
1990/1995  Sintaxis y semántica del latín, revised and enhanced edn. of Latin Syntax and Semantics . Madrid: Ed. Clásicas. http://​perseus​.uchicago​.edu​/cgi​-bin​/philologic​/navigate​.pl​?NewPerseusMonographs​.19 (January 2017).
des Places, Édouard
1929 Études sur quelques particules de liaison chez Platon. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Rijksbaron, Albert
1997 Introduction. In New Approaches to Greek Particles, Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), 1–14. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.Google Scholar
2012 Does ancient Greek have a word for ‘No’? The evidence from οὐκοῦν… οὐ questions. Journal of Greek Linguistics 12: 140–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheppers, Frank
2011 The Colon Hypothesis. Word Order, Discourse Segmentation and Discourse Coherence in Ancient Greek. Brussels: VUB Press.Google Scholar
Schrickx, Josine
2011 Lateinische Modalpartikeln. Nempe, quippe, scilicet, videlicet und nimirum . Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sicking, Christiaan
1986 Griekse partikels: Definitie en classificatie. Lampas 19: 125–41.Google Scholar
1997 Particles in questions in Plato. In New Approaches to Greek Particles, Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), 157–74. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.Google Scholar
Spevak, Olga
2010 Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose [Studies in Language Companion Series 117]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wakker, Gerry
2009 ‘Well I will now present my arguments.’ Discourse Cohesion marked by οὖν and τοίνυν in Lysias. In Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, Stephanie Bakker & Gerry Wakker (eds), 63–81. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

La Roi, Ezra
2020. The Variation of Classical Greek Wishes. Glotta 96:1 ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 march 2023. 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.