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. 273–302

Chapter 13
Ancient Greek adversative particles in contrast

| University of Amsterdam/Free University
Ancient Greek is a language which abounds in discourse particles showing a wide range of functions. This paper aims at analyzing the semantic differences between the most frequent adversative particles in Greek: allá, kaítoi, méntoi and mé:n. Drawing on a number of functionally and cognitively-oriented theoretical approaches to pragmatics, I will argue that these particles can best be analyzed as polysemous networks of semantic extensions resulting from the semanticization of contextually evoked pragmatic inferences. I will also argue that the semantic distinction between the various adversative particles can be insightfully described in terms of discourse-pragmatic notions such as common ground, topos, discourse act and move.
Keywords: Ancient Greek, adversative markers, polysemy, usage-based approach, topos, common ground, discourse act, move, cognitive linguistics, Functional Discourse Grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and theoretical background
  • 2.A typology of adversative relations
  • 3. Allá
  • 4. Méntoi
  • 5. Kaítoi
  • 6. Mé:n
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.190.13all
References (43)
References
Allan, Rutger J. 2013. Exploring modality’s semantic space: Grammaticalisation, subjectification and the case of ὀφείλω. Glotta: 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Tense and aspect in classical Greek. Two historical developments: Augment and perfect. In The Greek Verb Revisited. A Fresh Approach to Biblical Exegesis, Steven E. Runge & Christopher J. Fresch (eds), 81–121. Bellingham: Lexham Press.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. The history of the future. In The Greek Future and its History, Frédéric Lambert, Rutger J. Allan & Theodore Markopoulos (eds). Louvain: Peeters.
Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Ducrot, Oswald. 1977. Deux mais en français? Lingua 43(1): 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Basset, Louis. 1997. Ἀλλ’ ἐξόλοισθ’ αὐτῷ κοαξ. Réexamen des emplois de ἀλλά dans les Grenouilles d’Aristophane. In New Approaches to Greek particles, Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), 75–99. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1993. Co-occurrence patterns among collocations: A tool for corpus-based lexical knowledge acquisition. Computational Linguistics 19(3): 531–8.Google Scholar
Bonifazi, Anna. 2012. Homer’s Versicolored Fabric. The Evocative Power of Ancient Greek Epic Word-Making. Cambridge MA: Center for Hellenic Studies.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, D. Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1992. Monosemy vs. polysemy. Linguistics 30: 577–99.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, Stéphanie J. Bakker & Gerry C. Wakker (eds), 135–69. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Dramatic Pragmatics. A Discourse Approach to Particle Use in Ancient Greek Tragedy and Comedy. PhD dissertation, University of Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Gries, Stephan T. 2010. Behavioral profiles: A fine-grained and quantitative approach in corpus-based lexical semantics. The Mental Lexicon 5(3): 323–46.Google Scholar
2015. Polysemy. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 472–490. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacquinod, Bernard. 1997. Sur le rôle pragmatique de καίτοι. In New Approaches to Greek Particles, Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), 131–49. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.Google Scholar
Kroon, Caroline. 1995. Discourse Particles in Latin. A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T. 1971. Ifs, ands and buts about conjunction. In Studies in Semantics, Charles Fillmore & Terence Langendoen (eds), 114–49. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2004. Towards a semantic typology of adversative and contrastive marking. Journal of Semantics 21: 177–198.Google Scholar
Mann, William C. & Thompson, Sandra. A. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory. Towards a functional theory of text organization. TEXT 8(3): 243–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, Caterina. 2008. Coordination Relations in the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt. 1998. The Function of Discourse Particles. A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 53]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riemer, Nick. 2005. The Semantics of Polysemy: Reading Meaning in English and Warlpiri. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rudolph, Elisabeth. 1996. Contrast. Adversative and Concessive Expressions on Sentence and Text Level. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Spooren, Wilbert & Noordman, Leo. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse processes 15(1): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sicking, Chistiaan & van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. 1993. Two Studies in Attic particle usage. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Slings, Simon R. 1997. Adversative relators between PUSH and POP. In New Approaches to Greek Particles, Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), 101–29. Amsterdam: Gieben.Google Scholar
Strassler, Robert B. (ed.). 1998. The Landmark Thucydides. A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. New York NY: Touchstone.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2003. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2012. The Mental Corpus. How Language is Represented in the Mind. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1999. The role of pragmatics in semantic change. In Pragmatics in 1998: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol. II, Jef Verschueren (ed.), 93–102, Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
2004. Historical pragmatics. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 538–61, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wakker, Gerry C. 1997. Emphasis and affirmation. some aspects of μήν in tragedy. In New Approaches to Greek Particles, Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), 209–31. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Breunesse, Merlijn & Margherita Fantoli
2022.  Quia, quoniam, and information management in Plautus. Journal of Latin Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Sluiter, Ineke
2021. Old Is the New New: The Rhetoric of Anchoring Innovation. In The Language of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 36], ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
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 16 july 2024. 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.