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
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

Cited by 3 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
La Roi, Ezra
2020. The Variation of Classical Greek Wishes. Glotta 96:1 ► pp. 213 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

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.