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 13 june 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.