Pragmatic use of ancient greek pronouns in two communicative frameworks

Chiara Meluzzi

Abstract

This paper deals with the use of personal pronouns (PPs) in Ancient Greek in two Aristophanes’ comedies (i.e. Lysistrata and Ecclesiazusae). The main purpose of this study is to show that Ancient Greek PPs often have a pragmatic function, in particular linked to the speaker’s communicative goals. The analysis highlights the presence of a gender-related distribution and a context-dependent use of personal pronouns. In particular, male characters prefer 1st person singular pronouns, whereas female characters use more 1st person plural pronouns with an inclusive value. Moreover, in two communicative frameworks it is possible to notice how PPs are used for their value of membership categorization. In this respect PPs can be considered possible markers of autonomía or afiliación (see Bravo 1999). Some peculiar instances of referential ambiguities concern in particular the use of 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns in both comedies.The analysis shows that use of Ancient Greek PPs varies according to gender and context. Moreover, it is clear that in both comedies this variation should be explained mainly as a pragmatic strategy of membership categorization, thus showing instances of non-prototypical uses of PPs similar to other languages (e.g. Spanish, English, Modern Greek).

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Adams, James N
(1984) Female speech in Latin comedy. Antichton 18: 43-77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bain, David
(1984) Female speech in Menander. Antichton 18: 24-42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla
(2009) Noi come meccanismo di intensità. In Barbara Gili-Fivela, andCarla Bazzanella (eds.), Fenomeni di intensità nell’italiano parlato. Florence: Cesati, pp. 101-114.Google Scholar
Bonifazi, Anna
(2004) κεῖνοςin Pindar: Between grammar and poetic intention. Classical Philology 99: 283-299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bravo, Diana
(1999) ¿Imagen positiva vs. imagen negativa? Pragmática socio-cultural y componentes de face. Oralia 2: 22-45.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
(1987) Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bruno, Carla
forthcoming) Dietro la maschera. Funzioni della prima persona nella lingua della tragedia. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ancient GreekLinguistics (N.S.), Rome 2015 , March 23rd-27th.
Davidson, Brad
(1996) ‘Pragmatic weight’ and Spanish subject pronouns. The pragmatic and discourse uses of ‘tú’ and ‘yo’ in spoken Madrid Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 16: 543-565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, Eleanor
(1996) Greek forms of address. From Herodotus to Lucian. Oxford: Clarendon Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
De Cock, Barbara
(2011) Why wecan be you: The use of 1st person plural forms with hearer reference in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2762-2775. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hacohen, Gonen-Dori, and Emanuel A. Schegloff
(2006) On the preference for minimization in referring to persons: Evidence from Hebrew conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1305–1312. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes
(2003) Politeness distinctions in second person pronouns. In Friedrich Lenz (ed.), Deictic conceptualization of space, time and person. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 185-203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) A typology of non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns: Synchrony and diachrony. Journal of Pragmatics 88: 176-189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel, and Juan Camilo Conde Silvestre
(2012) The handbook of historical sociolinguistics. London: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Jeffrey
(1987) Aristophanes. Lysistrata, edited with introduction and commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Lynette
(1994) Female-maledifferences in conversational interaction. Language in Society 23.3: 427-442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet
(1997) Women, language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 1.2: 195-223. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Alan
(2011) Perfoming Greek comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell
(1974) Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. London: Tavistock.  BoPGoogle Scholar
MacDowell, Douglas M
(1995) Aristophanes and Athens. An introduction to the plays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McClure, Laura K
(1999) Spoken like a woman: Speech and gender in Athenian drama. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Meluzzi, Chiara
(2010) Lisistrata, Prassagora e le altre: Un’analisi sociolinguistica e pragmatica della lingua delle donne in Aristofane. MA, Vercelli: University of Eastern Piedmont, unpublished.Google Scholar
(2012) “You” and “me” in Ancient Greek: The case of three “female” comedies. In Wojciech Sowa, and Stefan Schaffner (eds.), Greek and Latin from an Indo-European perspective 3 (GLIEP3). Proceedings of the conference held at the Comenius University Bratislava , July 8th-10th 2010, Supplement of IJDL, pp. 81-100.
(2014) Gli allocutivi nella “Lisistrata”: Proposta di analisi pragmatica. In Maria PiaMarchese, and Alberto Nocentini (a cura di). Il lessico nella teoria e nella storia linguistica. Roma: Il Calamo, pp. 235-240.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter, and Rom Harré
(1990) Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Olson, Douglas
(1992) Names and naming in Aristophanic comedy. The Classical Quarterly 42.2: 304-319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
(2012) Collective aspects of subjectivity: The subject pronoun εμείς (“we”) in Modern Greek. In Nicole Baumgarten, InkeDu Bois, and JulianeHouse (eds.), Subjectivity in language andin discourse. Studies in PragmaticSciences 10. London: Brill Academic Pub., pp. 33-65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff,Gail Jefferson
and (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50.4: 696-735. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A
(2007) A tutorial on membership categorization, Journal of Pragmatics 39: 462-482. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
(2004) Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sommerstein, Alan H
(1977) Aristophanes and the events of 411. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 97: 112-126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) Lysistrata. Warminster: Aris & Philips.Google Scholar
(1995) The language of Athenian women. In Francesco DiMartino, and Alan H. Sommerstein (eds.), Lo spettacolo delle voci. Bari: Levante, pp. 61-85.Google Scholar
(1998) Ecclesiazusae. Warminster: Aris & Philips.Google Scholar
Stewart, Miranda
(2001) Pronouns of power and solidarity: The case of Spanish first person plural nosotros . Multilingua 20: 155-169. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2003) ‘Pragmatic weight’ and face: Pronominal presence and the case of the Spanish second person singular subject pronoun tú. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 191-206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
(1990) You just don’t understand. Women and men in conversation. London: Virago Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1994) Talking from 9 to 5. Women and men at work: Language, sex and power. London: Virago Press.Google Scholar
Ussher, Robert G
(2007) Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Willi, Andreas
(2003) The languages of Aristophanes. Aspects of linguistic variation in Classical Attic Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Nigel G
(2007) Aristophanis Fabulae. Oxford: Oxford Classical Texts.Google Scholar
Zobel, Sarah
(2010) Non-standard uses of German 1st person singular pronouns. New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6284: 292-311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar