1887
image of Weaving together the diverse threads of category change
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
  • Weaving together the diverse threads of category change

    Intersubjective ἀμέλει ‘of course’ and imperative particles in Ancient Greek

  • Author(s): Ezra la Roi1ORCID icon
  • View Affiliations Hide Affiliations
    Affiliations: 1 Ghent University
  • Source: Diachronica
    Available online: 23 September 2021
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.20031.lar
    • Received: 01 Jun 2020
    • Accepted: 26 Mar 2021
    • Version of Record published : 23 Sep 2021

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates category changes among imperative particles in Ancient Greek. Using diachronic evidence from the category change of the imperative ἀμέλει ( ‘don’t worry’ > ‘of course’) and similar imperative particles, ἄγε (, ἴθι (, φέρε (, εἰπέ μοι ( and ἰδού (), this paper investigates the diachronic interdependence of intersubjectification, grammaticalization and language change in general. It does this in four ways. First, I show that intersubjectification can take place without subjectification ( : 134). Second, I detail the intersubjectification of ἀμέλει with changes in the cognitive domain (no practical > no epistemic worries), the pragmatic domain (responsively resolving > independently assuming resolved worries) and contextual conditions (creating intersubjective alignment > assuming it). Third, I tease apart the various diachronic origins of changes which have affected ἀμέλει. Finally, using contrastive evidence from parallel category changes of Ancient Greek imperative particles, I argue that whereas the imperative particles can be variously affected by structural grammaticalization changes, they all display signs of context change (as shown by illocutionary extensions to occurrence with declarative and interrogative illocutions). Thus, the diverse threads of category change can be woven together by tracing the contexts of change as well as the diachronic processes shaping them.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.20031.lar
2021-09-23
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bailey, Nicholas
    2009Thetic constructions in Koine Greek. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bentein, Klaas
    2016Verbal periphrasis: Have- and Be- constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747093.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747093.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Biraud, Michele
    2010Les interjections du théâtre grec antique: Etude sémantique et pragmatique. Louvain: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blomqvist, Jerker
    1969Greek particles in Hellenistic prose. Lund: Cwk Gleerup.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bonifazi, Anna, Annemieke Drummen & Mark de Kreij
    2016Particles in Ancient Greek discourse: Five volumes exploring particle use across genres. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brinton, Laurel J.
    2008The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, Herbert & Susan E. Brennan
    1991 Grounding in communication. InLauren Resnick, John M. Levine, & Stephanie D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 127–141. Washington: American Psychological Association. 10.1037/10096‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006 [Google Scholar]
  9. Company Company, Concepción
    2006 Subjectification of verbs into discourse markers: Semantic-pragmatic change only?Belgian Journal of Linguistics20. 97–121. 10.1075/bjl.20.07com
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.20.07com [Google Scholar]
  10. Cristofaro, Sonia
    2019 Taking diachronic evidence seriously: Result-oriented vs. source-oriented explanations of typological universals. InKarsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne Maria Michaelis & Ilja A. Seržant (eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence, 25–46. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Degand, Liesbeth & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
    2015 Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics16(1):59–85. 10.1075/jhp.16.1.03deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.03deg [Google Scholar]
  12. Denniston, John D.
    1954The Greek particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Devos, Maud & Jenneke van der Wal
    (eds.) 2014‘COME’ and ‘GO’ off the beaten grammaticalization path. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110335989
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335989 [Google Scholar]
  14. Diewald, Gabriele
    2002 A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. InIlse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 103–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.09die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.09die [Google Scholar]
  15. 2011 Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics49(2). 365–90. 10.1515/ling.2011.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.011 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dryer, Matthew
    2019 Grammaticalization accounts of word order correlations. InKarsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne Maria Michaelis & Ilja Seržant (eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence, 63–95. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Edmonds, John. M.
    1929The characters of Theophrastus. London: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Emde Boas, Evert van, Albert Rijksbaron, Luuk Huitink & Mathieu de Bakker
    2019The Cambridge grammar of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fedriani, Chiara
    2019 The embodied basis of discourse and pragmatic markers in Greek and Latin. InEgle Mocciaro & William Michael Short (eds.), Toward a cognitive classical linguistics: The embodied basis of constructions in Greek and Latin, 69–92. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110616347‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110616347-004 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fedriani, Chiara & Chiara Ghezzi
    2014 The pragmaticalization of verbs of movement and exchange in Latin and Italian: Paths of development from lexicon to pragmatics. InIlona Badescu & Mihaela Popescu (eds.), Studia Linguistica et Philologica in honorem Prof. Univ. Dr. Michaela Livescu, 116–39. Craiova: Editura Universitaria.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ghesquière, Lobke, Lieselotte Brems & Freek Van de Velde
    2014 Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification. Typology and operationalization. InLieselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.), Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse, 129–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ghezzi, Chiara
    2014 The development of discourse and pragmatic markers. InChiara Ghezzi & Piera Molinelli (eds.), Discourse and pragmatic markers from Latin to the Romance languages, 10–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681600.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681600.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldstein, David
    2014 Wackernagel’s Law I. InGeorgios K. Giannakis (ed.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek language and linguistics, 508–513. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2016Classical Greek syntax. Wackernagel’s law in Herodotus. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004250680
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250680 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goutsos, Dionysis
    2017 A corpus-based approach to functional markers in Greek. InChiara Fedriani & Andrea Sansò (eds.), Pragmatic markers, discourse markers and modal particles: New perspectives, 125–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.186.05gou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.186.05gou [Google Scholar]
  26. Heine, Bernd
    2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. InIlse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  27. Henderson, Jeffrey
    2002Aristophanes: Lysistrata. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hopper, Paul J.
    1991 On some principles of grammaticalization. InElizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization I, 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  29. Hopper, Paul J. & Elisabeth Traugott
    2003Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  30. Horrocks, Geoffrey C.
    2007 Syntax: From Classical Greek to the Koine. InAnastasios-Phoivos Christidis (ed.), A history of Ancient Greek: From the beginnings to late antiquity, 618–631. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jonge, Casper C. de
    2008Between grammar and rhetoric. Dionysius of Halicarnassus on language, linguistics and literature. Leiden/Boston: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004166776.i‑456
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004166776.i-456 [Google Scholar]
  32. Julia, Marie-Ange
    2018 Le grec classique possède-t-il un présentatif?InFelicia Logozzo & Paolo Poccetti (eds.), Ancient Greek linguistics: New perspectives, insights, and approaches, 411–427. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Labiano Ilundain, Juan M.
    2000Estudio de las interjecciones en las comedias de Aristófanes. Amsterdam: Hakkert.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Langslow, David R.
    2009Jakob Wackernagel lectures on syntax with special reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198153023.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198153023.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lee, John A. L.
    2007 Ἐξαποστέλλω. InJan Joosten & Peter J. Tomson (eds.), Voces Biblicae: Septuagint Greek and its significance for the New Testament, 99–113. Leuven: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2013 The Atticist grammarians. InStanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, The language of the New Testament: Context, history and development, 283–308. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004236400_013
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004236400_013 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lehmann, Christian
    2015Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd ed.Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_603353
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603353 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lopez-Couso, María J.
    2010 Subjectification and intersubjectification. InAndreas H. Jucker, & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 127–163. Berlin/New York (NY): De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Markopoulos, Theodore
    2009The future in Greek. From Ancient to Medieval. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Matthaios, Stephanos
    2007Das Adverb in der Grammatikographie, T.1. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft, no. Bd 17. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Mauri, Caterina & Andrea Sansò
    2014Go and come as sources of directive constructions. InMaud Devos & Jenneke van der Wal (eds.), ‘COME’ and ‘GO’ off the beaten grammaticalization path, 165–184. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110335989.165
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335989.165 [Google Scholar]
  42. Narrog, Heiko
    2017 Three types of subjectivity, three types of intersubjectivity, their dynamicization and a synthesis. InDanïel van Olmen, Hubert Cuyckens & Lobke Ghesguière (eds.), Aspects of grammaticalization: (Inter)subjectification and directionality, 19–46. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Nicolle, Steve
    2011 Pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. InBernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 401–412. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Nordgren, Lars
    2015Greek interjections. Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110339444
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110339444 [Google Scholar]
  45. Olmen, Daniël van
    2010 The imperative of intentional visual perception as a pragmatic marker: A contrastive study of Dutch, English and Romance. Languages in Contrast10(2). 223–244. 10.1075/lic.10.2.06van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.10.2.06van [Google Scholar]
  46. Revuelta Puigdollers, Antonio
    2017 Illocutionary force and modality: How to tackle the issue in Ancient Greek. InCamille Denizot & Olga Spevak (eds.), Pragmatic approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek, 17–43. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.190.02rev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.190.02rev [Google Scholar]
  47. Ricci, Claudia, Corinne Rossari & Adriana Spiridon
    2009Grammaticalization and pragmatics: Facts, approaches, theoretical issues. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Rijksbaron, Albert
    2006The syntax and semantics of the verb in Classical Greek. Amsterdam: Gieben.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rodd, Jennifer M., Gareth Gaskell & William D. Marslen-Wilson
    2002 Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language46(2). 245–266. doi:  10.1006/jmla.2001.2810
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2810 [Google Scholar]
  50. la Roi, Ezra
    2019 Epistemic modality, particles and the potential optative in Classical Greek, Journal of Greek Linguistics19(1).59–89. 10.1163/15699846‑01901002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/15699846-01901002 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2020 A rephilologized diachronic analysis of ‘Post-Classical Greek’: Pitfalls and principles for progress, Journal of Greek Linguistics20(2). 213–238. 10.1163/15699846‑02002002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/15699846-02002002 [Google Scholar]
  52. . forthc. a. The insubordination of if- and that-clauses in from Archaic to Post-Classical Greek: A diachronic constructional typology. Symbolae Osloensis95. doi:  10.1080/00397679.2021.1951005
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00397679.2021.1951005 [Google Scholar]
  53. . forthc. b. Counterfactuals from Archaic to Classical Greek. InGeorgios K. Giannakis ed. Encyclopedia of Greek language and linguistics (EGLL).
    [Google Scholar]
  54. . subm. a. The Atticist manuals as metalinguistic resource for morpho-syntactic change in Post-Classical Greek.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. . subm. b. The pragmatics of the past: A new typology of past conditionals in Ancient Greek.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Say, Sergey
    2004 Grammaticalization of word order: Evidence from Lithuanian. InOlga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, 363–384. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.59.19say
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.59.19say [Google Scholar]
  57. Schwyzer, Eduard & Albert Debrunner
    1950Griechische Grammatik. Band 2. Munich: C.H. Beck.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    2002 Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy25 (5–6). 701–721. 10.1023/A:1020867916902
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  59. 1978 Assertion. InPeter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, 315–332. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368873_013
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_013 [Google Scholar]
  60. Tantucci, Vittorio
    2017 From immediate to extended intersubjectification: A gradient approach to intersubjective awareness and semasiological change. Language and Cognition9. 88–120. 10.1017/langcog.2015.26
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.26 [Google Scholar]
  61. Thijs, Kees
    2017 The Attic particle μήν: Intersubjectivity, contrast and polysemy. Journal of Greek Linguistics17. 73–112. 10.1163/15699846‑01701005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/15699846-01701005 [Google Scholar]
  62. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    1995 Subjectification in grammaticalization. InDieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 [Google Scholar]
  63. 2003 From subjectification to intersubjectification. InRaymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2010 (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. InKristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  65. 2014 Intersubjectification and clause periphery. InLieselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.), Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse, 7–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.65.02trau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.65.02trau [Google Scholar]
  66. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
    2005Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
    2010 Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. How do they intersect?InElizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90.04tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.04tra [Google Scholar]
  68. 2013Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  69. Van Goethem, Kristel, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede
    2018Category change from a constructional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.20
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20 [Google Scholar]
  70. Verhagen, Arie
    2005Constructions of intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Wouters, Alfons
    1979The grammatical papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt: Contributions to the study of the ‘ars grammatica’ in antiquity. Brussels: Paleis der Academiën.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Zakowski, Samuel
    2014 εἰπέ μοι as a Parenthetical: A structural and functional analysis, from Homer to Menander. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies54(2). 157–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 2018 The evolution of the Ancient Greek deverbal pragmatic markers áge, íthi and phére. Journal of Historical Pragmatics19(1). 55–91. 10.1075/jhp.16009.zak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16009.zak [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.20031.lar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.20031.lar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error