1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Historical Pragmatics
  4. Volume 19, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1566-5852
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9854
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In this paper, I look at the Ancient Greek expressions and , which are all usually translated as ‘come (on)’. After discussing some existing accounts of these items, I look at their structural – syntactic properties and argue that they can be regarded as pragmaticalized imperatives. Then, I propose a new interpretation of their function – on this analysis, they can be regarded as conversational “boosters”, increasing the degree of strength of the illocutionary point of the utterance. Finally, I look at their diachronic development – in the corpus under consideration, is gradually replaced by as the expression used with other imperatives, while develops as the preferred expression for use with non-imperative directive utterances.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.16009.zak
2018-08-10
2025-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jhp.16009.zak
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, Rutger J.
    2015 “Classifying Greek Particles: A Functional Discourse Grammar Approach”. Paper presented at the International Colloquium on Ancient Greek Linguistics. 23–27 March 2015. Rome.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, Karine
    1997 “I think – an English Modal Particle”. InTorial Swan and Olaf J. Westvik (eds), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110889932.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach, Kent
    1999 “The Myth of Conventional Implicature”. Linguistics and Philosophy22 (4): 327–66.10.1023/A:1005466020243
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005466020243 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bach, Kent and Robert M. Harnish
    1979 Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakker, Egbert J.
    1993 “Boundaries, Topics and the Structure of Discourse: An Investigation of the Ancient Greek Particle DÉ”. Studies in Language17 (2): 275–311.10.1075/sl.17.2.02bak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17.2.02bak [Google Scholar]
  6. Bakker, Stéphanie J.
    2009 “On the Curious Combination of the Particles γάρ and οὖν”. InStéphanie Bakker and Gerry Wakker (eds), Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, 41–61. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/ej.9789004174726.i‑284.20
     https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004174726.i-284.20 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bakker, Stéphanie and Gerry Wakker
    (eds) 2009 Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bazzanella, Carla, Cristina Bosco, Alessandro Garcea, Barbara Gili Fivela, Johanna Miecznikowski and Francesca Tini Brunozzi
    2007 “Italian allora, French alors: Functions, Convergences and Divergences”. Catalan Journal of Linguistics6: 9–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Beeching, Kate and Ulrich Detges
    (eds) 2014 Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bellocchi, Margherita
    2015 “Comedy, Diction of”. InEncyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on26 August 2016.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Biraud, Michèle
    2010 Les interjections du théâtre grec antique. Étude sémantique et pragmatique. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Blakemore, Diane
    1987 Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 1988 “‘So’ as a constraint on relevance”. InRuth M. Kempson (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, 183–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2002 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486456
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bolly, Catherine and Liesbeth Degand
    2013 “Have You Seen What I Mean? From Verbal Constructions to Discourse Markers”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics14 (2): 210–35.10.1075/jhp.14.2.03bol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.14.2.03bol [Google Scholar]
  16. Brinton, Laurel J.
    2001 “From Matrix Clause to Pragmatic Marker: The History of look-forms”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics2 (2): 177–99.10.1075/jhp.2.2.02bri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.2.2.02bri [Google Scholar]
  17. 2005 “Processes Underlying the Development of Pragmatic Markers: The Case of (I) say”. InJanne Skaffari, Matti Peikola, Ruth Carroll, Risto Hiltunen and Brita Wårvik (eds), Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past, 279–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.134.23bri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.134.23bri [Google Scholar]
  18. 2008 The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551789
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  19. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Caffi, Claudia
    1999 “On Mitigation”. Journal of Pragmatics31: 881–909.10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00098‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 [Google Scholar]
  21. Clark, Billy
    2013 Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139034104
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034104 [Google Scholar]
  22. Company Company, Concepción
    2006 “Subjectification of Verbs into Discourse Markers: Semantic – Pragmatic Change Only?” Belgian Journal of Linguistics20 (1): 97–121.10.1075/bjl.20.07com
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.20.07com [Google Scholar]
  23. Cruse, D. A.
    1986 Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511975752
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  25. Curcó, Carmen
    2011 “On the Status of Procedural Meaning in Natural Language”. InVictoria Escandell-Vidal Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern (eds), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, 33–54. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Des Places, Édouard
    1929 Études sur quelques particules de liaison chez Platon. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Diewald, Gabriele
    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]
  28. Eckardt, Regine
    2006 Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262601.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262601.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fedriani, Chiara and Chiara Ghezzi
    2014 “The Pragmaticalization of Verbs of Movement and Exchange in Latin and Italian: Paths of Development from Lexicon to Pragmatics”. InIlona Badescu and Mihaela Popescu (eds), Studia Linguistica et Philologica in honorem Prof. Univ. Dr. Michaela Livescu, 116–39. Craiova: Editura Universitaria.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Fedriani, Chiara, Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli
    2012 “Constraining Pragmaticalization: Paths of Development from Lexicon to Discourse”. Paper presented at theconference New Reflections on Grammaticalization 5. 16–19 July 2012. Edinburgh.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Frank-Job, Barbara
    2006 “A Dynamic-Interactional Approach to Discourse Markers”. InKerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles, 359–74. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Fränkel, Eduard
    1964 Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, vol. 1. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Fraser, Bruce
    1980 “Conversational Mitigation”. Journal of Pragmatics4: 341–50.10.1016/0378‑2166(80)90029‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ghezzi, Chiara and Piera Molinelli
    2014 “Italian guarda, prego, dai: Pragmatic Markers and the Left and Right Periphery”. InKate Beeching and Ulrich Detges (eds), Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, 117–50. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004274822_007
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822_007 [Google Scholar]
  35. Giannakis, Georgios K.
    2015 Giannakis, “Indo-European Linguistic Background”. InEncyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on26 August 2016.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard
    2002 “Syntax in Interaction: Form and Function of Yes/No Interrogatives in Spoken Standard French”. Studies in Language25 (3): 463–520.10.1075/sl.25.3.04mos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.25.3.04mos [Google Scholar]
  37. 2008 Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2014a “Cyclicity in Semantic/Pragmatic Change: The Medieval Particle ja between Latin iam and Modern French déjà”. InChiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli (eds), Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages, 139–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681600.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681600.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2014b “Phénomènes de cyclicité dans l’évolution des marqueurs pragmatiques”. Paper presented at the Journée d’études sur les particules discursives. 18–19 December 2014. Nancy.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Corinne Rossari
    2005 “The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics6 (2): 177–87.10.1075/jhp.6.2.02mos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.6.2.02mos [Google Scholar]
  41. Heine, Bernd
    2013 “On Discourse Markers: Grammaticalization, Pragmaticalization or Something Else?” Linguistics51 (6): 1205–47.10.1515/ling‑2013‑0048
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0048 [Google Scholar]
  42. Holmes, Janet
    1984 “Modifying Illocutionary Force”. Journal of Pragmatics8: 345–65.10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90028‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hopper, Paul J.
    1991 “On Some Principles of Grammaticalization”. InElizabeth Closs Traugott and 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]
  44. Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2003 Grammaticalization. (Second edition.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  45. Huang, Yan
    2007 Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Janse, Mark
    1993 “The Prosodic Basis of Wackernagel’s Law”. InAndré Crochetière, Jean-Claude Boulanger and Conrad Ouellon (eds), Actes du XVe Congrès international des linguistes IV, 19–22. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université Laval.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 2008 “Clitic Doubling from Ancient to Asia Minor Greek”. InDalina Kallulli and Liliane Tasmowski (eds), Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages, 165–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.130.11jan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.130.11jan [Google Scholar]
  48. Kaczko, Sara
    2015 “Tragedy, Diction of”. InEncyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on26 August 2016.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Klavans, Judith
    1985 “The Independence of Syntax and Phonology in Cliticization”. Language61: 95–120.10.2307/413422
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413422 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kotzia, Paraskevi and Maria Chriti
    2015 “Ancient Philosophers on Language”. InEncyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on26 August 2016.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Lamiroy, Béatrice and Pierre Swiggers
    1991 “The Status of Imperatives as Discourse Signals”. InSuzanne Fleischman and Linda R. Waugh (eds), Discourse – Pragmatics and the Verb: The Evidence from Romance, 120–46. London and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Lehmann, Christian
    1985 “Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change”. Lingua e Stile20: 303–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Létoublon, Françoise
    2015 “Formulaic Language”. InEncyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on26 August 2016.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Nicolle, Steve
    1997 “Conceptual and Procedural Encoding: Criteria for the Identification of Linguistically Encoded Procedural Information”. InMarjolein Groefsema (ed.), Proceedings of the University of Hertfordshire Relevance Theory Workshop, 47–56. Hatfield Peverel: Peter Thomas.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 1998 “A Relevance Theory Perspective on Grammaticalization”. Cognitive Linguistics9 (1): 1–35.10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2011 “Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization”. InBernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 322–8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Reece, Steve
    2015 “Formulas”. InEncyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on26 August 2016.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. de Saussure, Louis
    2011 “On Some Methodological Issues in the Conceptual/Procedural Distinction”. InVictoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern (eds), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, 55–79. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Sbisà, Marina
    2001 “Illocutionary Force and Degrees of Strength in Language Use”. Journal of Pragmatics33: 1791–814.10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00060‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00060-6 [Google Scholar]
  60. Scheppers, Frank
    2011 The Colon Hypothesis: Word Order, Discourse Segmentation and Discourse Coherence in Ancient Greek. Brussels: VUBPRESS.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  62. Schourup, Lawrence
    1999 “Discourse Markers”. Lingua107: 227–65.10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)90026‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schwyzer, Eduard
    1950 Griechische Grammatik: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik (Zweiter Band). München: C.H. Beck.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Searle, John R. and Daniel Vanderveken
    1985 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Sommerstein, Alan H.
    2014 “Oratory and Rhetoric”. InAlan H. Sommerstein and Isabelle C. Torrance (eds), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, 230–39. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Spencer, Andrew and Ana R. Luís
    2012 Clitics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139033763
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139033763 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
    1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. (Second edition.) Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Stenström, Anna-Brita
    2012 “Spanish Venga and its English Equivalents: A Contrastive Study of Teenage Talk”. Linguistics and the Human Sciences6: 57–75.10.1558/lhs.v6i1‑3.57
     https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v6i1-3.57 [Google Scholar]
  69. Thaler, Verena
    2012 “Mitigation as Modification of Illocutionary Force”. Journal of Pragmatics44: 907–19.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  70. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    1988 “Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization”. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 406–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 1995 “The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of Grammaticalization”. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester1995 (Version of 11/97).
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 2010 “(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment”. InKristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte and 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]
  73. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard B. Dasher
    2005 Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Vanderveken, Daniel
    1998 “On the Logical Form of Illocutionary Acts”. InAsa Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics: Critical Concepts (Volume II: Speech Act Theory and Particular Speech Acts), 170–94. London and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Verano, Rodrigo
    2015  La reformulación discursiva en griego antiguo. Un estudio sobre La Républica de Pláton. Dissertation. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Wackernagel, Jakob
    1892 “Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung”. Indogermanische Forschungen1: 333–436.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Waltereit, Richard
    2006 “The Rise of Discourse Markers in Italian: A Specific Type of Language Change”. InKerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles, 61–76. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Wills, Jeffrey
    1993 “Homeric Particle Order”. Historische Sprachforschung106 (1): 61–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber
    1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance”. Lingua90: 1–25.10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
  80. 1998 “Mood and the Analysis of Non-Declarative Sentences”. InAsa Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics: Critical Concepts (Volume II: Speech Act Theory and Particular Speech Acts), 268–89. London and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 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]
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.16009.zak
Loading
The evolution of the Ancient Greek deverbal pragmatic markers áge, íthiand phére
Journal of Historical Pragmatics 19, 55 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16009.zak
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.16009.zak
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.16009.zak
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Ancient Greek; illocution; imperatives; pragmatic markers; pragmaticalization; propositional attitude

Most Cited

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