Changing the Topic

Topic Position in Ancient Greek Word Order

in Mnemosyne
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

In Ancient Greek, topics can be expressed as intra-clausal constituents but they can also precede or follow the main clause as extra-clausal constituents. Together, these various topic expressions constitute a coherent system of complementary pragmatic functions. For a comprehensive account of topic organization, therefore, a limited focus on the clause proper is insufficient. In this paper, I will argue that it is possible to distinguish five different structural positions in which topic constituents may appear in Ancient Greek. These are: (i) Theme, (ii) clause-initial, (iii) postverbal in Setting, (iv) postverbal in main clause and (v) Tail. Each of these positions in the sentence is associated with a specific pragmatic function: Resumed Topic, Contrastive/New Topic, Given Topic or clarification of Given Topic. In linguistic theory, topic and focus are often seen as independent aspects of information structure instead of complementary functions. It is, therefore, attractive to posit two separate sets of constructional templates: on the one hand, a topic set comprising the aforementioned topic constructions and, on the other hand, a focus set containing two (narrow and broad) focus-constructions. This results in a flexible system in which the word order of each sentence is determined by a combination of a focus construction plus one or more topic constructions.

Mnemosyne

A Journal of Classical Studies

Sections

References

AllanR.J. Clause Intertwining and Word Order in Ancient Greek jgl 2012 12 5 28

ArielM. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents 1990 London

ArielM. SandersT.SchilperoordJ.SpoorenW. Accessibility Theory. An Overview Text Representation 2001 Amsterdam/New York 27 87

BaileyN.A. Thetic Constructions in Koine Greek 2009 (Unpublished diss. vu University, Amsterdam)

BakkerE.J. Homeric Discourse and Enjambement, A Cognitive Approach TAPhA 1990 210 1 21

BirnerB.J.WardG. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English 1998 Amsterdam/Philadelphia

BolkesteinA.M.van de GriftM. HermanJ. Participant Tracking in Latin Discourse Linguistic Studies on Latin 1994 Amsterdam 283 302

BuijsM. Clause Combining in Ancient Greek Narrative Discourse 2005 Leiden/Boston

ChafeW.L. LiC. Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View Subject and Topic 1976 New York 25 56

ChafeW.L. ChafeW.L. The Deployment of Consciousness in the Production of a Narrative The Pear Stories. Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production 1980 Norwood, NJ 1 50

ChafeW.L. TomlinR.S. Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow Coherence and Grounding in Discourse 1987 Amsterdam 21 52

ChafeW.L. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing 1994 Chicago/London

CornishF. Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding. Evidence from English and French 1999 Oxford

DevineA.M.StephensL.D. The Prosody of Greek Speech 1994 Oxford

DikH. Word Order in Ancient Greek. A Pragmatic Account of Word Order Variation in Herodotus 1995 Amsterdam

DikH. Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue 2007 Oxford

DikS.C. The Theory of Functional Grammar 1997 2 Vols. Berlin/New York

DoverK.J. Greek Word Order 1960 Cambridge

Erteschik-ShirN. Information Structure. The Syntax-Discourse Interface 2007 Oxford

FränkelE. Kolon und Satz. Beobachtungen zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes; Kolon und Satz, II; Nachträge zu ‘Kolon und Satz’ Kleine Beiträge I. Zur Sprache 1964 Rome 73 139

FränkelE. Noch einmal Kolon und Satz 1965 Munich

Gómez-GonzálezM.A. MackenzieJ.L.Gómez-GonzálezM.A. Functional Grammar and the Dynamics of Discourse A New Architecture for Functional Grammar 2004 Berlin/New York 211 242

GivónT. GivónT. Topic Continuity in Discourse. An Introduction Topic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-language Study 1983 Amsterdam/Philadelphia 1 41

GivónT. Syntax 2001 2 Vols. Amsterdam/Philadelphia

GoldbergA.E. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure 1995 Chicago

GoldbergA.E. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language 2006 Oxford

GundelJ.K.HedbergN.ZacharskiR. Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse Language 1993 69 274 307

HengeveldJ.MackenzieJ.L. Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure 2008 Oxford

JowettB. Thucydides 1881 Oxford

LambrechtK. Information Structure and Sentence Form 1994 Cambridge

LangackerR.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I. Theoretical Prerequisites 1987 Stanford

LevinsonS.C. Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature 2000 Cambridge, MA

LewisD. Scorekeeping in a Language Game Journal of Pragmatics 1979 27 457 475

MacaulayG.C. The Histories. Herodotus 2004 Revised by D. Lateiner (New York)

MarshallM.H.B. Verbs, Nouns, and Postpositives in Attic Prose 1987 Edinburgh

MatićD. Topic, Focus, and Discourse Structure. Ancient Greek Word Order Studies in Language 2003 27 573 633

NapoliM. Aspects of Definiteness in Greek Studies in Language 2009 33 569 611

PalmJ. Zur Funktion und Stellung des attributiven Demonstrativums im Griechischen 1960 Lund

PrinceE. F. ColeP. Toward a Taxonomy of Given/New Information Radical Pragmatics 1981 New York

ReeveM.D. Hiatus in the Greek Novelists cq 1971 21 514 539

RijksbaronA. Sur quelques différences entre οὗτος ὁ (substantif ), οὗτος δὲ ὁ (substantif ) et ὁ δὲ (substantif) οὗτος chez HérodoteLalies 1993 12 119 130

RijksbaronA. BreuilJ.L. Sur l’article avec nom propre Ἐν κοινωνίᾳ πᾶσα φιλία. Mélanges pour Bernard Jacquinod 2006 Saint Étienne 243 257

RuijghC.J. EichnerH.RixH. La place des enclitiques dans l’ordre des mots chez Homère d’apres la loi de Wackernagel Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie. Jacob Wackernagel und die Indo-Germanistik heute 1990 Wiesbaden 213 233 [ = Scripta Minora, II, 627-47]

SanfordA.J.GarrodS.C. Understanding Written Language 1981 Chichester

SlingsS.R. Written and Spoken language. An Exercise in the Pragmatics of the Greek Language CPh 1992 87 95 109

SlingsS.R. BakkerE.J. Figures of Speech and their Lookalikes. Two Further Exercises in the Pragmatics of the Greek Sentence Grammar as Interpretation 1997 Leiden 169 214

SlingsS.R. BagordoA.ZimmermannB. Information Unit and Metrical Unit Bakchylides 2000 Munich 113 130

SlingsS.R. BakkerE.J.de JongI.J.F.van WeesH. Oral Strategies in the Language of Herodotus Brill’s Companion to Herodotus 2002 Leiden 53 77

Van HoekK. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure 1997 Chicago

Van VlietS.M.K. Proper Nouns and Pronouns The Production of Referential Expressions in Narrative Discourse 2008 Utrecht

WalkerM.A. WalkerM.A.JoshiA.PrinceE. Centering, Anaphora Resolution and Discourse Structure Centering Theory in Discourse 1998 Oxford 1998

10

E.g. Givón 1983 and 2001, 2, 227, 254. Gómez-González 2004 refers to the D-Topic’s retrospective and prospective potential.

19

See Rijksbaron 2006, Napoli 2009, 592. The anaphoric function also explains the tendency which I found in my data that names with focus or names used to (re)introduce discourse participants (Themes) tend to lack the article. There may also be diachronical, genre-specific and even author-specific tendencies. Thucydides, for instance, does provide Themes with articles. The use of the article with proper nouns certainly deserves more study. I will not pursue this issue here any further.

22

See S. Dik 1997, 1, 323; 2, 216-7; also H. Dik 1995, 2.

25

See e.g. Chafe 1980, Sanford & Garrod 1981, Ariel 1990, 2001, 33, Van Vliet 2008, 44-7.

27

See Chafe 1976, 34, Lambrecht 1994, 291-5, Givón 2001, 262. My category of Contrastive/New Topic by and large comprises exclusive contrastive topics and frame-setting topics as proposed by Matić 2003. I see no reason to maintain a distinction between exclusive contrastive topics and frame-setting topics. As Matić himself admits, there is no intonational evidence for this distinction. Furthermore, I am not aware of any examples in which both types of topics occur side by side. Contrastive Topics subsume Helma Dik’s Subtopics, i.e. topics relating to parts or aspects of a hierarchically superordinated entity (Dik 1995, 27-8).

36

The term Given Topic I owe to S. Dik 1997, 1, 314. Matić 2003 uses the term continuous topic.

Figures

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 27 27 12
Full Text Views 8 8 8
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 1 1 1