Conjunctive adverbs in Ancient Greek

Position and development of conjunctive functions

in Journal of Greek Linguistics

Abstract

Conjunctive adverbs have generally been neglected in Ancient Greek grammars. In this language, textual cohesion is mostly assured by a battery of connective particles. While connective particles exhibit fixed position, conjunctive adverbs show a certain degree of positional variability. They usually take initial position, as well as medial position when preceded by a preposed constituent. Final position is very rare and most instances are due to ellipsis. This is comparable to the early phases of the development of similar adverbs in other languages.

Abstract

Conjunctive adverbs have generally been neglected in Ancient Greek grammars. In this language, textual cohesion is mostly assured by a battery of connective particles. While connective particles exhibit fixed position, conjunctive adverbs show a certain degree of positional variability. They usually take initial position, as well as medial position when preceded by a preposed constituent. Final position is very rare and most instances are due to ellipsis. This is comparable to the early phases of the development of similar adverbs in other languages.

1 Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to study the position of conjunctive adverbs in Ancient Greek, more precisely in classical and postclassical texts. Conjunctive adverbs are a morphosyntactic type of discourse marker with connecting functions, cf. Crespo (2011); Martín Zorraquino (2010: 121–129).1 The position of these elements has received attention in recent years, but those studies have mostly focused on modern languages whose word order does not always coincide with Ancient Greek’s. Nevertheless, as discussed below, different adverbs’ development of conjunctive functions in those languages shows a series of characteristics that can be compared to the development of similar functions by Ancient Greek adverbs. It must be noted that this paper’s claims are exemplified by three adverbs that show a high degree of pragmaticalisation as conjunctive devices:2 hómōs ‘however, though’, proséti ‘besides’ and hōsaútōs ‘similarly, likewise’. This degree of pragmaticalisation is the main reason of this choice, since it allows for a more accurate analysis of their position than with other items.3 It is not always easy to determine the conjunctive status of the examples when the adverb is not fully pragmaticalised. This becomes clear in the analysis of hōsaútōs, since the pragmaticalisation of the conjunctive sequence hṑs d’ aútōs gives way to a new adverb which also acquired non-conjunctive functions. Be that as it may, another highly pragmaticalised item like has not been included because of its postpositive nature. On eîta and épeita, see Jiménez Delgado (2014).

The first issue to be addressed is the distinction between conjunctive adverbs and other connecting devices, especially coordinating conjunctions and particles. One of the most striking features of Ancient Greek is the fact that independent sentences are generally linked to one another by connective particles (Denniston 1952: 99 and 1954: xliii), while the asyndeton is rare and generally conditioned (Denniston 1952: 99–123; Crespo 2013).4 See the following passage corresponding to the beginning of Xenophon’s Anabasis:5

(1)

Dareíou

kaì

Parusā́tidos

paîdes

gígnontai

dúo,

presbúteros

mèn

Artaxérxēs,

neṓteros

Kûros.

Epeì

ēsthénei

Dareîos

kaì

hupṓpteue

teleutḕn

toû

bíou,

eboúleto

tṑ

paîde

amphotérō

pareînai.

Ho

mèn

oûn

presbúteros

parṑn

etúgkhane.

Kûron

metapémpetai

apò

tês

arkhês

hês

autòn

satrápēn

epoíēsen,

kaì

stratēgòn

autòn

apédeixe

pántōn

hósoi

es

Kastōloû

pedíon

hathroízontai.

of.Darius

and.PTC

of.Parysatis

sons

they.are.born

two

the.elder

PTC

Artaxexes

the.younger

and.PTC

Cyrus

when

and.PTC

he.lay.sick

Darius

and.PTC

he.suspected

the.end

of.his

life

he.wanted

his

sons

both

be.present.INF

the

PTC

then.PTC

elder

being.present.PTCP.NOM

he.was.by.chance

Cyrus.ACC

but.PTC

he.summons

from

the

province

of.which

him

satrap.ACC

he.made

and.PTC

general.ACC

PTC

him

he.appointed

of.all

who

in

Castolus’

plain

they.gather.together

“Darius and Parysatis had two sons born to them, of whom the elder was Artaxerxes and the younger Cyrus. Now when Darius lay sick and suspected that the end of his life was near, he wished to have both his sons with him. The elder, as it chanced, was with him already; but Cyrus he summoned from the province over which he had made him satrap, and he had also appointed him commander of all the forces that muster in the plain of Castolus”. (X. An. 1.1.1–2)

In this example, the connective particles linking the sentences which make up the passage are in bold, as well as those relating other types of elements (Dareíou kaì Parusā́tidos; presbúteros mèn Artaxérxēs, neṓteros Kûros; ēsthénei kaì Dareîos hupṓpteue).6 The term ‘connective particle’ is used in this paper as a general term in order to distinguish conjunctive adverbs from the elements traditionally classified as particles.7 This term comprises conjunctions, like kaí ‘and’, a syntactic category with the ability to coordinate any kind of element; particles, a more semantic category that only relates sentences,8 like oûn; other devices which stand more or less in between, like ; and even elements that announce an upcoming conjunct, like mén. The adverbs that fulfill conjunctive functions are easily distinguished from connective particles.9 Apart from their phonetic size (particula means ‘small part [of speech]’) and greater positional variability (see below), most of them still maintain non-conjunctive functions that coexist with the conjunctive ones; their frequency is more limited;10 and they do not usually have the ability to connect by themselves but in association with particles. In Ancient Greek, conjunctive adverbs tend to reinforce or nuance the semantic and/or pragmatic instructions conveyed by the particles with which they associate, cf. Crespo (2014); Quirk et al. (1985: 645–646); Kovacci (1999: 769). See the following example, in which proséti associates with the particle :

(2)

ḗdē

kaì

memisthoménous

eînai

polloùs

mèn

Thrākôn

makhairophórous,

Aiguptíous

prospleîn …

proséti

kaì

Kupríōn

stráteuma.

already

and.PTC

also.ADV

hired

be.INF

many

on.the.one.hand.PTC

of.Thracians

swordsmen

Egyptians

on.the.other.hand.PTC

sail.to.join.INF

besides.ADV

and.PTC

also.ADV

of.Cyprians

army

“[They reported] also that many Thracian swordsmen had already been hired and that Egyptians were under sail to join them … Besides these, there was also the Cyprian army”. (X. Cyr. 6.2.10)

The particle indicates that there is a thematic discontinuity between the conjuncts, cf. Bakker (1993); Martín López (1993). The adverb proséti specifies that the conjunct introduced by adds to the previous one and that they have the same argumentative orientation.11

Conjunctive adverbs can additionally be used to strengthen the relation between main and subordinate clauses. This use is characteristic of some conjunctive adverbs. A clear case is that of hómōs between a concessive subordinate and its main clause:

(3)

kaì

ei

pistaì

hūmîn

eisin,

hómōs

episkeptéai

saphésteron

even

if

certain.NOM

to.you

they.are

however.ADV

to.be.examined.NOM

more.carefully

“Even though our first assumptions seem to you to be certain, however, they ought to be more carefully examined”. (Pl. Phd. 107.b)

This “apodotic” function is especially frequent after concessive, conditional, temporal and causal subordinate clauses. In the first case, hómōs is most typical, while in the conditional and temporal cases, the adverbs eîta, épeita and tóte, all meaning ‘then’, are the most employed; hoútōs ‘thus’ is used after all types of subordinate clauses, including manner clauses, after which hōsaútōs is also used. It should be stressed that some connective particles also exhibit this “apodotic” function, though this use is generally archaic and rare, cf. Denniston (1954: xl–xli).

Conjunctive adverbs can also function within a subordinate clause (Greenbaum 1969: 38–39). This adverbial function is not frequent at all,12 but strengthens or nuances the semantic relation between main and subordinate clause and is exclusive to conjunctive adverbs:

(4)

tḕn

boḗtheian

édei

kōlûsai

tḕn

eis

tā̀s

Púlās,

eph’

hḕn

hai

pentḗkonta

triḗreis

hómōs

ephṓrmoun,

hín’,

ei

poreúoito

Phílippos,

kōlúoith’

hūmeîs

ART.FEM

and.PTC

reinforcement.ACC.FEM

it.was.necessary

to.stop.INF

ART.FEM

to.PREP

the

Thermopylai

for

which

the

fifty

war-galleys

however.ADV

they.were.lying.at.anchor

so.that

if

he.advanced

Philip

you.could.stop

you.NOM

“It was necessary to stop the reinforcement of Thermopylae, for which fifty war-galleys were lying at anchor, though, to enable you to check Philip’s advance”. (D. 19.322)

In this example, the adverb hómōs indicates that the relative subordinate clause leads to different conclusions with respect to those of the main one.

2 Conjunctive adverbs and their position

Conjunctive adverbs tend to be placed in initial position. This position best accommodates their function as clause-linking devices since they occupy an intermediary position between linked units.13 Typologically, one of the features that distinguishes conjunctive adverbs from coordinating conjunctions is positional variability (Martín Zorraquino & Portolés Lázaro 1999: 4062; Pasch et al. 2003: 457 and 494; Lenker 2010: 43–44 and 67). Conjunctions occupy initial position in modern European languages, whereas conjunctive adverbs can occupy initial, medial and final position; see the following Spanish examples taken from Martín Zorraquino & Portolés Lázaro (1999: 4063):

(5) a. Juan estaba cansado. No obstante, continuó su camino. (John was tired. However, he went on his way.)

b. Juan estaba cansado. Continuó, no obstante, su camino. (John was tired. He went, however, on his way.)

c. Juan estaba cansado. Continuó su camino, no obstante. (John was tired. He went on his way, however.)

The position of these elements has garnered some interest in the last years; see, for instance, Georgakopoulou & Goutsos (1998); Altenberg (2006); Haselow (2012); Lenker (2010: 43–44, 67–72, 197–213 and 233–241); Traugott (2016); and Goutsos (2017). These studies mainly focus on medial and final position. In English, conjunctive adverbs historically developed the medial position when they were placed after a contrastive constituent. In the 18th and 19th centuries, their use in medial position was already common (6a), including position after a contrastive constituent (6b):

(6) a. The natural sciences do not, however, stand on the same footing with these instrument-knowledges … (CLARN3, 127; see Lenker 2010: 237).

b. This portion, however, may still be considered as the natural rent of the land … (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Chapter XI, Part 1).

Final position appeared later, and it supposes a re-interpretive strategy.14 This position has given birth to a new constituent order according to which many conjunctive adverbs can be placed in that position in any type of text:

(7) He is poor. He is satisfied with his situation, though. (Lenker 2010: 201).

In this position, not only adversative conjunctive adverbs like though but also consecutive conjunctive adverbs like then and additive ones like too are encountered. Even though this position is intuitively unqualified to connect to the preceding sentence, it is found in other languages, like German, where there are also a number of conjunctive adverbs that can be placed in final position; cf. Pasch et al. (2003: 553).

Before examining the Ancient Greek data, it must be stressed that in English and Spanish, sentences and clauses tend to be connected via conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs that do not always overlap with the connective particles proper to Ancient Greek. Moreover, word order is determined by syntactic patterns in English and Spanish, while Ancient Greek is what has been called a non-configurational language, in which word order is mostly determined by pragmatic factors;15 cf. Matić (2003a); Bertrand (2010); Goldstein (2016a). Nevertheless, the position of conjunctive adverbs in these languages is not determined by syntactic patterns, or at least not only by them. This enables the comparison with the position of conjunctive adverbs in Ancient Greek, and as is examined below, the position of these adverbs in Ancient Greek corresponds to the early phases of the development of similar functions by English adverbs.

3 Position of conjunctive adverbs in classical and postclassical Greek

Even if textual cohesion is mostly assured by a remarkable variety of connective particles (Denniston 1954; Bonifazi et al. 2016), Ancient Greek does possess conjunctive adverbs, though most of them still maintain adjunct functions, and it is not always easy to distinguish their conjunctive use from other usages. The three adverbs on which this study is focused are clear cases of conjunctive adverbs. These adverbs are the result of different processes of pragmaticalisation: hómōs ‘however, though’ derives from the adverb of manner homôs ‘similarly, likewise’, with an accentual shift that reflects its conversion to a conjunctive adverb. Note that Homer only uses hómōs two times (Il. 12.393, Od. 11.565),16 while he does not use homoíōs, the adverb that replaced homôs in classical Greek. However, homôs appears 28 times in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Proséti ‘besides’ is the result of merging two elements, prós ‘besides’ and éti ‘still’, in conjunctive sequences like pròs d’ éti ‘and besides’, in which the connective particle appears between these two elements. The first instance of proséti is attested in Hdt. 1.41.3, but Herodotus still uses intermediate forms (pròs d’ éti in Hdt. 3.74.1, 9.111.2; pròs toútoisi éti in Hdt. 1.32.7, 99.1, 79.1, 5.62.1, 7.6.2; pròs éti toútoisi in Hdt. 1.64.2, 3.65.7, 9.111.2). Hōsaútōs ‘likewise’ is the result of merging hṓs ‘thus’ and aútōs ‘in the same manner’, and it is the only one that exhibits non-conjunctive functions. Hōsaútōs is used from the 5th century on and its conjunctive function developed from the sequence hṑs d’ aútōs, well known to Homer (Il. 3.339, 7.430, 9.195, 10.25; Od. 3.64, 6.166, 9.31, 20.238, 21.203, 225, 22.114, 24.409). The conjunctive adverbs hōsaútōs and proséti function as additive connectives, while hómōs functions as an adversative one; additive connectives express that their discourse unit has the same argumentative orientation as the previous one, while adversative connectives indicate that their discourse unit has an opposite argumentative orientation with respect to the previous unit.17

Generally speaking, conjunctive adverbs tend to be placed in initial position either before or after a connective particle in classical and postclassical Greek.18 See the following examples:

(8)

astôn

d’

akoā̀

krúphion

thūmòn

barúnei

málist’

esloîs

ep’

allotríois.|

All’

hómōs,

krésson

gàr

oiktirmoû

phthónos,

mḕ

paríei

kalá.

of.citizens

and.PTC

hearing

secretly

soul.ACC

weighs.on

especially

merits.DAT

on.PREP

of.others.DAT

but.PTC

however.ADV

stronger

for.PTC

than.pity

envy

not

you.abandon.IMP

fine.deeds

“What the citizens hear secretly weighs heavy on their spirits, especially concerning the merits of others. Nevertheless, since envy is better than pity, do not abandon fine deeds!” (Pi. P. 1.84–85)

(9)

hḗ

te

oûn

īātrikḗ,

hṓsper

légō,

pâsa

dià

toû

theoû

toútou

kubernâtai,

hōsaútōs

kaì

gumnastikḕ

kaì

geōrgíā.

the

and.PTC

so.PTC

medicine.NOM

like

I.say

whole.NOM

through

the

god

this

it.is.governed

likewise.ADV

and.PTC

both.PTC

athletics

and.PTC

agriculture

“And so not merely is all medicine governed, as I propound it, through the influence of this god, but likewise athletics and agriculture”. (Pl. Smp. 187.a)

In the first example, the conjunctive adverb appears after the connective particle allá, while in the second it appears before . This distinction is relevant since connective particles occupy fixed positions, either as first or second in their sentence.19 The particles with which they usually associate are ‘and, but’, kaí ‘and’, allá ‘but’. See the following example in which proséti follows kaí, which always occupies first position when it functions as a connective particle:20

(10)

gnṓsesthe

gàr

ex

autês

akoúsantes,

memarturēmén’

hōs

éstin

alēthê,

kaì

tòn

Milúān

hóti

nûn

mèn

perì

pántōn

phēsìn

exaiteîn,

proton

hupèr

triā́konta

mónon

mnôn

exḗitei,

kaì

proséti

zēmioûtai

katà

tḕn

marturíān

oudén.

you.will.know

for.PTC

from

it

having.heard

the

testimony

that.COMP

it.is

true

and.PTC

the

Milyas.ACC

that.COMP

now

PTC

about

all.matters

he.declares

to.demand.COMPL

the

but.PTC

first

in.regard.to

thirty

only

minae

he.demanded

and.PTC

besides.ADV

he.has.been.penalised

because.of

the

testimony

nothing.INDF

“For you will know, when you have heard it, that the testimony was true, and that Aphobus, who now declares that he demands Milyas to be examined about all the matters involved in the suit, at first demanded him only in regard to a question of thirty minae; and, furthermore, that he has been put to no disadvantage because of the testimony”. (D. 29.50)

Conjunctive adverbs can also occupy medial position and, exceptionally, final position. The three adverbs under consideration are encountered in medial position after the first constituent of their clause, as well as the connective particle when it is used (see note 18). The initial position of this constituent is determined by its pragmatic function (Goldstein 2016a: 25 and 215), and generally speaking, the pragmatic function of these constituents is that of contrastive focus or contrastive topic. Focus and topic are pragmatic functions that reside with the assertion and the presupposition of a proposition.21 Focus is the element by which assertion differs from presupposition while topic is a category related to aboutness, i.e. a topic element is part of the presupposition since it is an element on which information is conferred. Contrastive topics comprise those topic expressions whose referents are selected from a limited set of candidates; cf. Allan (2014: 193). All these candidates belong to the same semantic class, and the non-selected ones can remain implicit or explicit. An example in which the conjunctive adverb is placed after a contrastive topic (ho huiòs autoû ‘his son’) is the following:

(11)

[…]

exeboḗthei

kaì

autòs

pròs

hória

sùn

toîs

perì

autòn

kaì

ho

huiòs

autoû

hōsaútōs

sùn

toîs

paratukhoûsin

hippótais

he.sallied

both.PTC

himself

to

the

frontier

with

those

around

him

and.PTC

the

son

of.him

likewise.ADV

with

those

that.happened.to.be.at.hand

knights

“[When word was brought to Astyages that there were enemies in the country] he himself sallied forth to the frontier in person with his body-guard, and likewise his son with the knights that happened to be at hand marched out”. (X. Cyr. 1.4.18)

Note that the passage is about Cyrus, on the one hand, and his son, on the other. Contrastive focus can also be defined as the focus evoking an implicit or explicit contrast within a limited set of alternatives and the propositions associated with them; cf. Lambrecht (1994: 286–291). An example in which the conjunctive adverb is placed after a contrastive focus is (12):

(12)

plḕn

toûtó

ge

mónon

ṓnēso

tês

skeuês,

hóti

mēdè

eleoúmenos

epì

têi

hḗttēi

apérkhēi,

allà

misoúmenos

proséti

dià

tḕn

átekhnón

sou

taútēn

truphḗn.

besides

this

PTC

only

you.benefited

from.the

attire

that.COMP

not

pitied

for

the

defeat

you.go.away

but.PTC

hated

besides.ADV

owing.to

the

unartistic

of.yours

this

lavishness

“However, you got at least this much by your outfit: you are going away not only unpitied for your defeat but hated into the bargain because of this unartistic lavishness of yours”. (Luc. Ind. 10)

In this example, the element preceding the conjunctive adverb, the participle misoúmenos, is in contrast with the negated participle eleoúmenos. Both participles belong to a construction (mēdèallà proséti is a variant of oukallà kaí “not only … but also”) called “expansive focus”, a term coined by Simon Dik, in which the focus completes some information previously given; cf. Dik et al. (1981: 65); see also Bertrand (2010: 129), who speaks of “fonction extensive”.

Note that the verb can also be the contrastive element (see example 13) or even constitute a contrastive focus domain along with one of its arguments,22 like hupéthratten eníous in (14), an example in which hómōs is apodotic:

(13)

ouk

enóēse

toûto

Eratosthénēs,

hupenóēse

d’

hómōs.

not

he.perceived

but.PTC

this.ACC

Eratosthenes.NOM

he.suspected

but.PTC

however.ADV

“But Eratosthenes did not perceive this, though he suspected it”. (Str. 1.2.20)

(14)

Hoútō

toû

Alkibiádou

lamprôs

euēmeroûntos,

hupéthratten

eníous

hómōs

ho

tês

kathódou

kairós.

thus

but.PTC

the

Alcibiades.GEN

brilliantly

prospering.PTCP.GEN

it.troubled

some.ACC.PL

however.ADV

the.NOM

of.the

return.GEN

time.NOM

“[The Athenians welcome Alcibiades after his victories in the Hellespont, and all the criminal proceedings against him are cancelled.] But while Alcibiades was thus prospering brilliantly, some were nevertheless disturbed at the particular season of his return”. (Plu. Alc. 34.1)23

Furthermore, hómōs is sometimes placed far from initial position. See the following examples in which the contrastive elements precede the verb and hómōs (Pantakléa and okhḗmasi in examples 15 and 16 respectively) or hómōs is preceded by two nominal constituents instead of one (hoi Argeîoi présbeis and táde in (17)):

(15)

Kaì

mḕn

ou

Pantakléa

ge |

edídaxen

hómōs

tòn

skaiótaton.

and.PTC

PTC

not

Pantacles.ACC

PTC

he.taught

however.ADV

the

clumsiest.ACC

“But I bet he didn’t teach Pantacles, though, that clumsy oaf”. (Ar. Ra. 1036–1037)

(16)

ek

Kleōnôn

eisin

es

Árgos

hodoì

dúo,

mèn

andrásin

euzṓnois

kaì

éstin

epítomos,

epì

toû

kalouménou

Trētoû,

stenḕ

mèn

kaì

autḕ

periekhóntōn

horôn,

okhḗmasi

estin

hómōs

epitēdeiotérā.

from

Cleonae

and.PTC

there.are

to

Argos

roads

two

one

PTC

for.men

active

and.PTC

it.is

direct

other

PTC

on

the

so.called

Tretus

narrow

PTC

also

this.one

with.surrounding

mountains

for.carriages

but.PTC

it.is

however.ADV

more.suitable

“From Cleonae to Argos are two roads: one is direct and only for active men, the other goes along the pass called Tretus (Pierced), is narrow like the other, being surrounded by mountains, but is nevertheless more suitable for carriages”. (Paus. 2.15.2)

(17)

hoi

Argeîoi

présbeis

táde

hómōs

epēgágonto

toùs

Lakedaimoníous

sugkhōrêsai

the

Argive

ambassadors

this.ACC

however.ADV

they.convinced

the

Lacedemonians.ACC

to.concede.INF

“However, the Argive ambassadors succeeded in obtaining from them this concession …”. (Th. 5.41.2)

A somewhat different case of medial position consists of proséti and hōsaútōs appearing after the element they introduce in an enumeration. In these cases, this element is a contrastive focus / topic, although the fact that the rest of the members in the enumeration have no conjunctive adverb seems to be due to a specially designated status of said element:

(18)

[AG]

Oukoûn

kaì

tuphlòs

háma

kaì

kōphòs

eînai

légeis?

[Buyer]

then.PTC

both

blind

at.the.same.time

and

deaf

be.INF

you.say?

[PU]

Kaì

ákritós

ge

proséti

kaì

anaísthētos

kaì

hólōs

toû

skṓlēkos

oudèn

diaphérōn.

[Pyrrus]

and.PTC

devoid.of.judgment

PTC

besides.ADV

and.PTC

without.sense

and.PTC

in.a.word

from.the

worm

nothing

differing

“Then you mean being both deaf and blind? Yes, and devoid of judgement and feeling, and, in a word, no better than a worm”. (Luc. Vit.Auct. 27)

(19)

en

taútēi

oúsēi

toiaútēi

anà

lógon

phūómena

phū́esthai,

déndra

te

kaì

ánthē

kaì

toùs

karpoús;

kaì

órē

hōsaútōs

kaì

toùs

líthous

ékhein

anà

tòn

autòn

lógon

tḗn

te

leiótēta

kaì

tḕn

diapháneian

kaì

khrṓmata

kallíō.

in

and.PTC

this

being

so

in

proportion

the

growing.things

grow.INF

trees

both.PTC

and.PTC

flowers

and.PTC

the

fruits

and.PTC

PTC

the

mountains

likewise.ADV

and.PTC

the

stones

have.INF

in

the

same

proportion

the

both.PTC

smoothness

and.PTC

the

transparency

and.PTC

the

colours

more.lovely

“And in this fair earth the things that grow, the trees, and flowers and fruits, are correspondingly beautiful; and so too the mountains and the stones are smoother, and more transparent and more lovely in color than ours”. (Pl. Phd. 110.d)

In the first example, the adjective ákritos is modified by the particle ge, which enhances its pragmatic function (Goldstein 2016b). In the second, hōsaútōs occupies medial position instead of , which appears after the connective particle kaí. This seems to point to a special status of those elements (ákritos and tà órē) from a pragmatic perspective; indeed, one gets the impression that the remainder of the elements is appended to it. Alternatively, it is possible to adopt an interpretation that the conjunctive adverb insists on the addition of all of its enumeration members, even if appearing only in the first one: it should be noted that in both examples, the enumeration members make up a semantic unit differentiated from a previous one (physical vs sensory defects / things that grow vs mountains and stones); and the position of the adverb correlates with their contrastive status in relation to the previous semantic unit.

Final and medial positions coincide in a number of cases in which the adverb is the last element of its segment due to the ellipsis of other elements that already appear in the previous conjunct.24 This mostly applies to additive conjunctive adverbs when they are placed after the element they introduce in an enumeration; if that element is the last of the enumeration and the adverb follows it, then the adverb is encountered in final position:

(20)

étisen

oûn

ho

Makareùs

ou

memptḕn

tḕn

díkēn

toûto

dḕ

poiētikòn

sùn

têi

heautoû

kephalêi

kaì

têi

tês

gunaikòs

kaì

oûn

kaì

têi

tôn

paídōn

proséti.

he.paid

so.PTC

the

Macareus.NOM

not

contemptible

the

penalty

this

PTC

the

poetic.expression

with

the

his.own

head

and.PTC

that

of.the

woman

and.PTC

PTC

also.ADV

that

of.the

sons

besides.ADV

“So Macareus paid no contemptible penalty, as the poets have it, with his own life, that of his wife and furthermore those of his sons”. (Ael. VH 13.2)

(21)

toûto

Maiándrou

pedíon

pân

epédrame

lēíēn

poieúmenos

tôi

stratôi,

Magnēsíēn

te

hōsaútōs.

this.ACC

and.PTC

Meandrus’

plain.ACC

all.ACC

he.overran

pillage

making

with.the

army

Magnesia

and.PTC

likewise.ADV

“And he overran the plain of the Maeandrus, giving it to his army to pillage and Magnesia likewise”. (Hdt. 1.161)

(22)

Oxù

kaì

andreîon

prôtón

poú

phamen,

kaì

takhù

kaì

andrikón,

kaì

sphodròn

hōsaútōs.

acute

and.PTC

courageous

firstly

somehow

we.say

and.PTC

quick

and.PTC

manly

and.PTC

energetic

likewise.ADV

“We say acute and courageous in the first instance, also quick and courageous, and energetic too”. (Pl. Plt. 306.e)

Only in the case of hómōs there are some examples in which the conjunctive adverb appears in final position and no ellipsis is involved:

(23)

aganakteîs, |

allà

poētéa

taût’

estin

hómōs.

you.are.angry

but.PTC

to.be.done

this

it.is

however.ADV

“Be angry. Nonetheless we must do that”. (Ar. Lys. 499–500)

However, the number of those examples is still reduced when one excludes the cases in which the constituent preceding the conjunctive adverb is what Matić (2003a) calls a ‘broad focus’, namely, a focal domain consisting of the verb and one of its arguments. Conjunctive adverbs cannot interrupt such a domain, and as a result, they are placed in final position. This final position is apparent only because the focal domain is contrastive. See, for instance, examples 24 and 25, especially the latter, in which hómōs is apodotic and the elements belonging to the broad focus constitute an idiom (ḗgete tḕn eirḗnēn):

(24)

ou

gàr

mónon

ek

toû

prokaleîsthai

toútous

paradoûnai,

toûton

mḗ

‘thélein,

allà

kaì

ek

pántōn

dêlón

estin

pseûdos

ón …

taûta

memartúrētai.

Lége

dḕ

tḕn

próklēsin

hómōs.

not

for.PTC

only

from

the

challenging.INF

these

to.give.up.INF

this

and.PTC

not

to.be.willing.INF

but.PTC

also

from

everything

obvious

it.is

lie

being.PTCP.COMPL

this

it.is.confirmed.by.testimony.PF.PASS

you.tell.IMP

PTC

the

challenge

however.ADV

“Not only from my challenging him to give up these slaves for torture and from his refusing to do so, but from every circumstance of the case its falsehood is manifest … Of this you have heard the evidence. Nevertheless, read the challenge”. (D. 37.27)

(25)

hūmeîs

d’

huphorṓmenoi

pepragména

kaì

duskheraínontes

ḗgete

tḕn

eirḗnēn

hómōs.

you

and.PTC

viewing.with.suspicion

the

things.done

and.PTC

being.displeased

you.observed

the

peace

however.ADV

“You Athenians, though suspicious and dissatisfied, nevertheless observed the terms of peace”. (D. 18.43)

The frequency of initial, medial and final position is illustrated in Table 1, which shows the positions of the three adverbs under consideration in the works of Herodotus, Sophocles, Demosthenes, Aristophanes, Plato and Lucian.

Table 1

Frequencies of initial, medial and final position in several authors

AUTHORS

HDT.

S.

AR.

PL.

DEM.

LUC.

POSITION

I.

M.

F.

I.

M.

F.

I.

M.

F.

I.

M.

F.

I.

M.

F.

I.

M.

F.

HÓMŌS

18

2

16

9

3

25

6

2

162

11

98

15

2

87

92

1

PROSÉTI

1

4

1

6

1

31

16

HŌSAÚTŌS

4

1

26

54

2

2

1

All the authors belong to the classical period save Lucian, who belongs to the postclassical period; two of them are dramatists (Sophocles and Aristophanes), Herodotus is a historian, Plato a philosopher, Demosthenes an orator and Lucian a satirist and rhetorician. The frequencies are similar and reflect a clear preference for initial over medial position, although proséti and hōsaútōs are not employed by all of them. Hómōs, the best represented item, appears in initial position in 90 % of Herodotus’ instances, in 57.1 % of Sophocles’, in 89.3 % of Aristophanes’, in 93.6 % of Plato’s, in 85.2 % of Demosthenes’ and in 48.3 % of Lucian’s. Final position is rare and exclusive to hómōs: 10.7 % of the instances in Sophocles are in final position, 6.1 % in Aristophanes, 1.7 % in Demosthenes and 0.5 % in Lucian, while Herodotus and Plato do not show any instance of final position (on the positional variability of hómōs, see below). Note that hōsaútōs is encountered in medial position in 70 % of Plato’s instances, as well as in all 4 of Herodotus’ instances. This is partly related to the fact that hōsaútōs appeared in the 5th century both as an additive conjunctive and as an adverb of manner (see below); and the adverb of manner is not always easy to distinguish from the conjunctive one, especially when it does not take initial position.25

4 Medial and final positions and the development of conjunctive functions

Conjunctive adverbs are placed both in initial and in medial position in classical and postclassical Greek. With respect to initial position, these adverbs are generally encountered either in absolute first position or after a connective particle. In medial position, the adverb is restricted, occurring after a first constituent, as well as the connective particle when it is used—connective particles always occupy first or second position regardless of the clause structure.

Typologically speaking, connecting devices tend to occur early in the clause, namely, in a position between the two conjuncts they connect. The development of conjunctive functions is a process that can be roughly sketched as follows: first, the adverb restricts itself to initial position; this position is associated with adverbials that fulfil the pragmatic function of setting,26 and indeed, the development of conjunctive functions can be related to the use of the adverb as setting in a number of cases.27 Once the conjunctive function is established,28 conjunctive adverbs are placed in initial position before other elements, including settings.29 The last stages of this evolution are traceable in the case of hōsaútōs, which is the result of the univerbation of an adverbial locution, hṑs d’ aútōs (hṓs + + aútōs), that was used as a conjunctive device at the beginning of the sentence:

(26)

Hṑs d’ aútōs

tôn

híppōn

mèn

perì

stérna

khalkéous

thṓrēkas

peribállousi,

perì

toùs

khalīnoùs

kaì

stómia

kaì

phálara

khrūsôi

and.likewise.PTC.ADV

of.the

horses

ART.NEUT

PTC

around.PREP

their

chests

of.bronze.ACC

breastplates.ACC

they.put.around

ART.NEUT

and.PTC

around.PREP

their

reins

and

bits

and

cheekplates

with.gold

“Similarly, they equip their horses protecting their chests with bronze breastplates and putting gold on reins, bits and cheekplates”. (Hdt. 1.215.2)

In this example, hṑs d’ aútōs precedes the theme (tôn híppōn) and the constrastive topics (tà mèn perì stérnatà dè perì toùs khalīnoùs kaì stómia kaì phálara), the topic the sentence treats. “Themes” are extra-clausal constituents “with regard to which the following clause is going to present some relevant information” (Dik 1997: 389; see also Allan 2014: 184).

During the 5th century, hṑs d’ aútōs still coexisted with hōsaútōs as a conjunctive locution; cf. Hdt. 1.215.2, 2.67.1, 7.86.2, 8.21.1, 9.47, 81.2 (no instance of hōsaútōs dé); X. An. 5.6.9; Cyr. 3.1.32, 6.4.16; Eq. 6.2; Mem. 1.7.3. (against 4 instances of hōsaútōs dé); Pl. Phd. 102e; Plt. 310d; Phdr. 240e, 275e; Prt. 313e; Lg. 728e, 809e, 879d, 910a (against 17 instances of hōsaútōs dé). The univerbated hōsaútōs, though, finally replaced the analytic form.30 Moreover, the new adverb not only exhibits conjunctive uses, but it is also used as an adverb of manner by Herodotus in 9 out of 13 instances. This development complicated the emergence of conjunctive uses since they could appear through the univerbation of the conjunctive locution hṑs d’ aútōs, as well as the pragmaticalisation of the corresponding adverb of manner.31

As a matter of fact, one can verify the association of position with conjunctive functions in the case of hōsaútōs. In this respect, it must be noted that the conjunctive interpretation dissipates when the adverb does not occupy initial or medial position immediately after a contrastive constituent and the connective particle:

(27)

a.

Proeîpe

táde: …

pempedárkhōi

d’

autòn

ónta

hoîonper

tòn

agathòn

idiṓtēn

kaì

tḕn

pempáda

eis

dunatòn

toiaútēn

parékhein,

dekadárkhōi

tḕn

dekáda

hōsaútōs

he.proposed

this

to.the.corporal

and.PTC

himself

being

like

the

good

private

also

the

five.squad

as.far.as

the

possible

that.way

make.INF

to.the.sergeant

and.PTC

the

ten.squad

likewise.ADV

“What he proposed was as follows: to the corporal, that, besides being himself like the good private, he make his squad of five a model, as far as possible; to the sergeant, that he do likewise with his squad of ten / likewise to the sergeant with his squad of ten”. (X. Cyr. 2.1.22)

b.

all’

hūmeîs

t’,

éphē,

hōs

paraggéllō

táttesthe,

kaì

hūmeîs

hoi

tôn

peltastôn

árkhontes

epì

toútois

hōsaútōs

toùs

lókhous

kathístate,

kaì

hūmeîs

hoi

tôn

toxotôn

epì

toîs

peltastaîs

hōsaútōs.

PTC

you

PTC

he.said

as

I.direct

take.positions

and.PTC

you

the

of.the

light-armed.troops

officers

behind

those

likewise.ADV

the

platoons

you.bring.up.IMP

and.PTC

you

the

of.the

archers

behind

the

light-armed.troops

likewise.ADV

“Do you, therefore, take your positions as I direct, and you, the officers of the light-armed troops, bring up your platoons immediately behind them, and you, the officers of the archery, fall in, in the same way, directly behind the light-armed troops / bring up your platoons immediately behind them, likewise, and you, the officers of the archery, fall in directly behind the light-armed troops, likewise”. (X. Cyr. 6.3.26)

In the first example, the conjunctive interpretation of hōsaútōs is possible, though less suited to the context: the adverb refers to the way in which the sergeant has to model his squad, but it might indicate that the command directed to the corporal also applies to the sergeant. In the second, the interpretation of hōsaútōs as a conjunctive adverb fits the context even less, since both tokens of the adverb (the first one is omitted in Miller’s translation) refer to the way in which Cyrus has directed other units to take their positions.

We have already seen that medial position is a historical development that can be analysed in languages such as English; furthermore, this position is characteristic of conjunctive adverbs when the preceding constituent has a contrastive pragmatic function (Lenker 2010: 68–72 and 235), even if in English, word order determines that only contrastive subjects and adverbials can normally precede them (Altenberg 2006: 19–30). Regarding our adverbs, we do not possess data from Homer,32 but in classical Greek, the alternation of initial and medial position is already established, as can be seen in minimal pairs like the following:

(28)

a.

Kaítoi

skhedòn

mèn

oîda

paraítēsin

mála

philótimon

kaì

toû

déontos

agroikotérān

méllōn

paraiteîsthai,

hrētéon

hómōs.

PTC

more.or.less

PTC

I.know

request

well

very

presumptuous

and.PTC

than.the

necessary

more.rude

going.to.PTCP.NOM

ask.INF

to.be.told

but.PTC

however.ADV

“I am sufficiently aware that the request I am about to make is decidedly presumptuous and less civil than is proper, but nonetheless it must be uttered”.33 (Pl. Criti. 107.a)

b.

aiskhū́nomai

oûn

hūmîn

eipeîn

talēthê.

Hómōs

hrētéon.

I.am.ashamed

PTC

to.you

say.INF

the.truth

however.ADV

but.PTC

to.be.told

“Now I am ashamed to tell you the truth, gentlemen; but still it must be told”. (Pl. Ap. 22.b)

Both examples are Platonic, and in both, the same sequence of elements involving hómōs is encountered, although their word order is the opposite. It must be noted that the position of hómōs in (28b) can be related to the presence of the infinitive eipeîn in the previous conjunct, since hrētéon is implied by the infinitive and is not a contrastive focus/topic.

The medial position of conjunctive adverbs cannot be determined by morphosyntactic criteria, since these adverbs can only appear after pragmatically relevant constituents and cannot interrupt a morphosyntactic constituent34 like particles do when taking Wackernagel’s position.35 This position of conjunctive adverbs can relate to the criteria governing the position of pronominal clitics and the modal particle án in classical Greek as established by Goldstein (2016a). Goldstein has found that these clitics lean on the first prosodic word of the sentence nucleus, which can be preceded by contrastive elements.36 See the following examples, in which pronominal clitics are placed after the first word of the sentence nucleus and a contrastive topic (Ikhthúōn) and contrastive focus (tò khrēstḗrion), respectively, are preposed to it:

(29)

[…]

sitía

sphi

esti

hīrà

pessómena,

kaì

kreôn

boéōn

kaì

khēnéōn

plêthós

ti

hekástōi

gínetai

pollòn

hēmérēs

hekástēs

Ikhthúōn

sphi

éxesti

pássasthai.

food.NOM

for them

it.is

sacred.NOM

cooked

and

meat.GEN

of.beef

and

of.goose

abundance.NOM

a.NOM

for.each.one

there.is

great.NOM

day

every

of.fish

but.PTC

not

for.them

it.is.possible

eat.INF

“Sacred food is cooked for them, beef and goose are brought in great abundance to each man every day … They may not eat fish”. (Hdt. 2.37.4)

(30)

[…]

ḕn

mèn

[dḕ]

khrēstḗrion

anélē

min

basiléa

eînai

Lūdôn,

tòn

basileúein,

ḕn

mḗ,

apodoûnai

opísō

es

Hērakleídās

tḕn

arkhḗn.

if

PTC

PTC

the

oracle

it.should.ordain

him

king

to.be.INF

of.the.Lydians

he

PTC

reign.INF

if

but.PTC

not

return.INF

back

to

the.Heraclidae

the

kingship

“If the oracle should ordain him king of the Lydians, then he would reign; but if not, then he would return the kingship to the Heraclidae”. (Hdt. 1.13.1)

In the first example, the pronominal clitic sphi is placed after the negative , which constitutes the beginning of the sentence nucleus, while ikhthúōn is preposed. In the second example, the pronominal clitic is min, the verb form anélē is the first constituent of the sentence nucleus, and tò khrēstḗrion is preposed. The position of the pronominal clitics signals the preposing of these elements for pragmatic reasons (Luraghi 2014a: 304–305). We can extrapolate this to the medial position of the conjunctive adverbs under study, but in this case, the preposed element is delimited by the subsequent conjunctive adverb.37

Nevertheless, differences are obvious, not only because conjunctive adverbs are not clitics, but also because they do not function on the representational level, the level of content. In this regard, in sentences made up of a main and a participle clause or a main and an infinitive clause that escapes the matrix verb control, clitics are placed after the first accented word of the syntactic domain they belong to, whether it is the main or the dependent clause (Goldstein 2016a: 221–289).38 Conjunctive adverbs can be found following those domains, but only when their constituents are preposed:

(31)

tòn

éranon

tòn

legómenon

pappôion

ek

tôn

Mēdikôn |

eît’

analṓsantes

ouk

anteisphérete

tā̀s

eisphorā́s, |

all’

huph’

hūmôn

dialuthênai

proséti

kinduneúomen.

the

contribution

the

called

of.grand-fathers

from

the

Persian.Wars

then

having.squandered

not

you.paid.in.return

the

taxes

but.PTC

because.of

you

break.up.INF.PASS

besides.ADV

we.run.the.risk

“You’ve squandered your paternal inheritance, won in the Persian Wars, and now pay no taxes in return. On the contrary, we’re all headed for bankruptcy on account of you!”39 (Ar. Lys. 653–655)

In this example, the infinitive clause depending on kinduneúomen appears before proséti. This is a construction of expansive focus (see above), and the infinitive clause depending on kinduneúomen and preposed before proséti is in contrast with the clause under ouk’s scope (anteisphérete tā̀s eisphorā́s).

Regarding final position, there are only instances of hómōs.40 Final position is almost unattested in classical and postclassical Greek. One of the rare examples in which the conjunctive adverb is in final position is the following:

(32)

ei

mḕ

légō

phíla, |

oukh

hḗdomai,

d’

orthòn

exeírēkh’

hómōs.

if

and.PTC

not

I.say

welcome.words

not

I.enjoy.myself

the

but.PTC

right.thing

I.have.said

however.ADV

“If my words are unwelcome, I am grieved; but nevertheless I have spoken the truth”. (S. Tr. 373–374)

In this case, the contrastive element is a preverbal constituent, tò orthón, yet the conjunctive adverb appears after the verb. This is not due to the pragmatic reasons we have seen above, since the adverb is, rather, the dislocated element and can even be placed in final position as in the above example. The data is insufficient to draw firm conclusions, but this might be related to the positional variability of ómōs in Modern Greek (Holton, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton 2012: 564). In the previous case, a reinterpreting structure can be perceived. Nevertheless, there are still examples in which hómōs is placed far from initial position without implying a reinterpreting structure:

(33)

ho

Súros

eisénegkh’

hómōs

pánth’, |

hósa

<ge>

phéromen.

ART

Syros

you.take.in.IMP

however.ADV

everything

that

PTC

we.carry

“Still, Syros, you must take all our loads in”. (Men. Georg. 39–40)

All these cases, though few, seem to point to a certain positional variability of hómōs, in its beginnings.41 This variability is shown by the positional frequencies of this adverb in comparison with the other two, as can be seen in Table 2, which displays the number of instances in initial, medial and final position in the prose works of Thucydides (5th century BC), Plato (5th–4th century BC), Polybius (2nd century BC), Aelius Aristides (2nd century AD), Lucian (2nd century AD) and Aelian (2nd–3rd century AD).

Table 2

Frequencies of initial, medial and final position in several prose authors

AUTHORS

TH.

PL.

PLB.

ARISTID.

LUC.

AEL.

POSITION

I.

M.

F.

I.

M.

F.

I.

M.

F.

I.

M.

F.

I.

M.

F.

I.

M.

F.

HÓMŌS

45

31

162

11

79

7

2

110

21

87

92

1

32

8

PROSÉTI

17

1

6

5

37

1

31

16

4

10

HŌSAÚTŌS

26

54

5

1

7

10

1

Hómōs and proséti tend to appear in initial position, while the case of hōsaútōs is somewhat special (see Table 1); nevertheless, hómōs is the only one encountered in final position. Note that the chronological gradient does not correspond to any tendency on the respective frequencies of each adverb. Only in the case of Lucian can we see clear differences, probably related to genre. Genre may also explain the frequency of hómōs in final position in Sophocles’ and Aristophanes’ dramatic works (see Table 1).

5 Conclusions

Conjunctive adverbs are mainly used in Ancient Greek to reinforce or provide nuance to the instructions conveyed by the connective particles with which they associate; they rarely have the ability to connect two main clauses or sentences by themselves. Conjunctive adverbs can also be used to strengthen the relation between main and subordinate clauses, and are usually placed after the subordinate clause and without connective particle; the cases in which they function within the subordinate clause are exceptional.

These adverbs occupy two positions in classical and postclassical Greek: initial, either absolute first position or position after a connective particle; and medial, after a constituent with a contrastive pragmatic function and the connective particle when it is used. The position of connective particles is fixed and does not count for assessing that of conjunctive adverbs.

Medial position, less frequent than initial position, can be related to the position that clitics occupy when they are placed after the first word of the sentence nucleus if preceded by a preposed constituent. In this position, conjunctive adverbs are placed immediately following these constituents, and so they delimit them. These constituents tend to be a contrastive focus or topic.

Finally, there are some examples of hómōs in which it appears in final position or at least far from initial positions. This cannot be explained by the above pragmatic reasons, yet these examples, though few, may indicate that the positional variability of this adverb in Modern Greek has its origins in Ancient Greek.

The position of conjunctive adverbs in classical and postclassical Greek coincides with what has been observed in other languages. Nevertheless, the traceable evolution, for instance, in English, according to which conjunctive adverbs develop medial position when they are placed after a contrastive constituent and later final position is still in its beginnings in Ancient Greek.

Acknowledgments

This paper has been written within the research project “Marcadores del discurso en griego clásico” funded by the Spanish Ministery of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (reference: FFI2015-65541-C3-1-P). The author would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers, as well as the participants in the international congress “Enunciado y discurso: estructura y relaciones” and in the XLVI Simposio de la Sociedad Española de Estudios Clásicos for their comments on previous versions of the paper. Needless to say, all the remaining shortcomings and errors are exclusively the author’s.

1According to Bazanella (2006: 456), “Discourse markers are items external to propositional content which are useful in locating the utterance in an interpersonal and interactive dimension, in connecting and structuring phrasal, inter-phrasal and extra-phrasal elements in discourse, and in marking some ongoing cognitive processes and attitudes”. A list of characteristics that define them can be seen in Fedriani & Sansò (2017: 2–4). Two main classes of discourse markers can be distinguished: connectors and operators. The former relate two discourse segments, while the latter have scope only over the discourse unit hosting them. This distinction is based on Ducrot (1983), who speaks of “argumentative morphemes”. See also Martín Zorraquino & Portolés Lázaro (1999: 4072); Fuentes (2009: 12–13).
2Pragmaticalisation is a specific type of grammaticalisation whereby a lexical term develops pragmatic meanings that are finally reanalysed as encoded meanings, cf. Diewald (2011), as well as Allan (2017a), whose remarks on the grammaticalisation of Greek particles also apply to that of conjunctive adverbs, especially the correlation of semantic change and scope increase. The latter concept refers to the development of discourse-level meaning from propositional meaning. Moreover, this paper makes no terminological distinction between conjunctive adverbs and adverbials. Note that most “conjunctive adverbs” are fixed idioms in modern languages, like even so, notwithstanding or in addition. The same is applicable to proséti and hōsaútōs, which are decomposable into prós + éti and hṓs + aútōs respectively.
3Other adverbs that exhibit conjunctive functions are állōs ‘otherwise, besides’, háma ‘at the same time, besides’, and aûthis ‘again, on the other hand’, eîta and épeita ‘then’, éti ‘still, besides’, loipón ‘hereafter, then’, mâllon ‘more, rather’, hólōs ‘wholly, on the whole, all in all’, homoíōs ‘in like manner, likewise’, hoútōs ‘so, thus’, pálin ‘backwards, again, in turn’, prôtondeúteron ‘first … second’, tounantíon ‘opposite, contrariwise, on the contrary’, hústeron ‘later, finally’, khōrís ‘separately, besides’.
4There are two main types of asyndeton: between phrases and between clauses (which Denniston refers to as half asyndeton) and between independent sentences (which Denniston refers to as full asyndeton). Asyndeton is more frequent in dialogic than in monologic texts. In monologic texts, it sometimes has a rhetorical effect of vividness, and full asyndeton is especially frequent when a sentence elaborates on the content of the preceding one, for instance, when an anaphoric pronoun announces it.
5Greek texts are presented as they appear in the TLG, while English translations have been taken from the Perseus Digital Library and the Loeb collection, with only slight modifications made when necessary. Behr’s translation of Aelius Aristides’ works published by Brill has also been used.
6Note that the first sentence has no connective particle since it is the first of Anabasis.
7For the distinction of the different word classes covered by the term particle in Ancient Greek, including sentence adverbs, see Sicking & van Ophuijsen (1993: 76–79). See also Allan’s enumeration of the features of Greek particles (Allan 2017a: 103–104): a degree of bondedness, phonological lightness, membership in a relatively closed set, and abstract meaning.
8From a discourse-oriented perspective, particles relate acts or moves. Moves are minimal, free discourse units and they are composed of a main act and usually, one or more subordinated acts that are thematically tied; acts are minimal units with communicative intent and every act is supported by an argument or by the rejection of a counterargument. Cf. Kroon (1995: 64–67). For the application of these discourse units to Ancient Greek, see Bonifazi et al. (2016: II.2), who somewhat equates acts with kôla in terms of intonation units (Scheppers 2011).
9The etymology of these particles is generally controversial, though in some cases an adverbial origin can be established, cf. Crespo (2014).
10Compare the frequency of the particles allá (515 instances), (8075) or connective kaí (6339) with that of the conjunctive adverbs hómōs (20), proséti (1) or hōsaútōs (4) in the History of Herodotus.
11That is to say, that both conjuncts lead to the same conclusions. On argumentative orientation, see Anscombre & Ducrot (1983).
12For instance, example (4) is the only one with hómōs functioning within a subordinate clause in Demosthenes’ works, where this adverb is found 115 times.
13Conjunctive adverbs function on Kroon’s presentational level; Kroon distinguishes, following Halliday & Hasan (1976), three levels determining the coherence relations among discourse units: representational (concerned with the representation of content), presentational (concerned with organisation), and interactive (concerned with the interaction of interlocutors). The presentational level is concerned with the organisation whereby the information is presented, and it “captures the fact that a language user imposes an organizing and rhetorical perspective on the ideas conveyed” (Kroon 1995: 61).
14Reinterpreting structures consist of the addition of information, at the end of the sentence/clause and preceded by a pause, when this piece of information leads to reinterpret what has been said from a new perspective; cf. Fuentes (2009: 21; 2012: 79–81).
15The concept of configurationality has been developed by grammarians working within Chomsky’s generative framework. Non-configurational languages are mainly characterised by free word order, the use of syntactically discontinuous expressions and extensive use of null anaphora; cf. Hale (1983). Languages in which word order is determined by pragmatic factors have been called “discourse configurational”; cf. Kiss (1995). For references on the word order of Modern Greek and its (non-)configurationality, see Matić (2003b).
16Hómōs is not frequent in Archaic Greek. Further instances are found in Thgn. 1.384, 1029 and Archil. Fr. 89.17 West.
17Note that of the five adversative relations that can be expressed by adversative connectives according to Kroon (1995: 210–217)—see also Allan (2017b: 280–283)—hómōs expresses four: direct / indirect concession (Str. 1.2.20, example 13), semantic opposition (Paus. 2.15.2, example 16), discourse contrast (Pi. P. 1.85, example 8), and rebuttal (Ar. Ra. 1037, example 15). I have not found any instance of hómōs expressing substitution, for which mâllon ‘rather’ is more suitable.
18They can also be found with no connective particle, although this is not frequent except when they connect a subordinate to a main clause (see above). Cf. Aristid. Or. 14.210 Jebb dóntes d’ heautoùs Athēnaîois, … metégnōsan, oúte tôn phórōn phérontes tḕn ametríān oúte toùs epì têi toútōn prophásei parakléptontas autoús … proséti tā́s te akropóleis eleuthérās ékhein ou dunámenoi kaì epì toîs dēmagōgoîs óntes tôn ekeínōn … “But when they had handed themselves over to the Athenians … they repented. For they could not bear either the immoderate tribute or those who robbed them with this for an excuse … In addition they were unable to have free citadels and they were subject to the Athenians’ popular leaders …”. This is the only example of proséti connecting two main clauses or sentences by itself out of 38 instances in Aelius Aristides’ works; there is no such instance in Aristophanes’ works nor in Plato’s, and only 4 out of the 47 instances of proséti in Lucian’s works show this pattern; cf. Luc. Fug. 33; Merc.Cond. 3; Salt. 5; Tim. 55.
19Second position is often called Wackernagel’s position and is characteristic of clitics. However, there are conspicuous differences, and in this regard, Goldstein (2016a: 86–89) distinguishes between sentential clitics, mostly connective particles; clausal clitics, personal pronouns and modal particles; and phrasal clitics, especially ge, dḗ and per. This distinction is based on the fact that these clitics occupy second position either in their sentence, clause or phrase.
20This is a polyfunctional element that can function both as an additive connective meaning ‘and’ and as an additive focus particle meaning ‘also, even’.
21In Lambrecht’s terms (1994: 52), pragmatic assertion is “The proposition expressed by a sentence which the hearer is expected to know or take for granted as a result of hearing the sentence uttered”, while pragmatic presupposition is “The set of propositions lexicogrammatically evoked in a sentence which the speaker assumes the hearer already knows or is ready to take for granted at the time the sentence is uttered”.
22Matić (2003a: 582–588) calls this type of domain a “broad focus”; see also Bertrand (2014).
23These people were disturbed because Alcibiades returned to Athens during the Plynteria, a festival in which Athena’s statue was stripped of its garments and ornaments.
24These cases are examples of what has been called coordination reduction (Harris-Delisle 1978). Luraghi’s (2014b: 362) definition of coordination reduction is as follows: “Conjunction reduction, or coordination reduction […] occurs when some common feature of two coordinated sentences or clauses, which is overtly encoded in the first, is not repeated in the second”. In contrast with canonical ellipsis (Martínez Linares 2006), coordination reduction includes not only the arguments of the predicate—namely, those which are obligatory in order to maintain the grammatical coherence of their clause—but also all those elements that are not repeated in a conjunct because they already appear in the previous one.
25A case in point is the following: Pl. Tht. 186b, állo ti toû mèn sklēroû tḕn sklērótēta dià tês epaphês aisthḗsetai, kaì toû malakoû tḕn malakótēta hōsaútōs “Does it not perceive the hardness of the hard through touch, and likewise the softness of the soft?”. In this excerpt, it is possible to interpret hōsaútōs as an adjunct of aisthḗsetai (referring to dià tês epaphês). However, the ellipsis of the verb form also allows its interpretation as an additive conjunctive.
26Setting constituents … are adverbial phrases at the opening of clauses. Such phrases are like Topics in that they provide an orientation for the clause that follows, but they tend to be part of the spatial or temporal (or causal) organization of the text rather than themselves a participant about whom the speaker provides information” (Dik 2007: 36–37).
27For instance, in Ancient Greek some adverbs of time develop conjunctive functions as inferential connectives when they fulfil the pragmatic function of setting; cf. Jiménez Delgado (2013).
28This pragmaticalisation (see n. 2) can be considered a case of Traugott’s subjectification (Traugott 2010). Subjectification is the development of metatextual meanings by a linguistic expression; these metatextual meanings express speaker attitude or viewpoint, while intersubjectification (a variant of subjectification) involves the expression of the speaker’s attention towards the addressee’s self-image. See also Allan (2017a: 104–105).
29A clear case is Pl. Soph. 267d hómōs dé, kàn ei tolmēróteron eirêsthai, diagnṓseōs héneka tḕn mèn metà dóxēs mímēsin doxomimētikḕn proseípōmen, tḕn dè met’ epistḗmēs historikḗn tina mímēsinhowever, even though the innovation in language be a trifle bold, let us, for the sake of making a distinction, call the imitation which is based on opinion, opinion-imitation, and that which is founded on knowledge, a sort of scientific imitation”, in which hómōs precedes a concessive protasis and the setting, diagnṓseōs héneka.
30Hōsaútōs can still be found in somewhat high-style Modern Greek (ωσαύτως). Even so, hṑs d’ aútōs can be found later, for example, 44 times in Strabo’s Geography (2nd century BC–1st century AD) against 21 instances of hōsaútōs.
31The adverb of manner also derives from hṑs d’ aútōs since the reinforcement of aútōs with hṓs is only known within that locution. This is related to layering, namely, the coexistence of older and newer meanings in a linguistic form; see Hopper & Traugott (2003: 124–126).
32Hómōs is rare in Archaic Greek, and proséti and hōsaútōs appeared later (see above). Nonetheless, an adverb like Homeric émpēs ‘in any case, all the same, nevertheless’ shows a distribution comparable to that of hómōs when functioning as an adversative conjunctive: it appears in initial (Il. 5.191, 8.33, 464; Od. 4.100, 14.214, 16.147, 19.302, 20.311, 23.83), medial (Il. 1.562) and final position (Od. 18.12). Note that Homer uses émpēs 38 times.
33The position of hómōs is apparently final in this example, although this is due to the ellipsis of the elements already appearing in the previous sentence; cf. D.C. Epit.Xiph. 163.31–164.1 hôn dè apékteinen epiphanôn andrôn polù mèn érgon arithmêsai kaì tò onómata, hrētéon dè hómōs olígous tinás “to enumerate the names of the renowned men they killed is an arduous task; a few of them must, nevertheless, be mentioned” (the English translation is mine).
34Conjunctive adverbs can be found within a morphosyntactic constituent only when one of its elements is pragmatically highlighted; cf. Th. 7.70.8 kaì hoi stratēgoì proséti hekatérōn, eí tiná pou horôien mḕ kat’ anágkēn prúmnān krouómenon, anakaloûntes onomastì tòn triḗrarkhon ērṓtōn … “the generals, moreover, on either side, if they saw in any part of the battle backing ashore without being forced to do so, called out to the captain by name and asked him”, where hoi stratēgoì is a contrastive topic, while hekatérōn refers to the parties involved and constitutes a continuous topic (this passage of the Second Battle of Syracuse between the Syracusans and the Athenians follows the description of the boatswains’ action in the previous section). Another example is Plu. Cam. 10.5 […] khalepòn mén ésti pólemos kaì dià pollês adikíās kaì biaíōn perainómenos érgōn, eisì dè kaì polémōn hómōs tinès nómoi toîs agathoîs andrási “war is indeed a grievous thing, and is waged with much injustice and violence; but even war has certain laws which good and brave men will respect”, where polémōn is the focus element as the particle kaí ‘also, even’ makes clear.
35The connective particles that occupy Wackernagel’s position are not necessarily placed after the first prosodic word, they are generally placed after the first morphosyntactic word, so that they can be inserted within a constituent comprising more than one word; cf. Goldstein (2016a: 80–84). Prosodic words are characterised as the domain of word stress, phonotactics and segmental word-level rules. On the definition of prosodic word, see Hall (1999).
36More precisely, they can be preceded by contrastive topics and by what the author calls “non-monotonic focus”, which corrects or rejects some of the propositions making up the common ground (Goldstein 2016a: 176–177).
37Typologically speaking, discourse markers tend to have specific intonation contours (Fedriani & Sansò 2017: 4).
38Apart from the main clause, the syntactic domains in which the clitics can be inserted are those of circumstantial participles in initial position which articulate the discourse relation between their sentence and the preceding one, circumstantial participles placed after the main clause and introducing new information, as well as complement infinitive clauses whose subject does not depend on any argument of the matrix verb.
39In this case, the subject of the infinitive clause is the same as the subject of the matrix verb, so it does not escape its control.
40Cf. S. OC 1529, Tr. 374, 1115, Ar. Ec. 860, Lys. 500, D. 23.25, 25.2, Plb. 12.12.1, 34.14.4, Luc. Cal. 24.
41Some other examples of medial far-from-initial position are in Th. 1.15.1, 7.48.5, 7.80.5, 8.36.2, 97.1; Plb. 5.20.7, 9.26a; D. 18.168; Pl. Ep. 325a.

References

  • Allan Rutger J. 2014. Changing the topic: Topic position in Ancient Greek word order. Mnemosyne 67: 181–213.

  • Allan Rutger J. 2017a. The grammaticalization of Greek particles. In Ancient Greek linguistics. New approaches insights perspectives ed. by Felicia Logozzo and Paolo Poccetti 103–118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Allan Rutger J. 2017b. Ancient Greek adversative particles in contrast. In Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek ed. by Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak 273–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Altenberg Bengt. 2006. The function of adverbial connectors in second initial position in English and Swedish. In Pragmatic markers in contrast ed. by Karin Aijmer and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen 11–37. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Anscombre Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot. 1983. L’ argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.

  • Bakker Egbert J. 1993. Boundaries topics and the structure of discourse: an investigation of the Ancient Greek particle . Studies in Language 17 (2): 275–311.

  • Bazanella Carla. 2006. Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a ‘compositional’ meaning. In Approaches to discourse particles ed. by Karin Fischer 449–464. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Bertrand Nicolas. 2010. L’ ordre des mots chez Homère. Structure informationelle localisation et progression du récit (Dissertation Université de Paris-Sorbonne). Paris.

  • Bertrand Nicolas. 2014. Focus. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek language and linguistics ed. by Georgios K. Giannakis 595–599. Leiden: Brill.

  • Bonifazi Anna Annemieke Drummen and Mark de Kreij. 2016. Particles in Ancient Greek discourse. Five volumes exploring particle use across genres. Washington D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies. [https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6391].

  • Crespo Emilio. 2011. Conjunctive adverbs: a neglected chapter of Greek grammar. In A Greek man in the Iberian street. Studies in linguistics and epigraphy in honour of Javier de Hoz ed. by Eugenio R. Luján and José Luis García Alonso 35–43. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.

  • Crespo Emilio. 2013. Notas sobre el asíndeton. In Καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς ἀνήρ· διδασκάλου παράδειγμα. Homenaje al profesor Juan Antonio López Férez ed. by Luis Miguel Pino and Germán Santana 213–216. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.

  • Crespo Emilio. 2014. De adverbio a conjunción coordinante. In Ágalma. Ofrenda desde la filología clásica a Manuel García Teijeiro ed. by Ángel Martínez Begoña Ortega Villaro M. del Henar Velasco Lopez and Henar Zamora Salamanca 135–141. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.

  • Denniston John D. 1952. Greek prose style. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Denniston John. D. 1954. The Greek particles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Diewald Gabriele. 2011. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49 (2): 365–390.

  • Dik Helma. 2007. Word order in Greek tragic dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Dik Simon M.E. Hofmann R.J. de Jong. Sie Ing Djiang H. Stroomer and L. de Vries. 1981. On the typology of focus phenomena. In Perspectives on functional grammar ed. by Teun Hoekstra Harry van der Hulst Michael Moortgat 41–74. Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Dik Simon. 1997. The theory of functional grammar. Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Ducrot Oswald. 1983. Opérateurs argumentatifs et visée argumentative. Cahiers de linguistique française 5: 7–36.

  • Fedriani Chiara and Andrea Sansó. 2017. Introduction. Pragmatic Markers Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: What do we know and where do we go from here? In Pragmatic markers discourse markers and modal particles. New perspectives ed. by Chiara Fedriani and Andrea Sansò 1–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Fuentes Catalina. 2009. Diccionario de conectores y operadores del español. Madrid: Arco/Libros.

  • Fuentes Catalina. 2012. El margen derecho del enunciado. Revista Española de Lingüística 42 (2): 63–93.

  • Georgakopoulou Alexandra and Dionysis Goutsos. 1998. Conjunctions versus discourse markers in Greek: the interaction of frequency position and function in context. Linguistics 36 (5): 887–917.

  • Goutsos Dionysis. 2017. A corpus-based approach to functional markers in Greek: Exploring the role of position. In Pragmatic markers discourse markers and modal particles. New perspectives ed. by Chiara Fedriani and Andrea Sansò 125–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Goldstein David. 2016a. Classical Greek syntax: Wackernagel’s Law in Herodotus. Leiden: Brill.

  • Goldstein David. 2016b. Discourse particles in the LSJ: a Fresh Look at γε (unpublished manuscript).

  • Greenbaum Sidney. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. London: Longman.

  • Hale Ken. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. In Natural language and linguistic theory 1: 5–47.

  • Hall Tracy A. 1999. The phonological word: A review. In Studies on the phonological word ed. by Tracy A. Hall and Ursula Kleinhenz 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Halliday Michael A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

  • Harris-Delisle Helga. 1978. Coordination reduction. In Universals of human language. Volume 4: Syntax ed. by Joseph Greenberg 515–583. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Haselow Alexander. 2012. Subjectivity intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. In Language and Communication 32: 182–204.

  • Holton David Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 2012. Greek. A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.

  • Hopper Paul. J. and Elizabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Jiménez Delgado José Miguel. 2013. Adverbios temporales como conectores consecutivos en griego antiguo. Cuadernos de filología clásica: Estudios Griegos e Indoeuropeos 23: 31–52.

  • Jiménez Delgado José Miguel. 2014. Posición inicial y adverbios conjuntivos en Griego antiguo: el caso de ἔπειτα. Revista Epañola de lingüística 44 (2): 39–62.

  • Kiss Katalin É. 1995. Discourse configurational languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Kovacci Ofelia. 1999. El adverbio. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte 705–787. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

  • Kroon Caroline. 1995. Discourse particles in Latin: a study of nam enim autem vero and at. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

  • Lambrecht Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lenker Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

  • Luraghi Silvia. 2014a. Clitic group. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek language and linguistics ed. by Georgios K. Giannakis 300–307. Leiden: Brill.

  • Luraghi Silvia. 2014b. Conjunction reduction. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek language and linguistics ed. by Georgios K. Giannakis 362–363. Leiden: Brill.

  • Matić Dejan. 2003a. Topic focus and discourse structure: Ancient Greek word order. Studies in Language 27 (3): 573–633.

  • Matić Dejan. 2003b. Topics presuppositions and theticity: An empirical study of verb-subject clauses in Albanian Greek and Serbo-Croat (Dissertation Universität zu Köln). Cologne.

  • Martín López María Isabel. 1993. La función discursiva de la partícula griega δέ. Habis 24: 219–234.

  • Martín Zorraquino María Antonia. 2010. Los marcadores del discurso y su morfología. In Los estudios sobre los marcadores del discurso en español hoy ed. by Óscar Loureda Esperanza Acín-Villa 93–182. Madrid: Arco/Libros.

  • Martín Zorraquino María Antonia and José Portolés Lázaro. 1999. Los marcadores del discurso. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte 4051–4213. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

  • Martínez Linares María Antonia. 2006. La elipsis. In E-Excellence www.liceus.com (ISBN: 84-9822-505-1).

  • Pasch Renate Ursula Brauße Eva Breindl and Ulrich H. Waßner. 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen Satzadverbien und Partikeln). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Quirk Randolph Sidney Greenbaum Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

  • Scheppers Frank. 2011. The colon hypothesis. Word order discourse segmentation and discourse coherence in Ancient Greek. Brussels: VUB Press.

  • Sicking Christiaan M.J. and Johannes M. van Ophuijsen. 1993. Two studies in Attic particle usage. Lysias and Plato. Leiden: Brill.

  • Traugott Elizabeth C. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Subjectification intersubjectification and grammaticalization ed. by Kristin Davidse Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens 29–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Traugott Elizabeth C. 2016. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17 (1): 26–54.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Sections
References
  • Allan Rutger J. 2014. Changing the topic: Topic position in Ancient Greek word order. Mnemosyne 67: 181–213.

  • Allan Rutger J. 2017a. The grammaticalization of Greek particles. In Ancient Greek linguistics. New approaches insights perspectives ed. by Felicia Logozzo and Paolo Poccetti 103–118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Allan Rutger J. 2017b. Ancient Greek adversative particles in contrast. In Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek ed. by Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak 273–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Altenberg Bengt. 2006. The function of adverbial connectors in second initial position in English and Swedish. In Pragmatic markers in contrast ed. by Karin Aijmer and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen 11–37. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Anscombre Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot. 1983. L’ argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.

  • Bakker Egbert J. 1993. Boundaries topics and the structure of discourse: an investigation of the Ancient Greek particle . Studies in Language 17 (2): 275–311.

  • Bazanella Carla. 2006. Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a ‘compositional’ meaning. In Approaches to discourse particles ed. by Karin Fischer 449–464. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Bertrand Nicolas. 2010. L’ ordre des mots chez Homère. Structure informationelle localisation et progression du récit (Dissertation Université de Paris-Sorbonne). Paris.

  • Bertrand Nicolas. 2014. Focus. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek language and linguistics ed. by Georgios K. Giannakis 595–599. Leiden: Brill.

  • Bonifazi Anna Annemieke Drummen and Mark de Kreij. 2016. Particles in Ancient Greek discourse. Five volumes exploring particle use across genres. Washington D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies. [https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6391].

  • Crespo Emilio. 2011. Conjunctive adverbs: a neglected chapter of Greek grammar. In A Greek man in the Iberian street. Studies in linguistics and epigraphy in honour of Javier de Hoz ed. by Eugenio R. Luján and José Luis García Alonso 35–43. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.

  • Crespo Emilio. 2013. Notas sobre el asíndeton. In Καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς ἀνήρ· διδασκάλου παράδειγμα. Homenaje al profesor Juan Antonio López Férez ed. by Luis Miguel Pino and Germán Santana 213–216. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.

  • Crespo Emilio. 2014. De adverbio a conjunción coordinante. In Ágalma. Ofrenda desde la filología clásica a Manuel García Teijeiro ed. by Ángel Martínez Begoña Ortega Villaro M. del Henar Velasco Lopez and Henar Zamora Salamanca 135–141. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.

  • Denniston John D. 1952. Greek prose style. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Denniston John. D. 1954. The Greek particles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Diewald Gabriele. 2011. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49 (2): 365–390.

  • Dik Helma. 2007. Word order in Greek tragic dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Dik Simon M.E. Hofmann R.J. de Jong. Sie Ing Djiang H. Stroomer and L. de Vries. 1981. On the typology of focus phenomena. In Perspectives on functional grammar ed. by Teun Hoekstra Harry van der Hulst Michael Moortgat 41–74. Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Dik Simon. 1997. The theory of functional grammar. Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Ducrot Oswald. 1983. Opérateurs argumentatifs et visée argumentative. Cahiers de linguistique française 5: 7–36.

  • Fedriani Chiara and Andrea Sansó. 2017. Introduction. Pragmatic Markers Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: What do we know and where do we go from here? In Pragmatic markers discourse markers and modal particles. New perspectives ed. by Chiara Fedriani and Andrea Sansò 1–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Fuentes Catalina. 2009. Diccionario de conectores y operadores del español. Madrid: Arco/Libros.

  • Fuentes Catalina. 2012. El margen derecho del enunciado. Revista Española de Lingüística 42 (2): 63–93.

  • Georgakopoulou Alexandra and Dionysis Goutsos. 1998. Conjunctions versus discourse markers in Greek: the interaction of frequency position and function in context. Linguistics 36 (5): 887–917.

  • Goutsos Dionysis. 2017. A corpus-based approach to functional markers in Greek: Exploring the role of position. In Pragmatic markers discourse markers and modal particles. New perspectives ed. by Chiara Fedriani and Andrea Sansò 125–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Goldstein David. 2016a. Classical Greek syntax: Wackernagel’s Law in Herodotus. Leiden: Brill.

  • Goldstein David. 2016b. Discourse particles in the LSJ: a Fresh Look at γε (unpublished manuscript).

  • Greenbaum Sidney. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. London: Longman.

  • Hale Ken. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. In Natural language and linguistic theory 1: 5–47.

  • Hall Tracy A. 1999. The phonological word: A review. In Studies on the phonological word ed. by Tracy A. Hall and Ursula Kleinhenz 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Halliday Michael A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

  • Harris-Delisle Helga. 1978. Coordination reduction. In Universals of human language. Volume 4: Syntax ed. by Joseph Greenberg 515–583. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Haselow Alexander. 2012. Subjectivity intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. In Language and Communication 32: 182–204.

  • Holton David Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 2012. Greek. A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.

  • Hopper Paul. J. and Elizabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Jiménez Delgado José Miguel. 2013. Adverbios temporales como conectores consecutivos en griego antiguo. Cuadernos de filología clásica: Estudios Griegos e Indoeuropeos 23: 31–52.

  • Jiménez Delgado José Miguel. 2014. Posición inicial y adverbios conjuntivos en Griego antiguo: el caso de ἔπειτα. Revista Epañola de lingüística 44 (2): 39–62.

  • Kiss Katalin É. 1995. Discourse configurational languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Kovacci Ofelia. 1999. El adverbio. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte 705–787. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

  • Kroon Caroline. 1995. Discourse particles in Latin: a study of nam enim autem vero and at. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

  • Lambrecht Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lenker Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

  • Luraghi Silvia. 2014a. Clitic group. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek language and linguistics ed. by Georgios K. Giannakis 300–307. Leiden: Brill.

  • Luraghi Silvia. 2014b. Conjunction reduction. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek language and linguistics ed. by Georgios K. Giannakis 362–363. Leiden: Brill.

  • Matić Dejan. 2003a. Topic focus and discourse structure: Ancient Greek word order. Studies in Language 27 (3): 573–633.

  • Matić Dejan. 2003b. Topics presuppositions and theticity: An empirical study of verb-subject clauses in Albanian Greek and Serbo-Croat (Dissertation Universität zu Köln). Cologne.

  • Martín López María Isabel. 1993. La función discursiva de la partícula griega δέ. Habis 24: 219–234.

  • Martín Zorraquino María Antonia. 2010. Los marcadores del discurso y su morfología. In Los estudios sobre los marcadores del discurso en español hoy ed. by Óscar Loureda Esperanza Acín-Villa 93–182. Madrid: Arco/Libros.

  • Martín Zorraquino María Antonia and José Portolés Lázaro. 1999. Los marcadores del discurso. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte 4051–4213. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

  • Martínez Linares María Antonia. 2006. La elipsis. In E-Excellence www.liceus.com (ISBN: 84-9822-505-1).

  • Pasch Renate Ursula Brauße Eva Breindl and Ulrich H. Waßner. 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen Satzadverbien und Partikeln). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Quirk Randolph Sidney Greenbaum Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

  • Scheppers Frank. 2011. The colon hypothesis. Word order discourse segmentation and discourse coherence in Ancient Greek. Brussels: VUB Press.

  • Sicking Christiaan M.J. and Johannes M. van Ophuijsen. 1993. Two studies in Attic particle usage. Lysias and Plato. Leiden: Brill.

  • Traugott Elizabeth C. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Subjectification intersubjectification and grammaticalization ed. by Kristin Davidse Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens 29–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Traugott Elizabeth C. 2016. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17 (1): 26–54.

Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 341 341 25
PDF Downloads 153 153 9
EPUB Downloads 2 2 0