Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of Nam, Enim, Autem, Vero and at (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, No 4) (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, No 4)

Due to their extremely elusive nature, particles have long been treated in a stepmotherly way, in grammars of individual languages as well as in theories of language. This study is representative of the recent upsurge of interest in particles, more particularly in particles with a discourse marking function. By offering a detailed account of a number of Latin discourse particles, the study provides more insight into a vitually neglected area of Latin. At the same time it contributes to the theoretical and methodological foundations of current particle research and, more generally, to the development of linguistic models of discourse. Title Page 4 Copyright Page 5 Table of Contents 8 Preface 14 1. Introduction 16 1.1 Outline of the study 17 1.2 Data 18 Part I: Theory 20 2. Relations 22 2.1 Issues in text relations: conjuncts, relations and relators 22 2.2 Relations: various classifications 24 2.3 (Logical-)semantic classifications 25 2.4 Pragmatic classifications 27 2.4.1 Semantic-pragmatic relations 27 2.4.2 Speech act relations 32 2.4.3 Discourse-pragmatic classifications 35 2.5 Formal and structural classifications 39 2.5.1 Clause combining 40 2.5.2 Text structure 41 2.6 Evaluation of the usefulness of relation taxonomies 45 3. Relators: approaches to particles 49 3. 1 Introduction 49 3.2 Formal and syntactic accounts of particles 52 3.3 Semantic approaches to particles 56 3.4 Discourse and conversation approaches to particles 60 3.5 Evaluation 69 4. A framework for the description of connective particles 73 4.1 The descriptive model: coherence, connectives and levels of discourse 73 4.1.1 The first parameter: levels of discourse 74 4.1.2 The second parameter: type of relationship 77 4.1.2.1 Intratextual and extratextual relationships 78 4.1.2.2 Structural and semantic-functional relationships 79 4.2 Comments on the analytical framework 84 4.2.1 The representational level of discourse 84 4.2.2 The presentational level of discourse 88 4.2.2.1 Rhetorical discourse relations 90 4.2.2.2 Types of rhetorical relationships 93 4.2.2.3 Organization of the text 95 4.2.3 The interactional level of discourse 104 4.2.3.1 Interactional relations 105 4.2.3.2 Conversational structure 109 4.2.3.3 'Evaluation' in terms of the communicative situation 109 4.3 Concluding remarks 111 5. Heuristics 112 5.1 Components in a description of particles: basic meaning, discourse function, actual use and side-effects 112 5.2 Levels of discourse and their linguistic manifestations 118 5.2.1 Distinguishing 'representational' from 'presentational' connective particles 118 5.2.2 Distinguishing interactional from other particles: the importance of the concept of discourse type 123 5.2.2.1 Discourse type: the oppositions monologal-dialogal and monological-dialogical 124 5.2.2.2 Diaphony 126 5.3 Overview of linguistic clues 130 Part II: Description 142 6. Causal relations and causal connectives: conventional accounts of nam and enim in the literature 144 6.1 Causal relations 144 6.2 Previous accounts of nam 147 6.3 Previous accounts of enim 152 6.4 Interchangeability of nam and enim 157 7. Nam 159 7.1 A discourse-pragmatic description of nam 159 7.2 'Backward-linking' nam 160 7.2.1 The rhetorical relation 'evidence' 161 7.2.2 The rhetorical relation 'justification' 161 7.2.3 The rhetorical relations 'explanation', 'elaboration' and 'background' 162 7.2.4 The rhetorical relation 'exemplification' 163 7.2.5 Additional remarks 164 7.3 So-called 'forward-linking' nam 167 7.3.1 Possible instances of 'forward-linking' nam 167 7.3.2 The relation between 'backward-' and 'forward-linking' nam 170 7.3.3 Nam as a marker of the organization of the text 176 7.4 The so-called affirmative particle nam 178 7.5 Conclusions 183 8. Enim 186 8.1 A discourse-pragmatic description of enim 186 8.2 The 'non-connective' (situating) nature of enim 187 8.2. 1 Syntactic distributional properties 187 8.2.2 Discourse type 190 8.3 The interactional nature of enim 198 8.3.1 Shared information 200 8.3.2 Co-occurrence with other particles 201 8.3.3 Evidence from question-answer pairs 203 8.3.4 Illocutionary force 204 8.3.5 Metacommunicative comment 210 8.4 Actual use: pragmatic motivations for the use of enim 211 8.4.1 Actual use 1: toning down a challengeable utterance 211 8.4.2 Actual use 2: irony 213 8.4.3 Actual use 3: empathy 214 8.5 Conclusions 217 8.5.1 Interactional consensus as a unifying concept 218 8.5.2 Limitations on the interchangeability of nam and enim 220 9. Adversative relations and adversative connectives: conventional accounts of autem, vero and at 225 9. 1 Adversative relations 225 9.2 Previous accounts of autem, vero and at 232 9.2.1 Previous accounts of autem 233 9.2.2 Previous accounts of vero 235 9.2.3 Previous accounts of at 237 10. Autem 241 10.1 The discourse function of autem 241 10.2 The local use of autem: autem as a focusing device 242 10.2.1 Autem as a marker of parallel focus 244 10.2.1.1 Parallel constructions with lexical opposites 246 10.2.1.2 Change of addressee 248 10.2.1.3 Additional remarks 250 10.2.2 Autem as a marker of absolute focus 253 10.2.2.1 Autem as a marker of parallel focus in questions 256 10.2.2.2 Autem as a marker of absolute focus in questions 259 10.3 The global use of autem: autem as a marker of the organization of the text 262 10.3.1 Parallel focus and thematic discontinuity 262 10.3.2 Autem with discourse topic shifts 265 10.3.2.1 Autem with given and accessible discourse topics 265 10.3.2.2 Autem with new discourse topics 276 10.3.3 Autem with other types of thematic discontinuity 278 10.3.3.1 Autem with shifted 'settings' 278 10.3.3.2 Autem as a neutral transition particle 281 10.3.3.3 Autem with temporary thematic shifts 282 10.4 Conclusions 284 10.4.1 A discourse-pragmatic description of autem 284 10.4.2 Linguistic clues 287 10.4.3 Pragmatic motivation for the use of autem 290 10.4.4 Autem and other discourse connectives 292 11. Vero 296 11.1 The discourse functions of vero 296 11.2 Representational vero 300 11.2.1 Between adverb and particle 300 11.2.2 Vero as an objective modality marker 303 11.2.3 Vero in reactive moves 306 11.2.4 Summary of the representational uses of vero 313 11.3 Interactional vero 314 11.3.1 Vero as a subjective modality marker 315 11. 3.2 Other interactional instances of vero: vero as a conversation particle 319 11.4 Side-effects 324 11.4.1 Preliminary remarks: pragmatic motivations and linguistic clues 325 11.4.2 Side-effect 1: the 'adversative connective' vero 330 11.4.3 Side-effect 2: vero as an ostensible marker of the organization of the text or as a focus particle; the chiaroscuro effect 334 11.5 Conclusions 341 11.5.1 A discourse-pragmatic description of vero 341 11.5.2 Vera and other discourse connectives 344 12. At 348 12.1 Introduction 348 12.2 The interactional discourse function of at 350 12.2.1 Discourse type 1: dialogical dialogal (direct dialogue without an overt central reporter) 351 12.2.2 Discourse type 3: dialogical monologal 355 12.2.3 Discourse type 5: diaphonic monological discourse 357 12.2.3.1 Indirectly rendered conversation in oratio obliqua 358 12.2.3.2 Implied interlocutor with the status of an 'embedded voice' 358 12.2.3.3 Pseudo-apodotic clauses containing at 359 12.2.3.4 At in sentences of narration proper 363 12.3 The presentational discourse function of at 365 12.4 The so-called pathetic use of at 372 12.5 Conclusions 377 12.5.1 A discourse-pragmatic description of at 377 12.5.2 At and other discourse connectives 381 13. Conclusions 386 Bibliography 392 Index of terms 406 Index of critically discussed passages 412 Index of Latin words 413