Particles in Ancient Greek Discourse: Exploring Particle Use Across Genres

• Preface
• How to Cite the Print Edition
• 2021 Acknowledgments
• I. Foundations
  
  • 1. General Introduction (§1)
    
    • 1.1. The Extent of the Project (§2–§3)
    • 1.2. Goals (§4–§7)
    • 1.3. The Term “Particle” (§8–§11)
    • 1.4. The Discourse Approach: Key Concepts (§12–§17)
    • 1.5. A Discourse Approach to Ancient Greek Particles (§18–§21)
    • 1.6. Guiding Questions (§22)
    • 1.7. Outline of the Work (§23)
      
      • 1.7.1. Part I (§24–§25)
      • 1.7.2. Part II (§26–§27)
      • 1.7.3. Part III (§28–§29)
      • 1.7.4. Part IV (§30–§31)
      • 1.7.5. Part V (§32–§33)
  • 2. From σύνδεσμοι to Particulae [Mark de Kreij]
    
    • 2.1. Introduction (§1–§3)
    • 2.2. Early Study of Grammar (§4–§8)
    • 2.3. The Téchnē Attributed to Dionysius Thrax (§9–§13)
    • 2.4. Early Definitions of σύνδεσμοι (§14–§17)
    • 2.5. The Scholia
      
      • 2.5.1. Terminology (§18–§19)
      • 2.5.2. σύνδεσμοι in the scholia (§20–§27)
      • 2.5.3. Aristarchus on σύνδεσμοι (§28–§31)
      • 2.5.4. Redundancy (§32)
      • 2.5.5. Interchangeability (§33–§38)
      • 2.5.6. ἄν and κε(ν) (§39–§40)
      • 2.5.7. Noteworthy readings of σύνδεσμοι (§41–§46)
    • 2.6. The Téchnē and Other Early Scholarship (§47–§49)
      
      • 2.6.1. Trypho (§50–§51)
      • 2.6.2. Apollonius the Sophist (§52–§53)
      • 2.6.3. σύνδεσμοι in the Téchnē (§54–§57)
      • 2.6.4. Demetrius’ Style (§58–§59)
    • 2.7. Apollonius Dyscolus (§60–§65)
      
      • 2.7.1. Subcategories (§66–§71)
      • 2.7.2. Important topics raised by Apollonius (§72–§76)
    • 2.8. After Apollonius Dyscolus (§77–§78)
      
      • 2.8.1. Early grammars (§79–§81)
      • 2.8.2. Late antique scholia to the Téchnē (§82–§84)
      • 2.8.3. The medieval lexicographers (§85–§89)
    • 2.9. A Renaissance of the Particle (§90–§91)
  • 3. Approaches to Particles and Discourse Markers [Annemieke Drummen]
    
    • 3.1. Introduction (§1–§5)
    • 3.2. Terminology, Definition, and Classification (§6–§15)
    • 3.3. Different Approaches in Discourse-Marker Studies (§16)
      
      • 3.3.1. Coherence approaches (§17–§24)
      • 3.3.2. Conversation Analysis (§25–§32)
      • 3.3.3. Relevance Theory (§33–§40)
      • 3.3.4. Construction Grammar (§41–§51)
    • 3.4. Further Relevant Studies (§52–§57)
    • 3.5. Studies on Particles and Discourse Markers in Ancient Greek and Latin (§58–§74)
    • 3.6. Conclusions (§75–§77)
  • 4. General Conclusions (§1)
    
    • 4.1. Particles Invite Sensitivity to Discourse (§2–§6)
    • 4.2. What to Look Out For in Connection with Particles (§7–§11)
    • 4.3. Particles, Text, and Literature (§12–§16)
    • 4.4. Directions in Ancient Greek Particle Studies (§17–§19)
• II. Particle Use in Homer and Pindar [Mark de Kreij]
  
  • 1. Introduction (§1–§5)
    
    • 1.1. Starting Points (§6–§10)
      
      • 1.1.1. Sneak preview (§11–§15)
  • 2. Discourse Acts: The Domain of Particle Analysis (§1–§2)
    
    • 2.1. Introduction (§3–§8)
      
      • 2.1.1. Kôlon, intonation unit, discourse act (§9–§20)
      • 2.1.2. Distinguishing potential discourse acts (§21–§23)
    • 2.2. Discourse Acts in Homer (§24–§30)
      
      • 2.2.1. Homeric δέ (§31–§36)
    • 2.3. Discourse Acts in Pindar (§37–§45)
    • 2.4. μέν in Homer and Pindar (§46–§48)
      
      • 2.4.1. μέν projecting acts and moves (§49–§56)
      • 2.4.2. Small-scope μέν (§57–§62)
    • 2.5. Priming Acts (§63)
      
      • 2.5.1. Priming acts in Homeric narrative (§64–§71)
      • 2.5.2. Priming acts in Pindar (§72)
        
        • 2.5.2.1. Pindaric priming acts with second-person pronouns (§73–§79)
    • 2.6. Conclusions (§80–§82)
  • 3. Moves: Particles at Discourse Transitions (§1)
    
    • 3.1. Moves (§2–§5)
      
      • 3.1.1. Move transitions (§6–§11)
    • 3.2. Particles in Narrative (§12–§13)
      
      • 3.2.1. Narrative moves (§14–§19)
      • 3.2.2. Narrative beginnings: γάρ (§20–§29)
        
        • 3.2.2.1. καὶ γάρ (§30–§32)
      • 3.2.3. ἤδη and ἦ marking beginnings (§33–§44)
      • 3.2.4. Other narrative beginnings (§45–§50)
    • 3.3. Move Transitions in Homeric Narrative (§51–§52)
      
      • 3.3.1. Homeric δή I: Marking narrative steps (§53–§58)
      • 3.3.2. Homeric δή II: Intensifying constituents or acts (§59–§63)
      • 3.3.3. Homeric δή: Conclusions (§64)
    • 3.4. Move Transitions in Pindaric Discourse
      
      • 3.4.1. Particles at move transitions in narrative (§65–§67)
      • 3.4.2. The discursive flow of lyric song: Pythian 2 (§68–§76)
    • 3.5. Conclusions (§77–§81)
  • 4. Discourse Memory: The Negotiation of Shared Knowledge (§1–§4)
    
    • 4.1. Discourse Memory (§5–§10)
    • 4.2. Unframed Discourse (§11–§14)
      
      • 4.2.1. γάρ and unframed discourse in Homeric epic (§15–§23)
      • 4.2.2. γάρ and unframed discourse in Pindar (§24–§25)
      • 4.2.3. γάρ in Homer and Pindar: An overview (§26–§28)
    • 4.3. Particles in the Homeric Simile (§29–§31)
      
      • 4.3.1. τε in the Homeric simile (§32–§37)
      • 4.3.2. ἄρα in the Homeric simile and beyond (§38–§41)
      • 4.3.3. The linguistic form of the simile (§42–§45)
    • 4.4. Scripts, Scenarios, and Traditional Knowledge (§46–§49)
      
      • 4.4.1. Particles in two recurrent themes (§50–§53)
    • 4.5. τε in Pindar (§54)
      
      • 4.5.1. “Epic” τε in Pindar (§55–§57)
      • 4.5.2. Copulative τε in Pindar (§58–§68)
    • 4.6. Conclusions (§69–§72)
  • 5. Particles and Anaphoric Reference: A Discourse Perspective on Particles with Third-Person Pronouns (§1–§3)
    
    • 5.1. A Discourse Approach to Anaphoric Reference (§4–§10)
    • 5.2. ὁ and ὅς (§11–§17)
    • 5.3. ὁ/ὅς + Particle in Homer (§18)
      
      • 5.3.1. ὁ δέ (§19–§26)
      • 5.3.2. ὅ γε (§27–§50)
      • 5.3.3. ὁ δ᾽ἄρα and ὅ(ς) ῥα (§51–§62)
      • 5.3.4. ὁ δή and ὃς δή (§63–§71)
    • 5.4. Participant Tracking in a Pindaric Ode: Isthmian 2 (§72–§79)
    • 5.5. Conclusions (§80–§84)
• III. Particle Use in Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes [Annemieke Drummen]
  
  • 1. Introduction (§1–§2)
    
    • 1.1. The Performative Context (§3–§6)
    • 1.2. Themes and Findings (§7–§18)
  • 2. Varying One’s Speech: Discourse Patterns
    
    • 2.1. Introduction (§1–§3)
      
      • 2.1.1. Theoretical background: Discourse patterns and registers (§4–§9)
      • 2.1.2. Research on linguistic variation in ancient Greek drama (§10–§15)
      • 2.1.3. Methodology in this chapter (§16–§21)
    • 2.2. Distribution as Input for Interpretation (§22–§23)
      
      • 2.2.1. δέ (§24–§32)
      • 2.2.2. καί (§33–§38)
      • 2.2.3. τε (§39–§49)
      • 2.2.4. γάρ (§50–§57)
      • 2.2.5. γε and δῆτα (§58–§63)
      • 2.2.6. ἀλλά (§64–§68)
      • 2.2.7. μέν (§69–§72)
      • 2.2.8. δή (§73–§79)
      • 2.2.9. οὖν (§80–§84)
      • 2.2.10. ἦ (§85–§89)
    • 2.3. Conclusions (§90–§95)
    • Appendix: Non-Significant Distributions
  • 3. Reusing Others’ Words: Resonance
    
    • 3.1. Introduction (§1–§2)
      
      • 3.1.1. What is dialogic resonance? (§3–§7)
      • 3.1.2. Studies on resonance in modern languages (§8–§14)
      • 3.1.3. Studies on resonance in ancient Greek (§15–§24)
      • 3.1.4. This chapter (§25–§26)
    • 3.2. Resonance in Tragedy and Comedy
      
      • 3.2.1. Functions of resonance (§27–§32)
      • 3.2.2. Resonance used by speaking characters
        
        • 3.2.2.1. Resonance stressing unity of speakers and actions (§33–§38)
        • 3.2.2.2. Resonance stressing differences (§39–§49)
      • 3.2.3. Resonance used by playwrights
        
        • 3.2.3.1. Resonance stressing a theme (§50–§56)
        • 3.2.3.2. Resonance characterizing a speaker and an interaction (§57–§62)
        • 3.2.3.3. Resonance used for humor (§63–§69)
        • 3.2.3.4. Resonance creating parody (§70–§72)
      • 3.2.4. Conclusions about resonance in tragedy and comedy (§73)
    • 3.3. The Role of Particles in the Process of Resonance
      
      • 3.3.1. Particles indicating how resonance is used (§74–§75)
        
        • 3.3.1.1. γε (§76–§79)
        • 3.3.1.2. δέ γε/δέ… γε (§80–§83)
        • 3.3.1.3. δῆτα (§84–§88)
        • 3.3.1.4. καί (§89–§94)
        • 3.3.1.5. γάρ (§95–§98)
      • 3.3.2. Particles triggering resonance themselves (§99–§102)
    • 3.4. Conclusions (§103–§108)
  • 4. Speaking in Turns: Conversation Analysis
    
    • 4.1. Introduction
      
      • 4.1.1. Tragic and comic conversation (§1–§6)
      • 4.1.2. Conversation Analysis (CA) (§7–§23)
      • 4.1.3. Applying CA to particles in tragedy and comedy (§24–§25)
    • 4.2. Turn-Taking (§26–§31)
    • 4.3. Sequence Organization (§32)
      
      • 4.3.1. Adjacency pairs and adjacency-pair series (§33–§42)
      • 4.3.2. Pair expansions (§43–§48)
    • 4.4. Preference Organization (§49)
      
      • 4.4.1. Preferred responses (§50–§52)
      • 4.4.2. Dispreferred responses (§53–§56)
    • 4.5. The Actions Performed by Turns (§57)
      
      • 4.5.1. τοι (§58–§61)
      • 4.5.2. Turn-initial γε (§62–§64)
      • 4.5.3. Utterance starts without particles (§65–§70)
    • 4.6. Conclusions (§71–§72)
    • Appendix: Quantitative Observations on Turn-Initial Expressions (§73–§75)
  • 5. Reflecting Emotional States of Mind: Calmness versus Agitation
    
    • 5.1. Introduction (§1–§8)
    • 5.2. Approaches to Emotions
      
      • 5.2.1. Emotions in ancient Greek texts (§9–§21)
      • 5.2.2. Calmness versus agitation beyond ancient Greek (§22–§25)
    • 5.3. Reflections of Calmness and Agitation (§26)
      
      • 5.3.1. Calmness (§27–§43)
      • 5.3.2. Agitation (§44–§50)
    • 5.4. The Different Emotional and Interactional Associations of γε in Aristophanes (§51–§52)
      
      • 5.4.1. γε in angry contexts (§53–§58)
      • 5.4.2. γε in stancetaking contexts, with or without agitation (§59–§63)
    • 5.5. Two Tragic Case Studies of Calm versus Agitated Discourse (§64)
      
      • 5.5.1. Sophocles’ calm versus agitated Oedipus (§65–§77)
      • 5.5.2. Euripides’ agitated Pentheus versus calm Dionysus (§78–§87)
    • 5.6. Conclusions (§88–§95)
• IV. Particle Use in Herodotus and Thucydides [Anna Bonifazi]
  
  • 1. Introduction (§1–§3)
    
    • 1.1. Themes and Examples (§4–§9)
    • 1.2. A Different Perspective on Historiographical Texts (§10–§15)
  • 2. Multifunctionality of δέ, τε, and καί
    
    • 2.1. And-Coordination (§1–§13)
    • 2.2. δέ Marking the Beginning of a New Discourse Act (§14–§25)
      
      • 2.2.1. δέ in phrases (§26–§28)
      • 2.2.2. δέ in syntactically independent clauses (§29–§31)
      • 2.2.3. “Inceptive” δέ (§32–§35)
      • 2.2.4. “Apodotic” δέ (§36–§37)
      • 2.2.5. δέ in priming acts (§38–§41)
      • 2.2.6. When the force of two contiguous δέ acts changes (§24–§45)
      • 2.2.7. Interim conclusion (§46)
    • 2.3. The Continuum of τε (§47–§53)
      
      • 2.3.1. τε and shared knowledge (§54–§69)
      • 2.3.2. Further enrichments (§70–§73)
      • 2.3.3. τε “solitarium” and “sentential” τε (§74–§77)
      • 2.3.4. τε connections backward-oriented: The coda effect (§78–§79)
      • 2.3.5. τε connections forward-oriented: τε as a projecting marker, and τε at the beginning of lists (§80–§84)
      • 2.3.6. τε starting moves (§85–§87)
      • 2.3.7. Backward and forward τε connections: Intonational parallels? (§88–§90)
      • 2.3.8. Interim conclusion (§91–§2)
    • 2.4. καί between Link and Climax (§93–§94)
      
      • 2.4.1. καί in combinations (§95–§101)
      • 2.4.2. Using καί to pin down (§102–§105)
      • 2.4.3. Using καί to mark narrative peaks (§106–§107)
      • 2.4.4. Using καί to start narrative expansions (§108–§111)
      • 2.4.5. Using καί to wrap accounts up (§112–§113)
      • 2.4.6. Enrichments of καί when καί is untranslated (§114–§116)
      • 2.4.7. καί as “or” (§117–§121)
      • 2.4.8. καί and the idea of climax (§122–§132)
      • 2.4.9. Interim conclusion (§133–§137)
    • 2.5. Conclusions (§138–§146)
  • 3. Discourse Segmentation
    
    • 3.1. Introduction (§1–§7)
    • 3.2. Punctuation Between Grammar and Prosody (§8–§15)
    • 3.3. Modern Punctuation of Ancient Greek Texts: Focus on Syntactic Hierarchy and on Periodic Styles (§16–§27)
    • 3.4. Ancient Punctuation: Focus on Delivery (§28–§37)
    • 3.5. Ancient Segmentation: Units and Subunits Syntactically Unspecified (§38–§45)
    • 3.6. Modern Acknowledgment of Prose Colometry (§46–§52)
    • 3.7. Modern Segmentation Above the Sentence Level (§53–§56)
    • 3.8. The Roles of Particles: Matches and Mismatches (§57–§64)
    • 3.9. The Holistic Principle of Discourse Segmentation (§65–§69)
    • 3.10. Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ Discourse Acts (§70–§74)
      
      • 3.10.1. Segmenting an “unsuccessful” period in Herodotus (§75–§82)
      • 3.10.2. Segmenting a “descending” period in Thucydides (§83–§91)
    • 3.11. Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ Moves (§92–§106)
      
      • 3.11.1. Move starts with priming acts (§107–§116)
      • 3.11.2. οὗτος forms at the end or start of moves (§117–§124)
      • 3.11.3. οὗτος forms + μέν; οὗτος forms + δή; act–peninitial δή (§125–§129)
      • 3.11.4. μὲν δή and μέν νυν in Herodotus (§130–§143)
      • 3.11.5. μὲν οὖν in Thucydides (§144–§146)
    • 3.12. Conclusions (§147–§157)
  • 4. Tracking Voice and Stance
    
    • 4.1. Introduction (§1–§14)
    • 4.2. Tracking Voice (§15–§18)
      
      • 4.2.1. Speech and thought: A figured stage of voices (§19–§25)
      • 4.2.2. Authorial statements (§26–§29)
    • 4.3. The Contribution of Particles to Marking Voice (§30–§31)
      
      • 4.3.1. ἦ μήν in indirect speech (§32–§33)
      • 4.3.2. τοι in Herodotus, in and beyond direct speech (§34–§39)
      • 4.3.3. γε in authorial statements (§40–§44)
    • 4.4. Tracking Stance (§45)
      
      • 4.4.1. The stance triangle (§46–§51)
      • 4.4.2. Positioning, evaluating, and (dis)aligning in Herodotus and Thucydides (§52–§63)
      • 4.4.3. Epistemic and emotional stance: Avoiding dichotomies (§64–§69)
      • 4.4.4. Stance vs. focalization (§70–§75)
      • 4.4.5. Reader response: Eliciting the audience’s stance (§76–§80)
      • 4.4.6. Irony: The “author—audience” vector (§81–§84)
    • 4.5. δή in Herodotus: How It Connotes Voice and Stance (§85–§88)
      
      • 4.5.1. Voicing narrative progression (§89–§91)
      • 4.5.2. Perception of evidence (§92–§93)
      • 4.5.3. In indirect speech and indirect thought (§94–§100)
      • 4.5.4. In explicit and implicit authorial statements (§101–§103)
      • 4.5.5. “Ironic” δή (§104–§108)
      • 4.5.6. Interim conclusion (§109)
    • 4.6. δή in Thucydides: Whose Stance? (§110–§111)
      
      • 4.6.1. Characters’ stance in direct speech, indirect speech, and indirect thought (§112–§115)
      • 4.6.2. Implicit authorial δή, especially with superlatives (§116–§119)
      • 4.6.3. When multiple voices share the same stance (§120–§122)
      • 4.6.4. Any irony? (§123–§126)
      • 4.6.5. Interim conclusion (§127)
    • 4.7. Stance and Polyphony in the Use of δῆθεν (§128–§136)
    • 4.8. ἤδη as Stance Marker (§137–§144)
      
      • 4.8.1. Pragmatic relationship to δή (§145–§150)
      • 4.8.2. Author’s and characters’ ἤδη to mark firsthand experience (§151–§155)
      • 4.8.3. Thucydides’ blending of stances (§156–§159)
      • 4.8.4. Stance about time, and propositional “now” (§160–§162)
      • 4.8.5. Interim conclusion (§163–§164)
    • 4.9. ἄρα between Discourse Cohesion and the Marking of Stance (§165–§172)
    • 4.10. Conclusions (§173–§183)
  • 5. Analysis of Four Excerpts
    
    • 5.1. Introduction (§1–§7)
    • 5.2. Nicias’ Warnings: Thucydides 6.22–23 (§8–§29)
    • 5.3. Reactions after the Sicilian Expedition: Thucydides 8.1 (§30–§48)
    • 5.4. Reactions after Salamis: Herodotus 8.108–109.1 (§49–§69)
    • 5.5. Artabanus’ Warnings: Herodotus 7.49 and 51 (§70–§97)
    • 5.6. Conclusions (§98–§113)
    • 5.7. Appendix: The Continuous Texts Divided into Acts and Moves
      
      • Excerpt 1: Thucydides 6.22–23
      • Excerpt 2: Thucydides 8.1
      • Excerpt 3: Herodotus 8.108–109.1
      • Excerpt 4: Herodotus 7.49 and 51
• Bibliography
• Particle Index
• Index of Subjects
• Index Locorum

Anna Bonifazi is Professor of Discourse Studies in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Cologne.

Annemieke Drummen is an adjunct lecturer in Ancient Greek at the University of Heidelberg, Germany.

Mark de Kreij is Veni Postdoctoral Fellow and Lecturer in Ancient Greek at Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.