οὗτος σὺ! «¡Oye, tú!»: Deixis y apelación en griego antiguo: https://doi.org/10.31810/rsel.52.2.6

Carmen Hernández García

Authors

Carmen Hernández García Universidad de Sevilla https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8605-7408

Keywords:

Forms of treatment; vocatives; demonstrative pronoun; Conversation Analysis

Abstract

The demonstrative pronoun οὗτος ('that one') can be employed in Ancient Greek as a form of treatment (FT). Examples in Attic drama are formally diverse: it frequently appears alone but can also be followed by the second person pronoun (σύ), or even by a noun in the vocative case. Svennung (1958) explained this construction as resulting from a process of Apposition to the second person singular subject implicit in the verb. Those who thereafter studied this FT (Dickey 1997, Jacobson 2015) remarked that it primarily serves to summon the attention of the interlocutor, and that it conveys abruptness in the address.

My purpose is, firstly, to refute Svennung’s hypothesis and to probe into the genesis of this structure and, secondly, to compare and contrast its different variations and to describe their functional behaviour. Lastly, I intend to analyse οὗτος under the framework of im-/politeness.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2010). Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Allan, W. (2008 [2010]). Euripides. Helen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bakker, E. J. (1999). Homeric ΟΥΤΟΣ and the Poetics of Deixis. Classical Philology 94, 1-19.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/449413

Bakker, S. (2009). The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek. A Functional Analysis of the Order and Articulation of NP Constituents in Herodotus. Leiden: Brill.

Battezzato, L. (2018). Euripides. Hecuba. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berger, Ł. (2021). Positioning and Functions of Nominal Address in Roman Comedy, en A. M. Martín Rodríguez (Ed.), Linguisticae Dissertationes. Current Perspectives on Latin Grammar, Lexicon and Pragmatics (pp. 605-620). Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.

Bertrand, N. (2014). Apposition, en Georgios K. Giannakis (Ed.), Enclyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics (pp. 143-147). Leiden: Brill.

Biles, Z. P. y Olson, S. D. (2015). Aristophanes. Wasps. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Biraud, M. (2014). ὁ αὐτὸς οὖτος - N: une structure de SN propre à la classe des spécifients du nom en régime rhétorique. Glotta 90, 71-86.

Biraud, M., Denizot, C. y Faure, R. (2021). L’exclamation en grec ancient. Lovaina-París: Peeters.

Brioso Sánchez, M. (1971). El vocativo y la interjección ὦ. Habis 2, 35-48.

Brown, P. y Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clayman, S. E. (2012). Turn-Constructional Units and the Transition-Relevance Place, en J. Sidnell y T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 150-166). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Coleridge, E. P. (1938). The Plays of Euripides. Translated into English Prose from the Text of Paley. Londres: George Bell & Sons.

Coulon, V. y van Daele, H. (1923 [1967]). Aristophane. Vol.1-5. París: Les Belles Lettres.

Dain, A. y Mazon, P. (1955 [1967]). Sophocle. París: Les Belles Lettres.

Denizot, C. (2011). Donner des ordres en grec ancient. Étude linguistique des formes de l’injoction. Rouen: Publications des Universités de Rouen et du Havre.

Diggle, J. (1984). Euripidis Fabulae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dickey, E. (1996). Greek Forms of Address: From Herodotus to Lucian. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.

Dover, K. (1993). Aristophanes. Frogs. Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.

Fornieles Sánchez, R. (2020). Sobre un mecanismo de (des)cortesía verbal entre Esquines y Demóstenes: la impersonalización con el pronombre indefinido τις. Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 125 (2), 131-152.

doi: https://doi.org/10.19272/202006402006

Haverkate, H. (1984). Speech Acts, Speakers, and Hearers. Reference and Referential Strategies in Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Haverkate, H. (1992). Deictic Categories as Mitigating Devices. Pragmatics 2:4, 505-522.

Jacobson, D. J. (2015). Vocative ΟΥΤΟΣ In Greek Drama. Classical Philology 110, 193-214.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/681706

Jebb, R. C. (1885 [2010]). Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments. With Critical Notes, Commentary and Translation in English Prose. Volume 2: The Oedipus Coloneus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jørgensen, A. M. (2008). Tío y Tía como marcadores en el lenguaje juvenil de Madrid, en I. Olza Moreno, M. Casado Velarde y R. González Ruiz (Eds.), Actas del XXXVII Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística (SEL) (pp. 387-396). Pamplona: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra.

Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B. y Kuteva, T. (2011). On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35/1, 852-897.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal

Kannicht, R. (1969). Euripides: Helena. Vol. II: Kommentar. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 26, 22-63.

Kitzinger, C. (2012). Repair, en J. Sidnell y T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 229-256). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lloyd, M. A. (2005). Sophocles in the Light of Face-Threat Politeness Theory, en I. de Jong y A. Rijksbaron (Eds.), Sophocles and the Greek Language (pp. 225-240). Leiden: Brill.

López Romero, M. (2020). El parentético εἰπέ μοι en griego clásico, en L. Conti Jiménez, R. Fornieles Sánchez, M. D. Jiménez López, L. M. Macía Aparicio y J. de la Villa Polo (Eds.), Δῶρα τά οἱ δίδομεν φιλέοντες. Homenaje al profesor Emilio Crespo (pp. 141-147). Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

Mastronarde, D. J. (1979). Contact and Discontinuity: Some Conventions of Speech and Action on The Greek Tragic Stage. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mastronarde, D. J. (2002). Euripides: Medea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meister, F. (2018). A Form of Greek Emphatic Address: σὺ δέ with Vocative. Glotta 94/1, 243-258.

doi: https://doi.org/10.13109/glot.2018.94.1.243

Moorhouse, A. C. (1982). The Syntax of Sophocles. Leiden: Brill.

Murray, G. (1955 [1960]). Aeschyli tragoediae. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.

Page, D. L. (1938 [2001]). Euripides: Medea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Paley, F. A. (1857 [2010]). Euripides. With an English Commentary Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paley, F. A. (1860 [2010]). Euripides. With an English Commentary Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pardal Padín, A. (2012) ¿Ἐγώ y σύ no enfáticos? el problema del sujeto nulo en griego antiguo, en A. Cabedo Nebot y P. Infante Ríos (Eds.), Lingüística XL: el lingüista del siglo XXI (pp. 185-191). Madrid: Ediciones SEL.

Risselada, R. (1993). Imperatives and Other Directive Expressions in Latin. Ámsterdam: Gieben.

Rodríguez Piedrabuena, S. (2020). Terms of Address on Right Periphery in Greek Tragedy, en G. Martin, F. Iurescia, S. Hof, G. Sorrentino (Eds.), Pragmatic Approaches to Drama. Studies in Communication on the Ancient Stage (pp. 264-290). Leiden: Brill.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004440265_005

Rodríguez Piedrabuena, S. (2021). Preguntas indirectas ecoicas en griego clásico. Euphrosyne 49, 77-99.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1484/J.EUPHR.5.128796

Rodríguez Piedrabuena, S. (2022). Ejes de cortesía lingüística en Eurípides. Veleia 39, 173-192. doi: https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.22353

Ruijgh, C. J. † (2005). The Use of the Demonstratives ὅδε, οὗτος and (ἐ)κεῖνος in Sophocles, en I. de Jong y A. Rijksbaron (Eds.), Sophocles and the Greek Language (pp. 151-162). Leiden: Brill.

Ruiz Yamuza, E. (2017). The Right Periphery in Ancient Greek, en C. Denizot y O. Spevak (Eds.), Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek (pp. 137-158). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.190.07rui

Ruiz Yamuza, E. (2018). La periferia derecha y los tipos de texto en griego antiguo. Minerva. Revista de Filología Clásica 31, 13-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.24197/mrfc.31.2018.13-34

Scheppers, F. (2011). The Colon Hypothesis: Word Order, Discourse and Discours Coherence in Ancient Greek. Bruselas: VUBPRESS.

Schlegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in Conversational Openings. American Anthropologist 6, 1075-1095.

Schlegloff, E. A. (2013). Ten Operations in Self-initated, Same-turn Repair, en m. Hayashi, G. Raymond y J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational Repair and Human Understanding (pp. 41-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464.002

Schegloff, E. A. y Sacks, H. (1973). Opening Up Closings. Semiotica 8, 289-327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289

Spevak, O. (2014). The Noun Phrase in Classical Latin Prose. Leiden: Brill.

Spevak, O. (2015). Appositive Construction or Noun Phrase? On The Status of Postnominal Adjectives in Latin and Ancient Greek. Journal of Latin Linguistics 14(2), 307-323.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2015-0012

Stivers, T. (2012). «Sequence Organization», en En J. Sidnell y T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 191-209). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Svennung, J. (1958). Anredeformen: Vergleichende Forschungen zur indirekten Anrede in der dritten Person und zum Nominativ für den Vocativ. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Ussher, R. G. (1973). Aristophanes. Ecclesiazusae. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.

Vázquez Carranza, A. (2015). Análisis de oye como marcador secuencial y de acción en la conversación. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 61, 73-109.

Willi, A. (2003). The Languages of Aristophanes, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zakowski, S. (2018). The Evolution of the Ancient Greek Deverbal Pragmatic Markers áge, íthi and phére. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 19/1, pp. 55-91.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16009.zak

Zwicky, A. (1974). Hey, whatsyourname! Chicago Linguistic Society 10, 787–801.