Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

166 Chapter 7. Comparison to theories in Classicspart ‘to which the speaker especially draws the hearer’s attention.’Sicking (1996:75)Unfortunately, Sicking’s notion of focus function is not worked out in muchdetail, though the following example may clarify what he has in mind. Accordingto Sicking, if he gave a sword is said in answer to the question whatdid he do?, gave is part of the focused information; if it is said in answer tothe question what did he give?, gave is part of the topical information (Sicking1996:6-7; for similar examples, see Sicking 1991:29). The focal information ofa sentence may thus be identified by checking in which discourse context itis or can be felicitously used. More specifically, a syntactic constituent is a‘focus’ if it correlates which the questioned part of a preceding question. Thenon-focal remainder is called the background which contains the topical information(to revert to Sicking’s terminology). This explication of focal versusnon-focal information has a long history and goes back at least to Paul (1880).Nowadays it is common to see question-answer congruence as the primary testto distinguish focal from non-focal information. This explication is moreoverfully compatible with Sicking’s claim cited above that from the viewpoint ofinformation focal information is given by most prominent part of a sentence.Sicking’s central claim can now be stated as follows: if a verb in Greek occursas part of the focused information, it’s in the aorist; if it is part of the non-focalinformation, imperfective aspect is used.Let’s apply Sicking’s analysis to (196). The first time the sending eventualityis mentioned the verb form is part of the focused information. Sickingclaims that this is why the aorist is used. With the second mention, the existenceof this eventuality is backgrounded information, hence the imperfective.Sicking claims that his focus account also explains why aspect is traditionallyexplained in terms of temporal relations. After noting that we ofteninterpret an overlap relation with imperfective aspect, he continuesThis is just what one expects since:1. PS [imperfective aspect] is crucially associated with the presentationof introductory, backgrounded or otherwise subsidiarymaterial, and,2. backgrounded clauses more often than not refer to durativesituations, which, by definition, will be going on at the momentthe event referred to by the main verb occurs.Sicking (1996:36; emphasis in original)Again, it is difficult to get at what exactly Sicking is after. For if focus is usedin the same sense as before, it is unclear why verbs without focus function
7.3 Sicking: aspect as focus 167‘more often than not’ refer to durative situations. 6 Nor is it clear why durativesitutations ‘will be going on at the moment the event referred to by the mainverb occurs’ (let alone why this should be ‘by definition’).Apart from this problem, Sicking’s theory faces at least three additionalproblems. First, as Wakker (1998) rightly points out, it does not explain whythere is no form for aoristic aspect in the present tense. A focus account wouldhave to claim that information about the present time cannot be focused, butit is unclear why that should be the case.Second, it is easy to find counterexamples to the claim that aoristic aspectis used for focused information and imperfective aspect for topical information.I collected the following examples from Herodotus book 1:(197) Παρελθν δ οτο̋ ̋ τ Κροίσου οκία κατ νµου̋ το̋ πιχωρίου̋καθαρσίου δέετο κυρσαι, Κροσο̋ δέ µιν κάθηρε. Εστι δ παραπλησίη κάθαρσι̋ τοσι Λυδοσι κα τοσι Ελλησι. Επείτε δ τ νο-µιζµενα ποίησε Κροσο̋, πυνθάνετο κθεν τε κα τί̋ εη, λέγωντάδε Ωνθρωπε, τί̋ τε ν κα κθεν τ̋ Φρυγίη̋ κων πίστι̋µοι γένεοˇ Τίνα τε νδρν γυναικν φ ν ε υ σ α ̋ˇ Ο δµείβετο Ω βασιλε, Γορδίεω µν το Μίδεω εµ πα̋, νοµάζοµαιδ Αδρηστο̋, φ ο ν ε σ α ̋ δ δελφεν µεωυτο έκων πάρειµιξεληλαµένο̋ τε π το πατρ̋ κα στερηµένο̋ πάντων.“This man came to Croesus’ house, and entreated that he might bepurified after the custom of the country; so Croesus purified him (theLydians use the same manner of purification as do the Greeks), andwhen he had done all according to usage, he inquired of the Phrygianwhence he came and who he was: ‘Friend,’ he said, ‘who are you, andfrom what place in Phrygia do you come to be my suppliant? andwhat man or woman have you killed-aor?’ ‘O King,’ the man answered,‘I am the son of Gordias the son of Midas, and my name isAdrastus; by no will of mine, I killed-aor my brother, and hither Iam come, banished by my father and bereft of all.” Hdt. 1.35.2-5 7A comparison with Sicking’s own giving the sword example tells us that hisaccount predicts the use of imperfective aspect in (197) when the killing eventualityis mentioned for the second time. This is because when we have cometo Adrastus’ answer the fact that he killed someone is backgrounded information.The focused information is that the person whom he killed is his brother.6 Sicking (1971:38) defines durative situations as situations that do not have naturalboundaries, similar to my unbounded predicates; Sicking (1991:41) defines them as situationsthat are capable of continuing for some time. Neither definition provides durative situationswith the characteristics that Sicking ascribes to them in the quoted passage.7 The translations of this and the following two Herodotus’ passages are based on Godley’s(Herodotus 1963) translation.
Page 3:
Aspect in Ancient GreekA semantic a
Page 6 and 7:
viNick Asher, David Beaver, the lat
Page 9:
Contentsix8 Conclusions and discuss
Page 12 and 13:
2 Chapter 1. Introductiongroundbrea
Page 14 and 15:
4 Chapter 1. Introduction(4) µετ
Page 16 and 17:
6 Chapter 1. Introductionimperfecti
Page 19 and 20:
1.3 Organisation of the thesis 9In
Page 21 and 22:
Chapter 2The interpretations of aor
Page 23 and 24:
2.3 Additional interpretations of t
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31:
2.5 The challenge 21scriptions of h
Page 34 and 35:
24 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal sema
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52:
Page 57 and 58:
3.2 The perfective-imperfective dis
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
3.3 Aspectual coercion 673.3.1 Aspe
Page 79 and 80:
3.3 Aspectual coercion 69bials ((88
Page 81 and 82:
3.3 Aspectual coercion 71the term c
Page 83 and 84:
3.3 Aspectual coercion 73in the ext
Page 86 and 87:
76 Chapter 4. An analysis of aorist
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
100 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoris
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127: 116 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoris
Page 132 and 133: 122 Chapter 5. Aspect and performat
Page 144 and 145: 134 Chapter 6. The temporal structu
Page 168 and 169: 158 Chapter 7. Comparison to theori
Page 182 and 183: 172 Chapter 8. Conclusions and disc
Page 188 and 189: 178 Appendix A: The language of Com
Page 202 and 203: 192 Appendix B: Examples spelled ou
Page 216 and 217: 206 Appendix C: List of abbreviatio
Page 218 and 219: 208 Appendix C: List of abbreviatio
Page 220 and 221: 210 References(Eds.), Cross-linguis
Page 222 and 223: 212 ReferencesGrice, P. (1975). Log
Page 224 and 225: 214 ReferencesLemmon, E. J. (1962).
Page 226 and 227:
216 Referencesvan der Sandt, R. (19
Page 228 and 229:
218 References
Page 230 and 231:
220 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
Page 232 and 233:
222 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
show all

Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?