Home
Announcements and Call for Papers
Participants
Abstracts
Program
Lodging
Publication
& Guidelines
What's new?
University of Bologna
program: Tuesday, June 10 | Wednesday, June 11 | Thursday, June 12
Friday, June 13 | Saturday, June 14
back to alphabetical survey:
Rodie Risselada, University of Amsterdam
PARTICLES AND THE DISCOURSE FUNCTIONS OF INTERROGATIVES
The functions of interrogative sentences can be studied not only in terms of their illocutionary functions (e.g. 'real' questions, directives, reproaches, assertives, etc.), but also in terms of the functions that they fulfil in the surrounding discourse. Thus, the three interrogatives in (1):
(1) ME: dic mihi: (a) enumquam tu vidisti tabulam pictam in pariete
ubi aquila Catameitum raperet aut ubi Vebus Adoneum?
PE: saepe. (b) sed quid istaec picturae ad me pertinent?
ME: age me aspice: (c) ecquid adsimulo similiter? (Pl. Men. 143-146)
are all 'real' questions', but they fulfil different discourse functions: (1c) is the main act of Menaechmus' move (i.e. this question is the communicative point he wants to make), while (1a) is a preparatory question to ensure that it makes sense to ask the question in (1c), and (1b) is a 'metacommunicative' question pertaining to (if not rejecting) the relevance of Menaechmus' preceding question. Another type of 'metacommunicative' use is found in (2a-b):
(2) AM: quid hoc sit hominis?
SO: equidem deciens dixi: domi ego sum, inquam, (a) ecquid audis? et apud te adsum Sosia idem. (b) satin hoc plane, satin diserte, ere, nunc videor tibi locutus esse? (Pl. Am. 576-579)
Besides, interrogatives are used e.g. in expressive reactions to directives such as the echo question in (3), and as conventional formulae in greetings (cf. 4) and in the closing stage of a conversation (cf. 5):
(3) vehes pol hodie me, si quidem hoc argentum ferre speres. # ten ego veham? (Pl. As. 699-700)
(4) salvos sis, Tranio. # ut vales? # non male. (Pl. Mos. 718)
(5) numquid vis? # vale (Pl. Mer. 325)
The aim of my paper is twofold. First, I will present a functional typology of interrogatives, both in terms of their illocutionary functions and in terms of their discourse functions. This typology is based on a corpus of various text types (comedy; tragedy; conversational passages in Petronius and Apuleius). Secondly, this typology will be used in an analysis of the use of particles in interrogative sentences, where my aim is to find out whether some of these particles are associated in systematic ways with the illocutionary and discourse functions of the interrogatives in which they occur.
Most recent modifications: February 18, 2003 – latling@classics.unibo.it
Source: Dipartimento di Filologia Classica e Medioevale
No rights can be derived from the information on this Internet-page.
- (1) ME: dic mihi: (a) enumquam tu vidisti tabulam pictam in pariete
ubi aquila Catameitum raperet aut ubi Vebus Adoneum?
PE: saepe. (b) sed quid istaec picturae ad me pertinent?
ME: age me aspice: (c) ecquid adsimulo similiter? (Pl. Men. 143-146)
- (2) AM: quid hoc sit hominis?
SO: equidem deciens dixi: domi ego sum, inquam, (a) ecquid audis? et apud te adsum Sosia idem. (b) satin hoc plane, satin diserte, ere, nunc videor tibi locutus esse? (Pl. Am. 576-579)
- (3) vehes pol hodie me, si quidem hoc argentum ferre speres. # ten ego veham? (Pl. As. 699-700)
- (4) salvos sis, Tranio. # ut vales? # non male. (Pl. Mos. 718)
- (5) numquid vis? # vale (Pl. Mer. 325)
Most recent modifications: February 18, 2003 – latling@classics.unibo.it
Source: Dipartimento di Filologia Classica e Medioevale
No rights can be derived from the information on this Internet-page.