Concessive Participles and Epitactic Constructions in Ancient Greek

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/15699846-01602002 Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 brill.com/jgl Concessive Participles and Epitactic Constructions in Ancient Greek* José Miguel Jiménez Delgado Universidad de Sevilla, Spain [email protected] Abstract The purpose of this paper is to explain the construction of concessive participles introduced by kaì taûta in Ancient Greek as an instance of epitaxis, a specific type of coordination. This construction will be differentiated from the concessive participles introduced by adverbial kaí, the usual construction, by its syntactic configuration and pragmatics. The data is drawn from the works of Xenophon of Athens (c. 430–354bc). Keywords concessive participles – coordination – information structure – additive particles – epitaxis – tail (pragmatic function) – stripping 1 Introduction In Ancient Greek it is relatively common to find concessive participles introduced by kaí. Concessive participles are a subtype of circumstantial participles which function as adverbial modifiers equivalent to a concessive subordinate clause. Their head can be a participant in the main clause, in which case they * This paper has been written within the research project “Adverbios de foco en los historiadores griegos” (ffi2012-36944-c03–03) funded by Spain’s Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. I would like to express my gratitude to Emilio Crespo and Helena Maquieira for their comments on a previous version; to the participants of the Syntax of the World’s Languages vi Conference, where I delivered a presentation on the same topic; and to the two anonymous reviewers. 182 jiménez delgado Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 are called conjunct participles; or it can be an independent noun in the genitive case, with the participle in the genitive as well, and then one speaks of an absolute participle construction. The particle kaí can function either as a copulative conjunction or as an additive focus adverb. When introducing concessive participles, kaí usually functions as an adverb. This is a phenomenon common to a number of languages: the adverb presupposes the existence of less extreme alternatives as possible values for the hindrance expressed by the subordinate clause. In these cases, kaí is usually followed by particles (kaí-per, kaí-toi) or degree adverbs (kaì mála,kaì pánu,kaì sphódra): (1) hg 7.4.39 hoi they:pro dè ptc akoúsantes hear:aor:ptcp:nom.pl ekeînon him:dem:acc mén, ptc kaíper even:adv gignṓskontes know:ipfv:ptcp:nom.pl hóti that:comp epseúdeto lie:imperf:3sg perì about:prep sphôn, them:gen aphíesan. acquit:aor:3pl ‘Upon hearing this they acquitted him, although they knew that he was speaking falsely about them’.1 This paper focuses on the concessive participles introduced by kaì taûta. In this case, kaí functions as a conjunction coordinating the participle construction which belongs to an independent syntactic unit. After kaí, an anaphoric pronoun taûta appears, referring to the main clause. Accordingly, kaì taûta examples normally emerge after their main clause, whereas other cases have less fixed positions: (2) An. 2.4.15 kaì and:ptc proselthṑn come-up:aor:ptcp:nom.sg ánthrōpós man tis a:nom ērṓtēse ask:aor:3sg toùs the prophúlakas outposts:acc poû where:int àn ptc ídoi see:aor:opt:3sg Próxenon Proxenus:nom ḕ or:ptc Kléarkhon; Clearchus:nom Ménōna Menon:acc dè ptc ouk not:neg ezḗtei, seek:imperf:3sg kaì and:ptc 1 The English translations are those available at the Perseus Digital Library (http://www .perseus.tufts.edu), with slight changes when strictly necessary. The Greek texts are those of the tlg (http://www.tlg.uci.edu); the abbreviations referring to Xenophon’s works follow the lsj standard. I employ the Leipzig Glossing Rules, although superfluous details are omitted. concessive participles and epitactic constructions 183 Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 taûta that:dem par’ from:prep Ariaíou Ariaeus:gen ṑn be:ipfv:ptcp:nom.sg toû the:gen.sg Ménōnos Menon’s xénou. friend:gen ‘A man came up and asked the outposts where he could see Proxenus or Clearchus—hedidnotaskforMenon,despitethefactthathecamefrom Ariaeus, Menon’s friend.’ In this example, a concessive participle construction is introduced by kaì taûta after its main clause. Note that the participle is apparently embedded in the preceding clause, but kaí functions as a coordinating conjunction. The presence of the anaphoric pronoun taûta clarifies this point and makes the repetition of previous material unnecessary: “and that happened (= he did not ask for Menon) despite the fact that he came from Menon’s friend” (the translation available at the Perseus Digital Library is a little bit simplistic regarding this point, as most translations are). As is discussed further, this kind of coordination is epitactic. Hence, the paper starts with a definition of epitaxis, a construction whose frequency and vitality in Ancient Greek is also claimed. Subsequently, the concessive participle construction introduced by kaì taûta is explained as an epictatic construction in contrast to the participles introduced by adverbial kaí. Finally, thepragmaticstrategiesunderlyingeachparticipleconstructionarecompared. 2 Epitaxis in Ancient Greek Epitaxis is a particular form of coordination, described as asymmetrical,2 with a clear pragmatic function of highlighting the introduced information. The termwascoinedbyGagnepain(1963)afterGr.ἐπιταγματικός‘appositional’from ἐπιτάσσω ‘to postpone’ (Bécares 1985: s.uu.), and it is mostly used in Celtological studies. It has been defined by Rosén (2009: 413) as “the presentation of an additional rheme, thus bringing into focus an element that did not fig- 2 In the sense that the coordinated elements are of a dissimilar grammatical form (Rosén 1990 & 2008: 206). Asymmetrische Koordination is a phenomenon studied mainly in German (Höhle 1990: 221–235), whereby the order of constituents is reversed in the second conjunct: “wennjemandnachHausekommtund da stehtder GerichtsvorziehervorderTür …” [subject + verb :: verb + subject]. See also the definition of “asymmetrical” applied to and by Bonifazi (In press: §11): “If pand qcannot equal qand p, then “and” is asymmetrical”. On symmetry in coordination, see Haiman (1985). 184 jiménez delgado Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 ure in the preceding—syntactically and informationally saturated—sentence, provided this element is a secondary component (an adnominal adjunct or an adverbal one, whether adverb, “praedicativum”, non-argumental case-form, prepositional phrase, or clause …)”. The term epitaxis is restricted to historical linguistics. From a more general perspective, epitaxis is a specific type of appendix or Tail, in Functional Grammar terms (Dik 1997b: 401–403), characterised by the presence of the coordinating conjunction (Slings 2002: 64).3 Epitaxis requires that the coordinated element constitutes an independent clause. This element is, however, tightly related to the previous clause to such an extent that Lambrecht (1994: 238 & 356, n. 14) considers that the coordination somewhat breaks the sentence up. According to him, coordination is due to the fact that the proposition contains two different assertions in pragmatic terms, one expressed in the first clause and another expressed in the coordinated one.4 The redundant material is regularly omitted in the epitactic construction, although exceptions do exist (Rosén 2008: 221–224). Compare the following pair:5 (3) Cyr. 6.3.12 kaì even:adv gàr for:ptc prò in-front-of:prep tês the táxeōs company taútēs this:gen álloi other:nom.pl hōs about:adv triákonta thirty hippeîs horsemen:nom sukhnòn at-a-distance:adv proelaúnousi, ride-forward:pres:3pl kaì and:ptc méntoi indeed:ptc … kat’ against:prep autoùs hēmâs. ourselves:acc ‘For at a considerable distance in advance of this company about thirty other horsemen are riding forward; as a matter of fact, they are riding in the direction of our party’. 3 Note that the coordinating conjunction can be ø; cf. Rosén (2008). 4 According to Lambrecht (1994: 52), pragmatic assertion is “The proposition expressed by a sentence which the hearer is expected to know or take for granted as a result of hearing the sentenceuttered”, whilepragmaticpresuppositionis “Thesetof propositionslexicogrammatically evoked in a sentence which the speaker assumes the hearer already knows or is ready to take for granted at the time the sentence is uttered”. 5 Epitaxis involves stripping, i.e., “a rule that deletes everything in a clause under identity with correspondingpartsof aprecedingclause,exceptforoneconstituent”(Hankamer &Sag1976: 409). concessive participles and epitactic constructions 185 Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 (4) An. 7.6.17 Seúthēs Seuthes:nom … apaitḗsei demand-back:fut:3sg me me:acc kaì and:ptc apaitḗsei (idem) méntoi indeed:ptc dikaíōs. with-justice:adv ‘[…] Seuthes will demand it back from me, and, moreover, he will demand it back with justice’. In the first example, a prepositional phrase is epitactically introduced, and so it appears as the only overt syntactic constituent of its clause (kat’ autoùs hēmâs‘against ourselves’).One can observethat thetranslation available at the Perseus Digital Library repeats the verb (“they are riding”) in the coordinated clause, although it is omitted in the Greek original. In the second example, the introduced element is an adverb of manner (dikaíōs ‘with justice’), but the mainverbisrepeated(apaitḗsei‘hewilldemandback’).Inthiscase,theparticle méntoi is placed after the verb. Epitaxis is a common construction in a number of ie and non-ie languages, including Latin (H. Rosén 2008); Celtic languages (Lambert 1985); Spanish (rae: §31.4w & x); German, in which the sequence und zwar is frequently used to introduce epitactic elements (Altmann 1981: 71; Behaghel 1923: §1038; Engel 1996: 747; Günthner 2012); and Hebrew (Lambert 1984). Nevertheless, it has not been thoroughly studied in Ancient Greek. Rosén (2008: 239) goes so far as to state that “Ancient Greek epitaxis is highly constrained in its structure with its normally employed, virtually compulsory καὶ ταῦτα / τοῦτο or adnominal οὗτος in concord, as the case may be”. Yet, that constraint disregards the variety exhibited by epitaxis in that language. On the other hand, epitactic constructions are only mentioned in the specific bibliography. See Denniston (1954: 291–292), Bäumlein (1861: 147–148), Kühner & Gerth (1904: 246–247) and Smyth (1920: §947), who generally insists on the highlighting effect of this employment of kaí. This lack of attention is somewhat remarkable given that a careful examination of the texts reveals a surprising vitality. I have checked the occurrences of the most typical sequences introducing epitactic elements in the entire Xenophontean corpus, including Athēnaíōn politeîa, whose authorship is disputed; see Jiménez (2013). According to my data, kaì mála is epitactically used 22 times,6 kaì pánu 5 times,7 and kaìsphódra 2times.8 6An. 1.5.8, 3.1.29, 4.6.16, 5.6.15, 5.7.4, 6.1.32, Ap. 8, Cyr. 1.3.10, 4.2.46, 5.1.12, 7.5.50, hg 2.4.2, 4.1.25, 4.5.7, 4.7.2, 5.2.3, 5.4.16, 6.5.13, 7.1.19, 7.5.10, Mem. 3.11.10, Smp. 4.49. 7An. 2.3.25, Cyr. 6.1.41, Oec. 1.22, 11.9, 13.1. 8Oec. 3.4, Smp. 8.4. 186 jiménez delgado Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 Moreover, 28occurrencesof kaìtaûta9mustbe added.Thesesequences consist of the conjunction kaí followed by an adverb of degree or by an anaphoric pronoun: (5) hg 4.7.2 ho he:pro dè ptc apekrínato answer:aor:3sg kaì and:ptc mála quite:adv katà according-to:prep tautá. the-same:acc.pl ‘And he (Apollo) answered verbally, and he did hold quite the same opinion’. (6) Mem. 3.7.2 oîmaí think:pres:1sg se you:acc dunatòn able:acc.sg ónta be:ipfv:ptcp:acc.sg okneîn shrink:ipfv:inf epimeleîsthai, take-care-of:ipfv:inf kaì and:ptc taûta that:dem hôn what:rel:gen.pl anágkē obligation:nom soi you:dat.sg metékhein take-part-in:ipfv:inf politēi citizen:dat ge ptc ónti. be:ipfv:ptcp:dat.sg ‘I fancy that you shrink from work that is within your powers, and work in which it is your duty as a citizen to take a hand’. Example (5) is not evident, although it is selected by Rosén (2008: 234) for her illustration of epitaxis in Ancient Greek. It should be contextualised: the subject is the god Apollo who endorses the answer of his father Zeus (mála katà tautá “quite in the same way”), albeit in words, whereas Zeus has spoken through signs in victims. Buchsenschutz (1884: 189) and Grosser & Ziegler (1899: 79) translate kaì taûta in this passage by “und zwar”, one of the most typical sequences introducing epitactic elements in German. In example (6), epitaxis is evident, even if the translation resorts to a (prepositional) object “(from) work”, which is absent in the Greek original. This example is also syntactically more complex: taûta refers to the main clause and the relative clause coordinated by kaí constitutes the true object of epimeleîsthai ‘to take care of’. 9Ag. 1.38, 2.24, 2.28, An. 1.4.12, 2.4.15, 6.2.10, 7.1.29, 7.6.35, Cyr. 1.6.45, 2.2.12, 2.2.16, 2.3.9, 5.3.30, hg 2.3.53, 5.1.17, 5.4.22, 6.5.37, Hier. 1.9, 7.8, Mem. 1.2.29, 2.2.5, 2.3.1, 3.7.2, Oec. 8.23, 11.3, 17.6, 20.28, Vect. 3.10. concessive participles and epitactic constructions 187 Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 The cases are not reduced to those types, kaí + adverb of degree / taûta, as Rosén herself recognises (2008: 234). See, for instance, examples (3) and (4). In the following example, the epitactic construction is achieved by using állōs te kaí: (7) hg 3.3.7 légein say:ipfv:inf d’ ptc autòn him:acc éphē state:aor:3sg hóti that:comp kaì also:adv taùta those hópla weapons pánt’ all:acc eíē be:ipfv:opt:3sg hopósois which:rel:dat.pl ánthrōpoi men:nom kaì and:ptc gên land:acc kaì and:ptc xúla timber:acc kaì and:ptc líthous stones:acc ergázontai work:pres:3pl …, állōs otherwise:adv te and:ptc kaì also:adv pròs against:prep aóplous. unarmed:acc.pl ‘And he said, the informer continued, that all those tools with which men work the land and timber and stone were likewise weapons …, and especially against unarmed men’. The phrase állōs te kaí is a locution made up of three elements, the adverb of manner állōs ‘otherwise, in another way’ plus the additive particles te and kaí. Note that this is the adverbial correspondent of the focalising expression állos,ē,otekaí ‘especially’ (lsj:s.u. ἄλλοςιι.6; Ruijgh1971:830;Bakker1988:263; Crespo et al. 2003: 54), with the indefinite pronoun equivalent to Eng. ‘another’, állōs te kaí being used when the introduced element is indeclinable (Bonifazi in press: §125). Epitactic constructions are fairly common in Ancient Greek and most of them are, to my knowledge, introduced by kaí. However, Denniston (1954: 317– 318) and Thesleff (1954: §§41, 61, 106) consider kaí an intensifier when it is followed by an adverb of degree; see also Smyth (1920: §2882c) and Cooper (1998: 1350–1351). This is quite confusing (kaì mála = ‘exceedingly, certainly’), and it is not the case with taûta since the anaphoric pronoun cannot be intensified. 3 Epitaxis, Concessive Participles, and kaì taûta in Ancient Greek As we have seen, the sequence kaì taûta is one of the most typical in Greek epitactic constructions. Moreover, its use with concessive participles has already been described (Kühner & Gerth 1904: 85 & 247; Smyth 1920: §2083; Cooper 1998: 854–855; lsj s.u. οὗτος viii.2). In my opinion, the use of this sequence as a concessive marker is best captured within the frame of epitaxis. 188 jiménez delgado Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 Before dealing with kaì taûta itself, the usage of kaí with concessive participles must be considered in general. This usage includes both adverbial and coordinating kaí. Indeed, it is not always easy to determine whether kaí functions as an adverb or as a coordinating conjunction. It is well known that kaí is usually used as a concessive marker of circumstantial participles (Schwyzer & Debrunner 1950: 389; Goodwin 1897: 341; Chantraine 1953: 320–321). This function can be carried out either by kaí alone or in specific combinations (Bakker 1988: 140; Wakker 1994: 330), including kaí per,kaí-toi (no example in Xenophon’s works, but see lsj s.u. iii and Denniston 1954: 559), and kaí followed by adverbs of degree: (8) Cyr. 5.1.26 sùn with:prep mèn ptc soì you:dat hómōs however:adv kaì even:adv en in:prep têi the polemíāi enemy’s:dat.sg ontes be:ipfv:ptcp:nom.pl tharroûmen. be-confident:pres:1pl ‘with you we are not afraid even in the enemy’s land’. (9) hg 4.3.20 ho he:pro dé, ptc kaíper even:adv pollà many traúmata wounds:acc ékhōn, have:ipfv:ptcp:nom.sg hómōs however:adv ouk not:neg epelátheto forget:aor:3sg toû the theíou. deity:gen ‘And he, although he had received many wounds, nevertheless did not forget the deity’. (10) Mem. 2.4.4 horân see:ipfv:inf éphē say:aor:3sg toùs the polloùs many:acc.pl tôn the:gen.pl mèn ptc állōn other ktēmátōn, possessions:gen kaì even:adv pánu very:adv pollôn many:gen.pl. autoîs them:dat óntōn, be:ipfv:ptcp:gen.pl tò the plêthos number:acc eidótas. know:perf:ptcp:acc.pl ‘I find—he said—that most men know the number of their other possessions, however great it may be’. This development is associated with the general tendency of additive particles to evolve into concessive markers (König 1988: 153–154). That pattern is mostly exhibited by scalar additive particles (Haspelmath & König 1998: 584– 587), which indicate that the event expressed in the subordinate clause is concessive participles and epitactic constructions 189 Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 highly unexpected by presupposing the existence of less extreme alternatives as to the realisation of the main event (König 1991: 82–87; Wakker 1994: 329– 330). However, kaí is a polyfunctional additive particle, which can be used as a copulative conjunction as well as an additive adverb, both simple and scalar. Ancient Greek is not an exception seeing as other languages show similar polyfunctionalelements(König1991:65–66). Intheabovecases,the concessive participle construction is located within the main clause, and there is no coordination at the phrase level; accordingly, kaí must be understood as an adverb. Notwithstanding, the function of kaí as an adverb can be questioned when the construction follows the main clause. Compare the following pair: (11) hg 3.1.22 hoi the:nom.pl d’ ptc apò on:prep tôn the púrgōn towers:gen kaì even:adv mála quite:adv hupsēlôn high:gen.pl óntōn be:ipfv:ptcp:gen.pl horôntes see:ipfv:ptcp:nom.pl tòn the Meidíān Meidias:acc sùn with:prep autôi him:dat ouk not:neg éballon. throw:imperf:3pl ‘Now the men on the towers, even though they were extremely high, saw Meidias with him and did not throw their missiles’. (12) hg 7.5.10 diataxámenoi post:aor:ptcp:mid:nom.pl hoi the Spartiâtai Spartiatae:nom ephúlatton, keep-guard:imperf:3pl kaì and/even:ptc/adv mála quite:adv olígoi few:nom.pl óntes. be:ipfv:ptcp:nom.pl ‘The Spartiatae posted themselves at various points and kept guard, although they were extremely few’. In both passages, a concessive participle is found preceded by kaì mála. The additive particle functions as a concessive marker, and mála is an adverb of degree modifying a following adjective as part of the “extremeness” proper to concessive circumstances (Wakker 1994: 330): in the first passage, the guards on the towers were able to visually identify the coming people in spite of the fact that those towers were very high; in the second, the Spartiatae prepared themselves to defend the city even though there were few of them to do so. In the first case, kaí is an additive adverb. However, the position of the second example after the main clause can cause uncertainty about the syntactic status of kaí since (epitactic) coordination is possible in that position (Jiménez 2013). 196 jiménez delgado Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 grounds that they have a symmetric discourse relation to their predicate (independent rhemes of Bary & Haug 2011: 13–16).22 This is not the case for our participlesthatareequivalenttoconjunctionalconverbsasadverbialmodifiers.As for the latter, Bary & Haug (2011: 9–11) distinguishes elaborations, “participles whichprovidemoreinformationaboutthematrixevent”,fromframes,“participles … referring to events that have been mentioned in the previous discourse, or to events that are easily inferred”. This distinction can be tied to the position of circumstantialparticiplesfollowingand precedingtheir matrix verb, respectively; see Haug (2012). At the same time, we have already seen that epitaxis has a pragmatic effect (Rosén 2009: 413; Lambrecht 1994: 356, n. 14),23 which is characteristic of reinterpreting structures (Fuentes 2009: 21; Fuentes 2012: 79– 81). In our examples, a circumstance affecting the realisation of the main event is added, yet it is not presented as a setting or frame in which that event takes place but as a restriction forcing a reconsideration of what has been said. This restriction is part of the assertion, i.e., it is not taken for granted or accommodated as background, but presented as the focus of its own proposition.24 On theother hand, these reinterpreting structures areusually juxtaposed, whereas in the case being studied the copulative coordination makes it clear that the second assertion leads to the same conclusions from an argumentative point of view (Anscombre & Ducrot 1983). since they are adjectives agreeing with a noun in case, gender and number (Haspelmath 1995). 22 Syntactically, these participles are under the scope of negation when their matrix clause is negated. In contrast, concessive participles are not, cf. (2), (9), (20). 23 See also the comments of Lambert (1985) on French “…, et cela …”: “la seule analyse plausible de cette tournure consiste à y voir: un connecteur (et), un thème (cela, = renvoi anaphorique au contenu de l’énoncé précédent), et un rhème. La formule …, et cela … introduit donc un second rhème dans la phrase”. 24 Reinterpretation is one of the pragmatic functions of Tail, “a final constituent which falls outside the clause proper” (Dik 1997a: 418). According to H. Dik (2007, 35–36): “Tail describe[s]constituentsthatfalloutsidetheclauseproper…whenaspeakeraddsanextra constituent to a complete clause, by way of afterthought, further specification, or correction. Tail constituents … will always be pragmatically marked: they are allotted a separate intonation unit, after all. Within those intonation units, … Tail constituents should by definition be analysed as Focus (the most salient part of the intonation unit), but the clause itself will always have its own Focus constituent within it …”. Van der Wouden (2000) speaks of appendix, which he considers to be a focus position. Nevertheless, Tails can also have topic status when they are coreferent with a topic constituent; see Bertrand (2010: 287–293) and Allan (2013). concessive participles and epitactic constructions 197 Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 Finally, it is interesting to note that the construction we have analysed is one of the constructions attested in Ancient Greek to bring about the highlighting of adverbial clauses. This pragmatic effect is usually achieved through cataphoric correlation (Matić 2003: 615–619; Bertrand 2010: 308–310), as well as through epitactic sequences like kaì taûta or allōs te kaí, which are similar to reinforcing pragmatic markers such as Span. eso sí,máxime, and sobre todo (Fuentes 2009; dpde:s.uu.). In this regard, although kaìtaûta specialises in the introduction of concessive participle clauses, it is also documented with other types of subordinate structures; see Hier. 7.8 kaì dôrá ge didóasin hoi polloì toútois hoùs misoûsi, kaì taûta hótan málista phobôntai mḗ ti kakòn hup’ autôn páthōsin “And as for presents, most men offer them to one whom they hate, and that too at the moment when they have cause to fear some evil at his hands”. In this example, kaì taûta is followed by a temporal clause introduced by the subordinator hótan whose verb phobôntai is a finite form. 5 Conclusions Concessive participles introduced by kaì taûta are to be classified among epitactic constructions, and therefore to be distinguished from concessiveparticiple clauses introduced by adverbial kaí. Epitaxis is a particular kind of coordination whereby an element is coordinated with its sentence, constituting an independent syntactic unit as well as a second pragmatic assertion. The participles at issue are normally located after their main clause and coordinated by kaí, while taûta refers to the previous statement. This construction has a highlighting effect by adding a hindering circumstance that forces the reinterpretation of the main clause. References Allan, R.J. (2013) “Changing the topic: topic position in Ancient Greek word order”, Mnemosyne 67/2, pp. 181–213. Altmann, H. (1981) Die Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Untersuchung zur ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik, Tübingen, Narr. Anscombre, J.-C. & Ducrot, O. (1983) L’argumentation dans la langue, Bruxelles, Mardaga. Bakker, E.J. (1988) Linguistics and formulas in Homer:scalarityand the descriptionof the particle per, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamins. Bary, C. & Haug, D.T. (2011) “Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles”, Semantics and Pragmatics 4. 198 jiménez delgado Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 Bäumlein, W. (1861) Untersuchungen über griechische Partikeln, Stuttgart, J.B. Metzler. Bécares, V. (1985) Diccionario de terminología gramatical griega, Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca. Behaghel, O. (1923) Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Heidelberg, Carl Winter. Bertrand, N. (2010) L’ordre des mots chez Homère: structure informationelle, localisation et progression du récit, Dissertation, Université de Paris-Sorbonne. Bonifazi, A. (In press) “Multifunctionality of δέ, τέ, and καί in the two Histories”, in A. Bonifazi, A. Drummen & M. De Kreij, Particles in Ancient Greek discourse. Pragmatic studies of particle use across genres, to appear. Buchsenschutz, A.B. (18845) Xenophons griechische Geschichte. Für den Schulgebrauch. Buch i–iv, Leipzig, Teubner. Chantraine, P. (1953) Grammaire homérique.Tome ii: syntaxe, Paris, Klincksieck. Cooper, G.L. (1998) Attic Greek prose syntax, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan. Crespo, E., Conti L. & Maquieira, H. (2003) Sintaxis del griego clásico, Madrid, Gredos. Denniston, J.D. (19542) The Greek particles, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Denniston, J.D. (1970) Greek prose style, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Diessel, H. (2001) “The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: a typological study”, Language 77/3, pp. 433–455. Dik,S.(1997a)Thetheoryof functionalgrammar.Part1:thestructureof theclause,Berlin- New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Dik, S. (1997b) The theory of functional grammar. Part 2: complex and derived constructions, Berlin-New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Dik, H. (2007) Word order in Greek tragic dialogue, Oxford, University Press. dpde: Briz, A., Pons, S. & Portolés, J. (coords.) (2008) Diccionario de partículas discursivas del español, online www.dpde.es. Ducrot, O. (1995) “Les modificateurs déréalisants”, Journal of Pragmatics 24, pp. 145– 165. Engel, U. (1996) Deutsche Grammatik, Heidelberg, Julius Groos. Flamenco, L. (1999) “Las construcciones concesivas y adversativas”, in I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Madrid, Espasa- Calpe, pp. 3805–3878. Fuentes, C. (2009) Diccionario de conectores y operadores del español, Madrid, Arco/ Libros. Fuentes, C. (2012) “El margen derecho del enunciado”, rsel 42/2, pp. 63–93. Gagnepain, J. (1963) Syntaxe du nom verbal dans les langues celtiques, i: Irlandais, Paris, Klincksieck. Goodwin, W.W. (18973) Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb, Boston, Ginn & Company. concessive participles and epitactic constructions 199 Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 Grosser, R. & Ziegler, E. (18992) Xenophons Hellenika. Für den Schulgebrauch. Buch iii– iv, Gotha, Friedrich Andreas Perthes. Günthner, S. (2012) “Eine interaktionale Perspektive auf Wortarten: das Beispiel ‘und zwar’”, in B. Rothstein (ed.), Nicht-flektierendeWortarten, Berlin-Boston, de Gruyter, pp. 14–47. Haiman, J. (1985) “Symmetry”, in J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, Amsterdam-Phila- delphia, John Benjamins, pp. 73–95. Hankamer, J. & Sag, I. (1976) “Deep and surface anaphora”, Linguistic Inquiry 7, pp. 391– 426. Haspelmath, M. (1995) “The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category”, in M. Haspelmath& E. König(eds.),Converbsincross-linguisticperspective,Berlin, Moutonde Gruyter, pp. 1–55. Haspelmath, M. & König, E. (1998) “Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe”, in J. van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, Berlin, Mouton, pp. 563–640. Haug, D.T. (2012) “Open verb-based adjuncts in New Testament Greek—with a view to the Latin Vulgate translation”, in C. Fabricius-Hansen & D.T. Haug (eds.), Big events, small clauses: the grammar of elaboration, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, pp. 287–321. Höhle, T.N. (1990) “Assumptions about asymmetric coordination in German”, in J. Mascaró & M. Nespor (eds.), Grammar in progress: Glow essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, Dordrecht, Foris, pp. 221–235. Holden, H.A. (1884) The Oeconomicus of Xenophon, London, Macmillan. Holden, H.A. (18955) The Oeconomicus of Xenophon, London, Macmillan. Jiménez, J.M. (2013) “Καὶ μάλα: estructuras de focalización y polaridad positiva”, Veleia 30, pp. 249–258. Jiménez, J.M. (2014) “Locuciones aditivas y focalización: πρὸς δὲ καί”, agi 98/2, pp. 150– 174. König, E. (1988) “Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles”, in J. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 145–185. König, E. (1991) The meaning of focus particles: a comparative perspective, London, Routledge. KühnerR.&Gerth, B.(19043) AusführlicheGrammatikdergriechischenSprache.Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. ii. Band, Hannover-Leipzig, Hahn. Lambert, P. (1984) “La conservation d’un hébraïsme dans les traductions celtiques de la Bible”, Lalies 3, pp. 71–79. Lambert, P. (1985) L’épitaxedans leslanguesceltiques, Dissertation, Université de Parisiii. Lambrecht, K. (1994) Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents, Cambridge, University Press. 200 jiménez delgado Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 lsj = Liddell, H.G., Scott, R. & Jones, H.S. (19409) A Greek-English lexicon, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Matić, D. (2003) “Topic, focus, and discourse structure. Ancient Greek word order”, Studies in Language 27/3, pp. 573–633. Nedjalkov, V. (1995) “Some typological parameters of converbs”, in M. Haspelmath & E. König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 97–136. Pompei, A. (2012) “Participio greco e converbi”, agi 97/2, pp. 160–204. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language, London-New York, Longman. rae = Real Academia Española (2009–2011) Nueva gramática de la lengua española, Madrid, Espasa. Redondo, E. (2012) “Estudio del adverbio conjuntivo ὅμως en la novela griega”, in A. Cabedo & P. Infante (eds.), Lingüística xl. El lingüista del siglo xxi, Madrid, sel ediciones, pp. 201–208. Rosén, H. (1990) “La coordination asymétrique comme critère de fonction syntaxique en latin”, L’Information Grammaticale 46, pp. 34–37. Rosén, H. (2008) “Latin epitaxis in historical and typological view”, in G. Calboli (ed.), Papers on grammar x, Roma, Herder, pp. 205–242. Rosén,H.(2009)“Coherence,sentencemodificationandsentence-partmodification— the contribution of particles”, in P. Baldi & P. Cuzzolin (eds.), New perspectives on Latin historical syntax.Volume i: syntax of the sentence, Berlin-New York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 317–441. Ruijgh, C.J. (1971) Autour de ‘te épique’. Études sur la syntaxe grecque, Amsterdam, Hakkert. Ruiz Yamuza, Emilia (2011) “Apodotic uses between syntax and text”, in International Conference on Linguistics and Classical Languages, Rome, to appear. Runge, S.E. (2010) Discourse grammar of the Greek NewTestament: a practical introduction for teaching and exegesis, Peabody (ma), Hendrickson Publishers Marketing. Schwyzer,E.& Debrunner, A.(1950)GriechischesGrammatikii:Syntaxundsyntaktische Stilistik, München, Beck. Simone, R. (2009) “Qu’y a-t-il entre coordination et subordination?”, in M.-J. Béguelin, M. Avanzi & G. Corminboeuf (eds.), La parataxe: entre dépendance et intégration, Bern, Peter Lang, vol. i, pp. 231–253. Slings, S.R. (1997) “Figures of speech and their lookalikes: two further exercises in the pragmatics of the Greek sentence”, in E.J. Bakker (ed.), Grammar as interpretation: Greek literature and its linguistics context, Leiden, J.C. Brill, pp. 169–214. Slings, S.R. (2002) “Oral strategies in the language of Herodotus”, in E.J. Bakker, I.J.F. de Jong & H. van Wees (eds.), Brill’s companion to Herodotus, Leiden, J.C. Brill, pp. 53– 77. concessive participles and epitactic constructions 201 Journal of Greek Linguistics 16 (2016) 181–201 Smyth,H.W. (19202) AGreekgrammarforcolleges, NewYork,American Book Company. Thesleff, H. (1954) Studies on intensification in Early and Classical Greek, Helsingfors, Centraltrykeriert. Thompson,S.A.(1985)“Grammarandwrittendiscourse:initialvs.finalpurpose clauses in English”, Text 5/1–2, pp. 55–84. Wakker, G.C. (1994) Conditions and conditionals: an investigation in Ancient Greek, Amsterdam, J.C. Gieben. Van Valin, R.D. & LaPolla, R.J. (1997) Syntax: structure, meaning, and function, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Van der Wouden, T. (2000) “Focus on appendices in Dutch”, Linguistics in the Netherlands 17, pp. 233–245.