The Imperatives λέγε and εἰπέ in the Dialogues of PlatoA Conversation Analysis Approach

  1. Verano, Rodrigo 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Zeitschrift:
Emerita: Revista de lingüística y filología clásica

ISSN: 0013-6662

Datum der Publikation: 2023

Ausgabe: 91

Nummer: 1

Seiten: 27-50

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.3989/EMERITA.2023.02.2218 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Emerita: Revista de lingüística y filología clásica

Zusammenfassung

This paper addresses certain uses of the imperatives of λέγειν in Plato’s dialogues. With the help of the methodological framework of Conversation Analysis, two clear trends are distinguished, each of which performing different functions in interaction. These trends are consistent with the positioning of the imperative either in the first or in the second part of an adjacency pair. In the first case, imperatives play a role in turn design, facilitating the recognition of the main action of the turn as a question. In the second case, imperatives function primarily as ‘go-ahead’ formulae. After examining this distinction, the article explores certain nuances generated by expressions used as alternatives to the imperative, such as the potential optative, in terms of politeness and characterization.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Bakker, W. F. (1966): The Greek Imperative. An Investigation into the Aspectual Differences between the Present and Aorist Imperative in Greek Prayer from Homer up to the Present Day, Amsterdam.
  • Bonifazi, A., Drummen, A. & De Kreij, M. (2016): Particles in Ancient Greek Discourse: Five Volumes Exploring Particle Use across Genres, Washington.
  • Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987): Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge.
  • Burnet, J. (1900-1907): Platonis opera, Oxford.
  • Conti Jiménez, L. (2020): «La cortesía verbal en Sófocles: análisis del optativo potencial en actos de habla directivos», Emerita 88 (2), pp. 235-255.
  • Denizot, C. (2011): Donner des ordres en grec ancien. Étude linguistique des formes de l’injonction, Mont-Saint-Aignan.
  • Drew, P. (2013): «Turn Design», in Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Oxford, pp. 131-149.
  • Drummen, A. (2013): «A Constructionist Approach to the Potential Optative in Classical Greek Drama», Glotta 89, pp. 68-108.
  • Haverkate, H. (1994): La cortesía verbal, Madrid.
  • Hayashi, M. (2013): «Turn Allocation and Turn Sharing», in Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Oxford, pp. 167-190.
  • Heritage, J. (2008): «Conversation Analysis as Social Theory», in Turner, B. S. (ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, Malden, pp. 300-320.
  • Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (1998): Conversation Analysis. Principles, Practices and Applications, Cambridge.
  • Jacquinod, B. (2000): Études sur l’aspect chez Platon, Saint-Étienne.
  • Kitzinger, C. (2013): «Repair», in Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Oxford, pp. 229-256.
  • Lallot, J. (2000): «Essai d’interpretation de l’opposition PR-AO à l’impératif de ἀποκρίνεσθαι dans l’oeuvre de Platon», in Jacquinod, B. (ed.), Études sur l’aspect verbal chez Platon, Saint-Étienne, pp. 29-74.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2013): «Action Formation and Ascription», in Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Oxford, pp. 103-130.
  • Liddicoat, A. (2007): An Introduction to Conversation Analysis, London.
  • López Romero, M. (2020): «El parentético εἰπέ μοι en griego clásico», in Conti, L., Fornieles, R., Jiménez, M.ª D., Macía, L. M. and de la Villa, J. (eds.), Δῶρα τά οἱ δίδομεν φιλἐοντες. Homenaje al profesor Emilio Crespo, Madrid, pp. 141-147.
  • Lorente, P. (2003): L’aspect verbal en grec ancien. Les choix des thèmes verbaux chez Isocrate, Louvain-la-Neuve.
  • Miller, C. W. E. (1892): «The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic Orators», The American Journal of Philology 13 (4), pp. 399-436.
  • Minchin, E. (2007): Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender, New York–Oxford.
  • Nordgren, L. (2015): Greek Interjections. Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, Berlin–Boston.
  • Person, R. (1995): «The ‘Became Silent to Silence’ Formula in Homer», Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 36, pp. 327-339.
  • Person, R. (2017): From Conversation to Oral Tradition. A Simplest Systematics for Oral Traditions, New York.
  • Pommerantz, A. & Heritage, J. (2013): «Preference», in Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Oxford, pp. 210-228.
  • Revuelta, A. (2017): «Illocutionary Force and Modality. How to Tackle the Issue in Ancient Greek», in Denizot, C. and Spevak, O. (eds.), Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek, Amsterdam, pp. 17-44.
  • Ridealgh, K. & Unceta Gómez, U. (2020): «Potestas and the Language of Power: Conceptualising and Approach to Power and Discernment Politeness in Ancient Languages», Journal of Pragmatics 170, pp. 231-244.
  • Rijksbaron, A. (2000): «Sur les employs de λέγε et εἰπέ chez Platon», in Jacquinod, B. (ed.), Études sur l’aspect verbal chez Platon, Saint-Étienne, pp. 151-170.
  • Rijksbaron, A. (2002): The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek, Amsterdam.
  • Risselada, R. (1993): Imperatives and Other Directive Expressions in Latin. A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language, Amsterdam.
  • Rodríguez Piedrabuena, S. (2020): «Hipercortesía verbal en Eurípides», Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae 30, pp. 75-97.
  • Sacks, H. (1992): Lectures on Conversation (vols. I-II), Oxford.
  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974): «A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation», Language 50 (4, Part 1), pp. 696-735.
  • Schegloff, E. A. (2007): Sequence Organization in Interaction, Cambridge.
  • Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977): «The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation», Language 53 (2), pp. 361-382.
  • Schuren, L. (2014): Shared Storytelling in Euripidean Stichomythia, Leiden.
  • Sidnell, J. (2010): Conversation Analysis. An Introduction, Oxford.
  • Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (eds.) (2013): The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Oxford.
  • Slings, S. R. (2003): Platonis Res Publica, Oxford.
  • Stivers, T. (2013): «Sequence Organization», in Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Oxford, pp. 191-209,
  • van Emde Boas, E. (2017): «Analyzing Agamemnon: Conversation Analysis and Particles in Greek Tragic Dialogue», Classical Philology 112, pp. 411-434.
  • Verano, R. (2021a): «Other-Initiated Repetition and Fictive Orality in the Dialogues of Plato», in Beck, D. (ed.), Repetition, Communication, and Meaning in the Ancient World, Leiden, pp. 261-284.
  • Verano, R. (2021b): «El insulto (y otras formas de descortesía) en el diálogo platónico», in de la Villa, J., López, A., Falque, E., de Hoz, M.ª P., Muñoz, M.ª J., Villaroel, I. and Recio, V. (eds.) Forum Classicorum: perspectivas y avances sobre el Mundo Clásico, Madrid, pp. 359-366.
  • Verano, R. (2022): «Politeness and Interaction in Ancient Greek: Preventing and Avoiding Dispreferred Reactions in the Dialogues of Plato», Veleia. Revista de prehistoria, historia antigua, arqueología y filología clásica 39, pp. 209-223.
  • Villa, J. de la (2017): «Cuéntame y dime: el aspecto verbal en el Eutifrón», Classica Boliviana VIII, pp. 25-44.
  • Villa, J. de la (2021): «Tiempo y Aspecto», in Jiménez, M. D. (ed.), Sintaxis del Griego Antiguo, Madrid.
  • Watts, R. J. (2003): Politeness, Cambridge.
  • Zakowski, S. (2014): «Εἰπέ μοι as a Parenthetical: A Structural and Functional Analysis from Homer to Menander», Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 54, pp. 151-191.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet