THE PRAGMATICS OF DIRECT ADDRESS IN THE ILIAD

211 Pages·2003·1.05 MB·English

THE PRAGMATICS OF DIRECT ADDRESS IN THE ILIAD: A STUDY IN
LINGUISTIC POLITENESS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of the Ohio State University
By
H. Paul Brown
The Ohio State University
2003
Dissertation Committee:
Approved by
Stephen V. Tracy, Advisor
Victoria Wohl ________________________
Advisor
Brian Joseph Department of Greek and Latin
Daniel Collins
Copyright by
H. Paul Brown
2003
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper will be to examine, in the text of Homer’s Iliad, some
of the pragmatic and sociolinguistic factors in the choice of form of address (epithet).
Specifically I will look at these in light of the Parry-Lord theory of oral composition and
its claims of ‘economy of form.’ The results of this limited examination have important
implications for the viability of such methods and for our understanding of oral,
traditional literature.
Milman Parry, as is well known, demonstrated that the choice of appellation for
any character, between the given-name (e.g., ÉAgam°mnvn) and the patronymic (e.g.,
ÉAtre˝dhw) was a decision based on metrical considerations alone, and importantly, not
on semantic ones. The two terms cannot simply be substituted for the other without
changing the meter of the whole line. The choice between the two is, according to Parry,
driven by metrical necessity alone and hence any possible distinction of meaning is
automatically bleached. The two names mean the same thing (i.e., Agamemnon).
In this study I will look specifically at the use types of address within the
narrative frame of the Iliad, in light of two potentially contributing factors. From a
sociolinguistic standpoint, I will show that the distribution of these forms of address
across the whole set of speakers is constrained by the relative social standing of the
speaker in respect to the addressee. I will then give evidence for how pragmatic factors
as well condition the appearance of one form of address over another.
ii
The evidence in this paper, then, will show that both sociolinguistic factors such
as degree of social distance and relative position within the social hierarchy combine with
specific situationally defined pragmatic factors to place constraints on the appropriateness
of competing forms of address, forms whose distribution was earlier ascribable to
metrical constraints alone. In other words, forms of address are effected by important
matters of social hierarchy and the practical movement of the plot.
Thus in line A.7 of the Iliad: ÉAtre˝dhw te ênaj éndr«n ka‹ d›ow ÉAxilleÊw,
Homer offers us a contest between Agamemnon, the holder of title and its concomitant
privileged position, a man whose titles alone define him and the untitled but divinely
defined and, importantly, named Akhilleus. It will be as much a contest between office
and d›ow as it will be between individuals.
iii
For Al
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to acknowledge my deep debt and sincere thanks to my advisor, Steve
Tracy for his unflagging support in all facets of this project, and for his insightful,
challenging, and unflinching criticism without which the project would simply have been
impossible.
I also would be amiss if I did not also acknowledge my great debt to the following
people: my advisory committee, Professors Brian Joseph, and Dan Collins, and especially
Victoria Wohl, without whose continuous help this project would have floundered long
ago; to the unofficial ABD mutual dissertation advisory and support committee
(ABDMDASC) of Amber Lunsford and Gillian McIntosh, uerba mihi desunt; to all of the
members of the Department of Greek and Latin graduate reaearch seminars for insightful
and inciteful questions and critique; to professor Will Batstone for help well above and
beyond the call of duty and especially for his support; to Betsy Tannehill and Mary Cole,
for putting up with me; to the members of the San Francisco State University Department
of Classics, Barbara McLauchlin, Pam Vaughn, Edith Croft, Jon Leifer and Fran Spaltro
for getting me here; to my brother, Michael for beers and cheers; to my father, Howard
Brown for his support and interest right from the very get-go; and lastly to my mother,
Nancy E. Brown for her expert editing, criticism, and most of all, her support.
v
VITA
April 3rd, 1963 ………………………………. Born — San Francisco, California
1991 ………………………………………… B.A. Art, San Francisco State University
1995 ………………………………………… M.A. Classics, San Francisco State
University
2002 ………………………………………… M.A. Linguistics, Ohio State University
1997-Present ……………………………….. Graduate Teaching and Research Assistant,
Ohio State University, Department of Greek
and Latin
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Fields: Greek and Latin Literature
Linguistics
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... v
Vita .................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. ix
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... x
Chapters
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
2. A Methodological Introduction .................................................................................... 31
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 31
2.2. Pragmatics
2.2.1. Introduction .................................................................................... 35
2.2.2. Context ........................................................................................... 37
2.2.3. Speech Acts .................................................................................... 43
2.2.4. Grice’s Cooperation-Principle and Conversational-Implicature ... 45
2.3. Politeness
2.3.1. Introduction …………..………………………………………… 49
2.3.2. Face ………………….……………………………………….… 51
2.3.3. Face-Threatening Activities and Face Work ………….…..….… 54
2.3.4. Off-Record, Positive and Negative Politeness Strategies …….… 57
2.3.5. Impoliteness Strategies ………………………………………...... 60
3. Pragmatics of Direct Speech in the Iliad: Generic Forms of Address ………...…….. 65
vii
Part I: The Function of Address
3.1. Introduction ………………………………………………...…….... 66
3.2. The Use of Generic Epithets, a Pragmatics-Based Account …....…. 72
3.2.1. Structuring the Discourse…..……….…….….………..…. 74
3.2.1.1. Change of Speaker …………………..………… 76
3.2.1.2. Emphasis ………………..…………...………… 80
3.2.2. Structuring the Social Space ……….…….……………… 83
Part II: Uses of ‘Generic’ Epithets in Address
3.3. Generic Addresses ………………………………..…….…………. 84
3.3.1. T°knon/t°kow ……………………………..………….….. 85
3.3.2. Pãter/m∞ter ……..……………...………………….….. 92
3.3.2.1. Pãter …………………………………………. 92
3.3.2.2. M∞ter …………………………………………. 96
3.3.3. F¤le …….……………………………………………….. 97
3.3.4. DaimÒnie ………………………………………………... 103
3.3.5. Hapax Legomena ………….…………………………… 113
3.4. The Sociolinguistics of Address ……………………...……….…. 117
4. Patronymics and Given Names in Direct Address …………………………………. 121
4.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………….…..….. 121
4.1.1. The System of Greek Patronymics …….…………………..…... 127
4.1.1.1 Stems in -¤dhw, -ãdhw, -iãdhw, -¤vn and -i≈na ………... 128
4.1.2. Parry-Lord Thesis Revisited ………….…………………….….. 130
4.2. Address by Name, Address by Title ……………………………….…….. 132
4.2.1. Akhilleus ………………………………….……………….…… 138
4.2.2. Agamemnon and Menalaos …………….………….……..…..… 157
4.2.3. Diomedes ………………………...…………………………….. 167
4.3. Conclusion …………………………………………………………..…… 176
5. Conclusions ………………………………………………………..…….…………. 178
Bibliography ……………………………………………………………..…….….….. 192
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1 Formulae for Agamemnon in Line Final Position
Following the Penthemimeral Caesura ……………………………………..….. 9
2.1 A Schematization of Context ………………………………………………….. 39
2.2 Speech Acts ……………………………………………………………….…… 44
2.3 Conversational Maxims ……………………………………………………….. 48
2.4 Sample Face-Threatening Activities ……………………………………….…. 54
4.1 Characters Addressed as Genitive of Father + ufl° …………………………… 128
4.2 Frequency of Forms of Address for Akhilleus …………………………...…... 139
4.3 Distribution of Bacchiac Vocative, ÉAxilleË, by Speaker …………….…..… 146
4.4 Frequency of Forms of Address for Agamemnon ………………………….… 158
ix