Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Previous Sub2Sect

10.2.2 Illocutionary force

A serious problem for linguists who distinguish illocutionary forces is formed by the question of how many different illocutionary forces are to be distinguished and what criteria may be used to define each of them. I now address these two points ( crosssection Then, for the first three sentence types distinguished on p. 191, I give a short survey of the illocutionary forces with which they occur ( crosssection Criteria for the distinction of sentence types and illocutionary forces Above I have already mentioned the occurrence of certain kinds of particles

-- 203 --

and words of other categories with certain sentence types or subtypes. In Latin linguistics such phenomena are occasionally pointed out, particularly in chapters on the various uses of the subjunctive and the differences between subjunctive and imperative. Also other criteria for distinguishing certain shades of meaning are mentioned. See example (61):

(61) quaeso hercle abire ut liceat :: abeas, si velis (`I am asking, by George, whether I may leave :: leave, if you want', Pl. Rud. 834)

The preceding modal auxiliary makes clear that abeas is not strictly directive. [51] See also example (31) above (p. 198), where debuisti makes clear how the ensuing rettulisses is to be understood.

Above I have limited myself to the question of which particles and the like can be combined with certain sentence types; we will see now, however, that the occurrence of such particles, parenthetical verbs, etc. is not only determined by the sentence type, but often also by the illocutionary force of sentences. For example, we have seen that quin occurs in imperative sentences with a directive illocutionary force (see example (42) on p. 199 above). We also find it in interrogative sentences with this illocutionary force, e.g. (62):

(62) quin tu taces? (`Will you be silent?', Pl. Men. 561)

I now discuss the various `tests' available for determining the illocutionary force of a sentence. These are the following:

(a) parenthetical or postposed verbs

(b) coordination and question/answer patterns

(c) modal particles

(d) restrictions other than modal particles

(e) data with regard to the situation (e.g. knowledge of the social class of the interlocutors)

(a) Parenthetical and postposed verbs

(63) per dexteram tuam te … oro obsecro, da mihi hanc veniam, ignosce, irata ne sies (`By your right hand, I beseech you, grant me this, forgive, do not be angry', Pl. Am. 923–4)

(64) tu quaeso cogita (`Please, think!', Cic. Att. 9.17.2)

For examples see K.–St. I. 199–202. [52] In recent publications on illocutionary force much attention is devoted to such parenthetical verbs, which, owing to their lexical meaning, make the intention of the speaker explicit, as a means to distinguish illocutionary forces (and often also sentence types). [53]

The verbs occurring parenthetically (always in the first person singular of the present tense) [54] can be subdivided into two groups:

(a) verbs meaning `to influence', `to appeal to': peto, precor, quaeso, obsecro, oro, rogo, obtestor, moneo; 54a

-- 204 --

(b) verba declarandi: dico, inquam, narro, fateor, confiteor, concedo (material: Plautus, Terence, Cicero, Petronius) and verba sentiendi (e.g. puto, credo, (ut) opinor (see above p. 192).

Most of these verbs do not occur very often, and not all four authors mentioned above have all of them. Of those that do occur, quaeso, obsecro, dico and inquam are highly frequent and idiomatic. [55] Consequently, they are found with all three sentence types and with all illocutionary forces, e.g. example (65) with quaeso, in a declarative sentence with an interrogative illocutionary force:

(65) quaeso … domina, certe embasicoetan iusseras dari (`Madam, I ask you, you surely had given orders that a lewd mug be presented to me', Petr. 24 (translation M. Heseltine, Loeb edition))

(b) Coordination; question/answer patterns

The illocutionary force of a sentence can sometimes be deduced from an immediately preceding or following sentence, see examples (66)–(67):

(66) non par videtur neque sit consentaneum (`It is not right and ought not to be done', Pl. Bac. 139)

(67) cynicum esse egentem oportet parasitum probe: ampullam … habeat (`A parasite ought definitely to be a needy cynic: he should have a bottle', Pl. Per. 123–5)

In (66) sit is a so-called potential subjunctive. In my terminology, there are two coordinated declarative sentences here. Habeat in (67) might be interpreted as jussive (and the sentence, thus, as directive), in view of the preceding oportet. [56] See also examples (31) and (61) on p. 198 and p. 203, respectively.

(c) Modal particles

Several times already we have encountered modal particles. K.–St. I. 199-202 mention as examples of modifying particles with imperatives sis, modo, dum, proin. Table 10.2 presents a survey of a number of particles and more or less idiomatic verb forms that occur in sentences with a directive illocutionary force. They do not, however, occur in each sentence type (see in particular sis and sodes). Table 10.2 Combinations of sentence types and particles and other expressions
Source: Bolkestein 1977c: 63.

-- 205 --

(d) The presence or obligatory absence of other kinds of constituent in certain sentence types has occasionally been mentioned above, e.g. restrictions on tense, addibility of Disjuncts (p. 197); modal verbs such as debere, licet are limited to interrogative and declarative sentences and embedded predications (which can then have a directive illocutionary force). [57]

(e) Data with regard to the situation

We have seen above that according to some scholars the choice between dixerit and dicat is determined by social relations (p. 194). Also other situational factors can influence the choice between alternative expressions. Thus, for instance, urgency can be a factor in choosing a short, matter-of-fact order (Stop thief!) or the desire to offer additional incentive (do your best). For Latin such factors have not been studied. [58] 58a

Although it is undoubtedly possible to develop more precise criteria to distinguish more subtly all kinds of nuances, one may wonder whether this will in fact lead to clearly distinguished illocutionary forces. It might be more useful to assume a gradation of illocutionary forces, ranging from, for instance, lexically expressed, explicit orders to cautious suggestions, e.g.:

(68) iubeo te abire (`I order you to go away': statement of an order)

(69) abi (`Go away')

(70) abeas si vis (`Go away if you want') [59] Relation between sentence type and illocutionary force

In this section I restrict myself to the three illocutionary forces assertive, request for information and directive. Table 10.3 indicates which sentence types can occur with which illocutionary force. The imperative sentence type is the most limited one. It is not clear whether declarative sentences can be used with the illocutionary force `request for information'. See (65) on p. 204 above and (71):

(71) certe patrem tuum non occidisti (`You certainly did not kill your father, did you', Suet. Aug. 33.1)

Suetonius tells us that Augustus asked a question (ita fertur interrogasse (`Thus he is said to have asked')) and it is implied that the addressee answered (in casu no). We do not know whether (71) is a normal declarative sentence or was pronounced with a clearly interrogative intonation (as is the English translation). [60] Research should be done in order to determine how declarative sentences with a directive illocutionary force and imperative sentences differ semantically, and in what circumstances and text types which expressions are chosen.

-- 206 --

Table 10.3 Combination of sentence type and illocutionary force
Illocutionary force
Sentence typeAssertiveRequest for informationDirective
certe non … ? (71)ind. pres. pro imperativo (72)
ind. fut. pro imperativo (73)
so-called rhetorical question (74)(75)–(76)

(71) certe patrem tuum non occidisti?

(72) itis, paratis arma quam primum viri (`Come on, men, prepare yourselves for battle as quickly as possible', Trag. inc. frag. 34)

(73) tu tamen …, ut adhuc fecisti, nos consiliis iuvabis (`You must help me with your advice, as you have done up to now', Cic. Att. 10.2.2)

(74) numquid Pomponius istis audiret leviora, pater si viveret? (`Would P. be listening to lighter things than these, if his father were alive?', Hor. S. 1.4.52–3)

(75) quin tu is accubitum? (`Won't you recline?', Pl. Ps. 891)

(76) non tu abis? (`Go away', Pl. Men. 516) [61]

Previous Sub2Sect

Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Powered by PhiloLogic