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

Next Section

12 Beyond the sentence

In the preceding chapters we have dealt with the relation between constituents within sentences. We have, however, also encountered phenomena that go beyond the boundaries of the sentence, e.g. the phenomenon of definiteness/indefiniteness of nominal constituents ( crosssection 6.7. on p. 93 ff.) and the background function of the imperfect ( crosssection 11.3.1 on p. 237 ff.). These observations may also be formulated in more general terms: the fact that sentences occur within greater units (`text' or `discourse') affects the structure and content of these sentences. It is from this point of view that I treat the cohesion between sentences in this chapter. It is evident that there is some similarity between the cohesion between sentences as I will treat it here and the structure of texts as a whole, which is dealt with by, for example, students of narratology, text linguistics, discourse analysis and conversation analysis. [Note] I will discuss this latter type of cohesion only briefly.

In this chapter I will merely recapitulate those phenomena which have already been discussed above ( crosssection 12.3.). The chapter concentrates on several other devices whose main function is to make clear how sentences are related within a coherent text, particularly connectors and anaphoric pronouns, adverbs, etc. ( crosssection 12.2.). The first section of the chapter ( crosssection 12.1.) deals with the notions `text' and `textual cohesion'. In crosssection 12.4., finally, I discuss the similarities between the ways in which (independent) sentences are connected, on the one hand, and the ways in which within sentences main clauses and subordinate clauses are combined, on the other.

12.1. Text and textual cohesion

Generally speaking, people communicate with one another in units that consist of more than one sentence, or, in the case of a dialogue, form units together with the sentences of the interlocutor (e.g. question–answer pairs). Sentences are, therefore, mostly construed in such a way that it is clear how a sentence B is connected with a preceding sentence A. In chapter 9 on word order we have seen, for instance, that constituents that are known from the preceding context are often placed at the beginning of the sentence, as Topic

-- 244 --

constituents. In text linguistics, but also in psychology and the study of artificial intelligence, much attention has been devoted to the question of what exactly turns a collection of sentences into a coherent `text'. [1] A necessary, but not a sufficient condition is that the sentences are semantically related. They must deal with the same topic. Another condition is that the contents of the sentences must be related in a temporal, causal/consecutive or similar manner, or at least that they can be interpreted as such by the hearer/reader, [2] e.g. (1):

(1a) It was raining. We stayed at home.

(1b) It was raining. So we stayed at home.

The two sentences in (1a) can be interpreted as having a consecutive relation even in the absence of the connector so (as in (1b)). It is much more difficult to see a relation between the sentences in (2a):

(2a) It was raining. Unemployment figures were still high.

Such a relation can be construed by a third sentence, as in (2b):

(2b) It was raining. Unemployment figures were still high. Gloomily the union leader was staring out of the window.

If in a text the relation between successive sentences is not made clear in one of the ways described in crosssection 12.2. below, we are dealing with `asyndeton'. [3] (1a), for instance, is an example of asyndeton. The grammars distinguish various types of asyndeton (for examples see K.–St. II. 155–9; Sz. 469–71), e.g. adversative asyndeton (example (3)) and causal asyndeton (example (4)). These labels do not, of course, explain anything, but make explicit a semantic relation that the text itself leaves implicit. They imply, moreover, that adversative, causal, etc. relations are essentially different from `normal' temporal relation between successive sentences.

(3) Caesar … celeriter concilium dimittit. Liscum retinet (`Caesar rapidly put an end to the meeting. He kept Liscus behind', Caes. Gal. 1.18.1)


(4) supplicium in parricidas singulare excogitaverunt … insui voluerunt in culleum vivos (`They have devised a special punishment for parricides … They want them to be sewn alive into a leather bag', Cic. S. Rosc. 70–1)

Often sentences that follow one another asyndetically are `merely' temporally related, e.g. succession in (5) and contemporaneousness in (6):

(5) veni, vidi, vici (see example (13) on p. 218)

(6) hi propter propinquitatem et celeritatem hostium nihil iam Caesaris imperium exspectabant sed per se quae videbantur administrabant. Caesar … decucurrit (`Because of the closeness and rapidness of the enemy they no longer waited for orders from Caesar but took the

-- 245 --

necessary decisions as they themselves saw fit. Caesar … hurried down … ', Caes. Gal. 2.20.4–21.1)

Texts differ as to the frequency of asyndeton. In texts written in a periodic style asyndeton is relatively rare. In archaic texts it is relatively frequent, but in Seneca, too, the frequency is extremely high. The grammars often describe the high frequency in archaic texts as a mark of colloquial usage and a relatively underdeveloped stylistic level. This generalization must, however, be treated with some caution. Considering Seneca, the frequency of asyndeton apparently has to do with personal preference as well. Table 12.1 offers an illustration of the variations in frequency of the use of asyndeton and explicit sentence-connecting constituents in a number of passages of similar length from Cic. Att., Liv. and Sen. Ep. [4] Table 12.1 Asyndeton in three texts
Cic.Liv.Sen.
Asyndeton6842107
`Syndeton'425741
Authors with a periodic style, too, used asyndeton in order to create an effect of speed and suspense (see Sz. 469), e.g. (7):

(7) Mittuntur ad Caesarem confestim ab Cicerone litterae … Obsessis omnibus viis missi intercipiuntur. Noctu … turres … excitantur … Quae deesse operi videbantur perficiuntur. (`Immediately a letter was sent to Caesar by Cicero. Because all roads were blocked the messengers were captured. During the night towers were built. Visible defects of the rampart were repaired', Caes. Gal. 5.40.1–2)

This phenomenon occurs in many languages. [5]

Apart from the fact that people normally communicate in units larger than a single sentence (with `texts', therefore) and that, as a consequence, there is an explicit or implicit semantic relation between individual sentences, texts, in their turn, also contain smaller, semantically highly coherent units. In narrative texts, for instance, successive `episodes' may be distinguished. Many written texts are divided into `paragraphs'. Such `segments' are often connected with each other in an explicit way. The means used to mark this connection are sometimes similar to, but sometimes differ from the means that are used to mark connections between individual sentences. In discussing Cic. Att. 1.5 (figure 9.1 on p. 172 ff. above) we have seen that Cicero abruptly, without any transition, provides successive pieces of information about various relatives. The knowledge common to Cicero and Atticus apparently sufficed and Atticus knew enough to understand the text. In other cases Cicero

-- 246 --

uses Theme constituents to call Atticus' attention to the fact that he is changing the subject (sentence 4: quod ad me scribis de sorore tua; sentences 7, 9, 13, 18). Within semantically coherent segments Cicero often uses connectors and other sentence-connecting constituents (sentence 2: nam; sentence 3: quare; sentence 5: quem; sentence 6: itaque; sentence 8: enim; sentence 10: sed; sentence 11: etenim; sentence 12: sed; sentence 14: sed; sentence 15: autem; sentence 16: autem; sentence 17: quam; sentence 19: id). In this case, therefore, there is a difference between the means used to mark the relation between the individual segments of the text and those used within the segments. Authors may differ on this point. [6] A well-known means used by Caesar to link episodes is the summarizing ablative absolute (type hoc facto (`after this had been done'). In Virgil's Aeneid one is struck by the use of interea, e.g. (8):

(8) tum Cererem corruptam undis Cerealiaque arma expediunt fessi rerum, frugesque receptas et torrere parant flammis et frangere saxo. Aeneas scopulum interea conscendit … (`Then, wearied with their lot, they took out the corn of Ceres, spoiled by the waves, with the tools of Ceres, and prepared to parch the rescued grain in the fire and crush it under the stone. Meanwhile, Aeneas climbed a peak … ', Verg. A. 1.177–80) [7]

An exact local or temporal indication is another means to mark the beginning of a new episode, e.g. (9):

(9) L. Genucio Ser. Cornelio consulibus ab externis ferme bellis otium fuit (`During the consulate of L.G. and Ser.C. there was practically complete quiet as to foreign wars', Liv. 10.1.1)

Here I leave out of accont the relation between episodes and similar units and the means used to create such relations, limiting myself to the means used to make clear the relation between sentences.

12.2. Cohesion appearing from the presence or absence of specific constituents

In this section I discuss both a number of means used to make explicit the relation between successive sentences and the phenomenon of the so-called ellipsis, in which case the very absence of an element in a sentence B increases its dependence on the preceding sentence A.

12.2.1 Lexical cohesion

The simplest form of lexical cohesion is repetition of a noun (a proper noun, etc.) in the following sentence. Strictly speaking, in such cases there is no signal indicating the relation between the two sentences. We do not often encounter

-- 247 --

this simple form of lexical cohesion in Latin, perhaps owing to the literary nature of the extant texts. [7a] An example is (10):

(10) septimo die, cum iter non intermitteret, ab exploratoribus certior factus est Ariovisti copias a nostris milibus passuum quattuor et XX abesse. cognito Caesaris adventu Ariovistus legatos ad eum mittit (`On the seventh day of uninterrupted travel he was told by scouts that Ariovistus' troops were 24 miles away from ours. Having heard that Caesar was approaching, Ariovistus sent ambassadors to him', Caes. Gal. 1.41.5–42.1)

Instead of repetition of words, we also find synonyms. [8] Examples are metus/timor in (11) and concilium/conventus in (12):

(11) nam profecto aut metus aut iniuria te subegit, Silane, consulem designatum genus poenae novum decernere. de timore supervacaneum est disserere (`For surely, Silanus, it was either fear or the gravity of the offence which impelled you, a consul elect, to favour a novel form of punishment. As regards fear, it is needless to speak … ', Sal. Cat. 51.18–19)

(12) sic Siculorum civitatibus Syracusas aut Messanam aut Lilybaeum indicitur concilium: praetor Romanus conventus agit (`So a council of the Sicilian cities is called at Syracuse or Messina or Lilybaeum: the Roman praetor presides at the meeting', Liv. 31.29.8)

Another form of repetition is the use of homo, a `generic' or `empty' noun, practically equivalent to an anaphoric pronoun. [9] A neat example, particularly because an anaphoric pronoun follows, is (13):

(13) videt (Curio) … Verrem; appellat hominem et ei … gratulatur (`Curio sees Verres. He addresses the man and congratulates him', Cic. Ver. 19)

There are, furthermore, instances which do not only involve repetition, but also the addition of a new property. An extreme form is the occurrence– especially in poetry-of learned descriptions of persons, e.g. (14)–(15):

(14) illae Epicuri propriae ruinae: censet enim eadem illa individua et solida corpora ferri deorsum suo pondere ad lineam; hunc naturalem esse omnium corporum motum; deinde ibidem homo acutus … attulit rem commenticiam (`Now for Epicurus' own errors: for he thinks that those same indivisible and massive particles fall down vertically due to their own weight, saying that this is the natural movement of all bodies; at the same time, this wily man introduces another clever idea', Cic. Fin. 1. 18–19)

(15) speluncam Dido dux et Troianus eandem deveniunt (`Dido and the leader of the Trojans (viz. Aeneas) end up in the same cave', Verg. A. 4.165–6)

-- 248 --

Such forms of lexical repetition not only serve to mark the relation between noun phrases, but also, particularly in the case of action nouns, refer back to a preceding sentence or passage as a whole, see (16)–(17):

(16) nec ut iniustus in pace rex, ita dux belli pravus fuit; quin ea arte aequasset superiores reges (`As a leader in wartime he was as wicked as he was as king in times of peace; in this art he would even have surpassed the preceding kings', Liv. 1.53.1)

(17) (the speaker is Liscus) quin etiam quod necessario rem coactus Caesari enuntiarit, intellegere sese (sc. Liscus) quanto id cum periculo fecerit, et ob eam causam quam diu potuerit tacuisse. Caesar hac oratione Lisci Dumnorigem … designari sentiebat (` "As for the fact that he had reported the matter to Caesar under pressure, he understood very well how great a risk this entailed for him, and for that reason he had remained silent as long as possible". Caesar understood that with these words Liscus was referring to Dumnorix', Caes. Gal. 1.17.5–18.1)

In (17) the `universal' rem in Liscus' words refers back to his preceding words. [9a] Hac oratione refers back to Liscus' entire speech. Note that the action noun oratione is modified by an anaphoric pronoun. [10] This is often the case.

Above various forms of repetition have been discussed. A form of lexical cohesion that is more difficult to describe is that involving words belonging to the same `semantic domain' which are associated with one another if they occur in the same context. An example of this is the `associative anaphora' discussed in crosssection 6.7. on p. 94; see example (18):

(18) John has bought a house. The roof needs repair, but in general everything is in excellent condition.

The roof (note also the definite article in English) is, of course, associated with the house. See also example (19). Here Vitruvius is discussing the construction of baths and successively introduces the main constituent parts that can be regarded as `subtopics' of the main topic `bath', without anaphoric constituents:

(19a) nunc insequentur balineorum dispositionum demonstrationes (`Now follows the discussion of the construction of baths', Vitr. 5.9.9)

(19b) primum elegendus locus est … (`First a location must be selected', 5.10.1)

(19c) ipsa autem caldaria tepidariaque lumen habeant … (`The warm and tepid baths must have light', 5.10.1)

(19d) suspensurae caldariorum ita sunt faciendae … (`The suspended floors of the warm baths must be constructed as follows', 5.10.2)

(19e) concamarationes vero si ex structura factae fuerint, erunt utiliores (`The ceilings are better if made of masonry', 5.10.3)

-- 249 --

(19f) magnitudines autem balneorum … (`And the size of the baths … ', 5.10.4)

(19g) laconicum sudationesque sunt coniungendae tepidario (`The sweat baths must be connected with the tepid bath', 5.10.5)

Only in (19f) the fact that baths are concerned is explicitly mentioned. In the other sentences the fact that the italicized nouns serve as specifications of the general notion `bath' remains implicit.

A slightly different case is represented by words that are complementary with regard to one another, e.g. (20):

(20) video exadvorsum Pistoclerum et Bacchidem :: qui sunt in lecto illo altero? :: interii miser :: novistine hominem? (`I clearly see Pistoclerus and Bacchis :: Who are in that other bed? :: I am dead, woe is me :: Do you know the man?', Pl. Bac. 835–7)

The passage concerns two pairs that are being spied upon: hominem is one member of the pair that is first referred to with qui (plural). [11]

Examples (18)–(20) show that the cohesion of a text is first of all determined by the unity of the subject matter, which enables the hearer/reader to form an expectation of what is to come on the basis of the information that has already been provided. Subsequently, he is able to fit the later information into the framework of what he already knows. Instances of this kind are more difficult to describe than those involving repetition. They occur regularly, but seem to be used less frequently as means to create cohesion than those to be treated below.

12.2.2 Anaphora and substitution

Anaphora (and the related notion `deixis') has already been mentioned on p. 94. Examples of anaphora are (21)–(23):

(21) ad eas res conficiendas Orgetorix deligitur. is sibi legationem ad civitates suscepit (`Orgetorix is chosen to deal with these matters. He undertakes to visit the neighbouring nations as an ambassador', Caes. Gal. 1.3.3)

(22) venit magnis itineribus in Nerviorum fines. ibi ex captivis cognoscit quae apud Ciceronem gerantur (`With long marches he went to the area of the Nervii. There he was told by prisoners what was going on in Cicero's camp', Caes. Gal. 5.48.2)

(23) eodem tempore a P. Crasso, quem … miserat ad Venetos, Unellos … quae sunt maritimae civitates … certior factus est omnes eas civitates in dicionem … esse redactas (`At the same time he was told by P.C., whom he had sent to the Veneti, the Venelli, …, nations close to the sea, that all those nations had been subjugated', Caes. Gal. 2.34)

-- 250 --

In (21) is is an independent anaphoric pronoun, comparable with the English third-person personal pronoun; ibi in (22) is an anaphoric adverb; eas in (23) is an attributive anaphoric pronoun. 11a

We speak of anaphora in the strict sense of the word if a nominal constituent in the preceding sentence or context is referred back to without lexical repetition. In (22) is refers to Orgetorix, and both indicate the same person. In (23) ibi refers to Nerviorum fines. Anaphora is, thus, a means to indicate the `referential identity' of entities. Anaphoric reference and lexical repetition differ in that lexical constituents have a meaning of their own, while anaphoric words merely refer to another constituent in the context. `is' and `ibi' mean something only if we know who or what is referred to by is and ibi. In (15), however, we have seen that in the case of nouns with a `generic' meaning such as homo the difference is not very great. Anaphora in a broader sense may also include the use of idem (`the same'), talis (`such'), alter (`the other'), ceteri (`the remaining … '), which do not confirm the identity of the referent, but add a comparative element. [12]

Connecting relatives are often used with the same function as anaphoric pronouns (see p. 81). Anaphoric connection, especially relative connection, is used by different authors in different frequencies, more frequently, for instance, in Livy than in Seneca. [13] In English the distinction definite/indefinite also often serves as a means to create textual cohesion (see pp. 93 ff.).

The anaphoric pronouns mentioned above are used not only to indicate the referential identity of entities, but also to refer back to larger stretches of a sentence or even of a text, comparable to the instances of lexical repetition in (16)–(17) above. In such cases I speak of `substitution'. [14] See examples (24)–(26):

(24) postero die castra ex eo loco movent. idem facit Caesar (`On the following day they break camp from there. The same is done by Caesar', Caes. Gal. 1.15.1)

(25) illi ita negant vulgo ut mihi se debere dicant. ita quiddam spero nobis profici (`They generally refuse him their support, saying that they owe support to me. So I hope that I will benefit by it', Cic. Att. 1.1.1)

(26) Acutilianam controversiam transegeris (hoc me etiam Peducaeus ut ad te scriberem admonuit) (`You will take care of the matter involving Acutilius (Peducaeus has also asked me to write this to you)', Cic. Att. 1.4.1)

In (25) it is difficult to determine what the second ita refers to exactly. Ita is somewhat like the consecutive connectors like ergo that are discussed in crosssection 12.2.5. on p. 253. [15] An example of substitution by a verb is (27):

(27) amat a lenone hic :: facere sapienter puto (`He likes an occasional whore :: He does well, I think', Pl. Poen. 1092)

-- 251 --

See for cases of this kind p. 12 and facit in example (24) above. In a similar way, fieri (`to happen') can be used as a substitute for certain states of affairs.

12.2.3 Cataphoric cohesion

The mirror image of anaphora and other means to refer back is cataphora: the use of forward-looking expressions that create an expectation for the reader/hearer. Examples are (28)–(30):

(28) ita fac, mi Lucili: vindica te tibi (`Act in this way, Lucilius, demand yourself for yourself', Sen. Ep. 1.1.1)

(29) sed te id oro, Hegio :: quid vis? … :: ausculta, tum scies (`But I ask you this, Hegio :: What do you want? :: Listen, and you will find out', Pl. Capt. 337–8)

(30) hoc idem significat Graecus ille in eam sententiam versus: … (`The same is expressed in the famous Greek line with the following purport', Cic. Div. 2.25)

See also crosssection 12.2.5 on p. 253.

12.2.4 Ellipsis

`Ellipsis' is a disputed notion, as is the exact delimitation of `ellipsis' on the one hand and `brachylogy' on the other. For the various points of view I refer to the textbooks. [16] I understand by ellipsis the absence of one or more constituents in a sentence B that have been expressed in some way in the preceding sentence A or even earlier and that are not omissible, semantically or syntactically, without knowledge of the context. Another term is `zero-anaphora'. Furthermore, constituents are often not expressed that are also clear without being spelled out explicitly, e.g.:

(31) melius Graii atque nostri (sc. iudicant) (`The judgment of the Greeks and that of our people is better (than that of the Persians)', Cic. Leg. 2.26)

I do not regard such instances as ellipsis and leave them out of account. In many cases of ellipsis, the omitted constituent is an argument of the predicate, especially the Subject (from this point of view, the phenomenon has already been mentioned on p. 6), but it is not restricted to arguments. Predicates can be absent as well, just like, for instance, Head constituents of noun phrases, see examples (32)–(37). In (32)–(33) we find omission of the Subject, [17] in (34) of the Object, in (35) of the Indirect Object, in (36) of a predicate, [18] in (37) of a Head constituent of a noun phrase. [19]

(32) Caesar primo … proelio supersedere statuit; cotidie tamen equestribus proeliis quid hostis virtute posset et quid nostri auderent periclitabatur (`Initially Caesar decided against a decisive battle; nevertheless he tested

-- 252 --

in daily cavalry fights the capabilities of the enemy and the courage of his own men', Caes. Gal. 2.8.1–2)

(33) qui clamores tota cavea nuper in … M. Pacuvi nova fabula! … stantes plaudebant in re ficta (`What applause in the entire theatre during the recent performance of a new play by Pacuvius! Standing, they were applauding something that was not really happening', Cic. Amic. 24)

(34) Haec cum pluribus verbis flens a Caesare peteret, Caesar eius dextram prendit; consolatus rogat finem orandi faciat (`When he repeatedly asked Caesar for this in tears, Caesar took his hand; having consoled him, he asked him to put an end to his plea', Caes. Gal. 1.20.5)

(35) Dat negotium Senonibus reliquisque Gallis … ut … se … de his rebus certiorem faciant. Hi constanter omnes nuntiaverunt manus cogi … (`He ordered the S. and the other Gauls to inform him of this. All constantly reported to him that troops were being assembled', Caes. Gal. 2.2.3–4)

(36) at propero :: et pol ego item (`But I am in a hurry :: By Pollux, I am, too', Pl. Per. 224)

(37) vos exemplaria Graeca nocturna versate manu, versate diurna (`Study the Greek models at night, study them by day', Hor. Ars 268–9)

On p. 1 it was pointed out that not only verbs have a certain valency, but adjectives and nouns as well. The constituents required by a noun can often remain implicit. Examples are (38)–(40):

(38) esto, causam proferre non potes (`All right: you cannot name a reason', Cic. S. Rosc. 73)

(39) at regina … caeco carpitur igni. multa viri virtus animo multusque recursat gentis honos; haerent infixi pectore vultus verbaque (`But the queen … is wasted with invisible fire: often the man's (viz. Aeneas') valour and his glorious stock rush back to her heart; his looks and words cling fast within her bosom', Verg. A. 4.1–5)

(40) magnitudines autem ad copiam hominum oportet fieri (`The measures (of a forum), however, must be adapted to the number of people', Vitr. 5.1.2)

A noun like causa always presupposes something of which it is the motive/cause, which can, of course, often remain implicit. Likewise, vultus is always someone's face and magnitudo always the size of something. [20]

12.2.5 Connectors and other particles

By connectors I understand words such as autem (`however'), ergo

-- 253 --

(`therefore'), et (`and furthermore', introducing an independent sentence). In the Latin grammars these words are called `coordinating conjunctions'. In part, these words are formally identical and semantically similar to the so-called coordinators (e.g. et (`and'), sed (`but'), aut (`or')). Coordinators link constituents within independent sentences that fulfil the same semantic or syntactic function in the sentence, e.g. acies and sensus in (41):

(41) eiusque radiis acies vestra sensusque vincitur (`Its rays blind your eyes and your senses', Cic. Rep. 6.19)

For coordination see also p. 30 above and p. 257 below. [21] Unlike coordinators, connectors link independent sentences. Some connectors are semantically similar to the anaphoric adverbs. Ergo, for instance, may to some extent be compared semantically with ideo (`therefore, for that reason'). There is, however, a clear syntactic difference between this group of connectors and anaphoric adverbs. I mention two differences. [22] In principle, anaphoric adverbs may occur as a sentence by themselves (i.e. they have sentence valency, see p. 32); moreover, they occur in correlative patterns (e.g. ideo … quia (`for that reason …, because'), i.e. in pairs with subordinators. Connectors are not used in this manner: we do not find *ergo … quia or *quia … ergo. [23] There are, however, words that occur both as adverb and as connector. An example is vero, the function of which cannot always be determined unequivocally in actual texts.

Connectors can be divided into a number of semantic classes. Of each I give some examples, and for further details I refer to the grammars and TLL: [24]

(a) additive connectors: et, atque, -que (`and'), [25] neque (`and … not'); et … et (`both … and'); etiam (`also'); praeterea (`moreover'), item (`likewise');

(b) adversative connectors: sed, at (`but'), autem (`however');

(c) disjunctive connectors: aut, vel (`or');

(d) causal connectors: nam, enim (`for'); [26]

(e) consecutive connectors: itaque, igitur, ergo (`therefore'); [27]

(f) continuative connectors: deinde, tum (`then').

Some of these connectors may occur together in the same sentence (e.g. deinde autem (`then, however')), others are incompatible due to their meaning (e.g. *igitur autem). [28] Apart from semantic differences, there are also syntactic differences between the individual connectors. Some cannot, for instance, occur in relative clauses that follow the main sentence. We do not find, for example, *qui igitur or *qui ergo. Others do occur in such constructions.

Note, in this connection, that other particles are also able to make explicit the cohesion of a text, either backward-looking or forward-looking. Quidem (`at least') [29] and sane (`certainly') are examples of particles that may create a certain expectation on the reader's part. Often such particles are followed by

-- 254 --

an adversative connector such as sed or another type of expression to show that a contrast is involved, e.g. (42):

(42) nam quod me hortaris ad memoriam factorum … meorum, facis amice tu quidem mihique gratissimum; sed mihi videris aliud tu honestum … iudicare (`For as to the fact that you remind me of my activities, this is very friendly and pleasant for me. You do not, however, seem to consider the same things honourable', Cic. Att. 8.2.2)

The interrogative particles num and nonne contain an indication as to the expected answer (negative and postitive, respectively). The interrogative particle an, on the other hand, indicates that the speaker does not (necessarily) agree with an utterance or the implication of an utterance of a preceding speaker, e.g. example (43): 29a

(43) credam istuc si esse te hilarum videro :: an tu esse me tristem putas? (`I will believe this if I see you happy :: so you think that I am sad?', Pl. As. 837)

12.3. Other types of cohesion

In this section a number of other aspects of Latin sentences are discussed that enhance the cohesion of a text. From different points of view, they have already been dealt with.

12.3.1 Tense

We have seen in chapter 11 (p. 227) that the imperfect locates an action or state at a certain moment in the past. If an episode starts with an imperfect, the reader is led to expect that subsequently another event will be mentioned (mostly in the perfect or the historic present) as taking place against the background of the action or state in the imperfect. With regard to his background action, the new action or state (the `incident') will be interpreted in a temporal or causal/consecutive sense. If the order is reversed. the text in the imperfect will be interpreted as an elaboration or explanation of what has preceded. We have also seen that perfect forms that follow one another without being explicitly related to one another in some way are understood as successive (in this connection one might say `continuative'). Tenses, particularly the ordering of the tenses, thus give a text a certain structure, a structure which can naturally also be created by or in combination with other means. [30]

12.3.2 Word order

In chapter 9 (pp. 169 ff.) we have seen that connectors and anaphoric constituents often occur at or near the beginning of the sentence. The same

-- 255 --

holds for constituents that are known from the preceding context (or for some other reason) and, therefore, qualify for the pragmatic function Topic. In this way, they serve as an anchor for new information. Furthermore, constituents that are constrasted with something in the preceding context are often placed at the beginning of the sentence. In crosssection 12.1. I have shown that Theme constituents in the first position of the sentence are sometimes used to introduce a new element in the discourse (a new `episode'). Presentative sentences, too, often have this function. The order of the constituents in a sentence is, therefore, to a large extent determined by language users' desire to make clear how such a sentence is related to what preceded.

12.3.3 Continuity of perspective

In this section I deal with three different phenomena which involve some sort of parallelism between successive sentences.

On p. 50 we have looked at verbs which allow two constructions without a clear semantic difference. There it was remarked that with a number of verbs the construction of a sentence B is determined by the structure of the preceding sentence A, e.g. (44)–(45):

(44) castra ab urbe haud plus quinque milia passuum locant; fossa circumdant; fossa Cluilia … appellata est (`They locate the camp no further than five miles from the city; they surround it with a trench; it has been called the "fossa Cluilia"', Liv. 1.23.3)

(45) ad eam multitudinem urbs quoque amplificanda visa est. addit duos colles, Quirinalem Viminalemque; inde deinceps auget Esquilias, ibique ipse, ut loco dignitas fieret, habitat. aggere et fossis et muro circumdat urbem (`With an eye to this crowd it seemed necessary to him to enlarge the city. He added two hills, the Q. and the V.; then he enlarged the E. and moved there himself, in order to make the place more respected. He surrounded the city with a rampart, canals and a wall', Liv. 1.44.3)

In (44) castra has been mentioned in the preceding sentence (as Object). In fossa circumdant the same castra is again chosen as Object. Fossa, then, `automatically' becomes an ablative, even though semantically the accusative would also have been possible. The construction with circumdat–with urbem as Object–in (45) is slightly more difficult to explain. Urbs has been discussed in the preceding context. In the sentence with circumdat the Subject of the immediately preceding sentence is continued, so that urbs does not qualify for the function Subject [added 01-09: (in a passive sentence)]. It now fulfils the function Object (so aggere is Complement). With three-place verbs the function Object seems to be `more important' than the function Complement, and urbs, having already been mentioned, is in this case a better candidate for this function than aggere. [31] The perspective is, thus, kept continuous (an attempt is made to establish syntactic `harmony' across sentence-boundaries), which in both cases cited here results

-- 256 --

in the assignment of the function Object to the constituent that had already been mentioned (castra and urbs, respectively) and in the choice for the acc. + abl. construction with circumdare. In the following example with aspergere (`to sprinkle') the acc. + dat. construction can be explained according to the same principle:

(46) igitur horum siderum diebus si purus atque mitis aer genitalem illum lacteumque sucum transmisit in terras, laeta adulescunt sata; si luna qua dictum est ratione roscidum frigus aspersit admixta amaritudo ut in lacte puerperium necat (`If, therefore, on the days of these stars with clear and mild weather this fertile and milky liquid descends upon the earth, then the crops will grow well; if, however, the moon, in the manner I have described, causes a cold dew to descend, then the added acidity kills the young crops, as is also the case with milk', Plin. Nat. 18.282)

In this instance the constrast with the preceding context makes that which is sprinkled (frigus roscidum) into the most prominent candidate for the function Object. Note that, just as in (44)–(45), if the Subject of the preceding sentence had not been continued, the constituents that are now assigned the function Object could have been Subject of a passive sentence. The tendency observed here to keep the perspective constant is not a cogent rule, but does play a dominating role in the structuring of successive sentences. Further research is warranted here. [32]

The same tendency–to keep the perspective constant–possibly (in part) determines the choice between active and passive, since there Subject and Object with the same predicate seem, as it were, to trade places. Here, however, another factor also plays a role, viz. the fact that in the passive the constituent that would be Subject in the active is as a rule not explicitly present (see p. 9). The tendency to keep the perspective constant might, for instance, be an explanation for the choice of scinditur in (47), whereas it is followed by advolvunt:

(47) procumbunt piceae, sonat icta securibus ilex
fraxineaeque trabes cuneis et fissile robur
scinditur, advolvunt ingentes montibus ornos (`Down drop the pitchy pines, the ilex rings to the stroke of the axe and ashen logs and the splintering oak are cleft with wedges, and from the mountains they roll in huge rowans', Verg. A. 6.180–2)

Within the framework of the `tree-chopping' activities fissile robur is put on a par with the ilex and piceae, i.e. as Subject. The passive is, then, necessary to express an action like scindere, Then a new kind of activity begins, and the perspective changes with advolvunt. [33]

We have seen that the choice of case patterns with three-place verbs such as circumdare and the choice between active and passive depend to some extent on the structure of the surrounding context. A slightly different type of

-- 257 --

contextual influence on the choice between syntactically different, but semantically equivalent constructions can be discerned in the Nominativus cum Infinitivo (NcI) (see p. 130), see [modified 01-09: the partly ambiguous sentences (48a-d):

(48a) Cicero dicit Caesarem Helvetios vicisse (`Cicero says that Caesar has defeated the Helvetians')

(48b) Caesar dicitur Helvetios vicisse (`Caesar is said to have defeated the Helvetians')

(48c) Helvetii dicuntur a Caesare victi esse (`The Helvetians are said to have been defeated by Caesar')

(48d) Caesarem Helvetios vicisse dicitur (`It is said that Caesar has defeated the Helvetians') ]

The NcI pattern (48b [added 01-09: and 48c ]) can be chosen (but is by no means obligatory; the AcI is not excluded) to answer a question as to the identity of the [modified 01-09: person who has defeated the Helvetians (quis dicitur Helvetios vicisse?)], or of the persons who have been defeated by [modified 01-09: Caesar ], i.e. the identity of constituents belonging to the embedded predication while the AcI is chosen when the identity of the reporter is concerned, i.e. the identity of a constituent belonging to the main predication. In such cases, i.e. when Focus function is assigned to a constituent of the governing sentence, the NcI is impossible. The NcI may be expected to predominate in cases of relative connection and other types of continuation of a constituent about which later something is said in indirect speech. [34]

12.4. Cohesion between sentences and within sentences (connectors, coordinators and subordinators)

Generally speaking, the grammars do not make a clear distinction between `coordination' of constituents within sentences and the `connection' of independent sentences. Thus, for instance, under the heading `asyndeton' we find both instances such as (3)–(6) and clear instances of `constituent-connection' as in (49):

(49) quippe qui … sex, septem diebus … multitudini in odium … venerit (`Since in six, seven days he has brought upon himself the hatred of the masses', Cic. Att. 10.8.6.)

For examples are K.-St. II. 149–55. Incidentally, in actual texts it is often difficult to determine what exactly we are dealing with, see examples (5) and (37) above. Likewise, in K.-St. (II. 3–50) we find under the heading `kopulative Beiordnung' not only instances such as (50), but instances such as (51) as well: [35]

(50) (Remos) paratosque esse et obsides dare et imperata facere (`That they were willing both to give hostages and to execute orders', Caes. Gal. 2.3.3)

(51) … crebri ad eum rumores adferebantur litterisque item Labieni certior

-- 258 --

fiebat + AcI (`Many rumours reached him and he was also informed by letters from L. that …,', Caes. Gal. 2.1.1)

In (50) we find coordination in the strict sense of the term. The constituents obsides dare and imperata facere have the same syntactic and semantic function with regard to paratos esse and can, therefore, be coordinated (see p. 30). In (51), on the other hand, we are dealing with two complete predications which are together regarded as one main sentence, because it is attractive to consider the AcI as depending on the sub-sentence crebri … adferebantur as well. Here, too, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether we are dealing with `constituent connection' (coordination of two sub-sentences), as in (51), or with sentence connection. A clear example of the latter is (52):

(52) Et tu hoc loco laudas Milonem et iure laudas (`You, too, praise Milo's behaviour in this connection, and rightly so', Cic. Sest. 86) [36]

Not only do the grammars fail to distinguish between additive cohesion and coordination, but in the case of the adversative and disjunctive particles the distinction is often lacking as well. In all these cases the grammars speak of conjunctions (so-called `coordinating conjunctions').

They do distinguish between, for example the so-called subordinating causal conjunctions such as quia (`because')–which I call `subordinators'– and the so-called coordinating causal conjunctions such as enim-which I call `connectors'. Syntactically, this distinction is much more apparent than the distinction between the groups of words mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Semantically, of course, enim and quia are comparable. In the texts the choice between the subordinating, hypotactic form or the `paratactic' form, i.e. independent sentences with a connector, sometimes seems a matter of personal preference on the part of the author. Detailed study, however, reveals semantic and pragmatic differences between words of these kinds. [37]

Bibliographical information

General information on textual cohesion may be found in Beaugrande & Dressler (1981)–with many references to further literature, Halliday & Hasan (1976), whom I follow in part, Kesik (1989), Longacre (1982) and Schiffrin (1987). There is no good up-to-date monograph on textual cohesion in Latin. Mendell (1917) devotes a lot of attention to lexical connections. For this also Nye (1912) on Livy is important. For the category of connectors see Pinkster (1972c: 153–78). Handius (1829–45!) still deserves special attention. The role of the context in the choice between different constructions is demonstrated in a number of articles by Bolkestein (1981a; 1983b; 1985; 1989). 37a

-- 259 --

Previous Section

Next Section


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