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

Next SubSect

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)

Previous SubSect

Next SubSect

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