Saying Yes without Yes: The Positive Response System in Latin

The article studies a set of three positive response strategies in Latin: the echo and particles ita sic. It aims to determine their functions division labour establish what kind agreement strategy existed Latin, based on typology systems by Sadock Zwicky (1985). main data for study are drawn from comedies Plautus Terence. Based position an utterance, attempt is made whether occurrences sic can be considered particles, comparable modern such as yes. By comparing antecedents which trigger studied here, it shown that they not interchangeable default strategy, while have limited use, at least Latin dynamic-diachronic section shows both non-echo responses originate so-called sentence answer. L'article suivant examine trois stratégies de réponse en latin: la écho ainsi que les mots-réponse et vise à déterminer leurs fonctions leur du travail établir, sur base typologie des systèmes (1985), quel type système existait latin. Les données principales pour cette étude sont issues comédies Plaute Térence. En etudiant dans l'énoncé, j'essaierai si peuvent être considérées tant propres, comparables aux modernes, tels comparant antécédents qui l'origine étudiées ici, montrer qu'elles ne pas interchangeables, est stratégie principale, tandis utilisées manière limitée le latin La dynamique-diachronique montre réponses non-écho proviennent ce qu'on appelle réponse-phrase. [French] Pourtant mot n'est ancien nulle part; n'avait rien pareil; grec non plus. Chaque langue romane dû se donner un « oui » par ses propres moyens; aussi français n'a-t-il commun avec Italiens ou Espagnols. Un figurait parmi ceux peuples indo-européenne ont reçus d'où sortent nos idiomes européens. Yet, this word no way ancient; had nothing sort; Greek neither. Every Romance language give itself “yes” through its own means. Thus, French has common with Italians or Spanish. A was among those speakers Indo-European languages received gave rise our European tongues. (Meillet 1936: 36; my translation) In lecture Five Academies, 24 October 1925, Antoine Meillet observed widely used languages, there ancient about say yes: sort, neither did 36). absence convenient tool yes, how go it? Meillet's observation appropriate starting point discussion larger question pragmatics confirmation. title—how yes Latin—is deliberately left simple terms (instead more pragmaticist's formulation, ‘Pragmatics Confirmation Latin’), highlights difference between particle-oriented managed other strategies. large topic, so aim paper studying found sources: response, sic; establishing labour; and, finally, determining system represented sources. Section 2 sets stage systems, further delineates scope article, outlines some existing work 3 discusses sources difficulties investigating dead language; also offers results quantitative analysis remarks methodology. 4, contains analysis, describes compares occupy utterance functions. 5 considers 4 view. conclusion—Section 6—presents summary findings attempts place into & Zwicky's (1985) systems. yes/no agree/disagree only visible negatively biased questions (i.e., expecting negative answer). (1), particle agrees polarity whereas (2), disagrees convey same response. (3), equivalent given repeating relevant part question. Since observe attested language, I adopt pragmatic approach. Hansen (2020), semantic models, Roelofsen Farkas (2015) (among many others), cannot handle authentic corpus approach historical one explain data. analytic article—Section 4—is organised around notion answer types respond to. will request confirmation (see Jones 1999 Welsh language) helps understand relationship development particles. To functional profile individual them, then according illocutionary force utterances them; following Thesleff (1960: 6), shall refer them antecedents.2 recently started receiving attention literature. Among most important contributions (2020) pragmatics-based Sorjonen (1996, 2001) Finnish well (referred repetitions), Armstrong (2008) contexts use range Brazilian Portuguese. While Jones' (1999) not, general, pragmatically oriented work, his investigation presents excellent Holmberg's (2016) syntactic (and response) provides valuable insights area useful cross-linguistic Except Hofmann (1951: 39–41), been few Latin. First, Yes No Terence (1960). meticulous catalogue all expressions confirming denying (including special chapter immo) comparison Greek. Although interested strategies, he does hint fact deserves closer look, cross-linguistically 5). Second, Brown al. (2009), answers consider problems provide broad overview examples (2009: 514–7). Third, Müller (1997: 191–201) exhaustive survey illustrative examples. As much possible, diachronic One should mention Rolando Ferri (2012). responses, unlike tend ‘face-threatening’, approaches view classic theory politeness Levinson (1987). However, after careful concluding suggestions, admits that, due nature sources, almost impossible correlate social class linguistic politeness. Yes, primary function confirmation, occurs dialogue, where expresses (in wide sense term) proposition uttered another speaker. dialogical monologal discourse (Kroon 1995: 109–10), dialogue imagined single speaker text is, strictly speaking, monologue. researchers past stages living dependent written phenomenon feature conversation difficult endeavour. famously underrepresented, evidence unearth. Additionally, do contain dialogues, longer instead no, often favoured. That why, study, thought features colloquial language3 were useful, of, example, tragedies, Seneca's, higher register. determined texts imitating understood trying discover Romans said street—the amount than speculation Pulgram 1958: 321). wider project ranging Old (c. 400–150 BCE) Classical period. Of available enough material Tables 1 2). ‘The corpus’ thus consists comic plays Republican period—20 preserved fragmentary Vidularia six These cover period c. 211 BCE (first performance Asinaria De Melo 2011a: 137) 160 (third Hecyra Terence). For texts, Loeb editions (De 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2012, 2013 Plautus; Barsby 2001a, 2001b addition Terence, two later periods referred to, but included study: Cicero's letters Ad familiares, 62 43 (Bailey David 2001), 4.2.2, Satyricon Petronius (Schmeling 2020) 4.3.2. Satyricon, date composition nor authorship firmly established. There seems consensus famous arbiter elegantiae ‘a Neronian mid-60s AD’ (Prag Repath 2009: 9), Roth (2017: 615, 631) argues problematic posits terminus post quem 115 CE. All ‘database’, 1423 exchanges containing corpus. ‘exchange’, unit conversation, consisting antecedent (see, e.g., Kroon 50–1). Due unpredictability, collected close reading They grouped categories presented 2. Table token values. values percentages grand total. list course, final different categorisations possible. Echoed pronouns (egone?—tu ‘I?—You’), instance, because deemed salient form separate category—such verb facio ‘I do’ were—but would better category (as done 1997: 192–3; cf. hoc ‘this’ oc Occitan). could put categories, depending interpretation. sometimes echoes antecedent—in cases, categorised complex faciam so’, identify principal case faciam, example belongs ‘Facio’). 2, therefore, necessarily simplifications reflect general trends; ‘real’ picture inevitably complex. ‘Other’ variety classified eight nevertheless appear frequency even regularity context. name catch-all may false impression less interesting case. once, others—for ut iubes you say’ curabitur ‘it taken of’—occur seem depend dynamics power McCarthy 2000), facework 1987), relational Watts 2003). Implicit occur beginning end i.e., environments formulaic common. Other include planissume ‘most plainly’, admodum ‘very much’, certe ‘certainly’, etc. absolute certainty these had, process bleaching, already lost emphatic value time This analysed here—echo sic—and determines profiles labour. antecedents. Before 4.1 which, database, particular strategy. commented 514), (2001: 33) others, defined reference antecedent: second element exchange (the being first) verbal action become clear. Positive can, perform actions agreeing confirming, feedback turn-taking. since require level subject mentioned case-by-case basis (15) (23)). acknowledged here probably speech act than, say, piece information, out article. turned choice requesting typically associated polar interrogative. Holmberg (2016: 13) notes equivalents disjunctive statements, possibilities: Do want tea? equals You tea, tea. select two. sense, truth (Jones 1999: 6). note though frequently overlaps interrogative, any intent obtaining proposition. imperative (Tell me, if tea) declarative (I like know tea). Conversely, formally realised interrogative intent, directive (Would possible turn light off?). An requests seek Conversation Analysis, create sequential implication (Sorjonen 2001: 33), (but need be) interpreted Assertions having asserting. 4.1.1 rather broadly—capable types—the asserting narrowly—it includes stating one's opinion regarding state affairs reporting information. Importantly, expressing intentions, promising, emotions, assertions below).5 Unlike overtly contents, expect indeed receive it. Antecedents future signalling future. notable frequent directives, make addressee follow course action, providing information 93). anything suggestion straightforward order. Formally, expressed Risselada 1993: 78–86 means express Latin). mean Indeed, English, specialised directives (Get up!—Alright./OK./?Yes), straightforwardly (Is true not?—*Alright/Yes). Beside intention offering promises, direct acts; see 4.1.5). grouping obvious, becomes clearer when acts concern differ specific properties, who benefits action—speaker directive, potentially speaker) offer 47 ‘benefit criterion’)—and intended performer desired (addressee intention). Expressions usually do. clearly intersect extent them. purposes confirm affairs, obtain performed Also called repair initiators (by working tradition clarification preceding (I'm leaving.—You're what?!), cases (echo questions, repeat it, König Siemund 2007: 318). present candidate understanding—a best guess understanding 58)—on chance modify conform addressee's knowledge expectations. Even repairs communicative move tripartite (antecedent–repair–confirmation), type, critically analysing certain reality, lines typical sentences corresponding blurry theoretically above. seeking asserting, indicating basic functions, circumscribe heterogeneity. ‘other indirect acts’. (6), memini. clear reason Leonida asking Libanus remembers donkeys draw Libanus' allows him satisfy intention—to continue story. acts, depends context (e.g., non-verbal clues) comedy, effects. confirms uses opportunity unconcern annoyance. Direct rituals, swearing, marriage ceremonies. act, promise, definition response: promise getting reply constitutes ‘misfire’ Austin (1962: 16). conclude antecedents, worth noting association tendency, rule. conditions warrant question: Is Maradona football player ever? answered alright (implying possibly accompanied shrug), usual database—except small number cases—displays consistency regard: deviating tendencies. show described ease comparison, square brackets next each actual (data Terence) multiplied 3.2 adapt Plautine approximately times Terentian Henceforward, always values, tables followed multiple bar charts easier visualisation Chart (Plautus) (Terence) sections analyse strategies—the repetition finite antecedent, whole questioned, element, questioned. (7), standard, third option acceptable under conditions. (8), brothers have. According (2008: 288), Portuguese, sim together believes (cf. (10)). (9), hear ja, verb, or, dialects, enclitic personal pronoun ga ‘him’. (10), assumes serious. If wanted are, fact, serious, would, Austin's 12–24) terminology, felicitous Instead, employ Researchers formulate precise rules thanks intuition access sufficient finding consist auxiliary Welsh, ever (Holmberg 2016: 3). shall, stage, sort. however, great majority echoed. echoing every echoed nouns pronouns, adverbs, even, conjunctions. section, sufficient. 4.3, located outside quite expected (19), felicitous. occurrence, too ceremony, promising taking oaths). prescribed rituals ritual, itself, betrothal. beyond deserve mention, strongly share 43.83 per cent 32.93 here. 4.3) usage, standard adhered Non-echo lexeme construction introduce new one. words, ‘which traced lexical items [antecedent]’ 17). Specialised oui, sí belong several ita, sic, fiat ‘may happen’, licet permitted/possible’ forms facio. mentioning four primarily encountered functions: adverbs Panchón (1995) status sic) borrowed response; fiat, responding action. cross-linguistically, words yes) Certain tendencies observable, deictic anaphoric especially likely grammaticalise particle. contact accidents, English Polish (tak ‘yes’, ‘so’) Lithuanian (taip ‘so’). listed 4.3.1 explains display characteristics not. 4.3.2 illustrates (21), sum modified answer, acting substitute incubitatus. thus, inside [±particle] expressed: [−particle]. After Alcumena turns her back husband (who really Jupiter disguised husband), she w