The prosody of Ancient Greek has been the subject of extensive research, despite the limited information available from a corpus language in this domain. Allen (1973), along with Devine & Stephens (1994), is a landmark in this field, while Agbayani & Golston (2010) have sought to apply concepts from general phonology to the texts. Meanwhile, the study of information structure in Ancient Greek has been, and continues to be, a productive area of inquiry, dating back to the pioneering work of Dover (1960) and, more significantly, Helma Dik (1995), who demonstrated that word order is governed by pragmatic factors comparable to those found in modern languages such as Hungarian. The book under review represents an attempt to integrate both aspects, based on the premise that prosody and pragmatics are two sides of the same coin. It is difficult to dispute this premise. However, reconstructing the prosody of Ancient Greek presents insurmountable challenges. These difficulties partly explain why, when engaging with this book, one may feel that the intended synthesis is not fully realized. Regarding information structure, the methodology employed is based on an eclectic mélange of theoretical primitives—an approach with potential merits, yet one that ultimately obscures the analysis to the point of no return.
Regardless of the aforementioned problems, the structure of the book is both complex and easily reducible. Approximately two-thirds of the book consists of extensive literature reviews and conceptual groundwork, which serve as a foundation for the final part. This can be seen in the chapters Language and the Linguistic System (ch. 1), Prosody within the Linguistic System (ch. 2), Prosodic Structure (ch. 3), Prosodic Profile of Ancient Greek (ch. 4), and Re-evaluation: Methods and Sources for Approaching Prosody in an Ancient Language (ch. 5). Only the final two chapters engage in the analysis of the Herodotean Croesus logos (Hdt. 1.6–91) following the principles previously established—namely, Motivating Prosodic Structure (ch. 6) and Phrasal Prosody in Herodotus (ch. 7). However, the analysis lacks systematic organization. Instead, various passages are examined progressively but without a clear order, serving to illustrate the author’s intended points rather than forming a cohesive argument. Additionally, each chapter is subdivided into numerous sections, some of which include partial discussions or conclusions before culminating in a broader chapter-wide conclusion. This structuring likely reflects the format of the original dissertation from which the material is derived. More problematic is the fact that many issues remain unresolved, and even more are deferred for future research—for instance, the prosody of hyperbaton (section 7.2.3.3). Notably, Greek texts are presented without translation, despite the inclusion of extensive exegetical discussions on their content and interpretation.
Returning to the prosodic and pragmatic analysis of the Herodotean Croesus logos, the author employs what she terms pragmatic primitives (and derivatives) to identify the various segments of the text and their organization. These primitives are heavily influenced by Scheppers’ (2011) P(ragmatic)-tree working model. However, the author takes this approach a step further by examining how each segment integrates coherently with the rest of the text and how this integration manifests itself in the segment’s prosody. The pragmatic primitives consist of action types recurrent in discourse formulation (Themes, Markers, Settings, Sets, Topics, Rhemes, Elaborations), while pragmatic derivatives combine more than one basic action (Contrast, Emphasis, List, Plot). At the same time, the author incorporates other well-established principles of Ancient Greek pragmatics into the analysis—such as the second-position placement of clitics within their domain and the preverbal positioning of narrow foci, to name just two.
The result is rather idiosyncratic. For instance, the author does not account for the principle of domain integrity, which states that “constituents prefer to remain within their proper domain; domains prefer not to be interrupted by constituents from other domains” (Dik 1997: 402). A similar principle, the principe d’étanchéité, is formulated by Bertrand (2010: 319): “Une clause, quelque soit son statut, forme son propre domaine pour l’ordre des mots”. This omission leads to unorthodox claims, such as the rejection of Focus as a semantic category in Lambrechtian terms—“the semantic component of a pragmatically structured proposition whereby the assertion differs from the presupposition”—in favor of Chafe’s cognitive notion of focus of consciousness and its potential association with prosodic prominence. Likewise, it results in interpreting καί as an enclitic occupying Wackernagel position in Hdt. 1.50.3 ἐποιέετο δὲ καὶ λέοντος εἰκόνα χρυσοῦ ἀπέφθου “He also had a figure of a lion made of refined gold” (Godley’s translation). Here, καί precedes an additive focus following the predicate, which has been topicalized (χρυσοῦ ἀπέφθου is presupposed material). The prosodic segmentation, then, would be more appropriately rendered as:
((ἐποιέετο δὲ)ι ((καὶ λέοντος εἰκόνα)φ (χρυσοῦ ἀπέφθου)φ)ι
In any case, it is the multiplicity of labels that poses the greatest challenge to the reader. A case in point is Elaboration, one of the pragmatic primitives used to analyze the pragmatic structure of a text. Elaborations are defined as “subordinate actions” that “elaborate on a previously made, self-contained point.” Additionally, the following subtypes are distinguished: Disambiguation, Description, Exemplification, Argumentation, and Explanation. Afterthoughts are also loosely considered a further subtype of Elaboration segments. Beyond these, two additional categories are introduced: the first is labeled Elab_Topics or Elab_Comment, depending on the nature of the preceding segment, while the second is termed Elab_Specification. The latter category is based on the author’s corpus study and draws on Firbas’ framework of dynamic semantic functions of qualities. Somewhat surprisingly, it is also compared to the event-elaborating participles described by Bary & Haug (2011), which introduce information accessory to the main event—a phenomenon referred to as association étroite by Oguse (1962).
A small but intriguing point this reviewer cannot resist commenting on is the emendation of Pöhlmann & West’s (2012) transcription of the Delphic paean of Athenaios—namely, the substitution of αἰτεῖ in place of αιειθε<ι>, where it is traditionally read as αἴθει in accordance with the context (Ἅφαιστος αἴθει νέων μῆρα ταύρων).
All in all, this book represents a bold attempt to firmly integrate prosody into the study of Ancient Greek discourse. Its impact will likely become clearer in the coming years as the author further refines her ideas. Indeed, the effort to apply Chafe’s and Féry’s insights to established principles of Ancient Greek word order is a particularly promising avenue of research. To conclude, while this book is not intended for beginners, experienced readers will find it a valuable compendium of key theories on prosody, along with innovative ideas that may inspire further research—within the inherent limitations of a corpus language.
References
Agbayani, B. & Golston, C. (2010). “Phonological movement in Classical Greek.” Language 86/1: 133-167.
Allen, W. S. (1973). Accent and Rhythm. Prosodic Features in Latin and Greek: A Study in Theory and Reconstruction. Cambridge.
Bary, C. & Haug, D. T. T. (2011). “Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles.” Semantics & Pragmatics 4(8): 1-56.
Bertrand, N. (2010). L’ordre des mots chez Homère. Structure informationelle, localisation et progression du récit. PhD Dissertation, University of Paris-Sorbonne.
Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago.
Devine, A. M. & Stephens, L. D. (1994). The Prosody of Greek Speech. New York/Oxford.
Dik, H. (1995). Word Order in Ancient Greek. A Pragmatic Account of Word Order Variation in Herodotus. Amsterdam.
Dik, S. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin / New York.
Dover, K. J. (1960). Greek Word Order. Cambridge.
Féry, C. (2017). Intonation and Prosodic Structure. Cambridge.
Firbas, J. (1992). Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge.
Oguse, R. (1962). Recherches sur le participe circonstancielle en grec ancien. Paris.
Pöhlmann, E. & West, M. L. (2001). “The oldest Greek papyri and writing tablets. Fifth-century documents form the ‘Tomb of the Musician’ in Attica.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 180: 1-16.
Scheppers, F. (2011). The Colon Hypothesis. Word Order, Discourse Segmentation, and Discourse Coherence in Ancient Greek. Brussels.