III.2 Varying one’s speech: Discourse patterns

2.1 Introduction

§1. Every speaker is familiar with the use of different varieties of her language for different communicative situations. The language we encounter and use varies, for example, when we are talking to friends, reading a newspaper, or writing an article. In other words, many linguistic choices depend on the communicative situation. [1] Linguistic variation based on situational context has been the subject of the fields of register studies and Construction Grammar, which have developed the concepts of “register” and “discourse pattern.” In this chapter I will build on this research to explore particle use in Greek drama.
§2. I will argue that dialogues, monologues, and choral songs in Greek drama may be considered discourse patterns—that is, conventional pairings of certain functional and formal characteristics. Because of the differences in these characteristics, a particle’s distribution across the three discourse patterns illuminates its functions and uses. If a particle is usually more frequent in one discourse pattern rather than another, this means that it is connected to specific pragmatic goals associated with that discourse pattern. Consequently, the non-random distributions of particles contribute to the interpretation of their functions: macro-pragmatics illuminates the micro-pragmatics of particles’ local functions. My analysis in this way refines specific readings of particles, and at the same time highlights pragmatic characteristics of each discourse pattern, which inform, and are informed by, the use of linguistic features other than particles as well. We shall see that the distributions differ widely across the particles, and that each particle has different associations that explain why it is more or less frequent in a certain situation. Accordingly a variety of topics, such as shared knowledge, the speaker’s prominence, and allusions to other genres, will play a role in my explanations.
§3. I begin by introducing the concepts of “discourse pattern” and “register” (§§4-9), and then discuss previous research on linguistic variation in Greek drama (§§10-15), and situate my analytical method within the scholarship (§§16-21). The main part of the chapter (§§22-89) discusses the distributions of eleven particles (ἀλλά, γάρ, γε, δέ, δή, δῆτα, ἦ, καί, μέν, οὖν, and τε) in order of their frequencies, and uses these distributions as input for interpretation. In other words, I will argue that analyzing dialogues, monologues, and choral songs as discourse patterns sheds light on the use of linguistic features such as particles. §§90-95 present the chapter’s conclusions. Finally, an appendix (§96) gives the particle distributions that were found to be statistically non-significant.

2.1.1 Theoretical background: Discourse patterns and registers

§4. Scholars who study discourse patterns or registers aim to learn about the interrelation between situational and linguistic variation. The situational variation includes, in the case of different formats within tragedy or comedy, sub-situations within one larger situation. The term “discourse pattern” was developed in Construction Grammar (CxG), a cognitive approach to language use. This approach assumes that all the linguistic knowledge of speakers and writers is stored in symbolic pairings of form and meaning, called “constructions.” [2] The form can be anything, from a morpheme to a word, a phrase, a sentence, or an intonation pattern. Like the form, the meaning may also be as specific or abstract as the construction in question requires. Examples of constructions that have been studied from this perspective are the classical Greek potential optative, and pragmatic particles in several languages. [3]
§5. Östman 2005 argues that even whole texts, such as recipes, novels, or conversations, should be considered constructions, because their general make-up is part of the linguistic knowledge of speakers and writers. [4] That is, speakers and writers know which specific forms are allowed and appropriate in which kinds of text. An entire text, Östman argues, can thus be one construction, with a “form” pole and a “meaning” pole. He calls these large constructions “discourse patterns”: they are “conventionalized associations between text type and genre” (132), just as constructions are conventionalized form-meaning pairings. What is acceptable as a whole text, he argues (127), is subject to similar conventionalizations as what is grammatical as a sentence.
§6. The form pole, called “text type” by Östman, is highly general, and much less filled in with specific words and forms than a small construction such as a word or a phrase. It includes information about the relative frequency of linguistic features, in comparison to other discourse patterns. The meaning pole, which Östman calls “genre,” [5] is also general: it can be a designation such as “an academic article,” “a recipe,” or, we may infer, “an Aristophanic lyric song.” The broad, overarching meaning is not derivable from the parts of the construction, such as a high frequency of nouns, imperatives, or a certain particle.
§7. The concept of discourse pattern is very close to the concept of “register,” a language variation depending on the communicative situation. [6] Halliday 1978 argues that registers mainly differ semantically; their lexicogrammatical differences derive from these semantic differences. [7] Similarly, Agha 2001:212 defines a register as “a linguistic repertoire that is associated, culture internally, with particular social practices and with persons who engage in such practices.” A main method developed in register studies, which are part of sociolinguistics, is to study the co-occurrence patterns of linguistic features in different texts. [8] Co-occurrence tendencies tell us something about the functions of the counted linguistic features, for “co-occurrence reflects shared function.” [9]
§8. Furthermore, register studies provide evidence for different dimensions of variation in order to interpret the co-occurrence patterns. These dimensions have both linguistic and functional content: they are sets of co-occurring linguistic features that can be tied to a certain communicative aspect, such as the degree of formality or narrativity. [10] For example, a high frequency of first- and second-person pronouns, imperatives, questions, and a low frequency of nouns typically co-occur in certain English registers, such as informal conversation. These linguistic characteristics belong to the same dimension of variation; together they indicate high involvement of the speaker, and little time for speech production. Other dimensions concern, for example, narrative versus non-narrative discourse, or the presence of an impersonal style.
§9. The terminology used in register studies is not always clearly defined. In particular, researchers use the term “register” to refer to extralinguistic, situational characteristics, or to linguistic co-occurrence patterns, or to the combination of both. In other words, it is ambiguous whether form, meaning, or both are included in “register.” As Lee 2001 and Sampson 1997 point out, there is much terminological confusion in the scholarly literature about terms such as “genre,” “register,” and “text type”: different authors use these terms in a different way, without clearly distinguishing between them. [11] Lee 2001 attempts a clarification: he notes that “genre” is sometimes set in opposition to “text type,” with “genre” referring to criteria external to the text (such as the audience and nonverbal activity), and “text type” referring to internal criteria (such as lexical and grammatical co-occurring features). Additionally, he observes, “genre” tends to be associated with social purposes of language, while “register” tends to be associated with the situation or immediate context. Despite Lee’s efforts to clarify, however, “genre,” “register,” and “text type” are often used interchangeably. Östman’s term “discourse pattern” is problematic as well, since he uses the poorly defined terms “text type” and “genre” to define it. However, it is clear that “discourse pattern” includes both form and meaning. Because of this clarity, I employ the term “discourse pattern” rather than “register” in this chapter. [12]

2.1.2 Research on linguistic variation in ancient Greek drama

§10. Linguistic variation in Greek drama has been studied from different perspectives using different terminology. For example, Earp discusses several aspects of style in two monographs, one written in 1944 on Sophocles, and the other in 1948 on Aeschylus. [13] The major stylistic difference he identifies is between “elevated” and “colloquial” style. [14] Earp describes several factors that influence differences in frequency and use of associated linguistic features. One factor is time: because Aeschylus and Sophocles developed their styles over the course of their careers, fewer ornamental epithets appear in the later Aeschylean plays than in the earlier ones, and similarly the use of amplification declines in Sophocles. Two other factors influencing stylistic difference are a play’s subject matter and the purpose of each individual scene. Earp finds that “intense emotion leaves little room for conventional ornament” in Aeschylus (1948:57), and that Sophocles uses antithesis mainly in argumentative contexts (1944:95). [15] Perhaps the most important factor is the difference between lyric parts and what Earp calls “dialogue,” i.e. all non-sung parts. “Ornament” and other “elevated” features are more frequent in lyric, “for the same mood which impels us to sing impels us also to use heightened language” (1948:78). Even though Earp does not pay attention to particle use, here and in many other places he shows great sensitivity to the influence of external factors, such as communicative situation and a speaker’s goals, upon language variation. [16]
§11. Other scholars note similar linguistic tendencies, though without analyzing as many details as Earp does. Examples are Ruijgh 1971:988-989, H.J. Dik 2007:6, and Rutherford 2010:441, 443-444, who draw attention to the linguistic differences between lyric and iambic parts of tragedies. According to Ruijgh, the non-sung parts are mainly based on contemporary Attic, whereas the sung parts are strongly modeled on choral lyric, usually from different dialects. Baechle 2007 provides metrical and prosodic evidence for the similar claim that “the tragedians had a very highly developed sense of what style was appropriate to dialogue, as opposed to tragic lyric” (4). Rutherford 2010 juxtaposes a lyric passage, an excerpt from a long rhesis, and a stichomythic passage, in order to illustrate the main “modes” (448) of tragic language. Barlow 1971, a study on imagery in Euripides, emphasizes different distinctions: this author includes separate discussions of (1) choral odes, (2) monody and lyric dialogue, (3) messenger speeches, and (4) rheseis and iambic dialogues. She notes for example that the two lyric “modes” employ an “elevated tone” (43).
§12. With a different perspective, Sideras 1971 demonstrates that Aeschylus employs many Homerisms, in lexicon, syntax, morphology, word order, and rhetorical figures. [17] Sideras does not mention particle use, but we will see in this chapter that also in that domain Aeschylus resembles Homer more than the other tragedians. Stevens 1976, furthermore, discusses “colloquialisms” in Euripides, using other genres, mainly Aristophanes, as evidence that certain expressions, including specific particle constructions, were felt as “colloquial.” [18] With this term he means less suited for “poetic,” “prosaic,” or “neutral” language (2). However, as he admits (64), most of these expressions are not frequent enough to provide statistically significant information about their distributions, and the effect of different expressions varies. On top of that, any classification of certain features as colloquial involves a certain degree of subjectivity, as e.g. Collard 2005:358 points out.
§13. Concerning Aristophanes, likewise, Dover 1972 notes the linguistic differences between lyric and iambic parts. Lyric passages share vocabulary with “the serious lyrics of tragedy,” but are still more similar to comic dialogue, even though “the expression is more concentrated” (71). [19] In other words, we may infer, lyric parts are generally more concerned with what is said, and how, than iambic parts, and less with who is saying it to whom. Comedy as a whole, Dover argues, “combines all the registers of Greek utterance which are known to us: at one extreme a solemnity evocative of heroic warfare and gorgeous processionals, at the other a vulgarity inadmissible in polite intercourse” (72).
§14. Willi’s exploration of “registers” in classical Greek (2010a) is an important precedent to the current study. [20] The author builds upon register studies in order to analyze linguistic differences across Greek (parts of) texts in a detailed manner. He undertakes a sample study of three registers: that of forensic oratory, that of historiography, and that of (the approximation of) casual conversation. He gives the number of occurrences of 23 linguistic features in six roughly contemporaneous text samples of 1,000 words each. [21] Several of these features indeed seem to be influenced by the register that is appropriate to the text in question. For example, nouns are more common in historiography than in the other genres, whereas the inverse distribution is found for first-person verbs. [22]
§15. The underlying assumption of all the preceding scholarship is that situational differences within plays are reflected in linguistic differences. Singing a song, for example, constitutes a different communicative situation in drama than having a dialogue: the meter, music, speakers, length of the turns, and communicative goals are different. The assumption that these differences influence language also informs the current work.

2.1.3 Methodology in this chapter

§16. This chapter builds on Willi’s study and the other research described above, focusing on the main discourse patterns of Greek drama, and specifically using the results as input for the interpretation of particles. Because of the specific focus on particle use, information about the distributions of 14 individual particles is taken into account. In scope and detail, my study fills a gap in previous work, as Earp does not discuss particle use at all, and Willi mentions particles only as a group, without considering the distribution of individual items. [23] I also refine earlier work by distinguishing three different discourse patterns, rather than only a iambic and lyric part. [24]
§17. The frequencies of 25 linguistic features have been collected in three different communicative formats within tragedy and comedy: (1) iambic dialogues with short turns of speaking, (2) iambic monologues, and (3) lyric choral songs. These settings constitute the bulk of tragedy and comedy, and have a clearly distinct linguistic shape. Delving into the three discourse patterns associated with these communicative formats therefore forms a natural starting point for this type of investigation in drama. Indirectly, my study may shed light on the linguistic tendencies of rarer formats as well, such as anapaests and lyric parts sung by individual characters, which I leave out of consideration here. For my data collection, turns in the dialogue patterns are no more than 4 lines long; monologues are at least 15 lines long in Aristophanes, and at least 25 lines long in tragedy. The corpus used for this collection is made up of a collection of passages, rather than entire plays. [25] The passages have the following total size:
  Aeschylus Sophocles Euripides Aristophanes total
dialogues 2,235 6,424 5,152 3,636 17,447
monologues 3,729 7,732 9,554 1,997 23,012
choral songs 3,881 3,076 3,199 1,715 11,871
total 9,845 17,232 17,905 7,348 52,330
Table 1: Number of words in the selected passages [26]
§18. The account includes a selection of 14 different particles: ἀλλά, ἄρα/ἆρα, [27] γάρ, γε, [28] δέ, δή, δῆτα, ἦ, καί, [29] μέν, μέντοι, μήν, οὖν, [30] and τε. Other linguistic features selected are nouns, participles, finite verbs, imperfects, present indicatives, future finite verbs, finite passives, first-person references, second-person references, [31] negations, and swearing expressions. [32] These can be compared to features of modern languages that are analyzed in register studies. [33]
§19. Note that it is not my goal to describe all characteristics of the three discourse patterns. Differences in lexical semantics, for example, are not taken into account here, despite their relevance for situationally-motivated linguistic variation; these differences involve subjective judgments, and are therefore harder to quantify. [34] The current study uses the frequencies of a limited number of linguistic features; [35] my objective is to use these distributions in order to understand particle use better. The features chosen have a relatively clear general function, and can be compared to modern-language features that have been analyzed in register studies. For example, Biber 1995:94-104 mentions nouns, past tense (markers), present tense (markers), passives, first- and second-person pronouns, and negations as among the features that distinguish registers in English, Tuvaluan, Korean, and Somali. I use these comparisons from modern languages on the assumption that situational variation functions similarly across languages. That is, I assume that the use of, for example, first-person references or negations in ancient Greek drama is so similar to their use in different modern languages that a high or low frequency of these features reflect similar fundamental aspects of verbal communication, such as a high level of interactiveness, as in modern-language registers that have been investigated.
§20. Biber 1995 also includes English discourse particles and Tuvaluan discourse linkers (in his terminology) in his register analysis, but only as a group. In his comparison of registers in ancient Greek, Willi 2010a similarly reports the combined frequency of 21 particles (see note 22 above). In my analysis, on the contrary, the distributions of each particle have been collected separately, which has allowed me to perceive distributional differences across particles. [36]
§21. To test the statistical significance of the attested distributions, I used the software of Preacher 2001 to calculate a chi-squared (χ2) test of independence. [37] A chi-squared test calculates the probability that a certain attested distribution of a feature is found in samples from groups with the same average frequency of that feature, in which case that distribution would not be meaningful (“significant”). In our case, the “groups” are texts, that is, groups of words. The features are particles and other linguistic items with a certain number of occurrences in the different samples. An attested distribution yields a chi-squared value; from this value Preacher’s software calculates the probability, called p-value, that the given distribution would be attested in two random samples from the same text. If the p-value is very low (it may range between 0 and 1), then this attestation is very unlikely, and we may assume that the text A and B in fact do differ in their overall frequency of the feature in question. Normally a distribution with a p-value below 0.05 is considered statistically significant; this means that there is a less than 5% chance that the distribution is due to chance. For example, if a sample of 1,000 words from text A contains 22 δέ instances, and a sample of the same size from text B contains 45 δέ instances, the chi-squared value is 8.169; the p-value is 0.00426 (or 0.426%). This is smaller than 0.05 (or 5%), so the distribution is significant. Once significance has been established, we may then turn to explaining the difference in frequency of δέ between text A and B.

2.2 Distribution as input for interpretation

§22. In this main part of the chapter I discuss particle distributions across the three discourse patterns, and use this information as input for interpreting the particles’ functions. If several playwrights consistently choose a certain particle more often in one of the discourse patterns, this suggests that that particle is associated with some communicative purposes or circumstances of the situation related to that discourse pattern. For example, a consistently higher frequency in dialogues may reflect the particle’s association with more interactive speech. If no such consistent frequency differences can be detected for a certain particle, then this particle has several functions, each of which is associated with different communicative aspects, or its functions are equally relevant to all situations. In either case, tendencies on a macro-level can be illuminating.
§23. The analyses focus on different particles in order of their average frequency, starting from the most frequent ones. I will only discuss the eleven particles that have a statistically significant distribution in at least two out of four authors. [38]

2.2.1 δέ

§24. The most frequent particles overall are δέ and καί. [39] The distribution of δέ is as follows:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant? [40]
Aeschylus 2.46 4.13 5.20 [41] yes
Sophocles 2.13 2.55 2.47 no
Euripides 2.41 3.68 3.38 yes
Aristophanes 2.56 2.90 1.98 no
Table 2: Frequencies of δέ in percentages of all words
Aeschylus uses δέ especially often in choral songs, such as the one in Agamemnon 367-474:
450    (Χο.) (...) | φθονερὸν δ’ ὑπ’ ἄλγος ἕρ-
                    πει προδίκοις Ἀτρείδαις.
                    | οἱ δ’ | αὐτοῦ περὶ τεῖχος
                    | θήκας Ἰλιάδος γᾶς
                    εὔμορφοι κατέχουσιν, | ἐχ-
455              θρὰ δ’ ἔχοντας ἔκρυψεν.
                    (ἀντ. γ) | βαρεῖα δ’ ἀστῶν φάτις σὺν κότωι,
                    | δημοκράντου δ’ ἀρᾶς τίνει χρέος·
                    | μένει δ’ ἀκοῦσαί τί μου
460              μέριμνα νυκτηρεφές· [42]
Aeschylus Agamemnon 450-460
(Ch.) And grief steals over them, mixed with resentment against the chief prosecutors, the Atreidae. And over there, around the city wall, the men in their beauty occupy sepulchres in the land of Ilium: the enemy’s soil covers its conquerors.
The talk of the citizens, mixed with anger, is a dangerous thing: it is the equivalent of a publicly ordained curse: I have an anxiety that waits to hear of something happening under the cover of night.
The several instances of δέ in this song mark boundaries between discourse acts, short communicative steps that may or may not coincide with a clause. [43] The particle has a relatively neutral function, signaling that a new step in the discourse has begun. The step can correspond to anything: a new event in a narrative, an argumentative point, a vocative, a contrastive noun phrase, an apposition, and so on. In this passage, for example, the act φθονερὸν δ’ ὑπ’ ἄλγος ἕρπει προδίκοις Ἀτρείδαις (450-451) describes one aspect of the scene “Greeks grieving over men lost in Troy” that the singing elders are depicting. οἱ δ’ in 452 constitutes a new step, signaling a switch from the grieving family at home to the deceased warriors themselves. [44] The next δέ, in 455, introduces a new act again, adding another facet to the “deceased warriors at Troy” picture. In 456 δέ starts a gnomic act, [45] and simultaneously accompanies the start of a new antistrophe, a larger boundary than just a new discourse act. In fact, throughout this whole first stasimon (367–474) every strophe and antistrophe except for the very first strophe starts with a δέ. The parallels show that this is a typically Aeschylean phenomenon. [46] Admittedly, apart from this pragmatic boundary-marking function, the δέ instances in this passage work to prevent hiatus. However, other words could have been used for that as well, so its metrical function cannot have been the only justification for the use of δέ. In other words, the particle’s non-random distribution proves that it cannot have been mainly a metrical tool.
§25. The relatively high frequency of δέ in all three communicative settings in all four authors can be connected to the particle’s relatively neutral, “minimal” function, which makes it compatible with many different contexts and co-texts. The especially frequent use in Aeschylean choral songs makes their discourse appear less explicitly subjective, since the nature of the connections between most discourse acts is not spelled out. That is, the singers do not make it explicit how exactly they consider the acts to be related. [47] The “neutral” presentation fits the specific context at this moment of the Agamemnon: as Raeburn and Thomas 2011 point out in their commentary on this stasimon, the song contains many “shifts of thought,” but the idea of retribution unites the different topics. From the other instances of punishment in the song, Raeburn and Thomas note, the chorus can draw the obvious conclusion about Agamemnon’s upcoming fate, “but dare not voice it.” The audience, of course well aware of what will happen to the king, will understand what the song is hinting at. [48] In this context with emphasis on implicit meaning, the minimal boundary signals conveyed by the δέ instances are appropriate.
§26. The high frequency of δέ in Aeschylean songs may at the same time lend these passages an epic air, since δέ is very frequent especially in Homeric narrator text. [49] The songs share with epic a concern with famous, traditional stories and a general tendency to avoid explicitly encoding subjectivity. The same holds true for non-dramatic lyric, where δέ is similarly frequent. [50] The allusion to epic and lyric helps establish Aeschylean songs qua songs, that is, underscore their genre affiliations, as well as endow them with an authoritative voice, typically associated with these genres.
§27. Aeschylus uses δέ especially often in songs, but in monologues too he employs it more frequently than the other dramatists. As for Euripides, he uses δέ most in his monologues. [51] Consider the following passage from a messenger speech, which describes how Dionysus bent down a fir tree:
          (Αγ.) κυκλοῦτο δ’ ὥστε τόξον ἢ κυρτὸς τροχὸς
                    τόρνωι γραφόμενος περιφορὰν ἑλικοδρόμον·
                    ὣς κλῶν’ ὄρειον ὁ ξένος χεροῖν ἄγων
                    ἔκαμπτεν ἐς γῆν, ἔργματ’ οὐχὶ θνητὰ δρῶν.
1070            Πενθέα δ’ ἱδρύσας ἐλατίνων ὄζων ἔπι
                    ὀρθὸν μεθίει διὰ χερῶν βλάστημ’ ἄνω
                    ἀτρέμα, φυλάσσων μὴ ἀναχαιτίσειέ νιν,
                    ὀρθὴ δ’ ἐς ὀρθὸν αἰθέρ’ ἐστηρίζετο
                    ἔχουσα νώτοις δεσπότην ἐφήμενον.
1075            ὤφθη δὲ μᾶλλον ἢ κατεῖδε μαινάδας·
Euripides Bacchae 1066-1075
(Me.) It [i.e. the tree] began to curve like a bow or a rounded wheel when its shape is being traced by the peg-and-line with its spiraling rotation. So the stranger, drawing down with his hands the mountain tree, bent it to the ground, a deed no mortal could do. Then, having set Pentheus atop the fir branches, he set the tree straight again by letting the branches slip upwards through his hands—gently, taking care not to unseat Pentheus—and sheer to sheer heaven it towered, with my master on its back. He now was seen by the maenads more than he saw them.
Again, δέ marks the boundaries of discourse acts, which in this context are part of narrative steps. [52] Each narrative step in this excerpt is in fact constituted by several discourse acts; because of its neutral function, δέ may also appear at the boundaries of such moves (multi-act units). [53] First the messenger describes the bending of the fir tree (1066-1069). Next (δέ 1070) Dionysus places Pentheus on top of the tree and sets it straight again. Subsequently, the acts starting with δέ in 1073 describe what happened to the tree as a consequence. In 1075, finally, the particle introduces the next narrative event: the bacchants see Pentheus on the tree. This next step is in fact the climax of the story, as reflected in the change from imperfects to aorist (ὤφθη, 1075). δέ thus helps to move the story forward from one event to the next, marking discrete steps in continuous discourse, in a manner similar to its use in Homeric or Pindaric narrative.
§28. Although commentators do not remark on the high frequency of δέ in Euripidean speeches, they often note that messenger speeches in general resemble epic language. For example, Page 1938 ad Euripides Medea 1141 explains that messenger speeches are modeled upon epic. [54] Similarly, Palmer 1980 notes that in tragedy, “Homerisms are particularly frequent in messenger speeches” (133). J. Barrett, in his 2002 study of messenger speeches, argues that “the messengers’ narrative voice typically resembles that of epic” (xvi). In such epic environments, then, a higher frequency of δέ is also appropriate. [55]
§29. In the next paragraphs I will discuss the distribution of other linguistic features than particles, in order to establish an interpretive link between these other features and the distribution of δέ. Ι will focus on imperfect forms, present indicatives, and participles. Imperfects are relatively frequent in monologues in all four authors. In (t2), for example, we find κυκλοῦτο (1066), ἔκαμπτεν (1069), μεθίει (1071; this form could also be present tense), and ἐστηρίζετο (1073). This high frequency of imperfects can be connected to a frequent occurrence of narratives in monologues. The distribution of imperfects across the discourse patterns is as follows:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 4 18 7 yes
Sophocles 8 13 6 yes
Euripides 3 11 4 yes
Aristophanes 3 17 8 yes
Table 3: Frequencies of imperfects in percentages of all finite verbs
On imperfects, Rijksbaron writes that it is “crucially connected with historical narrative” (1988:254): the imperfect “unequivocally locates a state of affairs in the past.” Likewise, Bakker 1997e:20-21 considers the imperfect, but not the aorist, to be a true past tense. Rijksbaron observes (248) that in Herodotus, the imperfect is much more frequent in narrative than in direct speech. [56] In all four Greek dramatists, the imperfect’s distribution is in line with these observations: it is most common in monologues, the best setting for telling a story. [57] This distribution indirectly confirms the affinity of δέ for narrative contexts.
§30. The distribution of present indicatives is useful in so far as we can interpret it in light of general, cross-linguistic functions of these forms and of other tense-mood combinations, that is, bound to characteristics of ancient Greek as well as other languages. Sophocles uses present indicatives most in choral songs, Euripides most in dialogues:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 37 35 40 no
Sophocles 40 35 43 yes
Euripides 42 36 36 yes
Aristophanes 39 35 35 no
Table 4: Frequencies of present indicatives in percentages of all finite verbs
In dialogues, the present tense tends to be communicatively appropriate because of the implied attention to the current speech situation. [58] In choral songs, conversely, the present tense fits references to general or timeless states. I relate the lower frequency of present indicatives in monologues to analogously general tendencies: this communicative setting is especially used in Classical drama for narratives about the past, and for argumentative purposes. Both scenarios typically require other verb forms besides present indicatives. The distribution of present indicatives, then, on a general level confirms my claim that the communicative situation determines linguistic choices, and more specifically strengthens the connection that I have drawn between monologues and narrative purposes. This indirectly supports my interpretation of δέ’s distribution as reflecting, among other things, an affinity for narrative contexts.
§31. The distribution of participles provides input for our interpretation of δέ as well. This distribution is similar to that of δέ: participles are most frequent in Aeschylean choral songs and Euripidean monologues:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 3.5 6.1 6.3 yes
Sophocles 4.5 5.1 4.1 no
Euripides 3.2 5.5 3.7 yes
Aristophanes 3.2 5.5 5.2 yes
Table 5: Frequencies of participles in percentages of all words
In the register study by Willi 2010a, participles are found to be more frequent in oratory and historiography, and less frequent in texts that represent conversation. More participles, he observes, seem to be related to a greater average sentence length. Indeed, participles help to segment the discourse into small chunks, just as δέ, but they achieve this syntactically; [59] we can imagine that such syntactic chunking would be especially helpful in a long, complex turn of speaking. [60]
§32. To sum up the findings of this subsection, δέ is very frequent (compared to other particles) throughout the discourse patterns in all authors, and especially so in Aeschylean choral songs. In this communicative environment, I have argued, the high frequency of δέ reflects a seemingly neutral presentation of the discourse in which the speaking “I” does not come to the fore, and evokes a Homeric style. Euripides’ preference for the particle in monologues may be explained by δέ’s affinity with narratives, and from the well-known link between messenger speeches and epic story telling. Other linguistic characteristics of the discourse patterns, such as the imperfect and present tenses and participles, also reflect such pragmatic associations in their distributions.

2.2.2 καί

§33. The other frequently occurring particle, καί, shows a striking distribution across the three discourse patterns. Aeschylus uses καί more often in dialogues, but Sophocles and Euripides prefer to use it in monologues. Aristophanes, however, uses it more often in songs:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 3.09 2.90 1.67 yes
Sophocles 2.52 3.50 2.15 yes
Euripides 2.45 2.89 1.19 yes
Aristophanes 2.86 3.61 4.14 yes
Table 6: Frequencies of καί in percentages of all words
The distribution of καί, then, reflects differences in particle use across the playwrights. In fact καί has multiple functions in all authors, but each author tends to exploit this variety in different contexts.
§34. Aeschylean dialogues are a case in point: they contain various καί constructions. Consider the following excerpt, from a scene in which the messenger is telling the Persian queen about the army’s defeat:
          Βα. αἰαῖ, κακῶν δὴ πέλαγος ἔρρωγεν μέγα
                  Πέρσαις τε καὶ πρόπαντι βαρβάρων γένει.
435    Αγγ. εὖ νυν τόδ’ ἴσθι, μηδέπω μεσοῦν κακόν·
                  τοιάδ’ ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ἦλθε συμφορὰ πάθους,
                  ὡς τοῖσδε καὶ δὶς ἀντισηκῶσαι ῥοπῆι.
          Βα.  καὶ τίς γένοιτ’ ἂν τῆσδ’ ἔτ’ ἐχθίων τύχη;
Aeschylus Persians 433-438
Qu. Aiai, what a great sea of troubles has burst upon the Persians and the whole Eastern race!
Me. Well, be sure of this, the tale of disaster is not yet even half told: such a calamitous event has occurred, on top of what I have told you, that it outweighs that in the scale fully twice over.
Qu. What possible misfortune could be even more hateful than the one we have heard of?
Each of the three instances of καί in this passage is part of a different construction. The first has a small scope and marks a close connection, together with τε, [61] between Πέρσαις, “the Persians,” and πρόπαντι βαρβάρων γένει, “the whole race of the barbarians.” The two items are semantically and morphologically similar, so there can be no doubt about the function of the particle combination. The second instance of καί, in 437, is not surrounded by two items that could be connected. It must be interpreted as pinning down and highlighting the adverb δίς: “even twice” or “really twice.” [62] The third instance is found in turn-initial position at the start of a question, and has a large scope over that entire question. In this construction the use of καί may imply the speaker’s surprise. [63] All of these specific functions interact with the dialogic situation at hand. The close connection marked by τε καί in 434 indicates that the two interlocutors share certain knowledge (see the subsection on τε below), drawing them closely into the interaction. The “even twice” highlight in 437 fits the messenger’s current dialogic task: to announce a further shocking narrative in addition to his earlier speeches. Finally, the implied surprise in 438 relates to the high interactiveness of this situation in which the speakers immediately react to each other after short utterances. [64] In other words, the larger context of the discourse pattern throws light on the interpretation of καί’s local functions that depend on the direct co-text.
§35. In Sophocles we find the highest frequency of this particle in monologues. [65] The following passage from a speech by Tecmessa, relating Ajax’ actions in his madness, illustrates this tendency:
          (Τε.) ὁ δ’ εἶπε πρός με βαί’, ἀεὶ δ’ ὑμνούμενα·
                   “γύναι, γυναιξὶ κόσμον ἡ σιγὴ φέρει.”
                    κἀγὼ μαθοῦσ’ ἔληξ’, ὁ δ’ ἐσσύθη μόνος.
295              καὶ τὰς ἐκεῖ μὲν οὐκ ἔχω λέγειν πάθας·
                   εἴσω δ’ ἐσῆλθε συνδέτους ἄγων ὁμοῦ
                   ταύρους, κύνας βοτῆρας, εὔερόν τ’ ἄγραν.
                   καὶ τοὺς μὲν ηὐχένιζε, τοὺς δ’ ἄνω τρέπων
                   ἔσφαζε κἀρράχιζε, (...)
Sophocles Ajax 292-299
(Te.) But the words he spoke to me were few and hackneyed: “Woman, silence makes a woman beautiful.” Hearing this, I ceased, and he sped off alone. What happened there I cannot tell you; but he came in bringing with him bound bulls, herdsmen’s dogs, and woolly prizes. Some he decapitated, others he turned upside down and cut their throats or clove their spines, (…)
Again, we see the multifunctionality of the particle. The different καί instances have different scopes: the first three introduce whole clauses, the fourth one only one verb form. According to Stanford 1963 ad line 294, this καί indicates a consequence, and at the same time emphasizes the pronoun ἐγώ. The “consequence” Stanford refers to is a pragmatic enrichment of the connection marked by καί: “and therefore”; we can infer this enrichment from the co-text. [66] Jebb 2004 [1896] translates this καί with “and.” The instances in 295 and 298 (both untranslated by Jebb) each form a fronted discourse act on their own—we can infer an act boundary from the μέν instances in the following acts. These two καί instances each project an upcoming multi-act move, encompassing a μέν act, a δέ act, and more. [67] Each καί connects the upcoming move as a whole to the preceding discourse. [68] Finally, καί in 299 connects two items that are morphologically and semantically similar, just as we had seen for τε καί in the Persians example. [69] Jebb’s choice of “or” to translate this καί reflects that the particle here may work differently from the other three instances. [70] In the καί constructions in this monologue, then, the particle has slightly different pragmatic functions. These functions relate less to interactiveness, as we found in the dialogic example, and more to a speaker taking her time to formulate her utterance.
§36. In some cases, mainly found in monologues, the two conjuncts connected by καί are so close in meaning that the second one can be interpreted as a specification or reformulation of the first one. καί then receives the enrichment “that is,” “better to say,” “in other words,” or “to be more precise.” Here is an example of this construction from a monologue by Pentheus:
(Πε.) ταῦτ’ οὐχὶ δεινὰ κἀγχόνης ἔστ’ ἄξια,
          ὕβρεις ὑβρίζειν, ὅστις ἔστιν ὁ ξένος;
Euripides Bacchae 246-247
(Pe.) Is it not dreadful and enough to make a man hang himself, stranger, whoever he is, to commit such an outrage (…)? [71]
ἀγχόνης ἄξια (“worthy of death by hanging”) can be considered a specification of the first conjunct (“terrible”). This use of καί is described by Hartung 1832, who speaks of “eine nähere Bestimmung des Vorangehenden” (145), and by Humbert 1960: καί marks a “meilleure approximation” (412). [72] All four playwrights employ this construction: other examples are κατεῖχε κἀπράυνεν (“he tried to restrain and, that is to say, to calm them,” Aeschylus Persians 190, in a monologue), ὑπερμαχοῦμαι κἀπὶ πάντ’ ἀφίξομαι (“I will fight and, that is, go to all lengths,” Sophocles Oedipus King 265, in a monologue), and ἐχθρῶν κοὐ φίλων (“from enemies, I mean, not from friends,” Aristophanes Birds 378, in an utterance of six lines). [73] This use of καί shows again how a specific co-text leads to a certain enrichment of the particle’s force. Just as καί may mark a large-scope “zooming in” at the start of questions, likewise it may specify, with smaller scope, a noun phrase or verb phrase when it connects two semantically similar items. The tendency for this function to occur mainly in monologues can be connected to a general pragmatic need of monologues, which is to hold the floor: only when a speaker has ample time to put her message into words, she can “afford” to describe a certain action or concept in two slightly different ways. In addition, using such specifications may support an argumentative goal, which speakers often pursue in uttering a long speech. [74]
§37. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes exploits the multifunctionality of καί most in choral songs. The following example from Lysistrata contains many instances; the singers are the united choruses of both men and women, who have finally decided to make peace.
          (Χο.) ἀλλὰ πολὺ τοὔμπαλιν πάντ’ ἀγαθὰ καὶ λέγειν
           καὶ δρᾶν· ἱκανὰ γὰρ τὰ κακὰ καὶ τὰ παρακείμενα.
          ἀλλ’ ἐπαγγελλέτω πᾶς ἀνὴρ καὶ γυνή,
1050  εἴ τις ἀργυρίδιον
          δεῖται λαβεῖν, μνᾶς ἢ δύ’ ἢ
          τρεῖς· ὡς ἔσω ’στὶν κἄχομεν βαλλάντια.
           κἄν ποτ’ εἰρήνη φανῇ,
1055  ὅστις ἂν νυνὶ δανείσηται παρ’ ἡμῶν,
          ἃν λάβῃ μηκέτ’ ἀποδῷ.
          ἑστιᾶν δὲ μέλλομεν ξένους τινὰς Καρυστίους, ἄν-
1060  δρας καλούς τε κἀγαθούς.
           κἄστι <μὲν> ἔτνος τι· καὶ δελφάκιον ἦν τί μοι,
           καὶ τοῦτο τέθυχ’, ὥστε γίγνεσθ’ ἁπαλὰ καὶ καλά.
Aristophanes Lysistrata 1046-1064
(Ch.) but quite the opposite: to say and do only what’s nice, because you’ve already got more than enough troubles. So let every man and woman tell us if they need to have a little cash, say two or three minas; we’ve got it at home, and we’ve even got purses to put it in. And if peace should ever break out, anyone that borrows from us now need no longer repay it—if he’s had it! We’re getting set to entertain some visitors from Carystus today; they’re fine and handsome gentlemen. There’s some soup, and I had a nice piglet and sacrificed it, so it’s turning into tasty tenders.
In καὶ λέγειν καὶ δρᾶν (1046-1047), the repetition of the particle emphasizes the addition of the two items: “both to say and to do.” The καί in τὰ κακὰ καὶ τὰ παρακείμενα (1047) has a small scope, like the first two instances, but in this case the element before it and the one after it refer to the same entity: the current troubles. That is why the translation “and” is less appropriate here; Henderson 1987 ad loc. calls this καί “emphatic.” In fact, its function is not really distinct from a καί that we do translate as “and”: it binds the two aspects of the troubles closely together, creating a hendiadys. [75] At the same time, it contributes to the κ-alliteration here. The instance in 1049 (ἀνὴρ καὶ γυνή) has a small-scope connecting force; those in 1052, 1053, 1061, 1062, and 1063 have a larger scope, since they connect entire verb phrases or clauses. The καί in 1052 may trigger an enrichment as “even,” as Henderson’s translation shows. The instance in 1060, finally, is found in the fixed phrase καλούς τε κἀγαθούς, another hendiadys as in 1047; also καί in ἁπαλὰ καὶ καλά (1064) works in a similar way. All in all, the particle binds together discourse segments of different size and nature. In this specific song, the staggering number of καί instances may iconically underline that the two semi-choruses are now united. As Wilamowitz 1927 ad loc. remarks, the male and female chorus members possibly form pairs while singing this song. This would be especially apt, we can imagine, for the phrase ἀνὴρ καὶ γυνή in 1049. Thus, the local functions of these καί instances are either appropriate to any communicative situation (1049, 1052, 1053, 1061, 1062, 1063) or reflect the general poetic attention—high in choral language—to how things are said (1046, 1047 (twice), 1060, 1064). [76] The particle’s repetition is especially related to the song’s overarching pragmatic goals, namely to underline and celebrate the union of the two semi-choruses.
§38. The above passages show that καί participates in several different but related constructions, and that these constructions tend to occur mostly in one of the discourse patterns. [77] Aeschylus’ preference for using καί especially in dialogues may additionally reveal influence of Homeric particle use: in Homer καί is more frequent in direct speech than in narrator text. [78] Sophocles and Euripides employ a broad range of καί constructions especially in monologues, where some of its functions are related to holding the floor for an extended period of time. Aristophanes uses καί mostly in choral songs. The multifunctionality of this particle seems to make it especially suitable for exaggerated repetition, a strategy that fits the mocking tone of many comic songs.

2.2.3 τε

§39. Like καί, τε marks connections, but it differs in its implications, possible enrichments, and specific constructions. [79] τε also has a distribution unlike that of any other particle. The use called “epic,” discussed in IV.2 §§47-69, does not occur in tragedy and comedy, except for the idiomatic construction οἷός τε “able to”: all other instances of τε here have a connective function. [80] However, that does not mean that these instances in drama are in no way related to the “epic” ones. The distributions of τε prove that it does more than merely connect; after all, the action of connecting items is not tied to a particular communicative situation, and τε in fact displays relatively large frequency differences across the three discourse patterns. Most authors prefer to use it in choral songs:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 0.58 2.15 1.67 yes
Sophocles 0.44 1.22 1.43 yes
Euripides 0.74 1.63 2.47 yes
Aristophanes 0.22 0.80 2.57 yes
Table 7: Frequencies of τε in percentages of all words
This distribution can be explained from several related associations of the particle. First and most fundamentally, τε marks certain knowledge as shared between speaker and addressee. In arguing this I follow the descriptions of τε in Wentzel 1847:2, Bloch 1955:147, and Gonda 1954:207, and build on this monograph’s analyses of τε in epic, lyric, and historiography. [81] Second, what is shared is often traditional or even part of a traditional performance or ritual: τε may imply a link to tradition and rituality as well. Third, a high frequency of the particle may trigger an allusion to epic or lyric, genres where τε is naturally frequent because of the importance of traditional knowledge. Fourth, because of these associations, τε can convey a generally solemn and formal tone. I will discuss each of these implications in turn.
§40. First consider the many τε instances in this excerpt from a speech by the messenger in Aeschylus Persians, shortly after he brought the news of the Persian defeat:
320    (Αγ.) Ἄμιστρις Ἀμφιστρεύς τε πολύπονον δόρυ
                    νωμῶν, ὅ τ’ ἐσθλὸς Ἀριόμαρδος, Σάρδεσιν
                    πένθος παρασχών, Σεισάμης θ’ ὁ Μύσιος,
                    Θάρυβίς τε πεντήκοντα πεντάκις νεῶν
                    ταγός, γένος Λυρναῖος, εὐειδὴς ἀνήρ,
325              κεῖται θανὼν δείλαιος οὐ μάλ’ εὐτυχῶς·
Aeschylus Persians 320-325
(Me.) and Amistris, and Amphistreus who wielded a spear that caused much trouble, and brave Ariomardus who dispensed grief with his arrows, and Seisames the Mysian, and Tharybis, admiral of five times fifty ships, a Lyrnaean by birth and a handsome man, lies wretchedly dead, having enjoyed no very good furtune.
The messenger here sums up the names of commanders who died in the recent battle, connecting them with τε. These names are well-known to the speaker and his addressee, the queen (as well as possibly the audience). That is, they represent shared knowledge. [82] At the same time, the high frequency of τε in this speech (as many as 10 instances out of 147 words total) lends a Homeric note to the messenger’s voice. [83] As J. Barrett 2002 shows, tragic messengers in general, and this one in Persians in particular (23-54), are consistently portrayed as resembling an epic storyteller. [84]
§41. The prototypical kind of shared knowledge is the knowledge associated with traditions and rituals. Since the singing of choral songs is a traditional, ritual activity, the use of τε is especially suitable for this environment, regardless of the specific elements that the particle connects. [85] This is a further connection, then, between a particle’s local function, depending on the immediate co-text, and a co-existing global function, depending on the discourse pattern. An example of a lyric passage with many instances is the following part of a Euripidean song:
          (Χο.) †οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν† πόλεσι δίπτυχοι τυραννίδες
                    μιᾶς ἀμείνονες φέρειν,
475              ἄχθος τ’ ἐπ’ ἄχθει καὶ στάσιν πολίταις·
                    τεκόντοιν θ’ ὕμνον ἐργάταιν δυοῖν
                    ἔριν Μοῦσαι φιλοῦσι κραίνειν.
                    πνοαὶ δ’ ὅταν φέρωσι ναυτίλους θοαί,
480              κατὰ πηδαλίων διδύμα πραπίδων γνώμα
                    σοφῶν τε πλῆθος ἀθρόον ἀσθενέστερον
                    φαυλοτέρας φρενὸς αὐτοκρατοῦς.
Euripides Andromache 471-482
(Ch.) For cities, likewise, double kingship is worse than single to endure, grief piled on grief for the citizens and the cause of faction. When two poets produce a hymn, the Muses are wont to work strife between them. When swift breezes are hurtling sailors along, a double intelligence at the helm and a throng of wise men conjoined is not as effective as a lesser mind with full authority.
At this point in the play it is becoming clear how disastrous it is that Neoptolemus has “a double marriage,” as the chorus calls it: his jealous wife Hermione is threatening to kill his concubine Andromache and her child. In the song the chorus expands on the topic of disastrous rivalry, generalizing it to other spheres of private and public life. As Stevens 1971 and Lloyd 1994 ad loc. point out, this song fits into “a common pattern in Greek lyric” (Lloyd) through generalization, development, and then applying the general themes to the current situation. Indeed, the τε instances in 476 and 481 are found in gnômai. [86] In general the traditional context is a fitting environment for the particle. In 475 it is combined with καί, closely connecting two noun phrases; in 476 τε has a larger scope, introducing a whole clause; [87] in 581 it has a small scope again. All these instances of τε, then, have a connecting function, but the particle’s distribution over the discourse patterns shows that there is more to the use of τε than this local function. More globally, the many τε occurrences here strengthen the ode’s link to tradition. [88]
§42. There are only five tragic songs without τε in my corpus (which contains 55 tragic choral songs in total). [89] These songs happen to be exceptional in other ways as well: they contain, for example, more first- or second-person references than the average choral ode, and fewer nouns. Their style is in certain respects closer to that of the average dialogue than to that of the average song. In terms of content, they are all directly tied to the immediate context of the play, and do not take the audience out of the ongoing story as many other songs do. [90] One of them is the parodos by the Salaminian sailors in Sophocles Ajax:
          (Χο.) οὔποτε γὰρ φρενόθεν γ’ ἐπ’ ἀριστερά,
                    παῖ Τελαμῶνος, ἔβας
                    τόσσον ἐν ποίμναις πίτνων
185              ἥκοι γὰρ ἂν θεία νόσος ἀλλ’ ἀπερύκοι
                    καὶ Ζεὺς κακὰν καὶ Φοῖβος Ἀργείων φάτιν
Sophocles Ajax 182-186
(Ch.) Never were you in your right mind when you went so far astray as to fall upon the flocks! No, a godsent sickness must have come upon you; but may Zeus and Phoebus avert the evil rumour of the Argives!
The song as a whole (lines 172-200) contains 12 references to a “you” (about 10% of all 126 words), a much higher frequency than the average of about 5% for Sophoclean songs. [91] Indeed, three out of four songs in Ajax have a higher frequency of references to either first or second person. [92] These chorus members, in other words, advance themselves as communicators more than is usual for a tragic chorus. This is also reflected in the occurrence of γε in two of the songs, such as here in line 182—this particle is normally absent from tragic choral songs. [93] Moreover, these linguistic features accompany atypical content: the songs concern Ajax himself, or the influence of his troubles on the lives of the chorus members, rather than general or timeless considerations. [94] In different ways, then, the singing sailors show their personal involvement in what they are singing about, [95] that is, the fate of their leader Ajax, and their emotional nearness to him. This fits well with their identity as his followers and friends. [96] Such a chorus of Greek men of military age was unusual in tragedy. [97] In this case, Sophocles has matched the unusual choral identity with unusual language use. The chorus’ characterization is therefore strengthened by the linguistic choices in the odes.
§43. τε tends to appear also in ritual contexts other than choral lyric, such as prayers, prophecies, or the swearing of an oath. This includes instances in dialogues, even though the particle is less frequent there than in monologues and choral songs. In tragic dialogues the τε frequency is significantly higher than in comic dialogues. Consider the following instances:
Μη. ὄμνυ πέδον Γῆς πατέρα θ’ Ἥλιον πατρὸς
       τοὐμοῦ θεῶν τε συντιθεὶς ἅπαν γένος.
Αι. τί χρῆμα δράσειν ἢ τί μὴ δράσειν; λέγε.
Euripides Medea 746-748
Me. Swear by the plain of Earth, by Helios, my grand-father, and by the whole race of gods all together.
Ae. To do what or refrain from what? You must say.
Mastronarde 2002 ad loc. notes that the “generalizing formula” in Medea’s list of gods is typical of “ritual contexts.” Similarly, Page 1938 comments that Euripides “is using conventional language” in 747, and Mossman 2011 observes “the solemnity of the ritual.” A solemn tone fits the situation, because Medea’s life might later depend on the oath that she is now proposing. The double τε is repeated by Aegeus when he indeed swears the oath in lines 752-753. In addition to emphasizing the ritual activity of swearing an oath, τε here marks the entities it connects (the Earth, the Sun, and all gods) as belonging to shared encyclopedic knowledge. [98]
§44. Besides these associations with shared knowledge, tradition, and rituality, a high τε frequency may remind the audience of epic, of non-dramatic lyric, and, in Aristophanes, of tragic lyric. [99] The allusion to other genres is especially apparent in Aristophanic choral songs, where the average frequency of τε is more than eleven times as high as in dialogues. Consider the following example:
          (Χο.) οὗ σέβας ἀρρήτων ἱερῶν, ἵνα μυστοδόκος δόμος
                    ἐν τελεταῖς ἁγίαις ἀναδείκνυται,
305              οὐρανίοις τε θεοῖς δωρήματα,
                    ναοί θ’ ὑψερεφεῖς καὶ ἀγάλματα,
                    καὶ πρόσοδοι μακάρων ἱερώταται,
                    εὐστέφανοί τε θεῶν θυσίαι θαλίαι τε
310              παντοδαπαῖσιν ὥραις,
Aristophanes Clouds 302-310
(Ch.) where ineffable rites are celebrated, where the temple that received initiates is thrown open during the pure mystic festival; and where there are offerings of the heavenly host, temples with lofty roofs and statues, most holy processions for the Blessed Ones, well-garlanded victims for the gods, and feasts in all seasons; (…)
Aristophanes’ overuse of the particle in this choral song (six instances in 56 words in total) mockingly mirrors τε’s traditional implications, and at the same time parodies epic and tragic lyric. Echoes from epic are also apparent in the lexical choices: words like ὑψερεφεῖς (“high-roofed,” 306) and εὐστέφανοι (“well- garlanded,” 308) are taken from epic vocabulary. The clouds, who form the chorus here, are thus presented as exaggeratedly solemn and divine creatures. [100] τε contributes to this image, beyond its local connecting function in the specific instances. [101]
§45. This example of parody also illustrates the last, related association of τε in my corpus: the particle’s connection to a generally formal or solemn tone. Not only τε’s frequent occurrence in contexts of shared knowledge, tradition, and rituality suggests this formal or solemn implication, but also the distribution of other linguistic features over the discourse patterns, such as nouns and finite verbs. The distributions of these features are illuminating, because they are connected to levels of formality in modern-language registers. For example, in the four languages analyzed in Biber 1995 (English, Nukulaelae Tuvaluan, Korean, and Somali), a higher frequency of nouns is associated with discourse that is less involved, less interactive, and has a less overt expression of personal stance than other texts. [102] This means, for example, that English academic prose, a relatively formal register, has a noun-verb ratio twice as high as spoken conversation, which is relatively informal. [103] Biber, Conrad, and Reppen 1998:69 explain that nouns typically convey something more abstract and more information-focused than verbs. Verbs, in contrast, refer to actions, and also often to thoughts and feelings of the speaker. [104] This makes verbs more suitable for highly interactive situations. [105]
§46. The distributions of nouns and finite verbs over the discourse patterns in my corpus are as follows:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 23.2 30.9 30.1 yes
Sophocles 16.4 19.7 31.1 yes
Euripides 21.6 24.9 34.1 yes
Aristophanes 16.2 21.0 25.3 yes
Table 8: Frequencies of nouns in percentages of all words
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 15.4 11.3 10.0 yes
Sophocles 15.9 12.5 9.8 yes
Euripides 16.5 12.6 10.7 yes
Aristophanes 15.7 14.7 11.4 yes
Table 9: Frequencies of finite verbs in percentages of all words
Dialogues tend to have a higher frequency of finite verbs and a lower frequency of nouns than monologues and choral songs. Stichomythic conventions may play a role in the high frequency of verbs in dialogues: the tight schema of turns ensures that a speaker has only a short time to utter her turn. Since a finite verb is often needed for that, this increases the frequency of verbs in such an environment. [106] This conventional “pressure” may mirror a similar situation for speakers in face-to-face conversation, to which dramatic dialogues are closer than monologues or songs. [107] More generally, a lower verb frequency and a higher noun frequency are found in formal, less interactive, and less explicitly involved discourse in the modern languages analyzed in register studies. [108] The language used in tragic and comic monologues, as compared to that used in dialogues, thus reflects these situational characteristics, and choral lyric language even more so. Not only nouns and verbs indicate these correlations, but also the distributions of first- and second-person references, negations, and swearing expressions. [109]
§47. In formal or solemn communicative environments, we find a corresponding high frequency of τε. Consider the following passage from an Aeschylean monologue, the environment in which this author uses τε most:
124a [110]    Ηλ. κῆρυξ μέγιστε τῶν ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω
124b                    < > Ἑρμῆ χθόνιε, κηρύξας ἐμοὶ
125                      τοὺς γῆς ἔνερθε δαίμονας κλύειν ἐμὰς
                            εὐχάς, πατρώιων δωμάτων ἐπισκόπους,
                            καὶ γαῖαν αὐτήν, ἣ τὰ πάντα τίκτεται
                            θρέψασά τ’ αὖθις τῶνδε κῦμα λαμβάνει.
                            κἀγὼ χέουσα τάσδε χέρνιβας νεκροῖς
130                       λέγω καλοῦσα πατέρ’ “ἐποίκτιρόν τ’ ἐμὲ
                            φίλον τ’ Ὀρέστην φῶς τ’ ἄναψον ἐν δόμοις.
Aeschylus Libation Bearers 124-131
El. Great Herald who communicates between those above and those below, Hermes of the Underworld, by making proclamations on my behalf both to the powers under the earth, who watch over my father’s house, that they should hear my prayers, and to Earth itself, who gives birth to all things, nurtures them, and then receives that fruit of her womb back into herself. And I, as I pour these lustral libations, call on my father and say: Have pity on me, and kindle a light in your house in the shape of my beloved Orestes. [111]
Electra is here performing a prayer to Hermes and the dead Agamemnon: a solemn tone can be expected in such a context. Praying is also a ritual activity; the solemn-tone association of τε in this case overlaps with this other implication. The entire speech (124-151) contains 46 nouns (26.6% of its 173 words), 17 finite verbs (a low frequency of 9.8%), and as many as seven τε instances (4.0%). [112] Together these features reflect a formal style, appropriate to the praying activity. The two τε in 124a (=165) and 128 signify a tight connection of their conjuncts as well as an allusion to traditional knowledge. In 130-131, the first two instances establish a close link between the elements “me” and “Orestes”; the τε after φῶς [113] has a larger scope, adding a new verb phrase. [114]
§48. Choral songs exceed the spoken parts in their formal and ritual nature. In addition to all the features mentioned, other characteristics of lyric language, such as more semantically obscure words and Doric coloring, contribute to the defamiliarizing style of choral songs, since they remove the language even more from daily spoken Attic than the general stylization throughout tragedy already does. [115] The characteristics of the songs’ melodic patterns and accompanying dances will have played a role in the overall defamiliarization of this communicative situation as well. [116]
§49. The distributions of τε as well as of other linguistic features over the three discourse patterns make it apparent that this particle contributes more to the discourse than only its local connecting force. I associate τε with several implications deriving from their performative context: shared knowledge, tradition, rituality, an allusion to epic, a parody of tragic lyric, and a generally solemn or official tone.

2.2.4 γάρ

§50. The distribution of γάρ in my corpus is as follows:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 1.57 1.10 1.11 no
Sophocles 1.85 1.33 1.14 yes
Euripides 1.11 1.21 0.84 no
Aristophanes 1.84 0.95 1.11 yes
Table 10: Frequencies of γάρ in percentages of all words
In Aeschylus and Euripides γάρ is roughly equally distributed across the three discourse patterns, whereas in Sophocles and Aristophanes it is used more frequently in dialogues. [117] Compared to τε, γάρ has a more complex distribution pattern, a probable result of its use in several constructions, in which it has varying functions.
§51. γάρ in drama often marks its host act as the cause, explanation, or clarification of a preceding (or sometimes following) act. [118] This cause or explanation may relate to the other act in two ways, either alone or simultaneously: de re (concerning content) or de dicto (concerning the discourse acts). [119] An example of a content relation is “I did this because my master ordered me to”: the “because” clause introduces a state of affairs that plays a role in the realization of the main clause. Here is an instance of this kind of γάρ in Aeschylus:
Χο. γύναι, κατ’ ἄνδρα σώφρον’ εὐφρόνως λέγεις·
       ἐγὼ δ’ ἀκούσας πιστά σου τεκμήρια
       θεοὺς προσειπεῖν εὖ παρασκευάζομαι·
       χάρις γὰρ οὐκ ἄτιμος εἴργασται πόνων.
Aeschylus Agamemnon 351-354
Ch. Lady, you have spoken wisely, like a sensible man; and having heard trustworthy evidence from you, I am preparing to address the gods in an appropriate manner, for a reward, which ought not to go unhonoured, has been given in return for our sufferings.
Now that Troy has been captured, the chorus has decided to address the gods appropriately. The γάρ act explains why the speakers are getting ready (παρασκευάζομαι) to sing the upcoming song. [120]
§52. As represented in the above example, γάρ typically expresses a de re relation (signaling a cause on the level of content) when a speaker has just referred to her own actions or feelings, a natural consequence of the fact that one normally knows the reason(s) for one’s own actions or feelings. [121] When the discourse concerns agents other than the speaker herself, it is more likely that γάρ signals a de dicto relation. For example: “what time is it?—because you have a watch.” Here the “because” clause explains why the speaker felt she could direct her question to this specific addressee. The following excerpt contains an instance of γάρ in this use: [122]
155    (Ευ.) οὗτος δὲ δὴ τίς ἐσθ’ ὁ μετ’ ὀρνίθων βίος;
                   σὺ γὰρ οἶσθ’ ἀκριβῶς.
156bis  Επ. οὐκ ἄχαρις εἰς τὴν τριβήν·
Aristophanes Birds 155-156
Pe. [123] But what about this life with the birds? Tell me about it; you know every detail.
Te. It wears quite nicely.
In this case the particle does not refer to a causal relation in the reported world, but marks its host act as clarifying why the preceding interrogative act was uttered. The speaker can ask this question, he assumes, because the Hoopoe knows the answer.
§53. A γάρ act may also signal a de re and a de dicto relation at the same time. This dual signification regularly occurs when a speaker explains why she has just used a certain evaluative expression. On the de re level, the γάρ act explains why the evaluated object of thought really fits the given characterization; simultaneously, the γάρ act clarifies, de dicto, the speaker’s use of that evaluative expression in the preceding act. Here is an example from Euripides: [124]
235    (Μη.) κἀν τῶιδ’ ἀγὼν μέγιστος, ἢ κακὸν λαβεῖν
                    ἢ χρηστόν· οὐ γὰρ εὐκλεεῖς ἀπαλλαγαὶ
                    γυναιξὶν οὐδ’ οἷόν τ’ ἀνήνασθαι πόσιν.
Euripides Medea 235-237
(Me.) The outcome of our life’s striving hangs on this, whether we take a bad or a good husband. For divorce is discreditable for women and it is not possible to refuse wedlock.
The γάρ act in 236 explains, de re, why it is the ἀγὼν μέγιστος (“the greatest issue”) for women whether their husband is good or bad: that is, women have no choice but to get married and stay with their husbands. At the same time, Medea explains why she has just uttered that qualification (“I said that because…”). [125] This reason may well contain another evaluative expression, [126] such as here οὐ εὐκλεεῖς (“not reputable”), which may subsequently trigger more γάρ acts clarifying the use of that assessment.
§54. Just as in Homer, Pindar, and historiography, γάρ in drama is also regularly found in gnomic contexts. [127] Since gnômai concern general matters, they represent a stepping out of the surrounding discourse: they are “unframed.” [128] γάρ does not necessarily imply any causality when it introduces unframed discourse (see II.4). A gnôme in drama may however imply a de dicto causal relation that can be paraphrased as “(I know that this is the case) because that is how things always go.” An example of γάρ introducing a gnôme occurs in this song by the frightened Danaids:
800    (Χο.) κυσὶν δ’ ἔπειθ’ ἕλωρα κἀπιχωρίοις
                    ὄρνισι δεῖπνον οὐκ ἀναίνομαι πέλειν·
                    τὸ γὰρ θανεῖν ἐλευθεροῦ‑
                    ται φιλαιάκτων κακῶν.
Aeschylus Suppliant Women 800-803
(Ch.) Thereafter, I do not refuse to become prey for the dogs, a dinner for the native birds: for he who dies [129] is freed from evils that cry to be bewailed.
As Wecklein 1902 and Friis Johansen and Whittle 1980 ad loc. point out, the idea that the dead are free from misery is proverbial in tragedy. γάρ marks this gnôme as backing up the maidens’ death wish. [130] Most other gnomic statements with γάρ are preceded by a discourse act with a third person. The speaker in those cases has to infer why a certain situation is or was as she perceives it, as she cannot know it from her own experience.
§55. At the beginning of utterances in dialogues γάρ usually does not signal any cause or explanation, whether de re or de dicto. Rather, it signals explicitly that the speaker is expanding on the preceding utterance, and that she infers something from it. For example, after Euelpides in Aristophanes Birds 109bis-110 has clarified that he and his friend are no jurors, but jurophobes from Athens, the Hoopoe asks σπείρεται γὰρ τοῦτ’ ἐκεῖ /τὸ σπέρμ’; (110bis-111), “(are you saying that) that seed sprouts there?” The Hoopoe, accepting the two men’s claim to be jurophobes, infers that jurophobes exist in Athens; the question with γάρ indicates his inference, and implies his surprise at the realization.
§56. The expansion or inference signaled by turn-initial γάρ often implies indignation or anger. [131] Examples are mainly found in Sophocles and Aristophanes, who use γάρ especially often in dialogues, such as in this altercation between Menelaus and Teucer:
          Με. ἡ γλῶσσά σου τὸν θυμὸν ὡς δεινὸν τρέφει.
1125  Τευ. ξὺν τῷ δικαίῳ γὰρ μέγ’ ἔξεστιν φρονεῖν.
          Με. δίκαια γὰρ τόνδ’ εὐτυχεῖν κτείναντά με;
          Τευ. κτείναντα; δεινόν γ’ εἶπας, εἰ καὶ ζῇς θανών.
          Με. θεὸς γὰρ ἐκσῴζει με, τῷδε δ’ οἴχομαι.
          Τευ. μή νυν ἀτίμα θεούς, θεοῖς σεσωμένος.
1130  Με. ἐγὼ γὰρ ἂν ψέξαιμι δαιμόνων νόμους;
Sophocles Ajax 1124-1130
Me. What fierce anger your tongue supplies with sustenance!
Te. Yes, one can feel pride when one has justice on one’s side.
Me. Is it just that this man should be honoured when he was my murderer?
Te. Your murderer? You have said a strange thing, if you have died but are alive.
Me. Yes, a god has kept me safe, but for Ajax I am dead.
Te. Then do not refuse honour to the gods, seeing that the gods preserved you.
Me. Why, would I find fault with the laws of the gods?
In 1125 Teucer expands on what Menelaus has just said, angrily implying that this reproach about his own “terrible temper” (θυμὸν ὡς δεινὸν, 1124) can in fact be turned into an argument for Teucer’s side: “yes, (it is right for me to have a terrible temper) for with justice it is allowed to be high-minded.” [132] The γάρ instances in questions, in 1126 and 1130, suggest that Menelaus has made an inference from the preceding utterance: “are you really saying that…?” [133] The γάρ in the answer in 1128 signals an expansion on the preceding question (“did you die and yet stay alive?”), as well as a de dicto explanation: “yes, I said that, because…” [134] The inferences that are communicated in all cases signal the speakers’ strong indignation. [135] γάρ thus indirectly contributes to the expression of this emotion.
§57. The above examples show that γάρ’s distribution may help to distinguish among several different uses of the particle. Sophocles and Aristophanes are fond of a use of γάρ in questions or answers, where the particle indicates that an inference has been drawn, which may arouse indignation in the speaker. This use is highly interactional and fits dialogues best. In contrast, the constructions in which γάρ marks a de re and/or de dicto cause or explanation occur in all three discourse patterns. Finally, the use of γάρ to introduce gnômai, which occurs less frequently than the causal uses, seems to occur especially in choral songs, where one of the general communicative goals is to recall and reinforce communal values. For the understanding of γάρ’s function in a certain tragic or comic passage, then, it is crucial to take into account the global pragmatic functions of the specific discourse pattern.

2.2.5 γε and δῆτα

§58. γε and δῆτα have consistent and significant distributions across the three discourse patterns. I discuss these two particles together, because their distributions are very similar.
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 0.58 0.35 0.08 yes
Sophocles 1.53 0.50 0.26 yes
Euripides 1.51 0.40 0.13 yes
Aristophanes 2.48 0.60 0.17 yes
Table 11: Frequencies of γε in percentages of all words
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 0.09 0 0 yes
Sophocles 0.39 0.09 0 yes
Euripides 0.33 0.05 0.06 yes
Aristophanes 0.41 0.25 0 yes
Table 12: Frequencies of δῆτα in percentages of all words
The consistent distribution of these two particles suggests that their pragmatic functions are most suitable for the dialogue setting. Indeed, we will see below that they are connected to interactiveness. First I will discuss the distribution of several other features in order to strengthen my claim that linguistic choices reflect the degree of interactiveness of the different discourse patterns. Then I will focus on the particles themselves.
§59. We already saw in §§45-46 above that the distributions of nouns and finite verbs reflect that dialogues are less formal, but more interactive and explicitly involved, than the settings of monologues and choral songs. The distributions of first- and second-person references and of swearing expressions strengthen this impression as well. They all have their highest frequency in dialogues. [136]
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 5.8 4.5 1.8 yes
Sophocles 7.3 6.5 2.8 yes
Euripides 8.4 6.7 2.5 yes
Aristophanes 6.7 6.7 5.4 no
Table 13: Frequencies of first-person references in percentages of all words
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 9.9 2.1 2.1 yes
Sophocles 11.4 6.0 4.9 yes
Euripides 13.8 5.9 6.9 yes
Aristophanes 7.7 6.6 6.0 no
Table 14: Frequencies of second-person references in percentages of all words
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aristophanes 1.1 0.1 0.06 yes
Table 15: Frequencies of swearing expressions in percentages of all words
Scholars connect functionally similar features in modern languages to the speaker’s explicit involvement. First- and second-person references, in this count including personal and possessive pronouns as well as verb forms, make the speaker more present as a communicator. That is, explicitly mentioning an “I” or “you” emphasizes that an interaction involves not only a message, but also a speaker communicating it to an addressee. Biber, Conrad, and Reppen 1998:147 and Quaglio 2009:126 similarly find that English first- and second-person pronouns are related to interactiveness and involvement. Aristophanic swearing expressions, in the form of νή or μά followed by the name of one or more gods, display a similar distribution. Werres 1936:20-22 notes that swearing expressions often co-occur with first-person pronouns and the particle γε. They can to a certain extent be functionally compared to English expletives and taboo words, which are associated with informality and emotionally-loaded language. [137] Werres (11) describes Greek swearing expressions as colloquial expressions serving to emphasize utterances, or parts of them. The term “colloquial” in scholarly literature tends to refer to interactional discourse situations, mostly in drama (see §12 above). Regardless of whether the Aristophanic swearing expressions were actually common in fifth-century spoken Attic, then, they do seem to reflect the high interactiveness of a communicative situation.
§60. In short, several linguistic characteristics of tragic and comic dialogues suggest speakers who come to the foreground, and a strong focus on the ongoing interaction. Since γε and δῆτα are highly preferred in dialogues, we may conclude that they are functionally related to this explicit presence of the speaker and this interactiveness. In general, the particle γε can be compared to prosodic emphasis: it highlights a specific part of an utterance, and it often contrasts this part implicitly to something else. [138] This highlighting reflects the speaker’s view or attitudes, and implies that the γε utterance is reacting to certain previous discourse. [139] If speakers using γε react to the view or the utterance of others, the subjectivity and the sense of contrast implied by γε acquire an interactional character. This connection to interactiveness is what makes γε especially compatible with a dialogic environment. [140] Consider the following passage from an Aristophanic dialogue containing both γε and δῆτα: [141]
25      Ξα. οὐ γὰρ φέρω ’γώ;
25bis   Δι. πῶς φέρεις γάρ, ὅς γ’ ὀχεῖ;
          Ξα. φέρων γε ταυτί.
26bis   Δι. τίνα τρόπον;
26ter  Ξα. βαρέως πάνυ.
           Δι. οὔκουν τὸ βάρος τοῦθ’, ὃ σὺ φέρεις, οὕνος φέρει;
          Ξα. οὐ δῆθ’γ’ ἔχω ’γὼ καὶ φέρω, μὰ τὸν Δί’ οὔ.
           Δι. πῶς γὰρ φέρεις, ὅς γ’ αὐτὸς ὑφ’ ἑτέρου φέρει;
Aristophanes Frogs 25-29
Xa. Well, aren’t I bearing one [a load]?
Di. How can you be bearing anything when you’re riding?
Xa. Well, I’m bearing this.
Di. How?
Xa. Quite unbearably!
Di. But doesn’t the donkey bear what you’re bearing?
Xa. Not what I’ve got here and bear myself, it certainly doesn’t.
Di. But how can you bear anything, when something else bears you?
The speakers, Xanthias and Dionysus, use several γε instances to single out certain elements of their short utterances. In 25bis γε qualifies the whole discourse act ὅς ὀχεῖ (“[you] who are riding”). By highlighting this piece of information, Dionysus implies that Xanthias’ claim to be bearing a load cannot hold because he is himself being carried. Xanthias in turn underlines his answer in 26 with γε—the luggage he is carrying (ταυτί) is obviously the most relevant part of the discussion to him. With the γε element in 28 he refers to his luggage again, [142] whereas Dionysus’ γε act in 29 repeats his point about the donkey. The highlighting in each case implies a contrast between the speaker’s view and that of his interlocutor.
§61. For an example of γε from a completely different context, consider this passage from Aeschylus Libation Bearers:
          (Ηλ.) ἀλλ’ εἰδότας μὲν τοὺς θεοὺς καλούμεθα
                    οἵοισιν ἐν χειμῶσι ναυτίλων δίκην
                    στροβούμεθ’. εἰ δὲ χρὴ τυχεῖν σωτηρίας,
                    σμικροῦ γένοιτ’ ἂν σπέρματος μέγας πυθμήν.
205              καὶ μὴν στίβοι γε, δεύτερον τεκμήριον,
                    ποδῶν, ὁμοῖοι, τοῖς τ’ ἐμοῖσιν ἐμφερεῖς·
Aeschylus Libation Bearers 201-206
(El.) We appeal to the gods, who know what kind of storm are whirling our ship around— though if we are destined to find safety, a great tree-trunk can spring from a tiny seed. And look, a second piece of evidence—footprints, resembling and similar to my own!
γε is infrequent in monologues, and generally in Aeschylus: he uses γε less than the other authors in all three discourse patterns. These distributional facts warn us that the particle’s occurrence here is especially striking. γε appears in an emotionally highly involved, even agitated observation by Electra, a context that makes the speaker’s own experience come to the foreground. Electra had inferred that Orestes had sent, not personally brought, his lock of hair, which is the first sign she had found on her father’s tomb (lines 168-180). The sudden discovery of the footprints—καὶ μήν marks this observation as an unexpected appearance [143] —is a highly emotional moment for her. [144] She stresses the word στίβοι with γε, marking the discovered footprints as bearing special importance. [145] Again, we may compare γε to prosodic emphasis. [146] In this case, Electra does not react to someone else’s utterance, but rather to her own earlier remarks on the first sign of Orestes.
§62. As for the less frequent particle δῆτα, it is almost completely restricted to dialogues. [147] In the quoted passage from Aristophanes Frogs (line 28) δῆτα indicates Xanthias’ strong personal involvement with the item to which it is attached, in this case the negation. He emphasizes that the donkey is “absolutely not” carrying his luggage; later in the line he does so again with the swearing expression μὰ τὸν Δία. This denial is of emotional importance to Xanthias, as he is (apparently) suffering from his heavy load. [148] δῆτα always conveys such an emphatic signal of personal involvement when it occurs in answers or other reactions. [149] This function is linked to the alternation of speakers, as is δῆτα’s use in questions. [150]
§63. To recap: the distributions of γε and δῆτα have led me to establish a connection between these particles and the communicative activities that characterize dialogue in general. My interpretations are strengthened by the distributions of nouns, finite verbs, first- and second-person references, and swearing expressions. These features do not only imply that the speaker explicitly comes to the foreground in dialogues, but also enhance, in different ways, the interactiveness of the discourse. The particles γε and δῆτα achieve this by juxtaposing the views of different speakers (γε), and by marking the emotional charge of answers and questions (δῆτα).

2.2.6 ἀλλά

§64. The particle ἀλλά shows the following distributions in the passages analyzed:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 0.98 0.40 0.08 yes
Sophocles 1.11 0.94 0.59 yes
Euripides 0.43 0.72 0.09 yes
Aristophanes 1.13 1.30 0.99 no
Table 16: Frequencies of ἀλλά in percentages of all words
Sophocles shows a significant preference for ἀλλά compared to the other two tragic poets throughout the three patterns. [151] He and Aeschylus use the particle most often in dialogues; Euripides most often in monologues.
§65. The general function of ἀλλά can be described as the substitution of one alternative with another, which can include the correction of an explicit element, an implicit element, and the switch to a different topic. [152] That is, the substitution can be de re or de dicto. Consider the following examples from Sophocles:
            Φι. ἆ ἆ ἆ ἆ.
            Νε. τί ἔστιν;
733bis  Φι. οὐδὲν δεινόν. ἀλλ’ ἴθ’, ὦ τέκνον.
            Νε. μῶν ἄλγος ἴσχεις σῆς παρεστώσης νόσου;
735      Φι. οὐ δῆτ’ ἔγωγ’, ἀλλ’ ἄρτι κουφίζειν δοκῶ.
            ὦ θεοί.
737 [153] Νε. τί τοὺς θεοὺς ὧδ’ ἀναστένων καλεῖς;
            Φι. σωτῆρας αὐτοὺς ἠπίους θ’ ἡμῖν μολεῖν.
            ἆ ἆ ἆ ἆ.
740      Νε. τί ποτε πέπονθας; οὐκ ἐρεῖς, ἀλλ’ ὧδ’ ἔσῃ
            σιγηλός; ἐν κακῷ δέ τῳ φαίνῃ κυρῶν.
Sophocles Philoctetes 732-741
Ph. Ah, ah, ah, ah!
Ne. What’s the matter?
Ph. Nothing grave. Come, my son!
Ne. Are you in pain because your sickness is with you?
Ph. No, I think I am just getting better. O gods!
Ne. Why do you thus groan and call upon the gods?
Ph. I am calling on them to come as preservers and be kind to us. Ah, ah, ah, ah!
Ne. What is the matter with you? Will you not tell me, but remain silent as you are? You seem to be in some trouble.
Philoctetes is suffering a painful attack from his sickness. He does not want Neoptolemus to notice, however, so tries to deny that anything serious is happening. In 733bis, after a short answer to Neoptolemus’ question, Philoctetes quickly shifts to a directive discourse act: ἀλλ’ ἴθ’. [154] In this case, ἀλλά and the preceding negation οὐδέν are not part of the same construction; rather, the particle marks a switch to a different kind of act. That is, ἀλλά here marks a de dicto rather than a de re substitution. In 735 and 740, conversely, one element is first negated, and then its substitution is explicitly mentioned. Sophoclean characters frequently bring up such substitutions, especially in dialogues. [155] The speaker first utters an act (often including a negation) that is to be substituted, either de re or de dicto; the following act effects the substitution, and the speaker marks this by means of ἀλλά. She thereby emphasizse the ἀλλά act. That is, a formulation such as “will you not tell, but remain silent?” is more emphatic than just “will you remain silent?” In other words, I consider ἀλλά to contribute to emphasizing the subjective character of a speaker’s substitutions in front of the interlocutor. In Greek drama such emphasis is most often needed in dialogues, and also more at home in monologues where there is an individual speaker, than in choral songs. [156]
§66. ἀλλά in drama is often combined with a negation, another sign of this subjective emphasis. The distributions of negations (both οὐ and μή forms) across the discourse patterns are as follows:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 3.2 2.4 2.2 yes
Sophocles 4.9 4.0 2.7 yes
Euripides 4.2 3.4 2.0 yes
Aristophanes 3.7 2.5 1.5 yes
Table 17: Frequencies of negations in percentages of all words [157]
Sophocles, who is fond of ἀλλά, has the highest frequency of negations in all discourse patterns. In all authors negation is the most frequent in dialogues. [158] This can be explained because negation is both functionally and formally marked across languages. [159] One of the reasons is that negation is cognitively more demanding than affirmation: it requires more cognitive effort to process negated information than to process positive information. [160] An utterance such as “I am not in pain at all” (see (t20) above) inevitably refers to a situation in which the speaker is in pain. As Miestamo 2009 puts it, negation “is a mental process added by language users” (211). A hearer needs to imagine both the situation with pain, in this case, and its negation. This markedness, in turn, helps the speaker to emphasize part of her utterance: she is not just describing a situation, for example, but also defining it in terms of what it is not.
§67. ἀλλά, then, verbally encodes and emphasizes the substitutions (de re or de dicto) that speakers perceive or construct in their discourse. This function makes the particle suitable for argumentative situations as well: speakers in such contexts want to substitute certain views with certain others. I interpret the high frequency of ἀλλά in Euripidean monologues along this line. Whereas Aeschylus and Sophocles tend to use monologues for narrative or descriptive purposes, Euripidean speeches tend to serve an argumentative function, as they are often integrated within disputes between characters. [161] Euripidean monologues may thus be considered to be more interactive, more strongly oriented toward a specific interlocutor, and hence closer to both dialogue within drama and rhetoric speeches beyond drama, for example in oratory, philosophy, and historiography. [162] An example of this kind of argumentative speech is Jason’s monologue in Euripides Medea 522-575, which contains as many as six instances of ἀλλά (in 339 words). Two of these instances are shown here:
          (Ια.) σοὶ δ’ ἔστι μὲν νοῦς λεπτός· ἀλλ’ ἐπίφθονος
530             λόγος διελθεῖν ὡς Ἔρως σ’ ἠνάγκασεν
                   τόξοις ἀφύκτοις τοὐμὸν ἐκσῶσαι δέμας.
                    ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀκριβῶς αὐτὸ θήσομαι λίαν·
                   ὅπηι γὰρ οὖν ὤνησας οὐ κακῶς ἔχει.
Euripides Medea 529-533
(Ja.) As for you, I grant you have a clever mind—but to tell how Eros forces you with his ineluctable arrows to save me would expose me to ill will. No, I will not make too strict a reckoning on this point. So far as you did help me, you did well.
In this monologue, Jason is arguing with Medea, carefully answering her reproaches against him. Jason’s style is reminiscent of the sophists. [163] The first ἀλλά in the passage (529) marks a correction of an implied element from the preceding act. Medea may have a delicate or clever mind (νοῦς λεπτός), [164] but she is telling an invidious story about saving Jason; it was in fact Eros who had forced her to save him. The second instance (532) marks a larger shift or “switch” in the discourse. Although the remark about Eros in 530-531 may have given rise to an expectation that Jason would go on about this point, with ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ he signals a different direction in the discourse: other arguments against Medea’s position are more important to him. The particle thus helps in shifting to different points, and so in marking out the steps in one’s argument more precisely. [165] As Mossman 2011 ad loc. remarks, there is a “play of assertion and partial withdrawal” in these lines.
§68. As we have seen, in all of its constructions ἀλλά marks some kind of substitution or correction. The tendency of ἀλλά to appear most often in Aeschylean and Sophoclean dialogues, as well as its frequent co-occurrence with negations, support a connection to the speaker’s subjectivity and to interactiveness. Euripides’ preference for ἀλλά in monologues can be explained with reference to the rhetorical purposes of many of these speeches.

2.2.7 μέν

§69. μέν is generally described as setting up an expectation for some part to follow. [166] That is, in pragmatic terms, it projects another discourse act, in fifth-century Attic often a δέ act. [167] In drama μέν occurs most frequently in monologues:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 0.45 0.99 0.59 yes
Sophocles 0.45 0.97 0.59 yes
Euripides 0.41 0.95 0.34 yes
Aristophanes 0.63 1.05 0.64 no
Table 18: Frequencies of μέν in percentages of all words
Besides indicating that more narrative steps will follow in story-telling monologues, [168] speakers can also use μέν, for example, to mark a juxtaposition of (parts of) conditions, arguments, or points of view. [169] μέν therefore does not seem to be especially associated with narratives, unlike δέ (see §§27-30 above).
§70. An example of a monologue with many μέν instances is the priest’s speech in Sophocles Oedipus King 14-57. It contains six occurrences of the particle in 267 words in total (a frequency of more than two percent). Here is the beginning of this monologue:
          ΙΕΡΕΥΣ ἀλλ’, ὦ κρατύνων Οἰδίπους χώρας ἐμῆς,
15                  ὁρᾷς μὲν ἡμᾶς ἡλίκοι προσήμεθα 
                      βωμοῖσι τοῖς σοῖς, οἱ μὲν οὐδέπω μακρὰν
                      πτέσθαι σθένοντες, οἱ δὲ σὺν γήρᾳ βαρεῖς·
                      ἱερεὺς ἐγὼ μὲν Ζηνός, οἵδε τ’ ᾐθέων
                      λεκτοί· τὸ δ’ ἄλλο φῦλον ἐξεστεμμένον
                      ἀγοραῖσι θακεῖ, (...)
Sophocles Oedipus King 14-20
Pr. Why, Oedipus, ruler of my land, you see the ages of us who are seated at your altars, some not yet able to fly far, others weighed down with age. I am the priest of Zeus, and these are chosen from the unmarried young; the other crowd that carries chaplets is seated in the market-place (…)
These μέν occurrences have different scopes. The first one, in line 15, helps to establish that the priest is starting a long, elaborate answer to Oedipus’ questions. [170] The second one (16) falls within the scope of this first instance. As part of a οἱ μέν… οἱ δέ construction, μέν simultaneously marks one discourse act as preliminary, and projects another act. [171] The μέν in 18 signals an implicit contrast between the priest himself and other persons. [172] Though this last use of the particle could work in short utterances just as well, the former two are especially appropriate to utterances with a certain length of speaking.
§71. When an Aristophanic character manages to utter a substantial monologue, μέν also appears regularly. In the following passage from Birds a herald has arrived in the bird city to inform Peisetaerus of the bird mania in Athens:
          (Κη.) πρῶτον μὲν εὐθὺς πάντες ἐξ εὐνῆς ἅμα
                    ἐπέτονθ’ ἕωθεν ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς ἐπὶ νομόν·
                    κἀκεῖθεν ἂν κατῆραν εἰς τὰ βιβλία·
                    εἶτ’ ἂν ἐνέμοντ’ ἐνταῦθα τὰ ψηφίσματα.
1290            ὠρνιθομάνουν δ’ οὕτω περιφανῶς ὥστε καὶ
                    πολλοῖσιν ὀρνίθων ὀνόματ’ ἦν κείμενα.
                    Πέρδιξ μὲν εἷς κάπηλος ὠνομάζετο
                    χωλός, Μενίππῳ δ’ ἦν Χελιδὼν τοὔνομα,
Aristophanes Birds 1286-1293
(He.) For starters, at the crack of dawn they all fly the coop together, just like us, to root for writs; then they flock to the archives and there sharpen their bills. They’re so blatantly bird-crazy that many even had bird names added to their own. There’s one lame barkeep called Partridge; Menippus took the name swallow; (…).
The herald’s entire speech runs from 1277 to 1307 (180 words in total), an impressive length for a comic utterance. As Dunbar 1995 ad 1298 remarks, such “lengthy narrative speeches” are rare in Aristophanes. The speaker therefore needs linguistic signals in order to clarify that he still has more to say. In the quoted passage the two μέν instances are among these signals. [173] The one in 1286 creates the expectation, together with πρῶτον, that the first action described will not be the only one. μέν in 1292 projects more entries in a list of bird nicknames, after the announcement of this topic in 1291. The communicative setting also helps the herald to hold the floor: his addressee, Peisetaerus, actually wants to hear the message, which makes interruptions less likely. The herald’s speech, as Dunbar points out, is a parody of a tragic messenger speech, a dramatic subgenre that by definition requires some length.
§72. In general, then, μέν’s projective function is more appropriate when the speaker goes on talking than in short utterances. Though the projected next act or entity may be left implicit, in my corpus usually the projection is indeed fulfilled in the discourse acts following a μέν act. In this way I connect μέν’s relatively high frequency in dramatic monologues to its basic pragmatic function, which is to project one or more discourse acts.

2.2.8 δή

§73. Aeschylus uses δή most in dialogues, Euripides most in monologues. Interestingly, in Homer δή is more frequent in direct speech than in narrator text: the Aeschylean distribution of this particle may thus form another link to Homeric particle use. [174] δή’s relatively low frequency in songs mirrors its rarity in lyric in general. [175]
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 0.54 0.19 0.15 yes
Sophocles 0.27 0.22 0.13 no
Euripides 0.23 0.27 0.03 yes
Aristophanes 0.39 0.15 0.35 no
Table 19: Frequencies of δή in percentages of all words
Various uses of δή, found mainly in dialogues or in somehow dialogic contexts (see e.g. (t25) below), tend to be connected to the speaker’s expression of stance, and the interaction between speaker and hearer. Sometimes it intensifies part of an utterance; in other contexts it marks the event referred to as perceivable, obvious, or expected, or it marks the discourse act as such. The use of δή to mark narrative steps, which is common in Homeric narrator text and in Herodotus, occurs as well, but is rare in drama; this use requires relatively long stretches of narrative. [176]
§74. Just as in Homer and historiography, δή in drama may occur in stancetaking expressions, where it is used in order to intensify these expressions. The co-text in such cases contains an adjective or an adverb that expresses an extreme of some kind, such as superlatives or words like “all” or “alone.” [177] Here is an example from a 6-line utterance from Aeschylus Persians:
Βα. αἰαῖ, κακῶν ὕψιστα δὴ κλύω τάδε,
Aeschylus Persians 331
Qu. Aiai, this is truly the most towering disaster I have ever heard of,
δή here emphasizes the subjective judgement κακῶν ὕψιστα. [178] The particle’s late position in the act (the discourse act arguably starts directly after the interjection αἰαῖ) suggests that δή here has small scope, over only the superlative preceding it. This subjectivizing function can be connected to descriptions of δή as expressing affirmation or the speaker’s certainty. [179] The particle’s higher frequency in Aeschylean dialogues supports a connection to the speaker’s own view or attitude. However, the use of this particle does not in itself imply a contrast with different views, as γε does. [180]
§75. When it has scope over an entire act, δή may have a number of functions that are related to each other. One is to mark the content of its act as visible or otherwise perceptible to speaker and addressee. Many scholars in fact argue for “clearly,” “obviously,” or referring to something known or visible as the basic meaning of δή. [181] While I do not claim that this nuance is present in every instance of the particle in drama, I do consider it part of its functions. The following Euripidean example stems from a 12-line utterance in which Hippolytus says goodbye to several addressees, among whom the goddess Artemis:
(Ιπ.) ὦ φιλτάτη μοι δαιμόνων Λητοῦς κόρη,
         σύνθακε, συγκύναγε, φευξούμεσθα δὴ
         κλεινὰς Ἀθήνας. (…)
Euripides Hippolytus 1093-1094
(Hi.) Dearest of gods to me, daughter of Leto, you I have sat with, you I have hunted with, I shall leave glorious Athens as an exile.
δή is in peninitial position in its act here, since an act boundary after a vocative is likely. [182] Hippolytus addresses Artemis at the moment of his exile. He assumes that the goddess sees or hears what is happening to him (if she can hear this very utterance, she will also have heard Theseus’ preceding order to Hippolytus to leave the country). Thus the particle δή accompanies the description of an action that is perceptible to speaker and addressee alike, and marks the act as such. [183] Though there is no quick dialogic exchange here, the δή act does convey the speaker’s attention to his addressee.
§76. A similar situation, where δή also has scope over an entire act, is when a speaker refers back to what the addressee has just said. An example is found in the magistrate’s reaction (1.5 lines long, see 571-572) to Lysistrata’s utterance in the following passage:
          Λυ. ὥσπερ κλωστῆρ’, ὅταν ἡμῖν ᾖ τεταραγμένος, ὧδε λαβοῦσαι,
                 ὑπενεγκοῦσαι τοῖσιν ἀτράκτοις, τὸ μὲν ἐνταυθοῖ, τὸ δ’ ἐκεῖσε,
                 οὕτως καὶ τὸν πόλεμον τοῦτον διαλύσομεν, ἤν τις ἐάσῃ,
570           διενεγκοῦσαι διὰ πρεσβειῶν, τὸ μὲν ἐνταυθοῖ, τὸ δ’ ἐκεῖσε.
          Πρ. ἐξ ἐρίων δὴ καὶ κλωστήρων καὶ ἀτράκτων πράγματα δεινὰ
                 παύσειν οἴεσθ’; ὡς ἀνόητοι.
Aristophanes Lysistrata 567-572
Ly. It’s rather like a ball of yarn when it gets tangled up. We hold it this way, and carefully wind out the strands on our spindles, now this way, now that way. That’s how we’ll wind up this war, if we’re allowed: on snarling it by sending embassies, now this way, now that way.
Ma. You really think your way with wool and yarnballs and spindles can stop a terrible crisis? How brainless!
δή in 571 co-occurs with a lexical echo from the preceding utterance (κλωστήρων καὶ ἀτράκτων, echoing κλωστῆρ’ (…) τοῖσιν ἀτράκτοις from 567-568). A heavy paraphrase of the particle in this context would be “as you say.” The information referred to in such quoting contexts may not be directly perceptible, but will nevertheless be obvious to both of the interlocutors. This use of is δή close to the one found in historiography to resume a narrative thread after an interruption or another topic (“as I was saying”). [184] The difference, however, is that in those cases δή refers back to the narrator’s own previous discourse, whereas in drama speakers refer to utterances by their addressees. [185]
§77. If certain information or a certain event is perceptible, or has just been mentioned, this means, more generally, that it is evident for speaker and addressee, or at least it can be presented as such. The content of δή acts can also be evident, obvious, or expected for reasons other than being directly perceptible or quoted. [186] In this use the particle is sometimes combined with καί; together the two particles have become a cluster to mark the noticing of a new character on stage, [187] as well as the speaker’s obedience to a directive. [188] These uses, again, directly concern the interaction among the characters on stage.
§78. Related to this use is δή’s ability to mark not the content of its act, but the very utterance of an act as expected or obvious. [189] This is the most natural interpretation of many δή instances in questions, such as in the Lysistrata dialogue directly after the lines cited in (t26): [190]
           Πρ. ἐξ ἐρίων δὴ καὶ κλωστήρων καὶ ἀτράκτων πράγματα δεινὰ
                 παύσειν οἴεσθ’; ὡς ἀνόητοι.
572bis Λυ. κἂν ὑμῖν γ’ εἴ τις ἐνῆν νοῦς,
                 ἐκ τῶν ἐρίων τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐπολιτεύεσθ’ ἂν ἅπαντα.
           Πρ. πῶς δή; φέρ’ ἴδω. (...)
Aristophanes Lysistrata 571-574
Ma. You really think your way with wool and yarnballs and spindles can stop a terrible crisis? How brainless!
Ly. I do think so, and if you had any brains you’d handle all the polis’ business the way we handle our wool!
Ma. How then? I’m all ears.
I interpret the δή in 574 as marking its host question as an expected action in its context. After Lysistrata’s vague statement about applying wool strategies to politics, the magistrate considers it a logical communicative action to ask what she means exactly. That is, the particle does not concern logical relations between the content of different utterances (as δῆτα signals in questions), but indicates in this case that the action of asking is an obvious one. This signal is most appropriate in dialogues, the setting in which the focus on the ongoing interaction is the highest.
§79. To sum up: δή in drama, is most frequent in situations with high interactiveness: that is, in relatively short turns of speaking, or those that otherwise betray attention to the interaction, for example by using vocatives (see (t25)). In choral songs, a setting where a face-to-face interaction on the stage is hardly present, δή has a relatively low frequency. Based on this distributional input as well as co-textual patterns and the behavior of δή in other genres, I interpret its functions as follows. When δή has small scope, over an adjective or adverb that describes a quality in the extreme, it intensifies an expression of the speaker’s stance, a function that is also common in Homer and historiography. With act scope δή either marks the content of its act or the uttering of the act as perceptible, evident, or expected to the speaker. These functions reflect the speaker’s attention to her addressee: she presents the content or the action as evident to both herself and a “you.” They do not, however, require an immediate verbal reaction from this addressee, as is likely in the case of γε and δῆτα (see §§58-63 above), particles that favor dialogues in an even stronger way. Finally, monologues display some uses of to δή to mark narrative progression (frequent in Homer and Herodotus), but because of the relatively small proportion of narrative in drama, this concerns a minority of instances.

2.2.9 οὖν

§80. This particle is the most frequent in dialogues, in Sophocles and Euripides significantly so:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 0.36 0.13 0.15 no
Sophocles 0.47 0.12 0.07 yes
Euripides 0.39 0.25 0.03 yes
Aristophanes 0.55 0.50 0.12 no
Table 20: Frequencies of οὖν in percentages of all words
As for οὖν’s low frequency in choral songs, at least in Sophocles and Euripides, it is relevant that the particle is rare in epic and Pindar. [191] As I have argued in my discussion of δέ and τε above, we can see once more that choral songs tend to be linguistically closer to epic and lyric than monologues and dialogues. [192] In general, the playwrights’ preference to use οὖν in dialogues can be explained from the greater explicit presence of the speaker in this situation, and the high level of interactiveness among the characters. [193]
§81. With οὖν a speaker may present an utterance as an inference or conclusion, as in this excerpt from a monologue by Hippolytus:
          (Ιπ.) ὡς καὶ σύ γ’ ἡμῖν πατρός, ὦ κακὸν κάρα,
                   λέκτρων ἀθίκτων ἦλθες ἐς συναλλαγάς·
                   ἁγὼ ῥυτοῖς νασμοῖσιν ἐξομόρξομαι
                   ἐς ὦτα κλύζων. πῶς ἂν οὖν εἴην κακός,
655             ὃς οὐδ’ ἀκούσας τοιάδ’ ἁγνεύειν δοκῶ;
Euripides Hippolytus 651-655
(Hi.) It is in this fashion, despicable creature, that you have come to traffic with me in the sacred bed of my father. I shall pour running water into my ears to wash away your proposals! How could I be such a traitor? The very sound of such things makes me feel unclean!
Hippolytus here expresses his shock and disgust at the proposal of Phaedra’s nurse that he start an affair with Phaedra. οὖν occurs in a rhetorical question that implies “I could never be (so) base.” The rejected idea is based on the following premises: (1) someone who would violate his own father’s bed would have a strong desire to do so, and (2) Hippolytus himself is too pure to ever have such a desire. Premise (1) is left implicit; (2) is mentioned in the following relative clause. οὖν, by marking its host act as an inference or conclusion, shows the speaker’s choice to present his discourse as such, in pursuing his goal to communicate his view to the nurse. That is, instead of leaving it to the addressee to detect a specific relation between parts of the utterance, the particle explicitly marks the kind of connection that the speaker wants to be understood. [194]
§82. οὖν may also be combined with μέν. In some instances, as in (t29), each particle retains its own separate function; in others it is used as a cluster (see (t30) below). Both uses are slightly different from those of μὲν οὖν in Thucydides, discussed in IV.3 §§144-146. While the historian uses μὲν οὖν to introduce new discourse threads within extended narratives, in drama the combination contributes to the interpersonal level of communication, in several ways. What remains the same across these genres, however, is the contribution to the structuring of the discourse: μὲν οὖν connects different acts to each other in a specific way. Consider this example from a 20-line utterance by Ismene to Antigone:
           (Ισ.) ἔπειτα δ’ οὕνεκ’ ἀρχόμεσθ’ ἐκ κρεισσόνων
                    καὶ ταῦτ’ ἀκούειν κἄτι τῶνδ’ ἀλγίονα.
65                ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν αἰτοῦσα τοὺς ὑπὸ χθονὸς
                    ξύγγνοιαν ἴσχειν, ὡς βιάζομαι τάδε,
                    τοῖς ἐν τέλει βεβῶσι πείσομαι. (…)
Sophocles Antigone 63-67
(Is.) and then [we must remember] that we are ruled by those whose power is greater, so that we must consent to this and to other things even more painful! So I shall beg those beneath the earth to be understanding, since I act under constraint, but I shall obey those in authority;
In this case, as commentators point out, the two particles work separately. [195] μέν, on the one hand, has a projecting function. It therefore places emphasis on ἐγώ in a way that sets it in contrast against something implied. Here the speaker Ismene, in outlining her intention to obey Creon’s injunction against burying her brother, suggests that her plan of action may diverge from Antigone’s, her addressee. [196] οὖν, on the other hand, marks the upcoming acts as a conclusion from the preceding discourse. Ismene should bury her brother, but has to consent to the king; therefore she will ask the deceased for understanding, and obey. That is, μέν helps to indicate potential disagreement; οὖν underlines how the speaker interprets a certain situation—in Ismene’s view one has to conclude that obedience is inevitable. Both particles thus relate to both the discourse organization (connections among different acts) and the interaction between the speaker and addressee (disagreement, and Ismene’s responsibility for her conclusion).
§83. When the two particles work together as a cluster, μὲν οὖν may mark a correction of a preceding element. The corrected element is often from an utterance spoken by the addressee, which clearly connects this function to the ongoing interaction. An example is found in the following Aristophanic scene. Hermes and Trygaeus are talking about the Spartans:
625    (Ερ.) κᾆτα τἀκείνων γε κέρδη τοῖς γεωργοῖς ἦν κακά·
                    αἱ γὰρ ἐνθένδ’ αὖ τριήρεις ἀντιτιμωρούμεναι
                    οὐδὲν αἰτίων ἂν ἀνδρῶν τὰς κράδας κατήσθιον.
              Τρ. ἐν δίκῃ μὲν οὖν, ἐπεί τοι τὴν κορώνεών γέ μου
                    ἐξέκοψαν, ἣν ἐγὼ ’φύτευσα κἀξεθρεψάμην.
Aristophanes Peace 625-629
(He.) And their [i.e. the Spartans’] gain became the farmers’ loss, for the warships despatched from here to retaliate would consume the figs on trees belonging to wholly blameless men.
Tr. No, they deserved it! You see, they cut down that black fig tree of mine, which I’d planted and nurtured.
As Platnauer 1964 and Olson 1998 ad loc. note, μὲν οὖν indicates that Trygaeus does not agree with the previous utterance, but corrects part of it: in his view the Spartan farmers were not innocent in the war. Since the Spartans were responsible for Trygaeus’ loss of his fig tree, in his view they deserved to lose some figs themselves. Olson interprets the combination as “no, to the contrary.” [197] Since this corrective use cannot be inferred from the normal pragmatic contributions of each of the two particles, I speak of a cluster in this case. [198] It occurs especially in turn-initial position, which makes it more frequent in the discourse pattern connected to dialogues. [199] The cluster’s predominance in this communicative setting is understandable in view of its interactional value.
§84. Just as several other particles that tend to be most frequent in dialogues, then, οὖν fits situations with high interactiveness. More specifically, with οὖν a speaker may mark a discourse act as her own conclusion or inference from the preceding. Such a relation is not inherent in the semantic content of an utterance, but, crucially, betrays the speaker’s interpretation of that content, and the way she wants to present it to the addressee. The cluster μὲν οὖν is even more strongly subjective: the speaker presents her discourse act as a correction, usually of an act uttered by the addressee.

2.2.10 ἦ

§85. ἦ is used the most in tragic dialogues, less often in songs, and hardly ever in monologues:
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 0.45 0.08 0.13 yes
Sophocles 0.50 0.09 0.16 yes
Euripides 0.29 0.05 0.09 yes
Aristophanes 0.11 0 0.06 no
Table 21: Frequencies of ἦ in percentages of all words
In general, ἦ is considered to have two functions, an interrogative and an affirmative one. [200] In fact, the particle’s two different functions are divided across the two dramatic communicative settings in which it is mainly used: we tend to find ἦ in questions in dialogues, and in assertions in choral songs. [201] However, we shall see that its uses in these two contexts are related.
§86. For a few examples in questions, consider the following passage from Sophocles Oedipus King. It is part of the dialogue with the highest number of ἦ instances in my corpus (six instances in 517 words in total). The speakers are Oedipus and a Corinthian messenger.
          Οι. ὦ πρὸς θεῶν, πρὸς μητρός, ἢ πατρός; φράσον.
          Αγ. οὐκ οἶδ’· ὁ δοὺς δὲ ταῦτ’ ἐμοῦ λῷον φρονεῖ.
          Οι. γὰρ παρ’ ἄλλου μ’ ἔλαβες οὐδ’ αὐτὸς τυχών;
1040  Αγ. οὔκ, ἀλλὰ ποιμὴν ἄλλος ἐκδίδωσί μοι.
          Οι. τίς οὗτος; κάτοισθα δηλῶσαι λόγῳ;
          Αγ. τῶν Λαΐου δήπου τις ὠνομάζετο.
          Οι. τοῦ τυράννου τῆσδε γῆς πάλαι ποτέ;
          Αγ. μάλιστα· τούτου τἀνδρὸς οὗτος ἦν βοτήρ.
1045  Οι. κἄστ’ ἔτι ζῶν οὗτος, ὥστ’ ἰδεῖν ἐμέ;
          Αγ. ὑμεῖς γ’ ἄριστ’ εἰδεῖτ’ ἂν οὑπιχώριοι.
Sophocles Oedipus King 1038-1046
Oe. By heaven, did my father or my mother name me? Tell me that!
Me. I do not know; the man who gave you to me knows it all better than I did.
Oe. Then did you not find me, but received me from another man?
Me. Yes, another shepherd gave you to me.
Oe. Who was he? Do you know how to tell this truly?
Me. I think he was said to be one of Laius’ men.
Oe. The man who long ago was ruler of this land?
Me. Yes; that was the man whose shepherd he was.
Oe. Is he still alive, so that I could see him?
Me. You who are the people of the country would know that best.
In each case ἦ starts a question. Since none of these questions contains a question word, I interpret ἦ as one of the signals that the upcoming utterance is a question. Several indications lead to this interpretation. First and most important, there are no elements that would point to ἦ’s other use, which is connected to stancetaking (see on (t32) below). Second, the replies to the turns in 1039, 1043, and 1045 start with οὐκ (1040), μάλιστα (1044) and a turn-initial γε (1046): since these words are typical for answers to questions, they retrospectively suggest that the earlier turns were questions. Third, the ἦ in 1041 occurs after τίς οὗτος, a clear question; therefore it is logical to take the ἦ act as an appendix to that question.
§87. The question in 1039 is marked with turn-initial γάρ as an inference from the preceding utterance, [202] and asks for confirmation of this inference. ἦ γάρ together can be translated as, “are you really (ἦ) saying that…?” Oedipus’ other three questions in this passage likewise ask for confirmation of their suggested statements. However, unlike ἦ questions or ἦ statements in Homer, which always seem to concern an evaluation of a character, these suggestions here concern facts. [203] In general, asking for confirmation is close to the affirmative force that the particle has in assertions. [204] At the same time, the ἦ instances imply that Oedipus is highly emotionally involved in this interrogation. [205] The facts he is asking about are not just plain facts; they have emotional significance to him. This involvement is indeed apparent from his insistence, throughout this scene, to find out everything about his own origin. [206]
§88. The emotional charge of ἦ questions is present in ἦ assertions as well, which are mainly found in choral songs. Such utterances generally do not concern facts, but the speaker’s stance. Consider the following excerpt from a song by the Persian elders, who ask Earth and the underworld gods to send up their dead king Darius:
          (Χο.) πέμπετε δ’ ἄνω
645              οἷον οὔπω
                    Περσὶς αἶ’ ἐκάλυψεν.
                     φίλος ἁνήρ, φίλος ὄχθος·
                   φίλα γὰρ κέκευθεν ἤθη.
Aeschylus Persians 644-649
(Ch.) and send him up here, one like no other whom Persian soil has ever covered. Truly we love the man, we love the mound; for it conceals a man of lovable character.
The elders underscore the attitude they are expressing toward Darius with ἦ: it is φίλος, the word of emotion, that receives the emphasis. [207] It is disputed whether there should be one or two instances in this line; [208] in any case their function here is clearly connected to the emotional evaluation. The contribution of ἦ to emotional evaluation blurs the borderline between a particle and an interjection, a connection strengthened by ἦ’s capacity to form a discourse act on its own (as e.g. in 1045 in (t31) above). [209] Several interjections are typically at home in choral songs. Their pragmatic function, like that of ἦ, primarily concerns the expressive level of communication; it is less focused on eliciting a certain reaction from the addressee. I interpret the distribution of ἦ’s use in assertions in light of this connection: choral songs imply less individuality than the other settings, but emotional involvement may still be high.
§89. In short, in both of its uses in drama the particle ἦ conveys the speaker’s involvement. ἦ questions ask for confirmation of the suggested assertion. Unlike in Homer, such questions may concern facts as well as opinions. Since questions are inherently dialogic, this use is most frequent in dialogues. In assertions the particle affirms an assessment, an usually emotionally-laden one. In this use, found mainly in choral songs, ἦ’s function is similar to that of an interjection, by expressing the speaker’s involvement without necessarily asking for a reaction.

2.3 Conclusions

§90. In this chapter I have argued that paying attention to the distribution of particles over different communicative situations and their co-occurrence patterns with other features improves our understanding of these particles’ functions. That is to say, exploring dialogues, monologues, and choral songs as discourse patterns with specific formal as well as functional features has proven useful for linguistic analysis, and promises to be a fruitful avenue for further research. One could, within drama, delve into hybrid communicative situations such as lyric dialogues, [210] or into the distributions of linguistic features other than the ones analyzed here, such as adjectives or certain subordinating conjunctions. In other genres, it would be interesting to compare similar distributional patterns across, for example, narrative and direct speech, [211] as well as across authors of the same genres.
§91. The general pictures of the three discourse patterns are the following. Dialogues usually have a relatively high frequency of γε and δῆτα in all authors; ἦ in tragedy; γάρ in Sophocles and Aristophanes; οὖν in Sophocles and Euripides; and καί and δή in Aeschylus. Other features that tend to be relatively frequent in this environment are finite verbs, first- and second-person references, negations, and (in Aristophanes) swearing expressions. Nouns tend to be relatively infrequent. These features reflect a high degree of on-stage interactiveness and individual involvement, and a low degree of formality. In monologues relatively common particles are μέν in tragedy; καί in Sophocles and Euripides; δέ, δή, and ἀλλά in Euripides; and τε in Aeschylus. In this discourse pattern we find the highest relative number of imperfects: a sign of this setting’s affinity to narratives. Aeschylus also uses the most nouns in his monologues. The linguistic shape of monologues reflects a lower degree of involvement and interactiveness than in dialogues, but a higher degree than in choral songs. It can also be connected to floor-holding: the features reflect that speakers take more time to formulate their utterance than in the short turns of dialogues. Choral songs, finally, have the greatest density of the particle τε (except in Aeschylus) and of nouns. Aeschylus tends to use many δέ in these lyric parts, and Aristophanes many καί. The distributions of the selected features reflect that choral songs have a low degree of interactiveness among characters, a low degree of individual involvement, a high degree of formality, and a particular connection to tradition and rituality. Certain features, such as a high frequency of δέ, also help to regularly allude to the style of epic.
§92. In general, this information about relative frequencies of particles and other features may be used as a blueprint, so to speak, for the three discourse patterns. It will for example help us to tell, when reading tragedy and comedy, if a certain particle is marked in its current context (see e.g. (t19)), or if in fact the absence of a particle is striking (see e.g. (t9)). The distributional tendencies also clarify which particles are expected to co-occur more or less often: at least for drama, we do not need to share Denniston’s surprise at the rarity of τε and γε occurring together. [212] On the contrary: the functions of these two particles fit different communicative settings.
§93. The observations also throw light upon differences in particle use across the four authors and two genres. Aeschylus is the king of δέ among these playwrights: especially in his choral songs, the particle is extremely frequent. Sophoclean and Aristophanic dialogues often resemble each other in their particle use: they share a high frequency of γάρ, ἀλλά, οὖν, and δῆτα. Aristophanic dialogues, however, surpass all other contexts in their frequency of γε. [213] Aristophanes further shows an extreme fondness for καί and τε in choral songs, although the latter particle is about as common in Euripidean songs.
§94. By using the distributions of the particles and co-occurring features as input for interpretation, I have connected the particles’ local functions to several global associations invited by each discourse pattern. That is, the local co-text is not enough to interpret a particle’s pragmatic contribution: knowledge about its distribution enhances our understanding of why a certain particle fits a certain context. For example, the distribution of δέ can be connected to its relatively neutral local function, and, more globally, to allusions to epic in specific contexts such as messenger speeches. καί is particularly multifunctional: some of its uses fit the high interactiveness of dialogues, others the longer floor-holding of monologues. τε does not only mark coordination between two items: its higher frequency in certain contexts demonstrates its overarching connection to shared encyclopedic or cultural knowledge and several related associations. This interpretation of τε’s large-scale pragmatics echoes its associations in other genres. Along the same lines, I interpret the contrastive function of γε as related to the interaction between characters, more specifically to their engagement with each other’s varying opinions. For δή, the local co-text is required to distinguish between its several functions; most of these signpost personal and/or interpersonal attitudes that have a bearing on the global communicative situation. All in all, my results serve as a warning not to treat all these particles together as one linguistic feature. Their distributions, local functions, and global associations vary greatly, even within the dramatic corpus.
§95. In other words, then, the small-scale pragmatics of particles can be connected to their large-scale pragmatics. This illustrates the necessity of a discourse perspective on particle use: since particles are used differently in different discourse patterns, and since they carry additional implications beyond their local function, the sentence in which they occur is not sufficient for their interpretation. Large-scale patterns of distribution are crucial for understanding the particles’ functions, uses, and implications.

Appendix: non-significant distributions

§96. For the sake of completeness, I give here the distributions of ἄρα/ἆρα, μέντοι, and μήν. They are not discussed in the chapter, because they are not statistically significant in most authors. This has to to do with their generally low frequency, compared to that of other particles.
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 0.22 0.03 0.08 yes
Sophocles 0.17 0.15 0.20 no
Euripides 0.16 0.12 0.28 no
Aristophanes 0.41 0.10 0.06 no
Table 22: Frequencies of ἄρα/ἆρα in percentages of all words
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 0.05 0.03 0 no
Sophocles 0.09 0.06 0 no
Euripides 0.08 0.07 0 no
Aristophanes 0.08 0.05 0 no
Table 23: Frequencies of μέντοι in percentages of all words
Author Dialogues Monologues Choral songs Significant?
Aeschylus 0.22 0.11 0.03 no
Sophocles 0.25 0.03 0 yes
Euripides 0.10 0.03 0 no
Aristophanes 0.14 0.10 0 no
Table 24: Frequencies of μήν in percentages of all words


[ back ] 1. On the fundamental dependency of linguistic choices on communicative situations, see, among many others, Schegloff, Ochs, and Thompson 1996 (they speak of “the thoroughgoing situatedness of language's observable engagement with the world,” 26); Linell 2009 (e.g. 16: “sense-making processes and situated discourse are always interdependent with contexts.” [emphasis original]).
[ back ] 2. See e.g. Croft and Cruse 2004; Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.) 2013 for general overviews of CxG; see also I.3 §§41-51.
[ back ] 3. On the classical Greek potential optative, see Drummen 2013a; on pragmatic particles, see e.g. Fischer 2010 (on English); Fried 2009 (on Czech); Fried and Östman 2005 (on Czech and Solv, a Swedish dialect spoken in Finland).
[ back ] 4. In his 2005 article, Östman builds on his 1999 article, in which he introduces the cognitive concept of discourse pattern but does not elaborate on its possible link to Construction Grammar. Leino and Östman 2005 use the notion of discourse pattern to describe several forms of linguistic variation from a CxG perspective. Östman and Trousdale 2013 discuss the use of discourse patterns within a broader attempt to describe several kinds of linguistic variety in a CxG framework. Antonopoulou and Nikiforidou 2011 apply Östman’s concept of discourse pattern to an analysis of discoursal incongruity, which may have humorous effects. For example, when formal features that are part of the discourse patterns “classroom discourse” or “philological text edition,” such as footnotes, are taken over in a different context, the borrowing may signal a parody of the genre of origin. In a related way but more generally, Hollmann 2013 argues that cognitive linguistics, such as CxG, should include social factors in its analysis. He cites examples of constructions in several languages whose use is constrained or determined by social factors.

Note that the main goal of Östman 2005 in identifying discourse patterns is not to find genre-based constraints on the use of specific, local constructions; for that kind of analysis see e.g., concerning different languages, Matsumoto 2010 and Nikiforidou 2010 (who both cite Östman 2005; Nikiforidou explicitly describes her own research as different), and Ruppenhofer and Michaelis 2010 (who do not refer to Östman). Those articles, then, do not intend to describe entire genres or text types as constructions.
[ back ] 5. Note that the term “genre” is used in a different way in this monograph, that is, to refer to established literary genres, such as epic, tragedy, and historiography. See I.1 §2. On the dynamic nature of this concept, see e.g. Nagy 1999, who argues that genre is not an absolute concept, but different genres are interdependent; likewise Mastronarde 2000, who argues that a genre such as tragedy is a moving, not a frozen form.
[ back ] 6. On registers and register variation, see e.g. Agha 2001; Biber 1994, 1995, 2006, 2010; Biber, Conrad, and Reppen 1998; Conrad and Biber (eds.) 2001; Dittmar 2010; Halliday 1978; Quaglio 2009.
[ back ] 7. Halliday 1978:185.
[ back ] 8. See e.g. Biber, Conrad, and Reppen 1998.
[ back ] 9. See e.g. Biber 1994:36; 2006:178; Biber, Conrad, and Reppen 1998:147; Conrad and Biber (eds.) 2001:6.
[ back ] 10. See e.g. Biber 1988:passim; 1994:35-36; Biber, Conrad, and Reppen 1998:148. Willi 2010a:309, on ancient Greek registers, also discusses multidimensional analysis.
[ back ] 11. Lee 2001 and Sampson 1997 do not include Construction Grammar in their discussion; even though Östman 2005 uses the terms “genre” and “text type,” they are not frequent within Construction Grammar.
[ back ] 12. What I am not exploring here are related concepts such as key words (for which see e.g. Scott and Tribble 2006), formulaic language, as investigated in modern languages (for which see e.g. Corrigan, Moravcsik, Ouali, and Wheatley (eds.) 2009, Wray and Perkins 2000), and discourse modes (for which see e.g. Smith 2003 on English; Adema 2007 on Virgil; R.J. Allan 2007 on Thucydides; 2009 on Euripides). The investigation of key words tends to focus on (clusters of) words only, not on grammatical features or the co-occurrence of several features. Studies of key words therefore do not aim to give an overview of the linguistic differences between language varieties. The study of formulaic language (not to be confused with Homeric formulae) concerns expressions that are restricted in form and in distribution (Corrigan et al. 2009: xv). The aim of this research on formulae is to analyze their frequency, distribution, change, acquisition, use, explanations, and functions. That is, it focuses on several aspects of specific formulae, rather than on entire language varieties in different situations. Discourse modes or narrative modes are very similar concepts to discourse patterns. However, discourse modes are linguistic units, close to the concept of “text type” as used by Östman. They are mainly identified by the patterns of linguistic features found; discourse patterns and registers, in contrast, are identified first by the communicative situation, after which their linguistic shape is investigated.
[ back ] 13. Earp does not define “style” precisely, but his use of this term roughly equals the use of “register” in later research.
[ back ] 14. On colloquialisms in tragedy, see also Stevens 1976 on Euripides, West 1990 on Aeschylus, and Halla-aho and Kruschwitz 2010 on early Roman tragedy.
[ back ] 15. Concerning antithesis in tragedy, Finley 1939:57-59 argues that Sophocles and Euripides were both influenced by the antithetical style of the sophists. Sophocles Antigone, Finley claims (58), is “in style the most antithetical (…) of all extant Greek tragedies.” This play therefore shows the influence of prose style on Sophocles. See also Navarre 1900:106 on antithesis in tragedy.
[ back ] 16. For recent discussion of different styles in tragedy, see e.g. Rutherford 2010 and 2012.
[ back ] 17. On linguistic and other similarities between Aeschylus and Homer, see also e.g. Schnyder 1995:24-25.
[ back ] 18. Collard 2005 supplements Stevens’ work, adding many examples from Euripides as well as Aeschylus and Sophocles. See also López Eire 1996 on colloquialisms in Aristophanes.
[ back ] 19. Compare Rutherford’s remarks on tragic lyric: “imagery is denser and more complex than in the iambic parts (2010:444).
[ back ] 20. Also Willi’s 2010b publication on the language of comedy is relevant: there the author notes that comic dialogue is characterized by colloquialisms, such as a high frequency of parataxis, “certain particles or function words” (483), and oaths (488). See now also Willi 2017 on register variation in tense, aspect, and mood (especially the use of the perfect, as opposed to the aorist) in various Ancient Greek authors. In this article he pays attention to synchronic and diachronic aspects of register variation, as well as to dialectal factors.
[ back ] 21. The features that Willi takes into account and that are also considered here are nouns, first- and second-person references (in his study only verbs), future indicatives, finite passives, participles, oaths; features appearing in his study but not counted by me are adjectives, pronouns, past-tense indicatives, perfect indicatives, subjunctives, potential optatives, imperatives (I included imperatives in the category of second-person references), relative clauses, conditional clauses, direct questions, average sentence length, vocative phrases (I included these in the category of second-person references). Note that Willi has counted “particles” as one feature comprising a group of 21 lexical items (ἀλλά, ἄν, ἄρα, ἀτάρ, αὖ, γάρ, γε, γοῦν, δέ, δή, δήπου, δῆτα, ἦ, καίτοι, μέν, μέντοι, μήν, οὖν/ὦν, περ, τοι, τοίνυν), but excluding e.g. καί and τε.
[ back ] 22. I will refer to specific results of Willi’s study at several points below.
[ back ] 23. Concerning a different language, Horie and Iwasaki 1996 describe some aspects of register influence on the use of pragmatic particles in Thai conversation. They show, for example, that differences in formality of the register may lead to a different particle use.
[ back ] 24. See Rutherford 2010:448-453, mentioned in §11 above. Another addition is the use of a statistical chi-squared test to verify the significance of my findings; see §21 below.
[ back ] 25. It includes passages from my twelve core texts as well as from other plays, namely dialogues, monologues, and choral songs from Aeschylus Eumenides, Euripides Andromache, and Aristophanes Assemblywomen; monologues and choral songs from Aristophanes Clouds; and choral songs from Sophocles Women of Trachis. For the twelve core plays of my general corpus, see I.1 §2 and III.1.
[ back ] 26. For the linguistic features nouns and participles I used a smaller tragic corpus. Because of the high average frequency of these features, a smaller tragic corpus was sufficient to get statistically significant results: 5,075 words from dialogues (1,455 Aeschylus, 1,975 Sophocles, 1,645 Euripides); 7,599 words from monologues (1,280 Aeschylus, 3,573 Sophocles, 2,746 Euripides); and 5,103 words from choral songs (2,311 Aeschylus, 1,455 Sophocles, 1,337 Euripides).
[ back ] 27. I did not distinguish between ἄρα and ἆρα for this count, because the difference in function depends primarily on its position in an act, rather than on whether the alpha is long. That is, in act- or clause-initial position ἆρα is the question particle, while in peninitial position both ἄρα and ἆρα can be found. The distribution of ἄρα/ἆρα turned out not to be statistically significant, as the particle is relatively infrequent in drama; see note 39 below. On the use of ἄρα in Homer, see II.4 §§34-37; II.5 §§49-58; in Pindar, see II.3 §66 and De Kreij 2014.
[ back ] 28. The instances of γε counted include those of γοῦν. This latter particle is still clearly recognizable as a combination of γε and οὖν; see e.g. Hoogeveen 1769:232-233, Kühner 1835:399, and Bäumlein 1861:188. Denniston 1950 [1934]:448 notes that it is even disputed when to write γ᾽ οὖν as two words. In any case, γοῦν is infrequent compared to γε (on average 0.02% in Aeschylus, 0.02% in Sophocles, 0.01% in Euripides, and 0.05% of all words in Aristophanes).
[ back ] 29. The instances of καί counted include all crasis forms.
[ back ] 30. The instances of οὖν counted include those of οὔκουν, οὐκοῦν, and γοῦν. See note 29 above; in these forms οὖν is usually considered to be recognizable. See e.g. Rost 1859 and Bäumlein 1861:173-198 for discussion of οὖν and several of its combinations.
[ back ] 31. First- and second-person references include personal and possessive pronouns as well as verb forms and vocatives.
[ back ] 32. Only swearing expressions in the form of νή or μά plus the name of a god or gods were included, not those with words other than deities’ names. I do not call these constructions “oaths,” as e.g. Willi 2010b:488 does, because in most cases in comedy they are not used in this manner (see (t10) on τε below for an example of a real oath).
[ back ] 33. See §§19-20, §45, and §59 below for discussions of such features from modern languages.
[ back ] 34. Clarke 2010 also points out other problems concerning the lexical semantics of Ancient Greek.
[ back ] 35. I did not count the frequencies of, for instance, demonstratives, infinitives, imperatives, perfects, subjunctives, (potential or other) optatives, relative or conditional clauses, and questions. These features do appear in the sample study of Willi 2010a (see p. 307). Neither do I take into account the feature of sentence length, which he does mention. Where a “sentence” starts and ends in ancient Greek is partly a subjective decision by the editors; see IV.3 §§16-18 for more on this issue. Since a “sentence” tends to contain at least one finite verb, short sentences in a certain passage are usually connected to a high frequency of finite verbs. I have chosen to focus on the frequencies of verbs and particles directly, rather than on their indirect reflection in punctuation choices by editors.
[ back ] 36. It would be interesting to investigate whether functionally similar words in English or other languages also differ in their distribution across registers, since particles and discourse markers tend to show a wide functional variety in any language. See I.3 for more on this general functional variety.
[ back ] 37. I wish to thank Maxim Hendriks and Alessandro Vatri for their help in the use and explanation of the chi-squared test.
[ back ] 38. The distributions of ἄρα/ἆρα, μέντοι, and μήν are not statistically significant in most authors, because they are too infrequent overall; see the appendix in §96 below.
[ back ] 39. These particles are also the most frequent ones in the other genres discussed in this monograph; see I.5 for an overview of particle frequencies.
[ back ] 40. This column reports whether the chance that the situations had no influence on the attested distribution is less than 5% or not, based on a chi-squared test for independence. See §21 above.
[ back ] 41. In all tables of frequencies, the lowest frequency for each author is marked with a white cell; the middle and highest frequencies with light and dark grey, respectively.
[ back ] 42. The vertical bars added to this passage indicate potential boundaries of discourse acts; see II.2 §§26-27; IV.2 §24; IV.3 §45.
[ back ] 43. On the concept of discourse act, see esp. II.2 and IV.3 §§71-72. On the general function of δέ marking a new or different step, see e.g. Bäumlein 1861:89; Bakker 1993b; 1997:62-68. See also II.2 §§31-36 on δέ in Homer; II.3 §65 on δέ in Pindar; IV.2 §§14-46 on δέ in Herodotus and Thucydides.
[ back ] 44. On the construction ὁ δέ or οἱ δέ as a separate discourse act, see II.2 §64 on Homer, §72 on Pindar; IV.2 §24 on Thucydides; IV.3 §115 on Herodotus.
[ back ] 45. On δέ introducing gnômai in Pindar, see II.3 §§74-75.
[ back ] 46. Other δέ instances at the start of choral (anti)strophes include Aeschylus Persians 74, 81, 86, 93, 106, 133, 576, 584; Seven Against Thebes 304, 333, 345, 357, 727, 734, 758, 778, 785, 900, 922; Suppliant Women 40, 57, 91, 96, 104, 122, 144, 154, 538, 547, 556, 565, 595, 688, 704, 743, 750, 757, 784, 792, 800, 1026, 1034, 1043, 1057; Agamemnon 122, 192, 205, 218, 228, 248, 385, 403, 420, 437, 699, 717, 727, 737, 750, 763, 772, 988; Libation Bearers 55, 603, 613, 623, 631, 639, 646, 794, 812, 831, 946, 965; Eumenides 155, 169, 366, 377, 550, 558, 938, 956, 976, 1040, 1044; Sophocles Antigone 117, 134, 955, 966, 1126; Oedipus King 883; Oedipus at Colonus 681, 694, 707; Philoctetes 719; Women of Trachis 962; Euripides Alcestis 121, 578, 973; Andromache 479, 1019, 1028, 1037; Electra 442, 452, 713; Hecuba 923, 933; Helen 1122, 1337; Heracles 655; Hippolytus 742; Ion 1061; Iphigeneia in Aulis 185, 231, 242, 253, 265, 557, 762; Medea 421, 431, 439, 636, 990, 996; Phoenician Women 239, 250; Trojan Women 531, 551.
[ back ] 47. This less explicit organization of the discourse is also reflected in an extremely low frequency of the particles γε and ἀλλά in Aeschylean choral songs: see below, Table 11 on γε and Table 16 on ἀλλά, with discussions.
[ back ] 48. See also Fraenkel 1950 ad 429, earlier in this same song: “by smooth and almost imperceptible transitions, we are led from the picture of the departing Helen and the sorrows of her husband back to the wretched victims of her rashness” (my emphasis). Also 429 contains a δέ.
[ back ] 49. The average frequency of δέ in Homer is 5.4% (7.0% in narrator text and 2.9% in direct speech). See II.2 §36. There are also several Homeric words in this song: see e.g. E. Fraenkel 1950 ad ῥίμφα 407, τλησικάρδιος 430, and οὐκ ἄσκοποι 462.
[ back ] 50. The average frequency of δέ in Pindar is 4.1% of all words. See II.2 §44.
[ back ] 51. Unlike Aeschylus and Euripides, Sophocles and Aristophanes employ this particle roughly equally often throughout the three communicative situations. Aristophanes is especially fond of turn-initial δέ in quickly alternating dialogue; this construction occurs in Aeschylus as well, but in Aristophanes these instances make up a larger part of the total number of δέ. See III.4 on turn-initial δέ in drama: §§34-38 for discussion and parallels, §73 for its frequencies in the four authors.
[ back ] 52. Other Euripidean messenger speeches with a high number of δέ instances are Hippolytus 1173-1254 and Medea 1136-1230. However, Hippolytus’ argumentative and angry speech in Hippolytus 616-668 has an even higher frequency of δέ (19 instances in 333 words) than the narrative speech by the messenger; yet four of these δέ instances are in dubious, probably interpolated lines; see e.g. W.S. Barrett 1964 ad loc.
[ back ] 53. On the concept of move, see II.3 (with §65 and §73 specifically on δέ in Homer and Pindar); IV.3.11 (specifically on Herodotus and Thucydides).
[ back ] 54. He writes that messenger speeches “are the least dramatic parts of the drama: they are full of description, and while they are being spoken the action of the play is at a standstill. Their literary model is therefore the narrative of epic poetry, which they resemble in being descriptions of action rather than action itself. In this least dramatic, most epic, part of his play the poet turns to the language of the epic poets for one or two tricks of style.” See also e.g. Mastronarde 2002 ad Euripides Medea 1116-1250, who speaks of “reminiscences of epic” in messenger speeches, and Rutherford 2010:444: tragic messenger speeches “often include reminiscences of epic narration.”
[ back ] 55. See note 49 above on the high frequency of δέ in Homer.
[ back ] 56. Similarly, in English the past tense is more common in fiction texts than in other registers (Biber, Conrad, and Reppen 1998:143).
[ back ] 57. While the imperfect is generally less frequent in choral songs, there are exceptions. E.g. the third stasimon in Aeschylus Persians (852-907) contains a remarkably high frequency of imperfects: 4 to 8 forms out of all 12 finite verbs. The exact number of imperfects is unclear because of ambiguous forms (that can be both imperfect or aorist) and textual problems (that lead to ambiguity as to whether a form is imperfect or present). The Persian chorus members here relate how pleasant life was during the reign of king Darius. This song takes the audience out of the events of the play itself—the recent disaster and current lamentation—not into timeless considerations, as in many other choral songs, but into the chorus’ and the characters’ past. As Broadhead 1960 ad loc. points out, this praise of Darius’ deeds is fitting, because it follows naturally upon the previous ghost-scene; it also throws into relief the humiliation and misery of Darius’ son Xerxes. Italie 1953 and De Romilly 1974 also note the contrast between Darius and Xerxes.

Another choral song with many imperfects, relating past events from the play’s characters’ lives, is Sophocles Women of Trachis 497-530.
[ back ] 58. See Biber 1995:143 on the English present tense. He explains that the concern with immediate circumstances that present tense verbs reflect can be connected to interactiveness and involvement.
[ back ] 59. See IV.3 §78, and IV.5 §§19-20, §§23-24, §53 for analysis of certain participial phrases in Herodotus and Thucydides as separate discourse acts.
[ back ] 60. Besides this general function, participles’ similarity to nouns may play a role in their distribution. They seem to be closer to nouns than finite verbs in this respect; see Tables 8 and 9 below for the distributions of nouns and verbs. Fox 1983 explores the hybrid nature (between noun and verb) of the participle in Herodotus and argues that participles are backgrounding devices. Hopper and Thompson 1984:741 argue that participles cross-linguistically tend to share more with nouns than with verbs. I remind the reader here that I did not count the frequencies of adjectives, to which participles are closest in function. Observations on English registers (Biber 2006:14; Biber, Conrad, and Reppen 1998:7) suggest that adjectives, like nouns, are connected to formality. Infinitives are also missing from my counts; according to Fox 1983:28, infinitives in Herodotus are functionally closer to finite verbs than participles, which are closer to nouns.
[ back ] 61. On τε, see §§39-49 below; II.4 §§31-37 (in Homer), §§54-68 (in Pindar); IV.2 §§47-92, and IV.5 §11, §14, §17, §27, §36, §44, §62, §77, §108 (in historiography). On the cluster τε καί in Herodotus and Thucydides, especially in connection with names of people and places, see IV.2 §66, §80, §92.
[ back ] 62. See Roussel 1960 ad loc. for this interpretation here; see IV.2 §§102-105 for discussion of this function of καί in general. Other examples of καί with this pinning-down function include Aeschylus Persians 1045; Seven against Thebes 657, 760; Sophocles Antigone 772 (see IV.2 §104), 1253; Oedipus King 557; Euripides Medea 526; Aristophanes Knights 342.
[ back ] 63. See Broadhead 1960, Pontani 1951, Italie 1953, and Hall 1996 ad loc. Other examples of turn-initial καί with this “zooming-in” function, implying surprise or indignation, include Aeschylus Agamemnon 280; Libation Bearers 179, 776; Eumenides 204, 206, 898; Suppliant Women 509; Sophocles Oedipus King 976, 1019, 1023; Oedipus at Colonus 73, 414; Euripides Alcestis 43; Andromache 917; Aristophanes Birds 829, 963bis, 1437bis. On turn-initial καί in drama, see also III.3 §§89-94 and III.4 §36. I observe in III.4 §73 that the three Aeschylean plays in my corpus have a higher relative frequency of turn-initial καί than those of the other dramatists: 7.2% of the turns start with καί, whereas this percentage is 5.4 in Sophocles, 3.4 in Euripides, and 6.0 in Aristophanes.
[ back ] 64. For my use of the term “utterance,” i.e. as everything that is said by one speaker until she stops talking and a new speaker starts, see III.4 §9.
[ back ] 65. My corpus does not even contain any Sophoclean monologue without καί.
[ back ] 66. On enrichments of καί, see IV.2 §§93-137.
[ back ] 67. See III.5 §§30-31 on such so-called priming acts typically used in calm contexts in drama.
[ back ] 68. On such καί priming acts, see IV.2 §108.
[ back ] 69. Other Sophoclean monologues with a high frequency of καί (more than 4% of all words) are Ajax 646-692; Antigone 162-210, 249-277, 280-314, 407-440, 998-1032; Oedipus King 771-833. In all of these speeches we find the particle in several different constructions, such as combined with τε (e.g. Antigone 176, 177, 181), with καί itself repeated (e.g. Ajax 669; Antigone 264-265), with small scope (e.g. Antigone 436; Oedipus King 787), with large scope (e.g. Antigone 260, 422), “pinning down” one constituent rather than connecting two items (e.g. Ajax 680, 692; Antigone 296), and as a fronted discourse act (e.g. Antigone 434).
[ back ] 70. For καί meaning or implying “or,” see IV.2 §§117-121.
[ back ] 71. Kovacs takes ἀγχόνης ἄξια to refer to suicide; Dodds 1960 [1944] and Seaford 1996 ad loc. argue against such a reading, and think that Pentheus is threatening to hang the stranger. For my interpretation of καί here this issue is irrelevant: in both cases the particle can be read as marking a specification.
[ back ] 72. On this use of καί in several other authors, see IV.2 §§96-101 (on καί in combinations), §§102-105 (on καί alone).
[ back ] 73. Other examples of καί marking the second conjunct as a specification of the first one include Aeschylus Libation Bearers 1028 (in a monologue); Sophocles Ajax 496 (in a monologue), 808 (in a 10-line utterance); Antigone 718 (in a monologue), 1193 (in a monologue); Oedipus King 593 (in a monologue); Philoctetes 71 (in a monologue); Euripides Bacchae 198 (in a one-line utterance), 308 (in a monologue); Hippolytus 457 (in a monologue); Medea 560 (in a monologue), 1152 (in a monologue); Aristophanes Birds 499 (in a one-line utterance that is in fact part of a longer speech with interruptions), 1683 (in a two-line utterance; see III.5 §33 for discussion); Lysistrata 227 (in a one-line utterance that is in fact part of a longer speech), 529 (in a one-line utterance).
[ back ] 74. On monologues often having an argumentative goal, see §30 above and §67 below.
[ back ] 75. See IV.2 §140 on the view that the different functions of καί exist on a continuum.
[ back ] 76. See §13 above on this general characteristic of the language of choral songs in Aristophanes.
[ back ] 77. However, since I did not count the relative frequencies of the different constructions—an enterprise which would moreover be subjective—, the exact distributions of each construction cannot be established.
[ back ] 78. See II.1 §14. See §26 above on δέ in Aeschylus for another potential link to Homeric particle use in this author.
[ back ] 79. See IV.2 §§47-92 for elaborate discussion of the uses of τε in several authors.
[ back ] 80. See Ruijgh 1971:990 on οἷός τε in tragedy, 1004 on οἷός τε in comedy. On 991-1004 he discusses the other fixed constructions in drama containing an original “epic” τε. These are usually written as one word: ἅτε, ὅστε, and ὥστε.
[ back ] 81. See II.4 §§32-37 on τε in Homeric similes; II.4 §§57-71 on cοnnective τε in Pindar; IV.2 §§47-92 on τε in Herodotus and Thucydides.
[ back ] 82. Other examples of τε connected to shared knowledge (not necessarily traditional; see note 88 below) include Aeschylus Suppliant Women 256, 257, 258; Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 551, 553, 555, 765; Philoctetes 314; Euripides Heracles 1290.
[ back ] 83. τε’s frequency in Homer is 2.0%, much higher than the average in drama: see I.5. τε is roughly equally distributed across narrator text and direct speech in Homer, though in the Iliad slightly more common in narrator text; see II.1 §15.
[ back ] 84. See §28 with note 55 above on the similarity between messenger speeches and epic language in general.
[ back ] 85. See e.g. Nagy 1995:45 on the ritual dimension of choral lyric performance in the Athenian theater, and Calame 2013 and Grethlein 2013a:96-98 on several ritual functions of tragic songs. See also Burton 1980 on the Sophoclean chorus (“Many of the odes take the form of conventional types of ritual utterance,” 3). On rituality and comic songs, see e.g. Bierl 2001 and Auffarth 2007.
[ back ] 86. On γάρ τε in gnômai in Homer, see II.4 §§21-22 and IV.2 note 90.
[ back ] 87. See IV.2 §§76-77 on “sentential” τε in Herodotus and Thucydides.
[ back ] 88. On τε and tradition, see II.1 §13; II.4 §§31-37 (on Homer); II.4 §§55-72 (on Pindar); IV.2 §§54-69 (mainly on historiography). Other τε instances in drama connected to traditional knowledge include Aeschylus Seven against Thebes 128, 130, 135, 147; Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 793; Philoctetes 726; Euripides Hecuba 18, 19, 21 (two τε instances), 22; Heracles 1274, 1275.
[ back ] 89. The five tragic songs without τε are Aeschylus Eumenides 254-275; Sophocles Ajax 172-200, 1185-1222; Oedipus King 1086-1109; Euripides Andromache 117-146.
[ back ] 90. For example, the songs in Aeschylus Libation Bearers 585-652; Sophocles Antigone 332-375; Oedipus King 863-910; Euripides Andromache 274-308; Hippolytus 525-564, 732-775.
[ back ] 91. See Table 14 below for the frequencies of second-person references across the discourse patterns. Burton remarks on this ode that the chorus members “address Ajax in the second person, even though he is not present on stage, because he dominates their thoughts and because they urgently need his presence.” (1980:11)
[ back ] 92. In 693-718 there are 6 first-person references (frequency of 6%) and 11 second-person references (frequency of 10%); in 1185-1222, there are 7 first-person references (frequency of 6%). See Tables 13 and 14 below for the average frequencies of first- and second-person references across the discourse patterns. These other stylistically exceptional songs contain two τε instances (one of which is not found in all manuscripts) and no τε instances, respectively.
[ back ] 93. See §§58-61 below on the distribution of γε, and the association of this particle with the explicit expression of the speaker’s stance. The other γε is in line 716. No commentator comments on the particle’s unusual environment.
[ back ] 94. The one song which does not have a strikingly high frequency of references to the “I” or “you” (596-645) zooms out slightly more from the immediate context of the play: it still concerns the troubles of Ajax, but now from the perspective of his mother’s expected reaction. This song has 4% references to the first person (more than the average of 2.8% in Sophoclean choral songs, but less than in the other songs in Ajax (see note 92 above), and 5% to the second person (which is the average for Sophoclean choral songs).
[ back ] 95. See §8 above and §59 below on the degree of explicit personal involvement as one of the factors that influence linguistic differences between registers in modern languages.
[ back ] 96. Finglass 2011 ad 134-200; Garvie 1998 ad 134-200; Hesk 2003:30, 48; Jebb 1896:xlvi; Kamerbeek 1953 ad 134-200; and Stanford 1963:li-lii, ad 134-200 all note the chorus’ exceptional loyalty to and dependence on Ajax. See also Burton 1980:39: “The lyrics are (...) a mirror in which we see reflected the characters of Ajax and of his sailors, and their mutual relationship of devotion and interdependence.”
[ back ] 97. See Foley 2003:26-27: there were more female choruses, and most male ones consisted of old or foreign men.
[ back ] 98. On oath swearing in Euripidean stichomythia and the length this takes up, see Schuren 2015:38. On various aspects of performing oaths in tragedy and comedy, see Fletcher 2012.

Other τε instances in contexts of oath swearing are found in Aeschylus Agamemnon 1433 and Seven against Thebes 45 (both in monologues), similarly connecting names of deities. Note also the τε instances in addresses to deities in Aeschylus Agamemnon 509, 513-514, 516, 519, and Sophocles Philoctetes 134; in official advice by the seer Teiresias in Sophocles Antigone 1016-1017; in references to prayers in Sophocles Antigone 1200 and Philoctetes 738 (cited in (t20) below); in a supplication in Sophocles Philoctetes 468, 469, 472; in reporting a prophesy in Sophocles Oedipus King 995; and in reporting an official message from Zeus in Aristophanes Birds 1232-1233.
[ back ] 99. See Swift 2010 about the influence of lyric poetry on tragedy, esp. tragic songs. The lyric poets Pindar and Bacchylides use τε in frequencies of 2.11% and 1.67%, respectively, whereas in the tragedians its overall frequencies are 0.85%, 0.89%, and 1.36%, respectively. Aristophanes has 0.58%. See II.4 §§32-37 on uses of τε in Homer; II.4 §§54-68 on τε in Pindar.
[ back ] 100. Similarly, the 18 τε instances (2.4% of 752 words) in the parabasis of Aristophanes Birds (676-800) contribute to an exaggeratedly solemn presentation of the bird chorus. τε is found, in Wilson’s 2007 edition, in lines 691 (4 instances!), 693, 701, 702, 704 (here τε is a conjecture), 718, 719, 720, 734, 740 (here τε καί is a conjecture), 746, 778, 782, 790, 793. In 777 τε in the manuscripts has been changed into τά by Bentley, which is accepted by Wilson; Dunbar 1995 however retains τε, albeit in a different position of the verse.
[ back ] 101. In lines 308-309, τε also contributes to the alliteration between the τ- and θ-sounds. In 306, as often in Aristophanic choral songs, τε is combined with καί; we saw in Table 6 that the frequency of καί is also relatively high in this environment. Together the two particles indicate an especially tight link between two items, as well as an association with shared or ritual knowledge. Other examples of the combination τε καί/τε… καί in Aristophanic songs are found in e.g. Birds 1069, 1332, 1697, 1701; Clouds 567; Frogs 388, 407, 1107, 1489; Lysistrata 323, 1060 (cited in (t6) above), 1067; Peace 348, 779, 809, 1129; Women at the Thesmophoria 669, 975. See IV.2 §70, where it is argued that τε καί in historiography often carries an implied meaning related to encyclopedic and cultural knowledge.
[ back ] 102. Biber 1995:142, 173, 194, 206, 242, 249.
[ back ] 103. Biber 2006:14; Biber, Conrad, and Reppen 1998:67-69.
[ back ] 104. See Biber, Conrad, and Reppen 1998:69: there is an “emphasis in academic prose on objects, states, and processes—all referred to with nouns—rather than human agents and their actions (described with verbs).”
[ back ] 105. This observation might also be connected to the findings discussed by Pennebaker 2011:42-43 that in English, men use on average more nouns than women, and women more verbs than men. Also in other characteristics of their language use, men tend to focus more on abstract objects, and women more on (social) actions. These differences suggest that women, more than men, tend to use linguistic features that reflect interactiveness. Such evidence demonstrates once again the influence of situational characteristics on linguistic choices, in particular on the frequency of nouns and verbs (see also §§1-2 and §§4-8 above).
[ back ] 106. I thank the audience of my paper “Discourse patterns in Aristophanes” at the 2013 Classical Association Annual Conference in Reading, UK, for this suggestion.
[ back ] 107. See e.g. Biber 2006:213-218 on the influence of production circumstances on patterns of linguistic variation across registers.
[ back ] 108. With “less interactive” I do not mean that there is less interaction going on in choral songs, because the songs are crucial for the audience, but that the singers do not expect to receive an immediate explicit reply, as a speaker of a dialogue or monologue would expect.
[ back ] 109. These features are discussed in §59 (first- and second-person references, and swearing expressions) and §66 (negations) below.

Passive finite verbs seem to point in the same direction: they are the most frequent in choral songs in all authors, but their distribution is significant in Sophocles only (4% of all finite verbs in dialogues, 6% in monologues, 7% in choral songs). Van Hell, Verhoeven, Tak, and Van Oosterhout 2005:245 claim that passive constructions in several modern languages are typically associated with “a more detached, distanced, generalized, and objective stance” than the active voice, and a higher degree of formality. In the same vein, Biber 1995:70-71 observes that impersonal constructions in Somali and passive constructions in English can be used “to suppress the source of information and the role of the author in the assertion of information.” The passive, then, may help to make the speaker “invisible” concerning her influence on what she is saying. Concerning the ancient Greek passive, George 2005:13 observes its high frequency in administrative Mycenaean documents, and proposes to “compare the widespread use of the passive in contemporary bureaucracy.” Similarly, Schironi 2010:349 notes that the ancient Greek passive is relatively frequent in mathematical texts.
[ back ] 110. Line 124a was originally line 165, transposed here by Hermann 1852. See III.4 (t5).
[ back ] 111. φῶς τ’ ἄναψον in 131 is an anonymous conjecture of the manuscript reading πῶς ἀνάξομεν. Sommerstein translates Wilamowitz’ alternative conjecture without τε after φῶς. See Garvie 1986 ad loc.
[ back ] 112. Blass 1906, Groeneboom 1949, and Garvie 1986 do not remark on these τε occurrences.
[ back ] 113. These words are a conjecture: see note 110 above.
[ back ] 114. There is also a metrical function in the first four cases, but the particle’s distribution proves that metrical considerations cannot have been decisive for its use. Other examples of τε contributing a formal or solemn tone include Sophocles Oedipus King 253 (three τε instances), 1184-1185 (three τε instances); Euripides Heracles 1325 (two τε instances); Aristophanes Birds 379 (two τε instances); Lysistrata 502 (one τε instance).
[ back ] 115. See Battezzato 2005:149; Silk 2010.
[ back ] 116. An effect of this style, in combination with a certain content, may be “to draw us away for the moment from the happenings on the stage,” as argued by W.S. Barrett 1964 for the song in Euripides Hippolytus 732-775. See also Burton 1980 about Sophocles in particular: a choral song may create a pause, “diverting the audience with mythical parallels” (132) just before quick plot movements need their attention again. Similarly, he writes on the ode in Sophocles Oedipus King 863-910: “the song provides a pause for reflection within the gathering menace of the tragedy.” (157) In general, tragic choral songs are usually seen as “more weakly contextualized” than other parts of the plays (Silk 1998:15). See also Battezzato’s remark that the tragic chorus is often seen as “an impersonal entity” (2005:155).
[ back ] 117. See II.1 §15 for γάρ’s distribution in Homer: there it is on average more than twice as frequent in direct speech as in narrator text.
[ back ] 118. See e.g. Hartung 1832:457-459; Bäumlein 1861:82; Denniston 1950 [1934]:58-62. This use is much less frequent in epic and lyric discourse: see II.3 §§22-32, §§78-79; II.4 §§15-28, §70 on γάρ in Homer and Pindar. On γάρ in Herodotus and Thucydides, see IV.2 §59, §98; IV.3 §§108-110.
[ back ] 119. On de re vs. de dicto as used in linguistic research, see Torck 1996:48; Slings 1997a:104-106; Ferrari, Cignetti, De Cesare, Lala, Mandelli, Ricci, and Roggia 2008:37; Béguelin 2010:18-19.
[ back ] 120. See Aristophanes Wealth 828 for a γάρ instance in a similar context: the speaker is coming to thank the god “because (γάρ) he is responsible for my great blessings.”
[ back ] 121. Other examples of γάρ marking a de re reason in a first-person context are found in e.g. Aeschylus Agamemnon 10 (see E. Fraenkel 1950 ad loc.: “[t]he sentence gives the reason why the Watchman has fulfilled night after night for a whole long year a task which is to him a waeriness of the flesh.”), 32, 105, 259, 461, 584, 601; Sophocles Ajax 21, 106 (“he is inside” refers indirectly to the speaker’s own action), 125, 205; Euripides Medea 38, 44, 215, 228, 267, 278, 303, 309; Aristophanes Birds 255; Wealth 822, 828. Some of these instances mark a de dicto relation at the same time.
[ back ] 122. “Bis” and “ter” are designations from the TLG, where bis indicates the second turn of speaking within the same line, and ter the third. Other examples of γάρ marking a de dicto relation include Aeschylus Agamemnon 134, 154, 214, 326, 343, 350, 381, 522, 524, 534, 555; Sophocles Ajax 23, 182, 257, 279, 328, 393, 397; Antigone 20, 96; Oedipus King 147, 231, 291, 724, 981; Philoctetes 1450; Euripides Medea 6, 66, 80, 83, 89, 92, 125, 183, 263, 314; Aristophanes Birds 21, 32, 97, 132, 199, 253, 349, 376, 432, 452, 458; Peace 321, 337.
[ back ] 123. In the Greek text, edited by Wilson 2007, Euelpides speaks this line; in Henderson’s 2000 Loeb edition, from which the translation is taken, it is given to Peisetaerus.
[ back ] 124. Other examples of γάρ marking simultaneously a de re and a de dicto relation after an evaluation are found in e.g. Aeschylus Agamemnon 14, 267, 423, 433, 469, 506, 532, 559; Sophocles Ajax 9, 20, 150, 185, 215, 216, 264, 327, 432; Antigone 389; Oedipus King 137, 288, 1268; Euripides Medea 17, 140, 325; Aristophanes Birds 202, 273, 317, 342.
[ back ] 125. See Denniston 1950 [1934]:60-61 on this use: γάρ “gives the motive for saying that which has just been said: ‘I say this because…’.”
[ back ] 126. See IV.4 §59 and §101 on γάρ with stancetaking expressions in authorial statements in Herodotus and Thucydides.
[ back ] 127. See II.4 §§20-23 (on Homer and Pindar); IV.3 §108 (on historiography).
[ back ] 128. Especially in narrative discourse, where the ongoing story provides a consistent frame, unframed discourse is conspicuous. Unframed discourse includes not only gnômai, but also e.g. embedded narratives; γάρ may mark the start of different kinds of such narrative expansions. For the concepts of unframed versus framed discourse, and the role of γάρ to mark a switch to unframed discourse, see II.4 §§15-28 (on Homer and Pindar). See IV.2 §§98-99 and IV.3 §110 on γάρ marking an expansion in historiography. See De Jong 1997 on γάρ introducing embedded narratives in several authors. My corpus presents only few examples of γάρ marking a switch to unframed discourse in narrative (e.g. Sophocles Ajax 319), since drama contains little narrative overall.
[ back ] 129. Sommerstein reads Hartung’s conjecture ὁ γὰρ θανὼν instead of τὸ γὰρ θανεῖν. See Friis Johansen and Whittle 1980 ad loc. for discussion of the probable corruption.
[ back ] 130. Other examples of γάρ marking a de dicto relation in a gnomic context include Aeschylus Agamemnon 76, 222, 254; Seven against Thebes 77, 338; Sophocles Ajax 154, 157, 160, 260, 330, 378; Antigone 127; Oedipus King 198; Euripides Hippolytus 530, 563, 1108; Medea 48.
[ back ] 131. On this use of γάρ, see Viger 1752 [1627]:492; Bäumlein 1861:74 (γάρ gives questions more “Ton und Lebhaftigkeit”); Denniston 1950 [1934]:77 (these γάρ questions are “surprised and incredulous, often ironical”); Van Erp Taalman Kip 1997. See also III.3 §§95-98 for the repeated use of turn-initial γάρ in tragic stichomythia with angry speakers.
[ back ] 132. At the same time, Teucer frames his response as a gnomic thought; see §54 above. Note that the position of γάρ in this utterance (1125) implies that the words ξὺν τῷ δικαίῳ were considered, and probably pronounced as, one unit.
[ back ] 133. Other examples of turn-initial γάρ in questions, marking an inference from the preceding utterance, are found in e.g. Sophocles Ajax 282; Oedipus King 1000, 1029; Euripides Medea 59; Aristophanes Birds 74, 110bis (see §55 above), 289, 300, 355bis, 369; Frogs 25bis, 29 (both Frogs examples are cited in (t18) on γε and δῆτα below); Lysistrata 497bis.
[ back ] 134. Other examples of turn-initial γάρ in answers and other statements, marking an expansion on the preceding utterance, are found in e.g. Aeschylus Agamemnon 271, 551; Sophocles Ajax 82; Antigone 511, 555, 569; Oedipus King 731, 1024; Euripides Medea 327; Aristophanes Birds 285; Lysistrata 55.
[ back ] 135. See Jebb 1896, Kamerbeek 1953, and Stanford 1963. Viger 1752 [1627]:492 already notes the connection between γάρ in questions and indignation. See also Goldhill 2012:58-62 about the use of turn-initial γάρ in Sophocles.
[ back ] 136. Also future finite verbs have their highest frequency in dialogues in all authors, but their distribution is only significant in tragedy as a whole, not in any of the individual authors. The future is inherently subjective: it is the speaker’s expectation that something will happen later, not an observable fact. See e.g. Bakker 2005:99-101, 144-145 for a performative reading of the future in Homeric Greek; and Rijksbaron 2002 [1984]:33 on the future in classical Greek: “Since ‘fact’ and ‘future’ are, strictly speaking, incompatible, the future indicative naturally does not have the same factual value as the past and present tenses.”
[ back ] 137. Quaglio 2009:101, 109-111.
[ back ] 138. On the highlighting function of γε, see Hartung 1832:348-349 and Bäumlein 1861:54. On the implicit contrast conveyed by γε, see Hartung 1832:371, Kühner 1835:398, and Stephens 1837:92. On γε in drama, see also III.3 §§76-79; III.4 §§62-64; III.5 §§45-47 and §§51-63; on ὅ γε in Homer, see II.5 §§27-50; on γε in historiography, see IV.4 §§40-44 (the particle is here interpreted as a sign of the historians’ voice in authorial statements).
[ back ] 139. On the connection, in Aristophanes, between γε and discourse-old information, see Tsakmakis 2010. On the similar connection between discourse-old information and German modal particles, see Diewald 1999 (she argues that an utterance with a modal particle appears as a reaction to a preceding turn in a real or supposed dialogue). See also III.3 §§76-79 on γε in contexts of resonance. In Van Leeuwen’s edition of Aristophanes Lysistrata we find some exclamation marks after γε acts, such as in 252.
[ back ] 140. Out of the thirteen Aristophanic dialogues I analyzed, there is none without γε. See also II.1 §15 and II.3 §52 on γε’s distribution in Homer: it is much more frequent in direct speech than in narrator text.
[ back ] 141. Other examples of dialogues with both these particles are Sophocles Ajax 1346-75; Oedipus King 1141-1185; Euripides Andromache 435-444; Bacchae 922-972; Aristophanes Assemblywomen 755-816; Frogs 1423-1481; Lysistrata 46-123. See also Sophocles Philoctetes 732-741 in (t20) below.
[ back ] 142. Stanford 1958 ad 28 notes the great emphasis conveyed by this line through the particles used, the swearing expression, and the accented οὔ.
[ back ] 143. On καὶ μήν in drama, see Van Erp Taalman Kip 2009.
[ back ] 144. On the connection between γε and agitation in drama, see III.5 §§45-47.
[ back ] 145. See II.5 §40 for discussion of an instance of ὅ γε in Homer where the visual appearance of the referent plays a role in the choice of the referring expression.
[ back ] 146. Indeed, in this play’s performance in the original Greek that I attended (November 2011 in Oxford), this line was pronounced in a marked way: louder and with a higher pitch than the surrounding lines. Also note the exclamation mark in Sommerstein’s translation.
[ back ] 147. Denniston 19502:269 notes: “δῆτα is a lively particle, far more at home in question and answer than elsewhere.”
[ back ] 148. On the connection between δῆτα and emotional agitation in drama, see III.5 §§49-50.
[ back ] 149. On the function of δῆτα in assertions to emphasize a certain element with agreement, see especially Bäumlein 1861:108; Hartung 1832:305; Kühner 1835:389-390; Paley 1881:25.
[ back ] 150. In questions δῆτα indicates that the speaker has made an inference from the preceding discourse. Regarding δῆτα in assertions as well as in questions in drama, see III.3 §§84-88; both constructions can be linked to the picking up of elements from preceding utterances. When δῆτα does occur outside of dialogues, it helps create the impression that an imaginary dialogue is embedded within the longer utterance. See III.3 §88 and III.5 §49 and §§70-71 for discussion of δῆτα examples in monologues.
[ back ] 151. ἀλλά in turn-initial position is also more common in Sophocles than in the other tragedians; see Drummen 2009:143-144.
[ back ] 152. On the functions of ἀλλά in general, see e.g. Hoogeveen 1769:1-53; Kühner 1835:436-440; Krüger 1842:340-342; Dindorf 1873:19 (on Aeschylus); Bodin and Mazon 1902:337-339 (on Aristophanes); Denniston 1950 [1934]:1-17; Ruijgh 1971:135-136; Sicking 1986:129. On this specific description, see Basset 1997 (on Aristophanes); Drummen 2009 (on drama).
[ back ] 153. Lloyd-Jones and Wilson 1990 read antilabe here; other editors, such as Schein 2013, read ἰὼ (or ὦ) θεοί as 736, extra metrum.
[ back ] 154. The construction of ἀλλά followed by an imperative is especially frequent in Homer: see II.3 §75.
[ back ] 155. Other examples of ἀλλά marking a switch to a different discourse act include Sophocles Women of Trachis 616,627; Euripides Medea 688; Aristophanes Frogs 507, 512, 517. Other examples of ἀλλά marking a substitution of an explicitly mentioned element include Sophocles Antigone 446, 564, 577; Philoctetes 861; Aristophanes Frogs 488bis, 527bis, 1066.
[ back ] 156. On the chorus as a group, see e.g. Budelmann 2000, who argues that the Sophoclean chorus is particularly engaging because it communicates “to the spectators the group experience that is enacted on stage.” (268). The chorus is connected to “uncountable multitudes” which “resemble civic communities.” (269)
[ back ] 157. R.J. Allan 2009 on narrative modes in Euripidean messenger speeches also finds both ἀλλά and negations to be frequent in the same contexts (175-176).
[ back ] 158. Similarly, Biber 1988:245 observes that in English negation occurs more often in speech than in writing. R.J. Allan 2009:176; 2011:41 also mentions frequencies of negations as characterizing different ancient Greek passages.
[ back ] 159. See for example Miestamo 2009:210-211. See also e.g. Horn 1989:154-203 on the markedness of negation.
[ back ] 160. Miestamo 2009:210-211.
[ back ] 161. See e.g. Scodel 2000 on the importance of rhetorical performance in Euripides; see e.g. Conacher 1998 and W. Allan 2000 on connections between Euripides and the sophists. Also in historiography speeches tend to be the moments where people’s arguments and rhetoric come to the fore.
[ back ] 162. In messenger’s stories, for example, the speaker tries to be more invisible, and let the story tell itself (see J. Barrett 2002 for an elaborate and insightful analysis of tragic messenger speeches); see §28 above. Note that the messenger speech in Euripides Hippolytus 1173-1254, mentioned in note 53 above for its remarkably high frequency of δέ (4.7%), does not contain any ἀλλά instance, despite its great length of 471 words. The other δέ-rich Euripidean messenger speech, in Medea 1136-1230, contains two ἀλλά’s in 558 words; a low frequency of 0.4%.
[ back ] 163. See Mossman 2011 in her commentary on the speech. The sophists’ influence on speeches in Medea is also discussed by Finley 1939:51-52. He notes, for example, that “antithesis strongly marks the debate of the Medea” (57).
[ back ] 164. μέν projects more to come, here creating the expectation that a hostile counterargument will follow this positive statement (“yes, but…”). See §§69-72 below on μέν, and II.2 §§49-62 on μέν and projection in Homer and Pindar.
[ back ] 165. See Thyresson 1977:103 on ἀλλά in Epicurus: its eliminative use is “the most important weapon in the polemic arsenal. The construction of the clauses allows one first to attack that which is wrong, incorrect, untrue, etc. and then to introduce with ἀλλά one’s own personal standpoint of what is correct and right as far as opinions and arguments are concerned.”
[ back ] 166. See Hartung 1832:403; Stephens 1837:74; Bäumlein 1861:164; Denniston 1950 [1934]:359. On μέν in Homer and Pindar, see II.2 §§46-62; on μέν at the beginning and at the end of moves in Herodotus and Thucydides, see IV.3.11, and IV.5 §32, §56, §58, §95.
[ back ] 167. See II.2 §§49-62 on μέν and projection. In Homer and Pindar, the expectation created by μέν is usually that of a new discourse act in general; in later Greek it tends to be more specifically that of a δέ act (see II.2 §§56-57).
[ back ] 168. Examples of this use include Sophocles Oedipus King 781; Euripides Andromache 1086; Children of Heracles 818, 834; Hippolytus 1173, 1190, 1219.
[ back ] 169. As e.g. several times in Menelaus’ monologue in Euripides Andromache: 648, 663, 666, 675, and 689.
[ back ] 170. See III.4 §55 on this use of μέν in drama.
[ back ] 171. See II.2 §§58-59 on μέν followed by δέ in Pindar and Homer.
[ back ] 172. See Jebb 1893 and Kamerbeek 1967 ad loc. for this interpretation of μέν in 18; Kamerbeek cites Denniston 1950:380-381, who calls this a “μέν solitarium.”
[ back ] 173. See also III.4 §§28-30 for discussion of μέν as a floor-holding device.
[ back ] 174. See II.1 §15 for δή’s distribution in Homer. See §26 above on δέ and §38 above on καί for other links between Homeric and Aeschylean particle use.
[ back ] 175. Its overall frequency in Pindar, for example, is only 0.07 per 100 words. See the numbers in I.5.
[ back ] 176. See II.3 §§56-57 for discussion of this use of δή in Homer; see IV.3.11.3 and IV.5 §80 for discussion of this use of δή (especially in combinations) in Herodotus and Thucydides. Examples from drama are Aeschylus Seven against Thebes 214 (Tucker 1908 and Hutchinson 1985 ad loc. note that the construction is epic); Suppliant Women 571 (Friis Johansen and Whittle 1980 ad loc. note that the construction is epic); Sophocles Women of Trachis 772 (Jebb 2004 [1892] and Davies 1991 indent the text at this point); Euripides Andromache 1147 (Stevens 1971 ad loc. notes that “the particle marks the decisive point”); Hippolytus 38, 1181; Aristophanes Frogs 816, 826; Lysistrata 523.
[ back ] 177. This is how e.g. Stephens 1837:63, Krüger 1842:347-348, and Denniston 1950 [1934]:204-207 describe the use of δή with superlatives and other words that express an extreme. In a slightly different way, e.g. Hoogeveen 1769:290-294 and Monro 1882a:256 argue that δή in this use indicates that the highest stage of something has been reached. See II.3 §61 for discussion of this use of δή in Homer, mainly in direct speech; see IV.4 §113, §116, and IV.5 §38 for discussion of this use of δή in Herodotus and Thucydides.
[ back ] 178. Other examples of δή intensifying an extreme expression include Aeschylus Persians 236, 382, 490, 548, 583, 1013; Libation Bearers 897; Sophocles Antigone 173, 615, 821, 823, 895; Electra 202; Euripides Hippolytus 462, 834, 982, 1246; Medea 1067; Aristophanes Frogs 1254.
[ back ] 179. An affirmative meaning is considered δή’s primary meaning by Thiersch 1826:193, 549 (on Homer); Stephens 1837:9; Navarre 1932; Denniston 1950 [1934]:203-204; Leumann 1949; Humbert 1960:403; Ruijgh 1971:646-647; Wakker 1994:351, 1997a:216 (on tragedy), 1997b:239 (on Herodotus and Thucydides).
[ back ] 180. See §§58-63 above on γε, with references. 
[ back ] 181. An evidential meaning of δή is considered the primary one by Hartung 1828:4 (though in 1832 he changed his mind); Döderlein 1858:362-363 (on Homer); Rost 1859:2n3; Bäumlein 1861:98-99; Wähdel 1869:2 (on Aristophanes); Hoffmann 1884:9 (on Herodotus); Smyth 1956:646-647; Sicking 1986:133; 1993:51-53 (on Lysias); Van Ophuijsen 1993:141-148 (on Plato); Bakker 1997b:78-79 (on Homer); Cuypers 2005:38, 55-59 (on Homer and Apollonius); Van Emde Boas, Rijksbaron, Huitink, and De Bakker 2019:686-687 (on Classical Greek)..
[ back ] 182. See II.2 §10, §15, §31.
[ back ] 183. See IV.4 §§92-93 on δή in Herodotus in contexts of direct speech that are linked to perceptions of evidence.

Other examples of δή (sometimes combined with καί; see §77 below) marking its act as referring to a perceptible event or feature include Aeschylus Libation Bearers 565, 874, 1057; Sophocles Antigone 155, 441, 939; Euripides Hippolytus 778, 1007, 1342, 1447; Aristophanes Frogs 270bis, 1476; Lysistrata 65, 77, 83, 312, 327, 557, 601, 683, 909, 925.

I do not agree with the interpretation of W.S. Barrett 1964 and Halleran 1995 ad loc., who claim that δή adds a pathetic emphasis. The pathos resides rather in the content of the passage; it is not contributed by the particle.
[ back ] 184. On this use of δή, see IV.4: §89 on Herodotus and §110 on Thucydides. See also Van Ophuijsen 1993:143 on this use (“what may be called anaphoric δή”) in Plato, and Wakker 1997b:241-242 on this use (“so-called anaphoric” δή, 241) in Herodotus and Thucydides.
[ back ] 185. Other examples of δή with references to the addressee’s utterance are found in e.g. Sophocles Antigone 91, 726; Euripides Bacchae 652, 822; Hippolytus 233, 948, 962, 1071; Aristophanes Lysistrata 146, 1102bis.
[ back ] 186. Examples of δή marking the content of its act as obvious, evident, or expected are found in e.g. Aeschylus Seven against Thebes 655; Libation Bearers 532, 891; Sophocles Antigone 80, 923, 1202; Euripides Alcestis 5; Bacchae 291, 934; Hippolytus 7, 688, 1093; Aristophanes Lysistrata 1301.
[ back ] 187. This use of καὶ δή is found in e.g. Euripides Medea 1118; Aristophanes Lysistrata 65, 77; Wasps 1324. See Van Erp Taalman Kip 2009 for discussion.
[ back ] 188. καὶ δή marking an evident or perceptible obedience to a directive is found in e.g. Sophocles Electra 317, 892, 1436; Philoctetes 818; Euripides Alcestis 1118; Aristophanes Birds 175bis, 550; Wealth 227, 414; Women at the Thesmophoria 214bis. See III.4 §§51-52 for discussion. On the use of καὶ δή in Herodotus, see IV.2 §§100-101.
[ back ] 189. Bäumlein 1861:104 interprets δή with imperatives in a similar way: he argues that the particle marks the order as natural and justified under the current circumstances.
[ back ] 190. Other examples of δή marking its discourse act as an obvious or expected one are e.g. Aeschylus Libation Bearers 569, 732; Eumenides 431; Sophocles Electra 376, 1400; Oedipus King 655ter; Euripides Hippolytus 722; Aristophanes Lysistrata 503bis, 503ter, 769bis, 941, 1100, 1108, 1295.
[ back ] 191. The overall frequency of οὖν in Homer is only 0.04% of all words; In Hesiod, there are only 2 instances, which means a frequency of less than 0.01%. Pindar has one of 0.05%. The later epic authors Apollonius Rhodius, Oppian of Anazarbus, and Oppian of Apamea, all use οὖν in a frequency of 0.04%, just like Homer.
[ back ] 192. See §25 above on δέ and §43 above on τε.
[ back ] 193. For an οὖν construction that is not discussed here, i.e. the one in pre-expansions, see III.4 §§43-45.
[ back ] 194. Other οὖν instances marking its utterance or act as an inference or a conclusion include Aeschylus Libation Bearers 114 (in a question), 177 (in a question); Eumenides 219 (in an assertion); Seven against Thebes 704 (in a rhetorical question); Suppliant Women 340 (in a question); Sophocles Ajax 1215 (in a rhetorical question); Women of Trachis 550 (in an assertion), 1162 (in an assertion); Euripides Andromache 82 (in a rhetorical question), 1165 (in a rhetorical question, very similar to the example quoted here); Medea 289 (in an assertion); Aristophanes Frogs 274 (in a question), 1056bis (in a question), 1064bis (in a question), 1420 (in an assertion), 1458 (in a rhetorical question); Wealth 83 (in a question), 518bis (in a question).
[ back ] 195. See Jebb 1888, Kamerbeek 1978, and Griffith 1999 ad loc. Other examples of μὲν οὖν not working as a cluster include Aeschylus Suppliant Women 133; Sophocles Antigone 925; Electra 459, 549; Women of Trachis 1270; Euripides Andromache 554; Children of Heracles 818; Hecuba 16, 51; Hippolytus 393, 451, 1249, 1318.
[ back ] 196. On μέν creating contrasting emphasis when a projected new act is left implicit, see II.2 §60.
[ back ] 197. The cluster καὶ μήν has a similar use at the beginning of turns, indicating a correction or objection, especially in Aristophanes: see Devarius 1588:114-115; Bodin and Mazon 1902:354-355; Smyth 1956:658-659; Wakker 1997a:217-218; Van Erp Taalman Kip 2009:125. Examples include Aristophanes Clouds 1185, 1441; Frogs 612bis, 1036; Lysistrata 588bis; Wealth 1073, 1139.

In Thucydides τοίνυν may have a similar function, signaling disalignment: see IV.4 §61.
[ back ] 198. On the difference between combination and cluster, see I.1 §19.
[ back ] 199. Rost 1859:7 and Bäumlein 1861:174 note that combinations such as μὲν οὖν are frequent in answers. Other examples of the cluster μὲν οὖν marking a correction include Aeschylus Persians 1032; Agamemnon 1396; Libation Bearers 999; Eumenides 38; Sophocles Ajax 1363; Electra 1503bis; Oedipus at Colonus 31; Euripides Alcestis 821, 1113; Hippolytus 821, 1012; Aristophanes Frogs 612, 626; Wasps 898; Wealth 270, 287, 347, 390, 914, 1009.
[ back ] 200. On the particle ἦ and these two uses, see e.g. Estienne (Stephanus) 1572a:1415-1422; Devarius 1588:92-102; Viger (Vigerus) 1752 [1627]:409-413; Ellendt 1835:299-300 (on Sophocles); Stephens 1837:42-49; Ebeling 1885:528-531 (on Homer); Denniston 1950 [1934]:279; Humbert 19603:406-409; Berrettoni 1969:53-56 (on Homer); Scodel 2012 (on Homer).
[ back ] 201. ἦ is found in questions in dialogues in e.g. Aeschylus Agamemnon 269, 276, 942; Libation Bearers 220, 526, 774; Eumenides 424, 434, 717; Sophocles Ajax 38, 44, 48, 97, 103 (see III.4 §47 for discussion), 1133; Antigone 44, 574, 752; Electra 385, 663, 1177, 1503; Oedipus King 368, 429, 622, 757, 943, 1000, 1012, 1039, 1041, 1043, 1045 (see (t31) with discussion below for the instances in 1039, 1041, 1043, and 1045), 1120, 1130, 1173; Philoctetes 121, 322, 565, 654; Euripides Andromache 249, 437, 441, 581, 1062; Bacchae 828, 834, 1032; Hecuba 1047, 1124; Hippolytus 97, 1448.

It is found in assertions in choral songs in e.g. Aeschylus Persians 648 (see (t32) with discussion below), 852; Eumenides 144; Sophocles Ajax 621; Women of Trachis 846, 847; Euripides Andromache 274; Hippolytus 758, 1102.

Some ἦ instances in questions in choral songs are found in Sophocles Ajax 172, 176. This song is exceptional—that is, dialogue-like—in several other respects as well: see the discussion in §42 above.
[ back ] 202. See §§55-56 above.
[ back ] 203. See Scodel 2012 on the use of ἦ in Homer, e.g. 321: “The particle only rarely affirms the truth of what could actually be known, but insists on the rightness of inferences, predictions, and evaluations.” 331: “(…) interrogative ἦ is very close to the affirmative, since the speaker seeks agreement not about what has taken place, but about his interpretation of it (…).”
[ back ] 204. See e.g. Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950:564-565, who claim that ἦ in questions keeps its affirmative value.
[ back ] 205. On ἦ and emotional involvement, see also II.3 §§38-39 (on Homer) and III.4 §47 (on tragedy).
[ back ] 206. See e.g. ὦ πρὸς θεῶν in 1037, and his strong refusals to listen to Iocaste in e.g. 1058-1059 and 1065.
[ back ] 207. On the emotional charge of φίλος and φιλία in tragedy, see e.g. Stanford 1983:39-40, 45.
[ back ] 208. Groeneboom 1930, Broadhead 1960, Roussel 1960, and De Romilly 1974 all read only the first ἦ. Denniston 1950 [1934]:281 also thinks that the second ἦ is unmetrical.
[ back ] 209. See II.3 §§33-42 on the closeness of Homeric ἦ to an interjection, and on interpreting it, accordingly, as a potentially independent prosodic unit, and as a sign of a character’s emotional involvement.
[ back ] 210. These other discourse patterns, however, would need to form a large enough corpus to yield statistically significant data concerning frequencies of linguistic features.
[ back ] 211. For several such comparisons of particle frequencies in Homer, see II.2 §36 on δέ; II.3 §§38-39 on ἦ, with the nuancing note 122; §52 on γε; §§54-55 and §§60-61 on δή; §66 on ἄρα. For several particles being related to the reflection of a character’s or the author’s voice in Herodotus and Thucydides, see IV.4.3.
[ back ] 212. Denniston wonders why τε and γε are rarely found together, “since the combination is a perfectly natural one” (1950 [1934]:161).
[ back ] 213. And even all other Greek literature: a TLG survey of γε’s frequency in 51 authors from Homer to the third century CE demonstrates that the author with the second highest average γε frequency, i.e. Plato, still uses it only 0.92 times per 100 words. In Aristophanes the frequency is 1.07%, if all speaker names and indications of line numbers are taken into account as well—the real frequency of γε is therefore even higher (see the clarification in I.5). For more correct frequencies in drama, but concerning only parts of the plays, see Table 11 above for the average γε frequencies in the three discourse patterns. See III.5 §52 on probable reasons for the high γε frequency in Aristophanes.