Bonifazi, Anna, Annemieke Drummen, and Mark de Kreij. 2016. Particles in Ancient Greek Discourse: Exploring Particle Use across Genres. Hellenic Studies Series 79. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_BonifaziA_DrummenA_deKreijM.Particles_in_Ancient_Greek_Discourse.2016.
II.4 Discourse Memory: The negotiation of shared knowledge
Any performance of Homeric epic represents a moment in the continuum of tradition. Whichever part of the tradition is in current focus, the whole remains constantly relevant and accessible as a body of knowledge shared between performer and audience. 
In the Panhellenic culture of the fifth century these three temporal dimensions are inextricably linked, and therefore always intertwined in Pindaric song.
4.1 Discourse memory
Lord highlights two aspects of memory relevant to the epic performance: knowledge of the narrative sequence on the one hand (the “overall story”), and the crucial elements to every segment of the story on the other. Both of these elements are to a large extent prescribed by tradition, a fact that is not limited to epic. In both lyric and epic, the content and structure of stories is therefore to a certain extent shared by performer and audience.  Besides the narratives within epic and lyric, the genres themselves are traditional too: the performer is aware of the audience’s expectations about both form and content. More generally, in a performance at a certain time and place, there exists a body of shared experiences and beliefs, resulting from a world and a culture shared by performer and audience. Finally, the performer can build upon what was said before within the same performance, the shared discourse: he can assume, rightly or not, that the audience remembers the most important events of the preceding discourse.
I understand the difference between discourse memory and the discourse model as follows: the discourse memory is the whole body of shared knowledge that underlies the current discourse,  whereas the discourse model is that part of the discourse memory that has been activated to create a mental representation of the current discourse. In other words, the discourse model is part of the working memory, while the rest of the discourse memory is that part of the long term memory that is shared between performer and audience. 
4.2 Unframed discourse
The narrator shifts from reporting direct speech to describing a character. The italicized passage is unframed, since it is not concerned with what is happening at a certain point in time. In English unframed discourse is marked by its form as generalizations, often a description or backstory, as here.  The information given in unframed text is true beyond the current scene in the storyworld: it is not happening in a narrative “here and now.” Since unframed discourse often takes this form, scholars have described it in terms of “descriptive mode” or “background discourse,”  but unframed is a more inclusive term: it covers not only descriptions, but also expressions of stance, and it avoids the hierarchical implications of foreground versus background. Most importantly, the status of the discourse as framed or unframed is not dependent on content (i.e. descriptions) but on the attitude of the performer towards the discourse. In many cases, the performer can choose between presenting discourse as framed or unframed: compare “they saw her stride in through the gate. She was a tall woman…” (framed) against “She strode in through the gate. She had always been the tallest of three sisters…” (unframed). 
In addition to the linguistic marking mentioned above, Ancient Greek likewise employs metalinguistic markers at the transitions between framed and unframed discourse. I now turn to the most important of these markers in Homer and Pindar.
4.2.1. γάρ and unframed discourse in Homeric epic
Κύκλωπος γὰρ ἔκειτο μέγα ῥόπαλον | παρὰ σηκῷ, |
320 χλωρὸν ἐλαΐνεον· | (…)
325 τοῦ μὲν | ὅσον τ’ ὄργυιαν | ἐγὼν ἀπέκοψα | παραστὰς |
καὶ παρέθηχ’ ἑτάροισιν, | ἀποξῦναι δ’ ἐκέλευσα· |
You see, there lay a big club of the Cyclops near the pen,
320 of green olivewood;
325 Of that, then, I cut off about a fathom’s length, standing near it,
and put it near my comrades; I ordered them to sand it down.
In lines 319-324 a passage is inserted to give information that the audience needs to understand the point of the narrative. The information that Odysseus offers is in the form of a piece of knowledge about the storyworld of his Cyclops narrative. This shift to the unframed move is marked by γάρ and a change to the imperfect tense (ἔκειτο etc), as typically occurs in such situations. The return to framed discourse is marked by μέν and three verbs in the aorist. 
ἀρνειὸς γὰρ ἔην μήλων | ὄχ’ ἄριστος ἁπάντων, |
τοῦ κατὰ νῶτα λαβών, | λασίην ὑπὸ γαστέρ’ ἐλυσθεὶς |
κείμην· | (…)
there was a ram, far the best of all the sheep;
grabbing him down the back, curled under his haired belly
Again, γάρ is used to introduce a piece of knowledge that the speaker thinks the hearer may not, or cannot, know. In both (t7) and (t8) the piece of unframed discourse interrupts the flow of the narrative, in (t8) actually interfering with a syntactical construction. 
14. … in the front of the róom,
15. .. and he st
16. and évery … évery lecture,
17. … áfter the fírst,
18. .. stárted the same wáy.
19. This was .. u—m at Wésleyan,
20. when Wesleyan was still … a mén’s school.
21. … So évery lecture after the first would begin,
22. … Géntlemen,
23. ..ze lást time,
There is no clear marking of the beginning of the unframed discourse, but the return to the narrative frame is marked with “so”; Emmott calls this “frame recall.”  The similarity with (t7) and (t8) is striking: as the speaker comes to the pointe of his story, he introduces a crucial piece of information: the presence of the club in (t7), the ram in (t8), and the fact that Wesleyan was still a men’s school in (t9). The speaker then proceeds to tell the rest of the story so that Odysseus has a club to make a weapon, an animal to cling to, and so that the “[g]entlemen” in (t9) makes sense. There may be another motivation behind this strategy: by inserting the information at this point in the narrative, in this form, the climax of the story is briefly postponed. Thus introducing this kind of unframed discourse may serve to build up tension in the unfolding of the framed discourse.
Δηΐφοβος· | δὴ γάρ οἱ ἔχεν κότον ἐμμενὲς αἰεί. |
ἀλλ’ ὅ γε  καὶ τόθ’ ἅμαρτεν, | ὃ δ’ Ἀσκάλαφον βάλε δουρὶ |
Deïphobus. For he had had a hate for him, ever unceasing.
But HE missed right then. He hit Ascalaphus with his spear,
In this prototypical example, it seems almost like we get a glimpse of Deiphobus’ thoughts at the moment that he attacks Idomeneus “I have really always hated him!” However, the addition of ἐμμενὲς αἰεί, as well as the imperfect (ἔχεν) within the narrative in the aorist, strongly suggest the omniscient perspective of the narrator. In contrast to the unframed discourse discussed above, the kind of information introduced by δὴ γάρ here is not about the external world, but about the thoughts of a character.  The performer uses γάρ to introduce a little insight into a character’s psyche, creating the impression of what we might call free indirect thought. In this form of representing thought, there is no cue like “he thought: …” (direct thought) or “he thought that …” (indirect thought), but a character’s thoughts are represented more obliquely.  The use of intensification through δή within the narrator text may also be a sign of empathy of the narrator with that character: there is a blurring of perspectives.  In the parallel instances of δὴ γάρ there is always some similar insight into the feelings of a character.  Unframed discourse in narrative, in short, concerns not only information about the storyworld, but also about the thoughts and feelings of characters. 
οὐ γάρ τ’ αἶψα θεῶν τρέπεται νόος αἰὲν ἐόντων. |
No, not quickly is the mind turned of the gods who are forever.
Nestor is acting like an internal narrator, and his use of νήπιος clearly shows his non-neutral stance.  Here and in other examples of γάρ τε moves in Homer, the pattern is clear: after the two adjacent particles there is a shift to present tense (or an elided ἐστι),  and this is often accompanied by a form of αἰεί.  Finally, this kind of gnomic unframed discourse typically occurs in direct speech, and is practically limited to the Odyssey.
4.2.2 γάρ and unframed discourse in Pindar
ἐσσὶ γὰρ ὦν  σοφός· |
You see, you are well-versed in song.
After the gnomic statement of line 11, Pindar turns to Thrasyboulus, son of the laudandus and addressee for most of this song.  The act ἐσσὶ γὰρ ὦν σοφός· marks a discursive discontinuity: it directs attention away from a general statement to Thrasyboulus in particular. The implication is that the preceding expression is not applicable to Pindar’s addressee. Pindar, addressing Thrasyboulus directly and calling upon his authority as poet, seems to say: “You are wise, do not try to deny it, I just proclaimed it.”  Here, and in several other instances where γάρ introduces unframed information about the victor or his family, some kind of extralinguistic reference to them would also be appropriate; perhaps in the form of a gesture or a gaze, just before or along with the γάρ act. 
ἕκαλος ἔπειμι γῆρας | ἔς τε τὸν μόρσιμον
αἰῶνα. | θνᾴσκομεν γὰρ ὁμῶς ἅπαντες· |
δαίμων δ’ ἄϊσος· |
calmly I go to old age, and to the fated
life’s end. For we all die the same;
but our fortune is distinct.
Here the gnṓmē occurs in first-person discourse, it puts Pindar’s statement about his old age in relief. The transition between different moves of the performer becomes even clearer in the following example, called “parenthetical” by Hummel: 
μὴ παρίει καλά.
do not pass over good things.
Pindar advises Hieron not to be too humble, it seems, and supports his advice with reference to a common piece of wisdom.  As in (t8), the γάρ act (and move) interrupts a syntactical whole, and for this reason Hummel calls it a parenthetical construction. She adds: “In this type of structure, the particle serves to signal the change of syntactical and logical level of the utterance” [my italics].  Despite the difference in terminology, Hummel’s assessment resonates with my analysis of γάρ as marking that the speaker is (however briefly) performing a different kind of move. Gnômai introduce knowledge necessary to understand the workings of the world of the discourse.  In Homer this world is generally the storyworld, sometimes extended to include the world at large, while in Pindar the emphasis is more on the latter.
4.2.3 γάρ in Homer and Pindar: An overview
4.3 Particles in the Homeric simile
335 ἤματι τῷ ὅτε τε πλείστη κόνις ἀμφὶ κελεύθους, |
οἵ τ’ ἄμυδις κονίης μεγάλην ἱστᾶσιν ὀμίχλην, |
ὣς ἄρα τῶν ὁμόσ’ ἦλθε μάχη, | (…)
335 on a day when there is a lot of dust on the roads,
which, full of dust, raise a large mist,
just so their battle joined.
ὅς ῥά τε βεβρωκὼς βοὸς ἔρχεται ἀγραύλοιο· |
πᾶν δ’ ἄρα οἱ στῆθός τε παρήϊά τ’ ἀμφοτέρωθεν |
405 αἱματόεντα πέλει, | δεινὸς δ’ εἰς ὦπα ἰδέσθαι· |
ὣς Ὀδυσεὺς πεπάλακτο πόδας καὶ χεῖρας ὕπερθεν. |
which, having fed, comes from an ox in the field,
completely then his breast and both his paws
405 are bloody, and terrible for the eyes to see.
So Odysseus was bespattered, his feet and his hands above.
Both these similes follow the basic pattern of the Homeric simile: (1) the vehicle is introduced by a marker, here ὡς, as in the large majority; (2) a combination of a relative pronoun and a particle introduces the information in the vehicle relevant to the comparison; (3) cohesion in the first part of the simile is attained by the recurrence of τε;  (4) the simile is rounded off with another marker – here ὥς, which is the rule – in (t15) followed by ἄρα. The particles τε and ἄρα are particularly frequent in similes: τε most typically occurs in the first part of the simile, the vehicle portion, while ἄρα generally occurs at the start of the simile’s resolution, with the re-introduction of the tenor. The first element in the simile, the introductory marker of comparison, varies in form but is always present.  The latter three elements deserve more discussion.
4.3.1 τε in the Homeric simile
ποιμέσιν οὔ τι φίλην, | κλέπτῃ δέ τε νυκτὸς ἀμείνω, |
τόσσόν τίς τ’ ἐπιλεύσσει | ὅσον τ’ ἐπὶ λᾶαν ἵησιν· |
ὣς ἄρα τῶν ὑπὸ ποσσὶ κονίσαλος ὄρνυτ’ ἀελλὴς |
ἐρχομένων· | (…)
not at all loved by shepherds, yet to the thief better than night,
and one can see only so far as he could throw a stone,
just so under their feet a dust-filled cloud rose up
as they came on.
The entry of the Greek and Trojan armies on the battlefield is accompanied by a series of similes. The second, given in (t17), is used to describe the advance of the Greeks. The advance of the Trojans has just been compared to that of a flock of twittering birds, noisy and without order, and now the performer turns to the Greeks. They come on in silence, and the dust their feet throw up provides a cover for them as if they were thieves. Since we are in a situation of war rather than peace, the fact that the mist is a nuisance to shepherds suggests the perspective of the Trojans: the Greeks are hidden from their view, just as a mist may hide a flock from shepherds. The image of the thief, in turn, matches the Greeks who benefit from the dust that hides them. The crucial link proposed by the simile is that between the advancing Greeks and the thief taking advantage of the mist, and this is the element introduced by τε.
μάστακ’ ἐπεί κε λάβῃσι, | κακῶς δ’ ἄρα οἱ πέλει αὐτῇ, |
325 ὣς καὶ ἐγὼ |  πολλὰς μὲν ἀΰπνους νύκτας ἴαυον, |
mouthfuls whenever she has found some, bad though it is for herself,
325 so I too, many sleepless nights did I spend
Here we find a whole simile without τε, the absence of which is especially remarkable in the second half of 324, since this act provides the simile’s key as in the examples above. A closer look at the editions reveals that most manuscripts as well as a third-century papyrus read κακῶς δέ τέ οἱ.  It appears to be mainly the testimony of Aristarchus, transmitted in the scholia, that has led to most editions giving δ᾽ἄρα.  Considering the frequency of τε in the vehicle portion of the simile, the frequent link between τε and the key of the simile, and finally the manuscript evidence, I would propose that δέ τέ οἱ is the more attractive reading.
ἄστεος αἰθομένοιο, | θεῶν δέ ἑ μῆνις ἀνῆκε, |
πᾶσι δ’ ἔθηκε πόνον, | πολλοῖσι δὲ κήδε’ ἐφῆκεν, |
525 ὣς Ἀχιλεὺς Τρώεσσι πόνον καὶ κήδε’ ἔθηκεν. |
from a burning city, the wrath of the gods sends it up,
makes an ordeal for all, and brings grief upon many,
525 thus Achilles brought toil and grief to the Trojans.
νεβροὺς κοιμήσασα | νεηγενέας γαλαθηνοὺς |
κνημοὺς ἐξερέῃσι | καὶ ἄγκεα ποιήεντα |
βοσκομένη, | ὁ δ’ ἔπειτα ἑὴν εἰσήλυθεν εὐνήν, |
ἀμφοτέροισι δὲ τοῖσιν ἀεικέα πότμον ἐφῆκεν, |
340 ὣς Ὀδυσεὺς κείνοισιν ἀεικέα πότμον ἐφήσει. |
having put her fawns to sleep, new-born and still suckling,
seeks pastures and grassy hollows,
roaming, and HE then comes to his lair,
and brings to both of them an unseemly fate,
340 thus Odysseus will bring an unseemly fate to them.
In line 523 of (t19), several manuscripts and papyri give τε as a variant reading for ἑ. Editors appear to prefer ἑ as the lectio difficilior, but the statistics for τε in similes support reading τε. The same goes for Odyssey 4.338 in (t20), where a group of manuscripts reads ὁ δέ τ᾽ ὦκα rather than ὁ δ᾽ ἔπειτα.  I cannot establish here what has led editors to prefer the latter reading, but nothing textual or metrical speaks against reading the former. The more common ὁ δ᾽ ἔπειτα might be argued to be the lectio facilior, while at the same time this construction never occurs in a simile.  A further argument for reading ὁ δέ τ᾽ ὦκα is that in Iliad 21.261 we find τὸ δέ τ᾽ ὦκα, in the same metrical position, in a simile describing how the river Scamander overtakes Achilles. From the discourse perspective, in both (t19) and (t20) the acts that have τε in a variant reading introduce the simile’s salient element: the gods who drive on the smoke is compared to Achilles driving on the Trojans, and the lion who enters his lair is compared to Odysseus returning to his palace.
4.3.2 ἄρα in the Homeric simile and beyond
ὣς ἄρα τῶν ὁμόσ’ ἦλθε μάχη, | (…)
just so their battle joined.
In (t21) ἄρα accompanies the return to the narrative frame in a verse that recapitulates the line just preceding the simile. There is clear resonance on the level of content as well as on the lexical level, as the bold words show. In (t22), conversely, the link established is more tenuous, but the image of the Achaeans advancing is retrieved with the expression “under their feet”:
ἐν θυμῷ μεμαῶτες ἀλεξέμεν ἀλλήλοισιν. |
ὣς ἄρα τῶν ὑπὸ ποσσὶ κονίσαλος ὄρνυτ᾽ ἀελλὴς |
desiring in their heart to defend one another.
Thus under their feet rose an eddying dust cloud
In both instances, ἄρα marks the return to the narrative frame, and the projection of the simile’s image on the situation in the storyworld.
4.3.3 The linguistic form of the simile
ἕλκῃσιν | πεδίοιο τιταινόμενος σὺν ὄχεσφι· |
τοῦ μέν τε ψαύουσιν ἐπισσώτρου τρίχες ἄκραι |
520 οὐραῖαι· | ὃ δέ τ’ ἄγχι μάλα τρέχει, | οὐδέ τι πολλὴ
χώρη μεσσηγὺς | πολέος πεδίοιο θέοντος· |
τόσσον δὴ Μενέλαος ἀμύμονος Ἀντιλόχοιο
his master across the plain, straining with the chariot.
He touches the wheel with the hindmost hairs
520 of his tail, it rolls close behind, and not much
space is there in between, as he runs over the long plain;
That much did Menelaus trail noble
This little-discussed simile seems, at first glance, to have all the characteristics of a Homeric simile, but it is remarkable in several ways. Rather than illustrating the scene by means of unrelated imagery, the simile retains the image of a horse and chariot in order to establish quite precisely the distance between Antilochus and Menelaus.  The mention of the horse drawing its lord (ἄναξ) through the plain does not remove the image from the current scene, for Menelaus qualifies as an ἄναξ, and the venue for the games is the Trojan plain. Beyond making an analogy, then, the passage is an attempt to more precisely establish the physical position of the characters in the storyworld. From a narrative perspective, moreover, the tension evoked by the image seems to miss its mark since the outcome of the scene has already been reached: Antilochus has beaten Menelaus.
4.4 Scripts, scenarios, and traditional knowledge
That is to say, whereas the formulaic language is part of what the epic singer learns in his craft, the use of themes in composition follows naturally from human experience. I concur with Minchin that a natural connection is to be drawn between the epic phenomenon of typical scene or theme and the cognitive concept of the script. However, the origin of the script need not always lie in common human experience, but may well be the specific epic experience of the performer.
4.4.1 Particles in two recurrent themes
τοὺς δ’ | ἐπεὶ οὖν δμῳαὶ λοῦσαν | καὶ χρῖσαν ἐλαίῳ, |
ἀμφὶ δ’ ἄρα χλαίνας οὔλας βάλον | ἠδὲ χιτῶνας, |
90 ἔκ ῥ’ ἀσαμίνθων βάντες | ἐπὶ κλισμοῖσι καθῖζον. |
And them, when the maids had washed them, and anointed them with oil,
around them woolly cloaks they threw, and tunics.
90 Going out of the baths, they sat down on the couches.
The parallels are largely the same, though in some instances the scene is shorter.  As here, the particles that appear most frequently in these scenes are δέ and ἄρα. The frequency of δέ roughly matches its average in narrator text, but the same is not true of ἄρα. Especially in the second part of the scene, the particle recurs consistently. Its presence thus marks the bathing scene as a little narrative (the progression of which is marked by δέ) that happens to be predictable. Washing, clothing, and returning to the public space are details that can always be expected. The underlying script explains why the performer marks the later narrative steps with ἄρα. To put it in different terms, the activation of the “bathing” script projects a sequence of actions, and the fulfilment of this projection is marked with ἄρα.
καλὸν νηγάτεον, | περὶ δὲ μέγα βάλλετο φᾶρος· |
ποσσὶ δ’ ὑπὸ λιπαροῖσιν | ἐδήσατο καλὰ πέδιλα, |
45 ἀμφὶ δ’ ἄρ’ ὤμοισιν | βάλετο ξίφος ἀργυρόηλον· |
εἵλετο δὲ σκῆπτρον πατρώϊον | ἄφθιτον αἰεὶ |
fine, newly made, and around it he threw his great cloak,
under his smooth feet he tied fair sandals,
45 then around his shouldes he put his silver-studded sword.
He took the sceptre of his forefathers, ever imperishable.
The clothing  or arming  scene has numerous parallels, mostly in the Iliad, that all follow the same pattern. As in the bathing scene in (t25), the sequential actions are separated by δέ. Even more than the bathing scene, the linguistic make-up of the clothing scene is indistinguishable from the surrounding narrative.
εἰ μὴ ἄρ’ Ἀντίλοχος μεγαθύμου Νέστορος υἱὸς |
Πηλεΐδην Ἀχιλῆα δίκῃ ἠμείψατ’ ἀναστάς· |
if Antilochus, son of great-hearted Nestor, had not
gotten up and rightly answered Peleus’ son Achilles:
If we imagine being one of the characters, we may agree with Ruijgh’s claim that “the fact marked by ἄρα is surprising.”  However, the audience of an epic performance knows that the linguistic construction καί νύ κε always projects its opposite.  In other words, the narratively surprising event is rendered in a projected and thus expected discourse act. ἄρα, as often, functions as metalanguage to mark its host act as expected, irrespective of the discourse act’s content.
4.5 τε in Pindar
4.5.1 “Epic” τε in Pindar
ὀπάσσαι γάμου Αἰακίδᾳ, |
40 ὅν τ’ εὐσεβέστατον φάτις  Ἰαολκοῦ τράφειν πεδίον· |
to Peleus, son of Aiakos,
40 who is said to be the most pious man that the plain of Iolkos has produced.
Themis speaks to Zeus and Poseidon, who have been quarreling over Thetis. Themis prophesies that if Thetis will indeed lie with Zeus or his brother, the offspring of that union will be more powerful than his father. Instead, she proposes, Thetis should be married to the mortal Peleus. The relative clause introduced by ὅν τε adds that he is “said to be” the most pious man in Iolkos. Most of Ruijgh’s permanent facts concern gods, but he explains the use of τε here because it concerns the fame (“renommée”) of a hero. 
ψεῦδος γλυκὺ μεθέπων | ἄϊδρις ἀνήρ· |
εἶδος γὰρ ὑπεροχωτάτᾳ πρέπεν Οὐρανιᾶν |
θυγατέρι Κρόνου· | ἅν τε δόλον αὐτῷ θέσαν
40 Ζηνὸς παλάμαι | καλὸν πῆμα. |
pursuing a sweet lie, the ignorant man.
For in form it resembled the most eminent of the goddesses,
the daughter of Kronos. Her [sc. the cloud] Zeus’ plans had put there
40 for him as a beautiful bane.
The only explanation Ruijgh offers for this passage is “fait mythique,” “ mythical fact.”  The effectiveness of Ruijgh’s dichotomy between permanent and temporary facts appears to break down here. After all, if a mythical fact is not permanent, then what is? The passage introduced by ἅν τε appears to be the salient element in the mythical narrative about Ixion’s attempt on Hera (announced in lines 26-33).  The reason he was caught is that Zeus tricked him. This is a fact that Pindar takes from tradition, which he conveys with the addition of τε—whether the entire audience actually knows this exact detail or not. To come back to Ruijgh’s definition, it is neither important whether τε marks a fact or not, nor whether this fact is permanent or temporary. All that matters is the social contract of the lyric performance: performer and audience partake in the same world, culture, tradition, and event: τε appeals to and creates exactly this shared knowledge.
4.5.2 Copulative τε in Pindar
In two recent studies, Viti has argued that in Homer copulative τε is used more for natural coordination, and καί more for accidental coordination. For both Homer and Pindar, I believe we may apply the idea of natural coordination even more productively to the use of τε if we bring it in connection with the concept of discourse memory.
Nectar and ambrosia are related as the drink and food of the gods, but this link is limited to a context of people who share this tradition. Hummel lists it among the examples of “paires idiomatiques.” Slightly more specific is the relation between the following two items:
ἐν μάχαις τε πολέμου | (…)
and in battles of war
Hummel lists this passage as an example of a pair that is unique to Pindar. However, the relation between athletic games and battle is inherent in the ritual dimension of the games. It is generally assumed that in essence athletic contests are mock battles that allow participants to win honour outside of actual war.  In the epinician genre, we may say that it is a natural pair from the perspective of the generic conventions. Finally, there are pairs that are related on a more ad hoc basis:
In the final lines of Pythian 4, Pindar asks Arkesilas to allow the exiled Damophilos to return to Cyrene, since he has been away “from his fatherland and his possessions.” The two are no natural pair (Hummel lists the passage under complementary pairs) but they presuppose some specific knowledge about the exile, presumably shared between performer and at least a part of the audience.
Combinations like land and sea appear to be expressions of shared human experience, but even they are context-based: this one will not be natural to people from a land that knows no coastline. Other pairs conjoined by τε καί are even more clearly bound together by a relation that is natural within a specific context.  Finally, τε καί occurs particularly often with geographical locations and names.  In the remaining cases, τε καί either does not conjoin two syntactically symmetrical constituents, or τε and καί work separately. 
ἔσχον θοὰν ἀκτῖνα | σὺν ἵπποις, |
Πυθοῖ τε | γυμνὸν ἐπὶ στάδιον καταβάντες | ἤλεγξαν
50 Ἑλλανίδα στρατιὰν ὠκύτατι. | (…)
they gained swift glory with horses,
and in Pytho, entering in the naked footrace, they put
50 the Greek host to shame with their speed.
The venues for the two most important Panhellenic games are listed with the use of τε only.  The relation between Olympia and Pytho is obvious in the context of an epinician ode. The same natural connection exists between the siblings Castor, Pollux, and Helen:
This kind of connection between people or gods that are naturally associated in a specific context recurs throughout the Odes. 
Now let us consider the linguistic realization of these elements (/ marks line end):
Out of Nagy’s nine elements of the story that are expressed in the text, six contain τε (one shared between (c3) and (a’)). These passages account for eight out of thirteen instances of τε in Olympian 1; the other five instances are outside the narrative.