283975

7/29/2019 283975

1/22

American Philological Association

Homeric Discourse and Enjambement: A Cognitive ApproachAuthor(s): Egbert J. BakkerSource: Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), Vol. 120 (1990), pp. 1-21Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283975 .

Accessed: 28/07/2013 00:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Philological Association and The Johns Hopkins University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 41.226.66.100 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:03:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/283975?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/283975?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

7/29/2019 283975

2/22

TransactionsftheAmericanhilological ssociation20 (1990) 1-21

HOMERIC DISCOURSE ANDENJAMBEMENT:A COGNITIVE APPROACHEGBERTJ.BAKKERUniversityfLeiden

1. ntroductionThe discussion f enjambementnHomerhas sinceMilmanParry's 1929)1seminalrticle een recurrentopicnthe tudyfHomers 'oralpoetry.' hetendencynHomerfor entencendto coincidewithverse ndwas made byParrynto basis onwhichHomer ould be differentiatedromheunequivo-cally iterate exameteroetsApolloniusfRhodes nd Virgil. he differenceinversificationetweenHomer ndthe ater oetswas explained y Parrynterms f theoralcompositionalechniquef which heHomeric tyle s theproductr at east strongeflex.Mostauthors greethat nHomertheend of theverse coincidesmorefrequentlyith he nd of a linguisticnit 'sentence')thannApollonius rVirgilor any iterate oet.2Yet on theother andtheyhaveto concedethatHomerdoes indeed ontainmany aseswhere he sense' is not ompleted ythe ndof theverse ndwherewe have to admit,ccordingly,case ofwhatParryalled necessarynjambement.' popularnd, ndeed, ttractive aneu-ver s to attributeuch stylisticubtletiesby oral standards) o the sophis-ticationhatwe haveto recognizenHomeric oetrynyway. ut ndoing o,we implicitlypply toHomer hesamestandardss to literate oets,whichreducesorality' o a mere imitingactorfrom n aesthetic oint f view),fromwhichHomer'sgenius ouldfree tself o well.Moreover, e imply hatthe onceptswithwhich arryworked'complete hought,'idea,' andespec-ially sentence') are self-evidentnd uncontroversialn oralpoetry tudies,which heyre not.3In this rticle intend o do somethinghathould edone, nmy pinion,beforewe attributenythingo Homer's iteraryrstylisticenius.This s theappreciationf Homer'sstyle s primarilyn oralstyle.Ofcourse, heres

11 will citefrom he collectedwritingsA. Parry,d. [1971]).2 See Lord (1960: 54; 284), M. W. Edwards 1966), Kirk 1966), G. P. Edwards(1971: 93-99). The strong oincidence f metrical nd linguistic nits on whichsee also Visser [1987: 31-321) was formulatedy Peabody 1975: 4; 141-43) intermsof the 'enjambment estfor orality.'According o the enjambement est,independenceof the linguisticexpressionof verse end should not, or veryseldom,occur n an oral style.3 One piece of criticismf Parry's tatisticsClayman& Van Nortwick19771),forexample,was apparentlymotivated y a differentonceptionof 'sentence'from hat f Parry. he critiquehas been sufficientlyefutedBarnes [19791),butthe confusion emains.

This content downloaded from 41.226.66.100 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:03:58 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/29/2019 283975

3/22

2 Egbert .Bakkernothingontroversial,ven somethingrivial,n callingHomeric tyleoral.'But still believe hatmany cholarswhohavestudied omer n terms f oralpoetry'have notgone far nough,nthat hey ept pplying, hether rnotimplicitly,he inguistictandardsf writtenanguage oHomer. n this rticleI will accept the ultimateinguistic nd cognitive onsequences f what tmeans o speak bout ralpoetry. o do this, will resorto modem inguisticresearchn orality utside he phere fHomeric hilologyr evenoralpoetry.The secondpurpose fthe rticles the eexaminationf enjambement'nHomern the ight f the inguisticropertiesforal anguage se.By adoptinga functionalinguisticnddiscourse-orientedoint fview, shalltry o showthat ven ncases where heres enjambementy ll standardssedhitherto,heend of the ineis still clearboundaryetween inguisticnits, o that t ispreferableo suppress he ermenjambement'ltogether.his secondpurposeamounts o providing linguisticndcognitiveasis to Edwards's1966: 122-37) justifiedttemptso ookfor 'breaknsense' even ntheharshest' asesofenjambemenLt4

2. TheproductionforalnarrativeMany f the cholarswhohaveworked nHomerictyle, hetherr not nconnection ith njambement,avenoticed hekind ffeaturef thattyle hatcanbe dealtwithnterms f adding' Parry),cumulation'Kirk) r some uchcharacterization.5he cumulative ature f theHomeric tyle s intimatelyconnected ith he ess harsh f the wo ypes fenjambementhich arry is-tinguishednd which ecalled unperiodic'after ionysiusfHalicarnassus):6verse nd nHomerfrequentlyallsbetween clause and a phrasewhich s insomewayin apposition o it,either participialr a prepositionalr someotherxpandinghrase,or xample:

(1) IH, xac HI?isaavSpov L?v &q>' t'ILwvW'a Xapai?,Sovp'i i3ak&v ip?S; asiOo;. (A 143-44).The participialhrase s a non-essentialxtensionfthepreceding lause,sothatthe enjambementt creates s considerednot to be verystrong.But'cumulation'lso applies, s I shall rgue, omany fthe asesofParry's ec-ond kind fenjambement'necessary' njambement),nwhich erse nd fallsbetweenonstituentshat eemtobelong losely ogether,or xample:(2) A'ta; 6? KkXovXookvOiXta6B6; opotoa;Ccbv ?x, PXa

7/29/2019 283975

4/22

Homericiscoursend njambement 3In this xample,he inguisticreak etweenCo6vXeandfkapOtevtassimilarothat hich oincides ith ersend n 1),while he ersend n 2)seems oseparatessentialarts fone nd he ame lause subject objectandverb) romne nother.'Cumulation'nHomer asbeen iscussed ainlynstylisticerms.hisreflectshe ominantlyiterarypproach,nwhichheHomericexts seen sstatic, finishedroduct. henwetake ralityeriously,owever,e have olook tHomers a dynamic,ngoingrocess. ecent esearchnoral anguageuse makes his ewperspectiveossible;t allowsus to dealwith omericdiscoursena cognitiveramework,n whichweapproachinguisticxpres-sions romhe oint fview f he ognitiverocessesf he arrator,ot romthe ointfview f he tandardsppliedy reader.

Ina seriesf rticles,he inguist allace hafe1980, 982, 985, 987,1989) has elaboratedhepoint hat peakers ormallyo notproduce heirutterancesn nuninterruptedlow fwordsnd entences.nstead,pokenan-guage s producedn series f spurtsfvocalization'Chafe 987:1).Theseideaunitsor ntonationnits),s Chafealls hem,ave he ollowingroper-ties1985:106): 1) they ave singleoherentntonationontour,ften itha fallingitchtthe nd ffectingsense f losure;2) theyre ftenrecededandfollowedyhesitationhenomena;3) theymay e complete,ndependentclauses, onsistingfa verb nd a) noun hrase(s),ut heymay lsobechunksf nformationhat re yntacticallyependentn other nits;4) theyarerelativelyhort,bout evenwords,ut fteness.Chafe ypothesizeshatwhat e callsthe ragmentedaturef nformalspeech, ppearingnthe oncatenationf dea units, eflectshe ognitivelimitationsfthehumanrganism.ctiveonsciousness,rthe mountf n-formationhat personan focus nat any netime,s severelyimited,sexperimentalata nshort-timeemoryuggestsMiller1956]).Asa result,the otal mountf nformationfwhich storyonsistsanbe processedyanoral tory-tellernlynsmall hunkst a time,nd hiswould eem obereflectedn he ragmentedinearrganizationf he iscoursen deaunits.Oneof he onsequencesfChafe's indings,swell s ofrelatedesearchinconversationnalysis,s that he oncept f sentence'osesmuch f tsimportancehen earedealing ithngoinganguageroduction.henwhatwecallthe ypicalentence-fmalallingntonationanoccurtthe nd f nyidea (intonation)nit, ven whenthe syntax as not been broughtocompletion,t snot o clear nymorehat sentences. f entencesave nyfunctiont all in ongoing peech ndnarrative,t is a functionhat sindependentfthe ognitiveonstraintshat esultntheinear rganizationnideaunitsChafe 1987: 6-47]).This ppears romhe act hatentencesntext re very nevenn engthndmay lsovaryn engthrompeakerospeaker.nsteadfbeingelatedo he roductivespectf exts,entencesaybe seenas theresult fa speaker's ecisionss tothepresentationfanarrative;heyre hus matterfrhetoric,r tyle,atherhan f he ognitiveactivationf deaunitsn hepeaker's ind.As a major omponentf he hetoricalrticulationf exts,entencesendtobe more rominentnwritinghannspeech. ontraryospeakingand


7/29/2019 283975

5/22

4 Egbert .Bakkerhearing),ritingand eading)re ctivitieshatre essdeterminedy ognitiveconstraints.writers very ftenn a more eisurelyosition hann oralnarrator;onsequently,he ext eproducesas moredited,ntegrateduality.Sentencesnformal rittenextsre resenteds integralholes,nd hewaywriteregins sentencesoftenndissolublyinked ith owheenvisageshecompletionfwhat ehasbegun. hus heragmentationf peechcane op-posed o hentegrationfwriting.7Anexamplef the dited,ntegratedaturefwritings opposedo thefragmentedaturef peechs a sentenceike And henhewent asternthatclass hannthe eginninglass." nChafe's1989: ) data,his entenceasorally roduceds a successionf hreedeaunits:(3) a. ...and then she...wentfaster.b. ...in that class,c. ...you knowthan n the...beginninglass.The peakerealizedhe irstdeaunit sa completelause, ith he ppropriatesentence-finalalling itchindicatedy full topnthe ranscription).heseconddeaunitwas dded,s anafterthoughtfterfull ause, othe irst,tsnon-fallingitch ignallinghatmorewas to follow;he hird nit, inally,broughtheutteranceo tsend,being onnectedo the econd nebythetypicallynglishdeaunitinkingeviceyou now."

Thetypicallyragmentedrganizationfongoingpeechn deaunits asits own syntax, hich iffersonsiderablyrom ormalducatedwrittenlanguage, here he mphasiss more n the ext roducedhan nthe ro-ductiontself.wo spectsf heyntaxfongoingpeechrerelevantormypurpose:1) the evices sedfor he inkingf deaunitsnd 2) the ooselyconnectedtatusfnounhrasesnd dverbialhrases ithespecto he lauseto whichhey elong.nsection below shall xplainwhat mean ythesecondspect; ewillnow ealwithhe irstne.Ideaunits ithlausal ropertiesi.e.with verbnd a]noun hrase[s])may e connectedo ach ther y numberf inkage arkers,fwhichndinEnglishs themost eutralndthemost requentSchiffrin1987:150];Chafe1989: 0-11]).n grammarescribingormal,perfect'entences,ndmay e describeds a coordinatingonjunctioninkinglauseshatre ituatedonthe ame yntacticevel, herebyieldingomplexentences.8n the ram-mar f spokenanguage,nthe ther and, ndservess a linkingevice7 Notice that he distinctionetween ntegrationnd fragmentations relatedtobut byno means denticalwiththatbetweenwritingnd speech.Writing ends obe more integrated hanspeech, but it has its less formalvarieties.Likewise,speech is typically ragmented,ut it has many genres, anging rom nformalo

formal see now Martin [1989: 11]). Especially oral poetrymay be highlypremeditatednd 'rehearsed.' n work urrentlyn preparationBakker: n prep.A)I addressthetensionbetweenconsciousdesign 'rhetoric')on theone handandorality 'cognition') on theother n Homericpoetry. n the present rticle amexclusively oncernedwith cognition.'8 On the level of (logical) semantics, nd signals thatwhen the one of thecomponent lauses is 'true,' theother s true too. This is what in propositionallogic appears as the logical relation conjunction' &), see Allwood et al. (1977:32), McCawley (1981: 16).


7/29/2019 283975

6/22

Homeric iscourse ndEnjambement 5between wo lausal dea units, angingnfunctionromn emptypace-fillerbetweenwovocalizations9oa continuativeprogressive)onnectiveignallingthat hefollowingdea unit s more hanust a rewordingf theprevious ne(Chafe 1989: 11]). Innarrativeherelation etween wo dea units inked yand is most often temporal ne, but this s notdue to and itself: s amaximally eutral lement, heparticleust signals hat here s a relation fsomekind,withouturtherpecifyingt.The applicationo theHomeric tyle fthe oncept f thefragmentationforalnarrativento deaunitshas, think,n immediateppeal. Andthe ban-donment f thesyntacticoncept f sentence' nfavor fthe dea unithasimportantonsequences or hediscussionf enjambement.he fact hatmanycitationsrom omeristsan begivenwhosewordinglosely esembles hat fChafe10may uggest hat he heoryf oralnarrativeroductions a statementin theoreticalerms f what lassicistshave alwaysfelt ntuitivelybouttheadding ndcumulative tyle ftheHomeric oems. n theremainderf thispaper shalltry owork ut this tatement.n section below address hephenomenonf clause inkage nHomer nterms f dea units. ections and5 deal with njambementnHomerwithin hecognitive rameworkf oralnarrativeroduction. his discussiongnores o someextent he echnicalitiesof theproductionf theverse; hesewillbe dealtwith ursorilynsection .

3. Clause inkagend deaunitsnHomerOne of thefeaturesf theHomeric tyle hatmost learly greeswithmod-erndataon oral narratives the inkage f short yntacticola by 5E. Theoccurrence f connective articles ike 5e is a constitutiveartofParry'sdefinitionf 'sentence," heconceptwhichunderliesll thediscussions fenjambementnHomer:what&e introducess,for arry, new sentence.11tseemspreferable, owever, o describe e (in Homer, hat s) as a linkagemarkeretweenlausal dea units,ignallinghat heres some, s yetunspeci-fied,relation etween wo inkedunits.12What F connects re not o muchunits hat rea factorntherhetoricalrticulationftexts,s the uccessiveideas onwhich henarratorocusseswhileunfoldinghe tory.he unitsinkedby &earequite hort ndoftenmore han ne of them ointo ne ine:(4) 6R 6d xv.Cov' 61 aixcipov naxij 61 O{paGE (E 416)9 In Beaman (1984: 57), and in spoken discourse is denied the status ofcoordinator n these grounds.10 For example, Parry's 1971: 253) definition f 'unperiodic' enjambement:"...the sentence, t the verse end, already gives a completethought, lthough tgoes on in the next sentence, ddingfree ideas by new word groups" (emphasismine), or Kirk 1976: 152): "...any simple and paratactic arratives cumulative;each new piece of information,s thestoryproceeds, an be envisaged as beingheaped upon itspredecessor."11Parry 1971: 253): "I define he sentence s any independentlause or groupof clauses introduced y a co-ordinate onjunction r by asyndeton."12 It should be noted that he functionf SC in later Greek e.g. in cultivatedAttic prose) is quite different:n breaking p the text nto meaningful nits, tdoes serve a rhetorical, ext-structuringurpose which I discuss in Bakker [inprep. B]).


7/29/2019 283975

7/22

6 Egbert .BakkerFurthermore,hefact hathey re on thewholeof equal ength,s is shownnthefollowingassage, tronglyuggests hat hey reconnected ith heflowof deas n thenarrativeatherhanwith onscious resentation.n otherwords,theirengths cognitivelyetermined,ot hetoricallyr stylistically:(5) 'Ex-Twp' Et 6Xov aZivtkamEV &X0oXagagE,'dkwXv5' '4'a Soipa xcact otpat6v `Xvyon'vtn,6op{vcvvgaXiGaaOat, EYEtp& quXointv ivijv.Oi8' iEXiXOiaav ica' iaVriot LEYtavAXat@v,'Apytot ' iupcoOev iicaptvivavto paXayya;.apruvO Si gaiX%,msav8' avtiot EV8' 'Ayag4c'vwvnpaao; O6pouo',cEhXv8i ioX0iRpogacOat &naivxov.(A 211-17).Most often, heunits inkedbyU? are short arrativeola, betweenwhichtemporalsequential) elationxists.Buttherelation eed notbe a temporalone. As a maximally eutralinking evice, e inHomer implymarks heprogressionf one dea to nother,13lso incases where nglishndina (non-oral!) translations impossible:(6) jlpa' vv goi tt niOoto,aasiyvio; SC' otoit. (H 48)14The minimal ondition or heuse of68 seems to be that he econdof twounitsinked astobemore hanust rephrasingfwhat s statednthefirst:&? is a progression arker.15hen he econd f two oordinatedord roupsis a restatementfthefirst,ndboth xpress ne andthe amementalmage,Kca orx? have to be used, nstead f&?:(7) o6ppa gEv 'i v xcat &64vro ipo6v pjiap (A 84)16otfl 8' yvt4 iptu'v xa' ipcioa?o xutptnaxctnA 355).(8) &VatO6 tr' jEXto;oato'wr6O'-i naoat &yvtail 388)17oi 'nei o'vyVVtpv O'gTIy&p'e; N'' iy'voVro (A 37)Theseexamples onsist f two differenttatementsf one and the ame dea.Consequently,would nalyze hem s one dea unit,whichmaybe introducedin the normal way by 8k.&I

13 See also the treatmentf SC in Ruijgh (1971: 128), who uses the term'transitive' to characterizethe transition romone 'fact' (as he calls it) toanother.CompareApollonius Dyscolus' characterizationf Se as a svSzas,o;J?exacaxticot;.14 Cases like thisone have been treated y theancientgrammariansndertheheading"6 8e avr'ttoivyap," because a causal relation etweenthe twoclausesseems to obtain. This may be true,but the relation s not thereforectuallyexsressedby SE'.See also Chafe 1989: 11).16 Comparetheequivalent ase E6; O icEvTja; eiVooeu0 &9pIc('xr)at / &q t'leXto; vca etcva; 'tepov E (A 194, 209).17When thesecondmember f the inkedpair containsnew information,% sused instead of te: 6{aETo 6' hE'Xto;, tvrikeato 8? Epyov 'AXatC6v H 465).Notice, however, hat he vulg.has Xr?.18 See also Ruijgh 1971: 131), who analyzesxai as coordinatinglausal con-stituentswithinthe scope of units linkedby 8*". Ruijgh's terminology nd


7/29/2019 283975

8/22

Homericiscoursend njambement 74.Homericnjambementnd he deaunit

Units inked y&? in Homeric reeklikethoseinked y nd inoralEnglish arrative)ave lausal roperties,hats,they onsist fminimallyverb, ery ftenccompaniedy ubjectnd/orbject onstituents.uchbasicclauses'9 ave y heir ery aturesense f ompleteness.his s why arrydoesnot peak f njambementhen erse nd alls etweenwo lausesinkedby&.20 Instead, e uses enjambement'or hose ituations here verseopenswith non-clausalhrase hichs insomeway yntacticallyelatedowhatprecedes n the versebefore. he enjambements 'unperiodic' r'necessary'ccordingothe egree fgrammaticallosurehats reachedt heend f he recedingerse.21Now in an analysisn terms f idea units his onceptions quitedrasticallyltered.nthis nalysis e arenot hinkingnymorentermsfcomplex entence hat ccupiesmoremetricalpace than ust one line.Approachinghe roblemromhe ognitive,ext-productiveide,we have othinkn ermsf mentalicturend ts erbalization.henarratorocussesnthe ariousspects fthis icture,herebyroducingseries f deaunits.hegrammaticalnd emanticelatednessf hese nits eflectshe oherencef hementalicture.hewritten,ditedorrelatef uch series f deaunitssthesentence,ut hefact hat omerismaterially writtenextwithentencearticulationappearingnpunctuationn ourmodernrintedext)hould otinduce s to thinkhat t s conceivedn thewaywrittenextsre.Thenon-integrated,ragmentedualityf heHomerictyles highlyndicativeforalnarrative,nd he ermenjambement,'venn ts oftened,unperiodic'ense,should e suppresseds long s the nd f he erse anbe reasonablyhownofall etweenwodeaunits.oget n dea fwhat havenmind,onsiderhefollowingassage:(9) ar&ap 'AXi4av8po;, 'EXEv1;not; hiiioiioto,T"o8ei8iAapxi6 Xoc oapiveooo,o .vi (a69v,11 n xCexlC^dvo; av8polxX ,.pn' ''i)"Iko-oAap8avib8uo,naalov) 811poyepowco;.A 369-72).conceptual frameworkre differentrommine, but the two accounts,as farasHomericGreek s concemed, re essentially hesame.19 Cf. Dik's (1978: 15) term nuclearpredication' "by 'nuclearpredication'wemeanthe application f a predicate o an appropriate umber f terms unctioningas argumentsf that redicate").20 However,he speaksof necessary njambement hentheclause introduced yBE is, syntactically,he main clause of the subordinate lause in theprecedingverse as inA 57-58:oi 6' inel ozv "ye (kV o'tIYPycp; '' ytevoVto / toiot 6'o&vtcytavo; p?ipr 06&x c%i 'AxtXXti).This practice,however, mountsto a misjudgment f subordinationand hence of apodotic 68) in Homer: the'main clause' ( aojot 6' avto'pcvo; ick.) that llegedly completes hethoughtbegun by the precedingsubclause, is in realitya freshclausal unit which isapended towhatprecedes n the normalwayby 6E`' Of course,the distinctions to some extent ubjective. ee also Kirk 1976:150).


7/29/2019 283975

9/22

8 Egbert .BakkerThis passage can be effectivelynalyzed s a succession f 8 idea units, perline,unfolding coherentmentalmage, ather han s an extended entenceoccupying lines.The first nit s a merename acUxca-pAX,itav8po;).Thename, tanding n its own, functionss whatmaybe called a topic-shiftingdevicewhich irects he ttentionf thenarratorndthehearer rom newarriorin thebattle o another:t mentionsheparticipantn thenarrativeboutwhomthepoet is going to say something.wing to the force f accuip, the uniteffects boundaryn thediscourse.22n functionalinguisticerms, emay allit a theme.23 oreon themes' ntheHomeric ragmentedtylewillbe saidinsection below.The second unit, EXEvvil; oo6t; 'iK6fioto, is addedto thefirst s aqualifyinghrasenapposition. rom he oint f viewof the roductionf theverse, however, he function f the unit s to optionally xtend he name'AX'tav6po; to the nd of the ine.This s thefirstnstancewe encounterfthe nteractionftheproductionf deaunitswith heproductionf theverse.Inthis ase theformers in service f the atter.The first nit f thenext ine Tiu65i6i ''t6c ctut-raiveo) is the lausalelementfthewhole.Byall standardssedhitherto,his ine s a caseofneces-sary njambement,ince the lleged subject f the lause ('AXE'av6po;), isexpressedna line n which heverb oes not ccur.24 owever,nmyopinionthe thematic onstituentAX,E'av6po; is nota necessaryonstituentt all:being syntacticallyetached onstituent,tstands utside he lauseproper,andTx6e?8q t 6xta tattcvr-ros perfectlyompletewithoutt.Thus, ine369-70 shouldnotberead s "Alexandrosimedhisbow" but s "Alexandros,(...), he aimedhis bow." Consequently,heres no enjambementere. n sec-tion 5 I shall say more about the special status of noun phrases like'AXEtav8po; in Homericdiscourse nd its consequences orthe study fenjambementLine 370 is rounded ffwith he ppositional hrasentotgvtXacov. hisexpression elongs o the tereotypedhraseswithwhich he pacebetweenhebucolicdiaeresis nd theend of the inemaybe filled.The functionf thesephrases stoenable he oet o reach nder ll circumstancesnd naneasywaythe ndofthe inewhen he ndofa unit as,metrically,dactyliclosure ndfalls t thebucolicdiaeresis.Anotherxample s 8otup pa tvCp6tEX oup)with verbsof killingor wounding see Visser 1987: 80-82; Bakker&

22 Notice, ncidentally,hat n laterGreek this s precisely major functionfU: whenever transitionrom ne clause to another s connectedwith a shiftfromone topic in a narrative o another,be, and not cai, is the connectiveparticle. ee furtherakker in prep.B).23 Theme constituentsre noun phrasesor adverbialelements subclauses orparticiples) hat are syntacticallyetachedand placed beforetheirmain clauses.Nominal themes' effect,n introducing new referentnto the discourse, topicshift; adverbial themes effect, n marking an incision between two actionsequences n a story, paragraph reak.See furtherakker forthc.).24 Kirk 1976: 150) addresses similar ase: oow pynv, te pow iapiltova,piXkatovav8p&v, / goip' not Hlarpo6ickotoevot-rti&aoBpaijvat. Like thecase under investigationhere, the firstverse ends with an apposed phrase(9ptkcazov&vSpxv) betweenwhich and the followingine a pause (in sense aswell as in sound) is conceivable,while thesyntax f the sentencegoes on.


7/29/2019 283975

10/22

Homeric iscourse ndEnjambement 9Fabbricotti:c.).25 hecognitiveoad connected ith hese tandardized,erse-closingunits s so low thatwe might onsideromparinghem, ot o Chafe'sidea units hemselves,ut to thevocalization/hesitationhenomena etweenthem likeyouknownEnglish). he point f this dea is thatwhen hepoet sproducingnotpL1vta6ov r some uch xpression,e is already lanning hatcomes fter.The next wo ines re nstances f Parry's nperiodicnjambement.romthepointof view of sentential yntax, hey ontain he typically omericextensionsfthebasicclause: circumstantialodifiers'nthe orm fparticip-ial and prepositionalhrases.Grammatically,he entence ould topbefore rafter ny of them, nd thisis why theenjambements 'unperiodic' or'progressive').n the nalysis n terms f deaunits, owever,he wo ines renot so muchan extension f a sentence lreadybegun, s additions o themental icture:while hooting t Diomedes, aris s seeking overbehind hegravestonen the omb f Troy'sfounderlos. The completionf thepicturesvocalizednfour deaunits n which henarratorocusses uccessively.The first f theseunits atinX, EKXtp1Vo;) iS a paticipialphrase f atype hatsvery requentnthefirst alf f theverse see alsoex. (1) above);26it maybe characterizeds an afterthoughtothe recedinglausalunit,xpress-ingthe ircumstancesnderwhich he ction eportedook lace. The followingunit &v6poqnitxwnxt '4tfpc)s a prepositionalhrase f a common ormu-laic type27hat pecifies heplace where hegravestonetands nwhich arisleans. The third nd fourth nits "Ikoi Accp&ovixao, itaXatoi 6r1t,oyFpovtor)continuehe ssociative hain,28 ymentioningheperson owhom hetombbelongsand by providing verse-fillingpposition uch as EXFvils;oot;iPSoK6`loton1.369,respectively.

25 Sometimes he stereotypedlosingunit s as complete lause: niirc 5? Xa6;,6 The well knownplacingof middle choriambic articiplesn 'runover'posi-tionat the beginning f theverse, a usage with obvious 'versifying' elevance,is a special case of thistype. t is one of Russo's (1963: 242) more convincingexamplesof the structuralormula.'27 This type consists of. the following structure: djective (or noun) +preposition+ noun (or adjective). The expressionshave in commonthat thedative singular ending of the adjective/nouneforethe preposition tands inhiatus (see Bakker 1988). Examples are: UooSikgp ?v'i vriI, ?Ut'V Vt8t9pcpII, g6n iv'i icu6tavdipnII iv'i oiiCCp// etc. It is interesting to note thatprepositional xpressions n the firsthalf of the verse consistently isplay a

differenttructure:noun + preposition+ adjective, wherebythe (dative or4enitive)endingof the noun suffers orreptione.g. nI?rpT?x' U vn, vip ivawptpwrcp, yaqn ?VXXo5yajj). Note thatthisverse-initial ype has the samerhythmicalattern s vica; Ent yaqpupa'; and similar xpressionsn whichcor-reptiondoes not occur. An exampleof both types n one line is Hes. WD 599,Catci ? ;cat EuipoiXak iv a&xo.2- Note thatthe tombof Ilus is in theperipheral onsciousness f thenarrator,since it is mentioned ome time before 1. 166: nap' "Ikou ijj)la nakaXtoiAap8avi&ao).


7/29/2019 283975

11/22

10 EgbertJ.akkerThus insteadof beingone complex ntegratedentence,29hepassagediscussed alls partn eight uccessivedea units,which ogetherocalizethevarious spects fone coherent ental icture:

(10) a. ButAlexandros,b. thehusbandf Helen f the air air,c. toTudeides isbowheaimed,d. theherdsmanfthe oldiers.e. leaning n thegravestone,f.on theman-madeomb,g. (that) f lusthe onof Dardanus,h. the lder f thepeople.Of these,heunits . and d.playmost learly verse-technicalole; n requiringlittle ognitive nergy, heymight,s I suggestedbove,be compared othehesitation/vocalizationhenomenaetweenignificantdeaunits n oral peechor narrative.hesephenomenaoftenimply pause)fill he pace nwhich hespeaker/narratorlans ahead forthe subsequentdiscourse.To speak of'enjambement'nthis ase is useless n so far s thenarrators notdesigningsentenceutdeployingmental icture.

5. Left-andight-dislocationIn Parry'sterms, he enjambement'n thepassage discussedin theprevious ection s 'unperiodic'30n thesense that he entencenquestioncouldhavecome toan endbeforehe njambingerse.n this ection discusscaseswhere wo eeminglyssentialonstituentsfone andthe ame sentence'fall n two differenterses.These are cases of whatParry alled necessary'enjambementInformalral discourse ends ohavesimple ndsmall onstituentss thedirect omplementssubject, bject[s]) fa verb na clause.Very ften,hesecomplementsre as simple s unstressedersonal r demonstrativeronouns.The reason fthis endencys twofold:i) highlyomplexnounphrasesmaydiminishheease ofprocessingf utterances,nd hence mpair n effectivecommunication;ii) oraldiscourse ends o be context-boundnthatt s con-tractedetween eoplewhoshare great ealofsituationalnowledge:heresoften oneed to use fullnames rnounphrases,s the ddressee nderstandsanywaywhoor what s meant ythe peaker,venwhen pronounsused.Equallyoften, owever,imple ronominaleferences not ufficientor snotconsideredufficientythe peaker).A fullnounphrasehastobe used nthose ases,but he rucialfeatureforaldiscoursen this espects that his

constituents notmade part f the tructuref the lause nquestion.nstead,29 For example, the one in Rieu's translationp. 207): "But now Paris, thehusbandof Helen of the lovelyhair,drewa bow on Tydeidesthegreat aptain,leaningforcoveragainstthe columnson the moundwhichmen of a bygoneagehad made for their hieftain,lus son of Dardanus."Notice especiallythe inte-gratedqualityof the translationf the last two verses ("leaningforcover..."):herethedifference ithHomer's fragmentednits s greatest.30 Exceptfor he necessary' njambementetween 1.369 and 370.


7/29/2019 283975

12/22

Homericiscoursend njambement 11it splaced ithereforer ftert; hiss calledleft-dislocation'nd right-dislocation'espectively.heL/R-dislocatedlements 'represented'n theclauseby nunstressedas in English)r evenboundclitic) ronoun.hisstrategysentirelyn inewithhe ragmentedaturefthe peech rocesssopposedo he ntegratedaturef dited riting:nplanned ritteniscourse,themost omplexoun hrases ay unctions the irectomplementftheverb, ormingomplex,ntegratedlauses. n unplannedpeech, heL/R-dislocatedlement ay e seen s a separatedeaunit, tteredeforer fterheconcomitantlausal ne.Left-dislocatedoun hraseshatreuttered,s separatedeaunits, eforethe lausal nitowhichhey roperlyelong,re alledhemes.3' n xampleofa L-dislocatedheme as&u-r&pAXiav6po; inex. 9) above. hebasicfunctionf themess to specifyhe domain'universef discourse) ithinwhichor he ntitybout hich)he ubsequentlause(s)ay(s) omethingseeDik 1978: 32]). n continuousarration,themeffectshatmay e calledtopicwitch,s wehave een nthe reviousection,hilenconversationspeakermayutter theme onstituento establishhe eadingopic f thesubsequentonversation.ften,/he ausesfterhe heme,eforeoingn, ogive he ddresseehe pportunityo xpressrdeny is rher amiliarityiththe opic.32n xamples(11) A. Thatstudent f yours hat ame to my officeyesterday.

B. Hm.A. She's goingto do a paperon oralnarrative roduction.Right-dislocationccurs hen speaker,orome eason r ther,ants oadd, yway f fterthought,hedentityf ne f he eferentsf he recedingclausalunit. ike eft-dislocation,t s a typicaleatureforalfragmented('loose') style.33nbeing xplanatory,atherhan eferent-establishing,-dislocatedonstituentsre essdiscontinuoushan-dislocatednes,.e.theyonot ffectbreakn he iscourse.34ome xamples,

(12) He's a nice fellow,yourbrother.I wantto buy it,thathouse.He gave it to him,the book.Nowmy laimsthat- andR-dislocationccursnGreek,oo,n pitefthe act hat his oesnot vertlyppear romur exts. ncient reek oesnot,ikemodern esternanguages,ossess nstressednd/orlitic ronominalelementshich unctions substitutes'or he isplacedonstituent.owever,

31 Linguisticusage is highly nconsistent ere. Very oftentheterm topic' isused forL-dislocation.32The identityf referentss veryoften omethinghat s negotiated etweenspeaker and an addressee. See the studyof L-dislocationin these terms nGeluykens 1987: ch. 5).33 Linguisticterminologys still more diffusethan for left-dislocatedon-stituents. have found 'R-dislocated topic,' 'afterthoughtopic,' 'antitopic'(Chafe [1985: 115]), and 'tail' (Dik [1978: 19, 153-56]).34 Fordiscussion f 'themes'and other inguistic evices in terms f (discourse)continuity,ee Giv6n (1983).


7/29/2019 283975

13/22

12 EgbertJ. akkerGreek an express ubjectgreement,ythe nflected orphologyftheverb.35This meansthat n expressionike1coicp6T1; E-I7 is principallymbiguousbetween hereadings Socrates aid" and "Socrates, e said." Likewise, ME,coiCp6-r7J;ould allow of thereading He said,Socrates."36n thecase ofobjects,Greek oes notpossess n overtmeans oexpress nstressedbjects na clause, hat re understoodnthe ontext f utterance;nstead,t uses zero-realization,'s in(13) 6U)x 6' 'Ep?uOaXiowvt PiX( Opaxov.Tt pop vat("He gave it [sc. the armor] o his squireEreuthalion owear'),(H 149).37But thismeans hatwhen he bject s overtlyxpressed y a fullnounphrase,it may be read as a case of R-dislocation (*&Moc 6' 'Ep?xOcxXiOVt TE'r%ECC,"he gave it to E., the armor").Now HomericGreek ometimesllows us to prove' thedislocated tatusof a nominal onstituent.n the ase of L-dislocationhismaybe done on thebasis oftheplaceof anenclitic article,nd n the ase of R-dislocationnthebasisofthe ccurrencef 'redundant'ronounnthe lause.In a recent aper,Ruijgh 1988) addresses heplace of encliticsn theHomeric hrasena reexaminationfWackemagel's aw.He argues hatwhatareseeming xceptionso theLaw (viz.enclitics hat o not ccupy he econdbuta later ositionntheclause)areinfactnoexceptionst all,becausethepreceding ords re eft-dislocated.uijgh ites, mong therxamples:(14) itot 'o y' C'; rt-irv ccar' &p'?4Xro. (A 68),which, n account ftheplace of p', hastobe read s ''Buthe,having pokenthus,he sat down." n otherwords, y' is a theme onstituentto whichparticipial hrase s attached); he clause proper tartswith coxr'.Anotherexamples:(15) Klat oiU; Ev Xixev acUOt va4 &v6pxv 'Ayap?4ivvwotiOEM 7rawpaivovta;, bre't xepl ?xlt@va;aL&ap 6 pi] 3' rIGov TEc?a "Avlttpov i4Fvapit,v(A 99_ 01).31

35 Ruijgh (in personalcommunication)uggested hat t is in fact possible toanalyze the personalending on the verb as pronominal ubject.The athematicending-gt wouldthenbe the missingnominativeo jioi, iot', ic.36 See also Ruijgh 1979: 71).37See also A 109:"Avwttpovk 1p& ?S i2aa? ti?Pt, iic 6' "Pax' Ynno)v,where the object (Antiphus) is unexpressed n the second unit. An extremeexampleof thephenomenons B 102-8. The aiClrpov (introducedn 101), theleading topic of this passage, is object in this passage 6 times, but neverex3pressed.exrNote hat hispassage is a good exampleof thefact hatHomericGreekoftenuses awtap with the same functions 6? in laterGreek: in this passage, it iscorrelatedwithg?v in1. 99.


7/29/2019 283975

14/22

Homeric iscourse ndEnjambement 13It is notvery lear whatp' does in 1.101,39 but even n theminimal ase inwhich t servesmerely o avoid hiatus, t cannotbe placed randomlyn theclause: t has toabide the aw of theplacement f enclitics.o inthis xampleit ndicates hat is L-dislocatednd does notbelong o the lauseproper. utwe can go a stepfurther,think:whatevers thefunctionf p', semantic rmerely rosodic,t s clearthat heparticles usedfor purpose therhan oindicate heL-dislocated tatus ftheprecedingonstituent.onsequently,ehave to take nto considerationhe thematic, -dislocated tatus f a nounphraseevenwhen pac or any other nclitic)40n its seemingly eviantposition s absenL1The proof' f the xistencef R-dislocationn Homeric iscoursemaybemadeon thebasisof cases ikethis:(16) ala&p 6 PoiVvpVxa?V ava4 &BvpFvAyapi4ivov B 402).The demonstrativeronoun s often onsidered obe 'pleonastic' e.g. Visser[1987: 118]), on the grounds hat he subjectof the sentence s expressedanywaynthe ameverse. believethat his nalysiss incorrectnd that healleged ubjects in reality R-dislocatedonstituenthich s loosely ttachedto the clause. And I wantto extend hisanalysiseven to cases wherethe'pleonastic' ronouns absent, or xample,(17) ia't 6vi ponorXov,ca'tya(p ' ovvap }c AtO6;atv

6; C' 1ixot 0 11 tO6aOV ?cXw0ato Doio; 'Aio6kkXvA 64).The phrase olpof 'AnokkXOvaybe read s a R-dislocatedlement: chillesis speakingncontext,nd for im heres no doubt hatApollo s thegodwhosenttheplague;so he refers ohimas 'he,' butadds his nameto avoid allmisunderstanding.n cases like this, he R-dislocations notvisible n ourtexts,ut noralnarrationtmust avebeenmade pparent ymeans f ntona-tion. This is of coursea different ayof sayingthat R- (just as a L- )dislocated onstituentsa separatedea intonation)niL42Now the relevanceof these nsights or the study f enjambementsobvious:whenever seeminglyecessaryonstituents separatedrom he estof its clausebya verseboundarythus onstitutingcase ofwhat arry alls'necessary njambement'), e have to reckonwith hepossibilityhat t s acase ofL- orR-dislocation,hichwouldrobthe ermenjambement'fall itsapplication.ometimesheL-dislocatedtatus fa constituentustbefore heverse end is provedbyan enclitic,n the same wayas in (14)115) above.Considerhefollowingxample cited yRuijgh 988):39 Notice that here re variant eadings ere:either ' is omitted rBilptao6v?

is read (whichpresupposes tzva'ptl instead f tE,?vapiE,ov).Apparently heposition f p' caused trouble lready nAntiquity40 For exampleoDv: oi 6' inzl oO'v Ij?YpV, 6prjyp?? X' 'yvovro (A 57),whereoi 6' is the theme.41 Compare,forexample,with 15): cota'p 6 Pi caiv Bovpi gvr' &vriOFovHokX6opov (Y 407).42 NoticethatR-dislocation oes notapplywithoutmoreado to all nominativesplaced at the endof a clausal unit For instance,n thecase of rov ihbicojo; C1?CxAi-jtw A 36) R-dislocation oes not seem to be an appropriateoncept.


7/29/2019 283975

15/22

14 Egbert.Bakker(18) npoO00v Mvpp8Lov,v noxqucv. att&p 'AZXXES63ip tF?v ?5 iXtv, XOL b'' 'n IW)g' 'v qryz H 220-21).The eft-dislocatedhemeonstituent&'&p 'AxtUXX6;sa good xampleftopic witchffectedy mk6p:the ttentionfthenarratorwitchesromPatroclusnd heMyrmidonsnd heir reparationsor attleoAchilles.hisswitch, hichreates major oundaryn the iscourse,arrantsseparatenominaldeaunitwhichntroduceshe opicperson) ithwhom he ubse-quentiscourseill econcerned.Sometimeshe -dislocatedonstituents morehan simple oun hrase.Considerhefollowingxamples;n both ases theL-dislocations,again,proved y theposition f pa:(19) i,vOa &' &vip intvavspa Xc8aaOEi;n viv?Siyt?OV(cV. np&tO; &iEMcVoItiov&XXlgo;ui60a&rilx' ipa a?pzpOtvto; 'ApifiX6icou&4 gnrjp6vH 306-8).(20) 0; Ol p.?v xxaiovw?; Utpxato,voiat 8. Kipininap' 'aAVXov faAXavo6vE' E?f3axzv Xapno6vX? cpaVcfi(x 241-42).Ex. 19) is treatedyKirk1976:168) s an nstancef integral'a subdivi-sion f necessary')njambementn discussionfHI 06-50. his assagesconsideredyKirk o be extremelyomplexromhepoint f viewoftheinteractionfversend sentence."43owever,hen negets sed o eeingHomer'styles fragmentednd ull f he oncomitant-andR-dislocations,the assages not oexceptionalnymore.n1.307-8 n ny ase = ex. 19]),the lleged njambementsactuallythemeonstituenteforehe erse-end,whose redicativextensionip no;)providesheinkwithhe recedingis-course. x. 20) iscited yRuijgh1988).Here he hemeonstituentsnotsimple oun hrasendicatingopicwitch;ather,he omain ithinhichhefollowing lause is meant o makesense is a relation etween wopersons/entitieshich lay role nthis lause.Thus heenjambement'n(20)boils own o versendwhich appensofall etweenwodeaunits:(21) a. And o them irce,b. acornshethrew.

ThephenomenonfL-dislocationeforehe nd f he ersesnotimitedto caseswhere he secondword fthefollowingerse s an enclitic rpostpositivearticle. emay ay hatust s in the ase of 14)and 15),theparticle &p has notbeen addedmerely o mark he L-dislocation.43 'This passage, in which internal tops and integral njambementsnd theoverrunningf verse-end re rife, n which the simplicity f the verse as theprimary hythmicalnit is suppressedor transcendedhowever one happenstolook at it), lies at theoppositeextreme f heavily cumulative assages in whichone verse leads to the next eitherwith a new sentenceor with progressiveenjambement."1976: 168).


7/29/2019 283975

16/22

Homeric iscoursendEnjambement 15Consequently,heremaybe L-dislocationoo when heparticles absent.Hereare someexamples rom irk'spassagerl306-50 cf. lso ex. 2) above):44(22) (DivWlSi; 8' "AuplkxXov qpoppn&vrna Solcciaa;E90p1pW6pcVO; npVFvOV Oa?cio;, 'EvOa idiXtaro;pvtv &vOpcnovn'Xvrai. (HI 313-15, cf. 321-22).(23) jptne & irpona5poi0. Mapt; ' a'roaoXE& Soupi'AvcrtX6lXOVpovac xaoslyvyrjoloXoOcki. (H 319-20).(24) Mnlptovr;8' 'Axac6Lavralcli; ioao KaXaXi4oItOV{V' Thi~ow a43ra6peVOV ia 8c410v dgov. (H 342-43).In all three ases the njambement'integral' ccordingo Kirk) s in realitycomplex hemeonstituentndingt the ndof the ine. n 23) the omplexityliesinthe act hat escriptiveetail s addedto the heme"AndMaris,nearbywith isspear"). nthe ther wo ases, 22) and 24), the omplex -dislocatedconstituentntroduceswowarriorst once and specifies, y meansofa par-ticipial phrase, he relation etween hem.This createsa suitablecontext('frame'), o that he ubsequentlause can do withoutominal eferencendcan eavethe bject nexpressedseeex. 13) above).45 hisyields pair f deaunits neachcase:(25) a. And Phyleides, fAmphiclus odging heonrush,b. hehithimfirst ighnhisthigh.46(26) a. AndMeriones, vertaking camas with wift eet,b. he struck im n theright houlder s he mounted is chariot.

When nameornounphrase t thebeginningfthe ine eemstobelongtothe lause nthe inebefore, e havetoconsider -dislocation,nalogouslyto the reatmentntermsf L-dislocationf nounphrases t the ndof a line.Often,there s an overt ndex of thisphenomenon,n the formof the'redundant'ronoun see 16) above).Thepassageunder onsiderationontainstwo nstances:44 In all, there re 12 cases of L-dislocation enjambing' nto the next ine inKirk's passage (11. 307, 313, 319, 321, 323, 326, 330, 333, 337, 342, 345,349). This means thatKirk's figureof 'integral' enjambement n the passagedropsfrom 2 to 10 whentheL-dislocation-casesre subtractedrom hetotal.It is interestingo notethat hisrelation etween hecomplextheme nd thesubsequentclause (each theme specifying he relation betweena new pair ofwarriors n theflght) esembles he discourse tructure hichBeye (1964) discov-ered to be the common property of both epic catalogue entries and

&v8poKxacsiat,the so-called ABC-scheme':a bare statementf fact theA-part,e.g. a killing, .e. a relationbetweentwowarriors)s followedby a furthere-scriptionC); thetwoparts are often eparated y an anecdote B) aboutone ofthe personsmentionedn A. In the examplesunder tudythe theme, xpressingthe 'killing-entry'n the list, resembles the A-part and the clausal elementprp,per, hichprovidesmoredetail, heC-part.4 Notice that the second 'enjambement' n (22), equally 'integral'in Kirk'sclassification,an be analyzedas case of R-dislocation:where t is thickest,hemuscleof a man" xtnetat in 1. 315 is redundant).


7/29/2019 283975

17/22

16 EgbertJ.akker(27) NEaropi&at 8' 6 )1?v ol'Wraa'AM'vtov 64ei 8oupi'Av?ikoXo;, Xwanplr; 8i? t8u ?aaEX6cEov iEyXo;. H 317-8).(28) 6 8' sn'oZvato; a{uxva OciveH1v?Xci;. (H 339-40).In (27) thefirstineopenswith he heme onstituenteoopt6at 6' ("Andasfor he onsofNestor")which pecifieshe wovictors f thefollowingines;47this s followed y a unitnaming he xploit f oneof thetwo "theone,hewounded Atymnius"),48o which s added his name,as an explicatoryafterthoughtn 28), Peneleos s already resentn the cene s a participantnthe action (cf. 1. 335 rvexe 6i A1aK0V 'r muv?6pagov). The action ofLycon s described irst,o that 6' marks switch o theother articipantnthescene,whosename n1. 340 in R-dislocated ositions nomore han noptional eminderhat s, apart rom tsfunctionor heversification,ighlycharacteristicforaldiscourse.49AccordingoKirk'stable 1976: 177) the enjambement'n 27) and 28)belongs othemilder ypes'periodic'and progressive'esp.),50odoubt naccount f thepresence f o inthe lausebefore. owever,hepresence rab-senceofthis lement oesnotmake nydifferenceor hedegree' fenjambe-ment n question, s the name at thebeginning f thenext ine maybe R-dislocated nyway. onsider hefollowingxamples,whichn Kirk's ypologywouldbe harsher'ases ofenjambementviz.theintegral'ype):(29) oiUvuca x6v Xpu0sa-v lT4Lao?v apTItrlpaAxpetn8TI.A 11-12).(30) i'vOa tiva npCorov, tiva 8' iusratov i4?Vapt4?V

"EKxTopH1ptagii8t1;, o5nr o' ZiU; icUio; E8(oicev; (A 299-300).In (29), in utteringlligtocaev, the poet has Agamemnon in mind,theking towhomApollo's anger s directed,nd thiscan be easilydeducedfrom hecontextButtoavoidall misunderstanding,he oet dds Arp,6t8, by wayofR-dislocation.he sameapplies o 30). Inthe ontextt sperfectlylearwhois the ubject f4eva6pt4v, as thenarrativetthispoint s solely oncernedwith hebeginningf theglory fHector; ut hepoet ddsHector'sname,ntheformfa typicallyral, lightlyedundant-dislocation.n account fthisanalysis,n which hename t thebeginningftheverse s an elucidationftheclause before,nota partof it, it is highly referable ot to speakof47 Noticethat n traditionalrammar,hisconstituentouldbe described s the

subect, followedby two partialappositions.Notethat ?v has herethefunctiont has also in post-Homeric reek,viz. tosignal thatmoreis to come: closure and hence coherence)of thechunkof dis-course n question s attained nlywhen a following ? is reached.49Other, quivalentxamples:&r,ap6o L;Vt VTp&OI napijcvo; WunrOpovat Istoyevh; nHxfo; viA;, r68a; @Uic; 'AxtX4I;'q (A 488-89), 6 6' aija npO6tepo;Ka pipcov / ijpw; HpxcrXXo; a'piluo; (B 707-8).50 I cannot see why (27) and (28) should belong to differentypes in anytypology.


7/29/2019 283975

18/22

Homeric iscoursendEnjambement 17'enjambement'nymore,s theverse nd neatly oincideswith heendof anidea uniLt.

6. Versificationndthe rder fconstituentsI concludethis rticlewith short iscussion f a class of instances f'necessarynjambement' hichhas not o much o be discussed n terms fL/R-dislocationnd fragmentedral discourses intermsf versification,hedistributionfwordsndphrasesn themetricalpaceof the actylic exameter.Up to this oint have discussedHomer's tylentermsf fragmentationas thecrucial feature f oral discourse.The leading thoughtwas that heHomeric oet, n beginning stretchf discourse,oes notyetknowhowhe s

to end t, s the ext e producess a dynamicrocess atherhan fixed rod-uctThis s what nderliescumulation's oneof the haracteristicsf Homericpoetry. ut theres alsoa real ense nwhich heHomeric tyles integrative':in an importantespect,hewaythe oetbegins n utterances often eterminedby whatwillhave tobe the nd of t.The dominatingorce ere s meter: heexigenciesof the verseoftenput constraintspon the preferred arrativeexpression,nthat heorder f constituentsna unithasto be reversedust tofit given xpressionnto hehexameter.hisyields numberfcharacteristiccases of necessarynjambement'.onsider he ollowingxample:(31) tov p' uio; TcXapcovo;usn'otaro; "y-i axpiCpVA4%,i & C?Ona0evyxo;. N 177-78).

At first ight, heenjambement ere s similar oex. (24) above inthatbothhave anenjambingredicatenthe econd ine vi''). However, here san importantifference.n (24), vi4' openswhatmaybe calleda clausethatmakes ensewithin hecontext fits theme.n (31), on theother and,vt,6'stands uite lone,becausea new clausal unittic 6' 'r"acnEv EY7o;) immedi-atelyfollows.Moreover,heforegoingxpressionannot e called a thematicconstituent,ecause t lacks thecrucialpropertyf L-dislocated lements: tdoes not ntroducea) newparticipant(s)n the discourse. n fact,with tsanaphoricronounIrOv) s object,which efers ackto1.171, tmaybetreatedas theC-partof Beye's (1964) ABC-scheme see also note45), in whichspecifiicnformationsexpressedbout killing.51hus, nstead fopeningheclausal unit ollowing theme,-Ut'n 31) is an essential art ftheprecedingclause,viz.itsverb.Now it is importanto noticethat fvUt' had be placed beforethemodifiers ns' oukato; SyXFitJ.acpw nstead f aftert (as in *6ov p' i6o;TrXa.FWovo;v t?v, {nr'odaro; aC?i iKpC), itwouldhavebeeneasy toconceive f the xpressions a successionf threedea units:(32) a. Him theson of Telamonstabbed,b. under heear,c. with his long spear.

51 See also Visser 1987: 48-49 for hisdiscourse tructure.he ABC-scheme spart of Visser's typologyof 'killing scenes,' the discoursetype to which helimitshis valuable discussionof Homericversification.


7/29/2019 283975

19/22

18 Egbert .BakkerAnd fviu'' hadstood t the ndof theverse nd nc'oauaao;EYEt gaKpy) atthebeginningf thenext erse, herewouldhavebeen, nsententialerms,nunequivocalase ofunperiodicnjambemenLowever, his s not he ase andvit' is separated romts lause by the womodifiers.he reason or his s tobe foundn therealization, ot of thecognitivedea units, ut of the verse.After avingfilled hefirst alfof the versewith he terms eferringo thevictim ndthevictor,hepoetmay n principleroceedn linear ashionwiththepredicatef the lause,buthe prefers ot odo so, becausehehas a readywaytofill he econd art: donic equencesmeaningwith he pear" replacedfrequentlyfter he ucolic iaeresis,52ndthe emaining etricalpacebetweenthe rochaicaesura ndthe ucolic iaeresis- - -) can beconvenientlyilledby a phrase pecifying here hevictimwaswounded.As a consequence fthese ocalizations, he verbvwu' has to be postponed.ts position t thebeginningf theversedoes not ndicate nyemphasis pecificallyntended ythepoet:vig' is dislocatedor urelymetricaleasons. he followingxamplesaresimilar.(33) ?ov & IOi; pL?,paFa pLvrnxtov 4E; Bovp\v{4', o'6? ausp6vrn U6pv o oXOc, Xakxo5ppta. (A 95-6).(34) 8oupi cxa?a np0xplltv Am' &Goit80; 6gp9aXOoE ;v{ - O68' ?v iicovi(ot i?owV ?X? yaiav ayou . (A 424-25).(35) aicolt ? ip?poie auiv telotv OpOnX0EvTZ;j Mbow' -a5ap?aoo; 8'? Poi yt?vEr' &Ot ipo. (A 49-50).The secondhalf f theverse nA95 (ex. [33]) is similaro thatn 31): adonicexpressionor with he pear"preceded ya modifierpecifyingheplaceofwounding.n (34), the pearhas already eenmentionednthefirst alf ftheverse, o that he econdhalf anbe filled ya prepositionalhrase pecifyingtheplace ofwounding.n (35), finally,heparticipial hrase iv TEciXEtv0pi1x0Ev-rF; is to such n extent ready-madehrase illinghepost-caesuralpart ftheverse hattpushes hepredicateheadto thefollowingine. n allthree ases the traditional)attemfversifications such hat heres no roomfor he redicatenthe econdhalf ftheverse.

7. SummaryndconclusionInthe bove sections have triedo aya linguisticasisfor hediscussionofHomeric tylenterms forality.his s necessarynso far s many reat-ments f Homeric tyle tilldeal with heirubjectntermshat o notdiffer

significantlyrom hetreatmentf writteniterature,ven whentheydosubscribe othe ralpoetrypproach. fcourse,Homerhasmany eatureshatcall for 'literate' pproach; utthis houldnotmake us insensitiveo the52 Beside iEycxi xaxcpphere re Sovpi pa?v(, 6 '?i Soxp\,vik?i XakKXnd64ti xaAX4. For therole of these expressions n the versificationee Visser(1987: 81-2) and especiallyBakker& Fabbricottifc.).


7/29/2019 283975

20/22

Homericiscoursend njambement 19massive vidence n theHomericext eflectingrality,r perhaps venpointingo n oral rigin.Theoral asis onsistsn bandoning,long he ines fChafe,he onceptof sentence'nfavorf an approachn termsf idea units' eflectinghecognitiverocessesf he arrator.noral toryoesnot onsistf series fsentences hose engths determinedy he arrator'sudgmentss to he estpresentationf the tory. ather,n oral story onsists f thenarrator'sfocussingnsmall ieces f he nformationfwhich he toryonsistsone ta time)ndvocalizinghesefoci f onsciousness'n seriesf deaunits. fcourse,nHomer his rocesss a great ealmoreomplicated,ecause ftheexigenciesosed y he erse, ut believe hat he rincipleasicallypplies.This approachyieldsa suitableframeworkor thediscussion f'enjambement'.anynstancesfwhatnsententialyntaxas tobe called'enjambement'urnut nthe ognitivepproachobe noenjambementtall,because f he ragmentedrganizationf ral iscoursen deaunits: heneverthe nd f he erse anbe reasonablyhown ofall etweenwo uch nits,tis preferableot o peak f njambement.his s not o ay,however,hatnthe ral-cognitivepproachveryaseof enjambement'eases obe enjambe-ment. here implyemain asesof verse ndfalling etweenonstituentsbetweenhichstrongohesionbtainsEdwards1966] ites uch ases). heoral inguisticpproach hich have dvocatedannotmake hose asesdisappear,ut tdoes llowus to seethemnthe ppropriateight,n whichthey ppeartillmore emarkablehanhey id.This s anotheray f ayingthatwecannotroperlyppreciateomer's eniusndoriginality,efore ehave ppreciatedhe ral asis rom hichhis enius ad o tart


7/29/2019 283975

21/22

20 Egbert .Bakker

ReferencesAllwood, J., Anderson,L.-G., Dahl, 0. 1977. Logic in Linguistics,Cambridge: .U.P.Bakker,E. J. 1988. "Long Diphthongs nd Hiatus in EarlyGreekEpic:PhonologyndtheRole ofEpicDiction,"Mnem. 0, 1-25.

. Forthcoming.Narrative tructurend IndirectDiscourse. TemporalSubclausesin a Herodotean hortStory," orthcomingn JournalofPragmatics.

. In prep.A. "HomericPoetry:fromCognition o Rhetoric. inguisticEvidence orOralityn theliad."

. In prep.B. "Clause Combiningn AncientGreek.Akas a Discourse-organizationalarticle."Bakker, E. J. & Fabbricotti, . Forthcoming.Peripheral nd NuclearSemantics n HomericDiction: the Case of Dative Expressionsfor'Spear',"forthcomingnMnemosyne.Barnes,H. R. 1979."EnjambementndOralComposition,"APA109,1-10.Beaman,K. 1984. "Coordination nd Subordination evisited:SyntacticComplexitynSpoken ndWritten arrative iscourse,"n:D. Tannen(ed.),CoherencenSpokennd Writteniscourse,Norwood, .J:Ablex,pp.45-80.Beye,C. R. 1964. "Homeric attleNarrativendCatalogues," SCP 68, 345-73.Chafe,W. L. 1980."TheDeploymentf ConsciousnessntheProductionf aNarrative,"n: W. L. Chafe ed.),ThePear Stories.Cognitive, ulturaland Linguistic spects fNarrative roduction, orwood,N.J: Ablex,pp.9-50.. 1982. "Integrationnd Involvementn Speaking,Writing,nd OralLiterature,"n:D. Tannened.),Spokennd Writtenanguage. xploringOralityndLiteracy, orwood, J:Ablex, p.35-53.

. 1985."Linguistic ifferencesroduced yDifferencesetween peakingand Writing,"n: D. R. Olson, N. Torrance& A. Hildyard eds.),Literacy, anguage and Learning.The Natureand ConsequencesofReading nd Writing,ambridge: .U.P., pp. 105-23.

. 1987. "CognitiveConstraintsn Informationlow," in: R. S. Tomlin(ed.),CoherencendGroundingnDiscourse,Amsterdam:enjamins.. 1989."Linkingntonationnits nSpokenEnglish,"n: J.Haiman ndS.A. Thompsoneds.), Clause Combiningn Grammarnd Discourse,Amsterdam:enjamins,1-57.Chantraine,. 1953. Grammaireomerique,iSyntaxe,ais: Klincksieck.Clayman, . L. & VanNortwick,. 1977."EnjambementnGreekHexameterPoetry," APA107,85-92.Dik, S. C. 1978.Functional rammar,ordrecht oris.Edwards,G. P. 1971. The Language ofHesiod in its TraditionalContext,Oxford: lackwell.


7/29/2019 283975

22/22

Homeric iscourse ndEnjambement 21Edwards,M. W. 1966. "Some Features f Homeric raftmanship,"APA97,115-79.Geluykens, . 1987.Left-dislocationn English iscourse, h.D. Dissertation,Univ.of Antwerp.Givon,T. 1983. "Topic Continuityn Discourse:An Introduction,"n: T.Givon, ed., Topic Continuityn Discourse. A QuantitativeCross-Lanouage Study, msterdam:enjamins, p. 1-41.Kirk,G. S. 1966. "Studies n SomeTechnicalAspectsof Homeric tyle i.Verse Structurend SentenceStructuren Homer,"YCS 20, 105-51(reprintedn: Homer nd theOral Tradition, ambridge 976,pp. 146-82; referencesretothis ext).Lord,A. B. 1960. TheSinger fTales,Cambridge, ass: Harvard niv.Press.McCawley,J. D. 1981. EverythinghatLinguistsHave Always Wanted oKnow aboutLogic, butwereAfraid o Ask,Chicago: Univ. of ChigacoPress.Miller, G. A. 1956. "The Magical NumberSeven, Plus or Minus Two,"Psychological eview 3, 81-97.Parry,M. 1929. "The Distinctive haracter f Enjambementn HomericVerse,"TAPA60, 200-220 (reprintednA. Parry ed.],The Making fHomericVerse.TheCollected apersofMilman arry Oxford971]pp.251-65).Peabody, . 1975. The WingedWord, lbany: tateUniv. fNewYorkPress.Ruijgh, C. J. 1971. Autourde rE e'pique.Etudes sur la syntaxe recque,Amsterdam:akkert.

. 1979. Reviewof Ch. H. Kahn,The Verb Be' inAncient reek, ingua48,43-83.

. 1988. La place des enclitiquesans 'ordre es mots hez Homere ' apresla loi de Wackernagel," aperread at theErnstRisch Colloquium nBasle.Russo,J. A. 1963."A CloserLook at Homeric ormulas," APA94,235-47.Schiffrin,. 1987.DiscourseMarkers, ambridge: .U.P.Visser,E. 1987. HomerischeVersifikationstechnik.ersucheinerRekon-struktion,rankfurt:eter ang.

283975

Documents