A fourth problem with many coherence approaches is that they seem happy to simply provide a taxonomy of discourse relations. While this is a useful (and, indeed, crucial) step in any DM account from a methodological point of view, coherence theorists often remain stuck at this level of analysis (see Black 2002: 145). There is no indication in any of the frameworks mentioned above (both those used for Greek and those employed more generally) that a distinction is made between the coherence relation with which a DM occurs systematically (e.g. a Motivation), and the function/meaning of that DM (for a Motivation, e.g. because (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008: 54)).5 On the coherence view, for example, because could point to a Motivation. Yet,
as Schleppegrell (1991: 328) demonstrates, because can also mark non-causal (and hence, non-Motivation) utterances:
(2) The fifth position break is in a lot of dances. Especially in a lot of Latin dances. Because this is the fifth position break.
The same goes for γάρ, for example – as we have just seen, it is usually taken to point to some kind of explanation (De Jong 1997; Sicking 1993) or elaboration (Redondo Moyano 2004). Although these terms are never clearly defined (cf. §2.1.3), it presumably refers to the ‘explanatory’ nature of the contexts in which it usually occurs:
(3) Ἀπορέοντος γὰρ Κροίσου ὅκως οἱ διαβήσεται τὸν ποταμὸν ὁ στρατός (οὐ γὰρ δὴ εἶναί κω τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον τὰς γεφύρας ταύτας), λέγεται παρεόντα τὸν Θαλῆν ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ ποιῆσαι αὐτῷ τὸν ποταμὸν ἐξ ἀριστερῆς χειρὸς ῥέοντα τοῦ στρατοῦ καὶ ἐκ δεξιῆς ῥέειν. (Herodotus, Histories 1.75.11-16)
[Herodotus is giving the prevailing account among the Greeks as to how Croesus managed to cross the river Halys:] “When Crœsus was at a loss how his army should pass over the river (not [gar] were there yet at that time the bridges which now there are), it is said that Thales, who was present in the camp, caused the river, which flowed then on the left hand of the army, to flow partly also on the right.” (tr. Macaulay (1890), with alterations)
5 This problem is critiqued extensively in Kroon (1995) for Latin, and is also discussed in Black (2002: 19) for
(4) καὶ πλεύσαντες εὐθὺς πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι ναυσὶ καὶ ὕστερον ἑτέρῳ στόλῳ τούς τε φεύγοντας ἐκέλευον κατ’ ἐπήρειαν δέχεσθαι αὐτούς (ἦλθον γὰρ ἐς τὴν Κέρκυραν οἱ τῶν Ἐπιδαμνίων φυγάδες, τάφους τε ἀποδεικνύντες καὶ ξυγγένειαν, ἣν προϊσχόμενοι ἐδέοντο σφᾶς κατάγειν) τούς τε φρουροὺς οὓς Κορίνθιοι ἔπεμψαν καὶ τοὺς οἰκήτορας ἀποπέμπειν. (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War I.26.3.3-4.1)
[After a civil war, the city Epidamnus sends away part of its population in exile. These exiles team up with barbarians and start raiding the areas surrounding Epidamnus. The Epidamnians ask their mother city Corcyra for help, but they refuse; however, Corinth, Corcyra’s great rival, agrees to help. This does not sit well with the Corcyraeans:] “And they immediately set sail with five and twenty ships, followed by a second fleet, and in insulting terms bade the Epidamnians receive the exiled oligarchs ([gar] the Epidamnian exiles had gone to Corcyra and, pointing to the sepulchres of their common ancestors and their ties of kinship, implored the Corcyraeans to restore them), and they also bade them send away the troops which the Corinthians had sent and the new settlers.” (tr. Jowett (1900), with alterations)
In (3), the utterance marked by γάρ explains why Croesus was ‘at a loss’ as to how he should cross the river – if there weren’t yet any bridges, it would be impossible to cross it. In (4), the utterance marked by γάρ explains where the demand by the Corcyraeans comes from – without the addition of the discourse segment marked by γάρ, this demand would seem strange, as we would have no knowledge of contact between Corcyra and the exiled Epidamnians.
However, there are also instances where the ‘explanatory’/’elaboration’ hypothesis seems problematic – especially in my corpus of texts:
(5) Τῆς δὲ Χαρικλείας ἐκπεπληγμένης καὶ «πῶς ἦν εἰκός, ὦ Κνήμων,» εἰπούσης «τὴν ἐκ μέσης τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἐπ’ ἐσχάτοις γῆς Αἰγύπτου καθάπερ ἐκ μηχανῆς ἀναπεμφθῆναι; πῶς δὲ καὶ ἐλάνθανεν ἡμᾶς δεῦρο κατιόντας;» «Ταῦτα μὲν οὐκ ἔχω λέγειν» ἀπεκρίνατο πρὸς αὐτὴν ὁ Κνήμων· «ἃ δ’ οὖν ἔχω γινώσκειν ἀμφ’ αὐτῇ τοιάδε ἐστίν· Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἡ Δημαινέτη μετὰ τὴν ἀπάτην εἰς τὸν βόθρον ἑαυτὴν ἀπεκρήμνισεν, ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ἐξήγγειλε τῷ δήμῳ τὸ γεγενημένον, παρὰ μὲν τὴν πρώτην ἐτύγχανε συγγνώμης, καὶ αὐτὸς μὲν ὅπως ἂν κάθοδον ἔμοιγε λάβοι παρὰ τοῦ δήμου καὶ κατὰ ζήτησιν ἐκπλεύσειε τὴν ἐμὴν διετίθετο, […]. (Hel. Aeth. 2.8.3.1-2.8.4.5)
[Chariclea is asking who the girl was whom Theagenes mistook for her. Cnemon says it’s Thisbe, which causes consternation.] Chariclea was astonished and said: ‘How was it likely, Cnemon, that a woman from the middle of Greece should be transported to the ends of Egypt as if by a stage-machine? And how too did we not see her as we came down here?’ ‘These things I cannot say’, Cnemon answered her, ‘but what I do know about her is the following (τοιάδε). When [gar], after she had been beguiled, had flung herself into the pit [i.e., had committed suicide, SZ], and my father reported what had
happened to the people, he first obtained their exoneration, and he himself procured from the people the grant of my recall and of his going to sea in search of me, […].’”
In this example, there is no obvious explanatory potential in the utterance marked by γάρ. On Hobbs’ definition (1985: 13), an Explanation explains what caused the “state or event” in the central discourse segment to occur (see also Kehler 2004: 247), but this is not what γάρ marks in this example – the utterance marked by γάρ fills in τοιάδε, making explicit what these ‘following things’ are. As such, it provides the information which Cnemon announced in the preceding utterance. In fact, the information provided in the segment marked by γάρ is not subsidiary at all – it seems to be more central, , i.e., communicatively more important, than the segment preceding it. According to RST, communicatively central discourse segments can only be marked by the coherence relations of ‘Sequence’ or ‘Contrast’ – other relations are reserved for subsidiary discourse segments. As there is no clear way in which γάρ would mark a neutral succession or a contrast in (5), only two possible analyses seem open – either γάρ here is communicatively subsidiary in some mystifying (and certainly non- explanatory/elaborative) way, or γάρ can also mark central discourse segments, and its function should be captured in different terms than the ones which have been proposed in the secondary literature.
As we shall see, my corpus also contains examples of δέ which would probably be considered subsidiary on a coherence approach:
(6) οὔτε γὰρ πᾶσι τὰ αὐτὰ, οὔτε ἑνὶ τὰ πάντα, οὔτε τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ὡς τοῖς παρ’ ὑμῖν ἱεροφάνταις δοκεῖ, καὶ τοῖς τῶν θυσιῶν τεχνολόγοις. Ποῦ δὲ, ὥσπερ Λινδίοις, εὐσεβὲς τὸ καταρᾶσθαι τῷ Βουθοίνᾳ, καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι θεοῦ τιμὴν, τὰς εἰς αὐτὸν λοιδορίας; ἢ Ταύροις τὸ ξενοκτονεῖν, ἢ Λάκωσι τὸ ἐπιβώμια ξαίνεσθαι, ἢ Φρυξὶ τὸ κατατέμνεσθαι ὑπ’ αὐλῶν κηλουμένους, καὶ ἀνανδρουμένους ὑφ’ ἅλματος, ἢ τὸ παιδεραστεῖν ἄλλοις, ἢ τὸ πορνεύειν ἑτέροις; (Greg. Iul. I.640.1-10)
[Gregory is arguing that customs of offering differ from region to region:] “Since all nations have not the same doctrines, nor any single one the sole possession of them; nor yet the same ceremonial, as it is laid down by your own sacred interpreters and directors of sacrifice. Where [de], as with the Lindians, is it a religious action to curse the ‘Bull-eater’, and is this a way of doing honour to the god, namely, the reviling of him? Or, as with the Tauri, to sacrifice strangers? Or, as with the Saconeans, to be flogged upon the altar? Or, as with the Phrygians, to castrate yourself when enchanted by the sound of the fife, and emasculated by force of dancing? Or, as with others, to abuse boys, or to prostitute oneself?”
It would seem as if δέ marks an Elaboration here – “additional detail” is provided about a situation presented in the central act preceding the segment marked by δέ
(Mann et al. 1989: 53), in the form of an exemplification about different sacrificial customs.6 However, this type of relation can also be marked by γάρ:
(7) Πῶς πάλιν ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς νοτίδος ἐν μὲν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ οἶνος συνίσταται, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐλαίᾳ τὸ ἔλαιον; Καὶ οὐ τοῦτο μόνον θαυμαστὸν, πῶς ὧδε μὲν τὸ ὑγρὸν ἀπεγλυκάνθη, ἐκεῖ δὲ λιπαρὸν γέγονεν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ ἐν τοῖς γλυκέσι καρποῖς ἀμύθητος ἡ παραλλαγὴ τῆς ποιότητος. Ἄλλο γὰρ τὸ ἐν ἀμπέλῳ γλυκὺ καὶ ἄλλο τὸ ἐν μηλέᾳ καὶ σύκῳ καὶ φοίνικι. (Bas. Hex. V.8.35-41)
“How, again, does this water become wine in the vine, and oil in the olive tree? Yet what is marvellous is, not to see it become sweet in one fruit, fat and unctuous in another, but to see in sweet fruits an inexpressible variety of flavour. [Gar] There is one sweetness of the grape, another of the apple, another of the fig, another of the date.”
The segment marked by γάρ introduces an Elaboration as well: the παραλλαγὴ (variety) in sweet fruits is exemplified.7 Different DMs would, then, be able to mark the
same relation.
If this is right, then the link between DM and coherence relation would collapse – if different DMs can mark the same coherence relation, they would not help the hearer derive the correct (i.e., speaker-intended) coherence relation. As such, there are limits to the explanatory power of a coherence model. While many examples of γάρ may be accommodated under the coherence relation of Explanation or Elaboration, there are also many instances which fall outside of this neat categorization (some of which are not easily described in terms of a coherence relation, as in e.g. (5)). We will see later on that the same problems arise for δέ and οὖν – the first does not mark just transitions between different discourse segments on the same level of the discourse hierarchy (see also (6)), and the latter does not mark just transitions from a lower level of the discourse hierarchy to a higher one. As such, two options are available – either we work towards a hyper-polyfunctional or –polysemous account, in which these DMs have many different functions or meanings according to the contexts in which they occur, or we try to distill a more abstract meaning from these different contexts. As we will see, the second approach is much more straightforward.
6 Note that Halliday (1985) takes Exemplification to be a form of Elaboration. If they are taken to be
independent relations, the same point can be made – δέ and γάρ can mark the same coherence relations (see example (7)).