Epistemic Modality in Greek:

Towards a Constructional and Typological Approach

Accepting language as in some way a result of cognitive processes, understanding

any language necessarily involves accounting for the ways in which these processes are

instantiated in that language. The present study represents a tentative and initiatory

explanation to lay the groundwork for understanding the conceptualization and construal

of epistemic modality in ancient Greek. A constructional approach can best account for

the primary methods through which epistemic stance is expressed in Greek texts, and a

typology by which a superior organization and understanding of primary epistemic

constructions is possible. However, before a typology of epistemic constructions is

possible, basic components of these constructions, basic constructions, and some

understanding of their interaction must be analyzed. The purpose of the present study is

to do just this.

1. Epistemic Modality

It is impossible to proceed with a description of how epistemic modality is

conceptualized in ancient Greek without first understanding what epistemic modality is:

Epistemic modality is defined here as (the linguistic expression of) an

evaluation of the chances that a certain hypothetical state of affairs under

consideration (or some aspect of it) will occur, is occurring, or has

occurred in a possible world which serves as the universe of interpretation

for the evaluation process In other words, epistemic modality concerns

an estimation of the likelihood that (some aspect of) a certain state of

affairs is/has been/will be true (or false) in the context of the possible

world under consideration. And this estimation of likelihood is situated on

a scale (henceforth called the epistemic scale) going from certainty that

the state of affairs applies, via a neutral or agnostic stance towards its

occurrence, to certainty that it does not apply, with intermediary positions

on the positive and the negative sides of the scale.D1

Epistemic modality is, then, includes a very large category of possible statements. There

are any number of methods through which a speaker can construeD2D their place on the

epistemic scale. From a pragmatic perspectiveD3D, this is not even limited to word choice.

Intonation, the context of utterance, and other factors make it possible to turn a simple

indicative statement into a construal of the likelihood of a situation. For example, the

statement

(1) He was at home.

is, in and of itself, not an expression or construal of epistemic modality. There is nothing

present in (1) itself to indicate the speakers stance on the likelihood of the situation

under consideration. It is presented as simple fact. However, when placed in a specific

context, the same statement can represent the speakers epistemic stance.

(2) Speaker 1: Theres no possible way he could have been studying,

because I swear I saw him at the club last night.

Speaker 2: He was at home.

In (2), the statement made in (1) is set in the context of discourse. A base spaceD4D is

present in which the act of studying by unnamed individual is under consideration. From

this base space a possibility space is constructed by the Speaker 1 in which the unnamed

individual is in fact not studying, but is at a club. Speaker 2, in making the same

statement present in (1) is now emphatically denying the state of affairsD5D described in the

possibility space constructed by Speaker 1. In this context, He was at home is certainly

a construal of epistemic modality because it is now concerned with the likelihood of a

particular state of affairs. In fact, the very aspects of the statement in (1) which it

excluded it from the realm of epistemic modality are in (2) the indication of the speakers

stance on the epistemic scale. In (1), no part of the statement indicates the possibility that

the state of affairs described did not happen. In (2), this lack of such indications places

the speaker at the far end (at certainty) on the epistemic scale, completely rejecting the

possibility of the state of affairs set up by the possibility space constructed by Speaker 1.

If (1), which contains nothing to indicate the speakers epistemic stance, can be an

expression of epistemic modality, then the number of ways in which epistemic modality

can be construed are limitless and form a complex and open class. Additionally, just as

the lack of any epistemic components can indicate a speakers epistemic stance, there are

a wide range of epistemic components which may be present in a statement to locate the

speakers statement somewhere on the epistemic scale: Epistemic modality can be

expressed by a variety of linguistic forms,such as epistemic phrases, adverbs, adjectives,

nouns, lexical verbs and participial forms.D6D The complexity and open-ended nature of

the linguistic construal of epistemic modality make it impossible to capture the infinite

number of ways epistemic statements can be made.

What is possible, however, and what the present study is concerned with, is the

following:

1. What are the typical or proto-typical components involved in the

general construal of epistemic modality in any given language (in this

case ancient Greek)?

2. Are these components typically structured in ways which make possible

meaningful generalizations concerning the nature of epistemic

constructionsD7D in that language?

3. If it is possible to identify the basic components and constructions

generally used, is it possible to construct a typology of the methods in

which the simpler components and structures are used to indicate the

speakers epistemic stance?

In other words, simply identifying that any number of words, types of words, and

combinations of words can express epistemic modality does not aid in understanding how

speakers in a given language use lexical and syntactical features in that language in

conceptualizing and construing the likelihood involved in any given situation. On the

other hand, identifying patterns of lexical and syntactical constructions, and their

components, used by speakers to express epistemic modality enables a better

understanding of how speakers use their language to express a vital aspect of

communication.

In order to lay the groundwork for understanding epistemic modality in ancient

Greek, several texts of Greek oratory were examinedD8D. From these texts, a corpus of

epistemic statements were extracted and examined. The typical components used in these

statements were identified, including lexical items and simple constructions. From this

examination, the present study constructs a tentative typology of basic epistemic

constructions and identifies not only some important aspects on the construal of epistemic

stance in complex epistemic constructions, but also notes areas where further

investigation is necessary.

2. Basic Components

As was already noted, no epistemic markers are necessary in the construction of

epistemic statements. It is possible for context alone to transform a statement which lacks

all such markers into an epistemic construction. However, in the corpus examined, many

common components were used as epistemic markers in epistemic constructions. Three

of the most important classes of epistemic markers are outlined below. Excluded are any

components which alone are capable of consideration as epistemic constructions.

1. Grammatical Mood

Greek grammarsD9D traditionally recognize a number of moods any Greek word can take,

including indicative, subjunctive, and optative, which were the most common in

epistemic constructions. While the indicative mood was the most common mood used in

epistemic constructions, this likely due to the fact that it was also the most common mood

used throughout the texts. The optative mood, on the other hand, while not being enough

by itself to construe epistemic stance, was the only mood capable of being the primary

component in an epistemic construction in determining epistemic stance, but even here it

was often combined with an - clause:

(3)

, .

For it would be a great stroke of good fortune for the youth, if one alone

corrupts them, but the others aid. (Plat. Apol. 25b)

(4) ,

.

For if they mean this, I would admit I am an orator, [though] not in a class

with these. (Plat. Apol. 17b)

Both of the above lines contain a potential optative construction used as an epistemic

construction. However, the contrast between the two uses shows the ability of the

potential optative construction to be both the primary component in an epistemic

construction, as well as a more secondary one. In (3), the potential optative is the primary

component which is used to construe Socrates epistemic stance. In (4), the -clause sets

up a possibility space to consider, and the potential optative construction constructs a

resultative space from the possibility space. The -clause already indicates that the state

of affairs under consideration is non-actual, and therefore even before the potential

optative construction Socrates indicates that he doesnt believe his opponents mean what

he suggests as possible in the possibility space. However, in (3), the potential optative is

the component of the epistemic construction which initially construes the non-actuality of

the state of affairs under consideration, and the -clause is secondary. So while in neither

case, as found in the corpus in general, does the potential optative construction

encapsulate the epistemic construction, (3) show that it is quite possible for this

construction to be primary.

2. Tense

Various studies have shown the importance of tense in English in construing the

speakers epistemic stanceD10D. The present study found tense was also a primary

component in epistemic modality in Greek. Epistemic constructions in the corpus used all

tenses, and often more than one in the same construction. However, two general

observations are important. First, future tense indicative epistemic constructions were less

present. Most epistemic statements used moods as a primary indicator of the possibility

of future states of affairs. Second, the use of the future tense indicative tended to place

the speakers epistemic stance towards the certainty end of the epistemic scale:

(5)

Being cleared of all forms of the charge, neither going into the holy places

will I profane the sanctity of the gods(Antiph. 2.2.11)

The very fact that the state of affairs under consideration is a future one makes it

unrealized. However, rather than distancing himself from the certainty that this

hypothetical state of affairs will be as described (e.g. by using words such as I think or

by using a different mood/tense of the verb to be) the use of the future indicative

construes the state of affairs as a certainty..

3. Particles

Greek particles are numerous and are found throughout Greek literature, used in

all manner of ways. In the corpus examined, the most common use of particles which

contributed to the construal of epistemic stance were emphatic (e.g. and )D11D.

However, other particles were often used as epistemic markers in interesting ways. For

example, in (4) above, the use of in the -clause without a corresponding may

suggest that some sort of clause to the effect of but they dont after Socrates states if

they mean this.D12D The therefore is an epistemic marker in that construction,

although this was not a common occurrence in the corpus.

One particle in particular, however, was of paramount importance in epistemic

constructions. The particle was used in a variety of epistemic constructions. Just how

this particle should be understood will be discussed in the section below devoted to .

4. Adjectives/Adverbs

A common element in epistemic constructions in the corpus were qualifying

words used as secondary components to further determine exactly where the speakers

epistemic stance was on the epistemic scale. For example, two common adverbs, and

, were commonly used as components in Simple Epistemic Verbal Constructions

(SEVCs), but also in Complex Epistemic Constructions (CECs):

(6) ,

If we all were shown to be clever speakers, I know well that your own

situation would not be in anyway better. (Dem. Ex. 7.2)

(7)

For we know clearly that all of the city is being stained by him

(Antiph. 2.1.3)

In (7), a more complex form of an SEVC (by virtue of other components being present in

the construction), the adverb simply adds force to the speakers construal of his

epistemic stance (as does the use of the first person plural, which serves to pull the jury

into the speakers epistemic construal). In (6), the adverb serves the exact same

purpose, even though the epistemic construction is far more complex, using many

elements to construe the speakers epistemic stance.

3. The particle

Any comprehensive grammar of Greek will invariably list a number of

constructions in which either can or must be used. The variety of these constructions

make it difficult to define in any meaningful way. Smyth states explicitly that its

force varies as it modifies the meaning of the moods.D13D Goodwin argues that has, in

general, two separate main uses. In the first of these two it denotes that the action of

the verb to which it is joined is dependent upon some condition, expressed or implied.D14D

In the second is joined with relative and temporal words, and sometimes final

particlesD15D rather than verbs. Similarly, Basset divides an into its appearance in protasis

and apodosis: En grec ancient, la particule avait deux employs principaux

doublement divergents. Dans un protase, aprs ou , dans une relative, une

temporelle ou une finale, cest--dire dans des propositions subordonnes, elle

accompagnait un subjunctive et se liait au mot subordonnantDans une apodose de

systme hypothtique ou dans une proposition indpendante ou assimilable une

independente, elle accompagnait un optatif ou un temps secondaire de lindicatif.FiFD16D As

a lexical item, what is it possible to say about the meaning of , not just in terms of

epistemic modality but in ancient Greek as a whole, given such diverse usage? First, any

lexical item used with any frequency is almost invariably polysemous: it has multiple

related meanings that have all been conventionalized to some degree and therefore there

is no single abstract meaning from which all its uses can be predicted.D17D Rather, an

encyclopedic viewD18D of the various meanings of will more fully explain its uses,

and likely enable definitions of the particle that are avoided in descriptive grammarsD19D.

Second, as noted by Smyth, Goodwin, Schwyzer & Debrunner, and so forth, the particle

is invariably linked to other words in constructions. As constructions are not merely

an unstructured list but rather form a structured inventory of a speakers knowledge of

the conventions of their language.D20D These constructions are represented in a taxonomic

network. In other words, does have meaning, and can be viewed like any other

lexical item in Greek. It simply is more closely linked with a limited number of

constructions than other lexical items. To understand the meaning of , each

construction in which the meaning differs must be understood as a separate node in the

network of constructions in which is used. Although such an exercise is beyond the

scope of this study, it would enable an encyclopedic definition of , and better account

for its use.

i In ancient Greek, the particle has two principle uses for two different reasons. In a protasis, after or , in a relative, a temporal or a final, that is to say, in subordinate clauses, it accompanies a subjunctive and it links itself to a subordinate word. In an apodosis of [the Greek] hypothetical system or in a independent clause or something comparable to an independent clause, it accompanies an optative or a secondary tense of the indicative.

4. The Particle

In addition to being a common component in a variety of epistemic constructions, the

particle can make a statement an epistemic construction by itself:

(8)

For I do not suppose those plotting the deaths of their neighbors devise

and prepare in front of witnesses (Antiph. 1.28)

(8) is an epistemic construction, but is so solely due to the particle , which alone

acts as an epistemic marker, and which expresses the epistemic stance of the speaker by

adding at least some doubt to the evaluation of the likelihood of the state of affairs under

consideration. In this way, functions in a similar fashion to a SVEC (see below)

with a verb of thinking or supposing.

5. Compositionally Complex Epistemic Words

The fundamental hypothesis of construction grammars is the continuum between

syntax and lexicon. At the extreme of the lexical side are atomic morphemes. Although

these can be words, they are often not, and this is particularly true of Greek, a highly

flectional language. Morphology allows a single word to express more complexity, and

cannot therefore be considered atomic. Consider the word . From a constructional

perspective, this word is complex, consisting of an atomic componential (semantic)

aspect (-) and the morphological aspect which creates componential complexity by

adding syntactical elements such as number, tense, mood, and voice. In other words,

can be considered to consist of the atomic component loose whose morphological

properties add the components to form the complex construction I loose (actively and

indicatively) at this time. Additionally, it is also possible for a construction composed of

several words to be closer to the atomic side of the syntax-lexicon continuum by virtue of

be representing a single component. For example, although the idiom kick the bucket is

composed of several words, it is in fact noncompositional, in that it the entire expression

is mapped onto die.D21

Most words in ancient Greek exist at the level of complex but boundD22D by virtue

being morphologically complex. However, some words exist further to the syntactic side

of the continuum by way of being schematically conceptualized as representing,

semantically, more than can be predicted by it morphology. Simply put, a particular

adverb in Greek, despite its morphological expression and grammatical class, may be

better interpreted as phrasal: So kann auch ein Adverb statt eines kausalen oder finalen

oder auch eines anderen Nebensatzes stehenFiiF.D23

Among the many possible other Nebenstze and adverb and other Greek words

are subordinate clauses which construe epistemic stance. These may be called

Compositionally Complex Epistemic Words (CCEWs). An excellent example of this

category is the word . Arguably, this word is not typically even at the level of

complex but bound as it is morphologically invariable (and therefore, as an

instantiation of a grammatical class it is atomic and schematic). Pragmatic factors

determine how this word is construed, and often enough it is used as a simple epistemic

adverb meaning naturally or reasonably. However, at times this fits very

well into Khners category above, e.g. in Demosthenes speech Olynthiac (1.10):

ii Thus, an adverb can also stand in place of a causal or final or also another subordinate clause.

(9) ,

Nevertheless, [his] gratitude will be great- as is to be expected. A simpler adverbial reading here is inadequate. It fails to express the phrasal quality of

the adverb.

The question then becomes how these CCEWs are used to convey, modify, alter,

etc, the speakers epistemic stance. In fact, they are quite similar to the next type of

epistemic construction considered below in that their primary function is distancing. In

using a word like , the speaker is offering an epistemic evaluation, but is doing

so impersonally. In (9), a base space is set up containing the blessings the gods have

given the Athenians. From this space a possibility space is built in which any Athenian

can consider these blessings compared to the problems the Athenians are experiencing. A

resultative space is then constructed in which Demosthenes determines that any Athenian

will be grateful to the gods despite the current misfortunes. This resultative space

represents a positive epistemic stance formed from a Complex Epistemic Construction,

and will therefore be considered in full below. Here, what is important is how the CCEW

functions in the resultative space. This entire space is built from a possibility

space. In it, is used to construe Demosthenes epistemic stance on the

probability that any given Athenian, having weighed the blessings of the gods against the

current problems, will be grateful to the gods. However, does not directly

connect this stance to Demosthenes. Even though it, in fact, merely expresses

Demosthenes evaluation of a likelihood, it is designed to appear that this is not an

opinion of Demosthenes at all. Demosthenes does not say I expect X, in which it

would be clear that Demosthenes alone considers X as likely. Instead, he uses

as a way of construing the hypothetical situation as likely from any perspective.

The function of CCEWs is to do just that: construe an epistemic stance, a personal

evaluation of likelihood, as a general truth.

6. Simple Epistemic Vebal Constructions (SEVCs)

The simplest of the simple epistemic constructions in Gree, are phrases or clauses which

use a first person verb (or participle) of thinking, perceiving, believing, etc. Examples

found in the corpus include ,,, ,,and.

In a Simple Epistemic Verbal Construction (SEVC),the place of the speakers statement on the epistemic scale, in the indicative mood at least, is determined solely by the

semantics of the verb selected. This is hardly surprising, as it is fairly obvious that an

epistemic stance taken with the statement I believe does not have the force of one taken

with I know. Consider, for example, the difference between the following:

(9),

.

And I know indeed from earlier reports already it has happened that sometimes

those murdered, and other times those having murdered, have not been found out.

(Antiph. 5.67)

(10)

.

For you will not, I suppose, deny what you did in front of all the Athenians.

(Lys. 13.32)

It is true that the particle attached to the first person pronoun, as well as the pronoun

itself, in (9) add emphasis apart from the verb choice itselfD24D. However, even without

these the use of in (9) versus the use of in (10) are enough to place the

two statements at different points on the epistemic scale. The former makes a much

stronger epistemic stance, and the statement is made as if there is no doubt at all, and can

be no doubt, that the past events in question are as the speaker asserts. Examining the

second statement from a pragmatic point of view, it is easy to see why the speaker would

not wish to commit himself as in (9). On the one hand, he is asserting his belief that his

opponent will do X. However, as doing X would actually be an honest action on the part

of his opponent, a stronger epistemic stance is undesirable, as it would be the equivalent

of a commitment to the honest nature of his opponent.

Pragmatics is a central factor which often dictates the choice of verb in SEVCs.

What is most important here is that in these simple constructions it is the verb (or verbal

variant such as a participle) which makes the construction an epistemic one. As such,

these constructions are actually somewhat rare. Although included in this section for

contrastive purposes, the statement (9) above is actually a Complex Epistemic Statement

due to the use of an emphatic pronoun and particle. It uses other components than the

verb alone to make the statement an epistemic construction. In the corpus examined, this

was far more the norm than the exception.

7. Impersonal Epistemic Constructions

Impersonal Epistemic Constructions (IECs) function similarly to CCEWs

described above. These constructions can be subdivided into three different types.

Type 1: Qualifier (Q) + 3rd Person Copula

As in English and many other languages, (e.g. French and German) Greek allows

impersonal constructions by combining a qualifier (adjective, participle, etc) with a form

of the third person copula. A few such qualifiers are commonly used in IECs, such as

, , , etc. For example:

(11)

It is not [at all] unclear that [the defence] themselves were avoiding clear

knowledge of the facts(Antiph. 1.13) In (11), as is common in such constructionsD25D, the copula has been omitted and must be

understood. The epistemic component of the above construction is the adjective (here

used adverbially) .The pragmatic function of such a construction is again to

make the epistemic stance of the speaker appear to be fact rather than opinion.

Type 2: Distanced Epistemic Impersonal Verbs

Greek has a number of verbs which are commonly used. In the examined corpus,

one of the most common was deontic modality (e.g. using ). However, possibility

that a particular action, situation, etc. could be done/would happen/etc. was also common

(generally using the impersonal verb ).However, this possibility should not be

confused with epistemic modality, as it concerns the ability of a particular state of affairs

to occur, rather than likelihood. In fact, there was not a single instance in the entire

corpus of this type of construction. This was a curious finding, given the prevalence of

such constructions in other languages (e.g. It is likely that X is Y).

Type 3. Personalized Impersonal Epistemic Constructions

Despite the above, there were numerous examples in the corpus examined of

impersonal verbs used in epistemic constructions but that brought the speaker himself

into the evaluation using the first person pronoun in the dative case (). The most

common verb used in this construction was :

(12)

That I speak the truth has been attested, and it appears quite evident to me [that]

this is the opposite of what the prosecution alleged.

Although this epistemic construction is formed impersonally, the use of the first person

pronoun connects the speaker with the evaluation. The purpose of this construction is not

to distance the speaker from the evaluation, but is rather a matter of construal and

perspectivization. By using this epistemic construction, rather than stating something to

the effect of I believe it is quite evident that. a mental space is created in which the

focal point of attention is on the situation (in which the prosecution is shown to be

wrong) rather than the epistemic stance of the speaker. In other words, this type of IEC

allows the speaker to make an epistemic stance, connect themselves with that stance, and

yet ensure that another facet of the discourse is the focus of attention.

8. Complex Epistemic Constructions

1. Conditions

Unlike epistemic modality, the topic of conditions in ancient Greek has received a

great deal of attentionD26D. Additionally, the study of the nature of conditionals themselves

has been a focus of intense study. Even what constitutes a condition is debatedD27D. Given

all of the above, attempting to go into Greek conditionals in any detail would either be a

waste of time, if nothing new was put forward, or would require a study several times the

size and complexity of the present one, in order to appropriately address the mass of

literature already published on conditionals in general and Greek conditionals

specifically.

What is important to note, however, is that all conditionals in Greek which may

be considered epistemic constructions are complex, and use a variety of basic epistemic

components (e.g. verbal mood, the particle , verbal tense, etc). Additionally, most

grammars of ancient Greek deal with conditionals as relatively fixed combinations of

these elements. This is largely appropriate, as there are set constructions which for

specific conditionals (e.g. a so-called irrealis conditional in the present is constructed

using + the imperfect indicative in the protasis, and aorist or imperfect + in the

apodosis). What has received no significant attention is the other components usually

involved in conditions. In the corpus examined, rarely were epistemic conditional

constructions formed using only the components described in typical grammars of Greek.

As far as conditionals are concerned, what will be examined below are how components

not required by particular conditional constructions are used in certain CECs, as well

as how simpler epistemic constructions are used in conditionals. Two conditionals, one

using a typical construction described in any Greek grammar, and the other an atypical

construction, are examined below with these purposes in mind.

(13),

If we all were shown to be clever speakers, I know well that your own

situation would not be in anyway better. (Dem. Ex. 7.2)

This type of conditional is often referred to as future less vivid or something similar.

The central function of this type of condition is to set up an unlikely hypothetical state of

affairs, and infer from that possibility spaceD28D. What is important to understand is that the

less vivid aspect is all contained within the protasis. If that hypothetical state of affairs

is realized, the use of this construction does not make it less likely, in the speakers mind,

that the apodosis will be realized. Hence, the apodosis of this conditional construction not

only combines a SVEC into the entire construction, and adverbial epistemic component

() is also used to make it clear that, in the unlikely event the protasis is realized, the

apodosis will surely be as well.

(14),

.

If indeed I have entered court [at some point](followed by a number of

other hypothetical situations) Let the one wishing rise up now and

refute me! (Andoc. 1.23)

In (14) Andocides begins by setting up a possibility space in which several states of

affairs (all having to do with things which might implicate him) are considered. The first

-clause sets up this possibility space, but there are no epistemic markers in any of the

various connected clauses which are used in the construal of Andocides epistemic

stance. In fact, there are no direct epistemic markers (e.g. a word or particle with a

particular semantic value used to express his epistemic stance, or a verbal mood/tense

combination which may do the same) anywhere in the entire condition. Andocides

epistemic stance is made indirectly by a third person imperative (). By issuing

a command to his audience to refute him, the implication is that there is no possible

refutation, because none of the various states of affairs ever happened. Once again, taking

pragmatics into consideration is necessary to understand the construal of epistemic

modality.

These are only two example of ways in which various standard components of

Greek epistemic constructions (i.e. SEVCs and verbal moods) can interact with Greek

conditionals in the construal of epistemic modality. Far more methods were found in the

corpus. In fact, every single component discusses above was found in conditionals in the

corpus. Although it is beyond the scope of the present study, a more thorough

investigation of epistemic markers in the various Greek conditionals is necessary.

2. Other CECs

Before going on to make some generalizations about CECs in Greek, and some

points for further investigation, it is useful to look at examples outside of conditionals.

After all, epistemic modality in Greek is most frequently expressed in CECs, and this is

hardly limited to conditionals.

(15),,

,

.

It would be fitting, gentlemen, whenever someone willingly brings

themselves into the dangers [of court], for you to have they exact same

opinion they of them as they themselves have. (Andoc. 1.3)

In (3), the hypothetical state of affairs (i.e. the unrealized aspect of the situation under

consideration), is constructed by the use of the optative + in a potential optative

construction. What is interesting about the above construction is that, despite the phrasal

use of to note the suitability of hypothetical state of affairs constructed, as well

as the use of the particle to add force to the statement, from an epistemic standpoint

there is little in the construction in which the speaker expresses his epistemic stance. In

other words, although this is a Complex Epistemic Construction, the epistemic modality

aspect is secondary. Pragmatic factors explain this secondary aspect. The potential

optative is used impersonally (like ) to distance the speaker from the state of

affairs, not only from an epistemic perspective but also from the truth of the statement

altogether. The likelihood that the state of affairs will actually occur is only realized as

possible by the potential optative construction, and nothing else in (15) construes the

speakers view on how possible or likely that state of affairs is. The purpose for the

distancing in epistemic stance is secondary. The force of the entire statement is not on the

likelihood that the state of affairs will be realized, but rather to convince the gentlemen

of the jury that this state of affairs should be conceptualized by all in a particular way (i.e.

as fitting or perfectly reasonable). By distancing himself from this conceptualization,

the speaker makes his opinion appear to be fact. If the speaker had made his epistemic

more personalized, it would have taken away from the illusion that the statement is not

opinion at all.

(16)

All of those present would have spoken better than but a few of them

concerning [the poetry] they themselves had made. (Plat. Apol. 22b)

Socrates in discussing the failure of the poets to understand their own work, constructs a

possibility space in which all of those present were also present with him at the time

when he was addressing the poets. The imperfect tense, combined with the particle , is

used to construct the speakers epistemic stance: this hypothetical state of affairs will not

be realized. The potentiality is constructed from the particle , while the speakers

epistemic stance is construed both by and by the verbal tense both of

(imperfect) and (pluperfect). In other words, the use of past tense verbs

places the time of the hypothetical state of affairs in the past. As it is in the past, by

necessity it either happened or didnt. Because makes the statement one of potential,

clearly the hypothetical state of affairs did not in fact occur. The past tense makes the

mental space constructed either hypothetical or not, and if it is hypothetical then it is

unrealized, and the epistemic stance of the speaker is clear (on the certainty end of the

epistemic scale that this hypothetical state of affairs will never happen).

9. General considerations

From the examination of epistemic constructions in the corpus, a number of

important general observations were made, as well as several notes of interest where

further investigation is needed.

1. As noted above, hypothetical state of affairs constructed from past tense verbs

almost invariably construed epistemic modality on the certainty end of the

epistemic scale. Although it is quite possible to speak of past events as possibly

happening when the speaker is unsure, this rarely happened in the corpus

examined.

2. Almost all epistemic constructions were complex. That is, quite rarely were

simple epistemic constructions used to construe epistemic stance. Most epistemic

constructions were either conditionals or simple epistemic constructions which

used particles, adverbs, adjectives, and other components to add to the construal

of epistemic stance.

3. Particles of emphasis were used everywhere as components in the construal of

epistemic modality. Additionally, the particles and were of great

importance in many epistemic constructions. However, particles were present in

almost all epistemic constructions in the corpus, and of singular difficulty was the

determination of when these particles were used as epistemic markers, and when

they were used for other purposes. A focus on particles from a standpoint of

epistemic modality alone would therefore be uniquely helpful in understanding

epistemic modality in Greek.

4. Epistemic constructions in Greek may be broadly divided into impersonal and

personal categories. Further, the more personalized the epistemic stance was,

the more it was possible for the speaker to place himself anywhere on the

epistemic scale. Impersonal epistemic constructions were often used as distancing

mechanisms.

5. In general, no singular component or simple epistemic construction stood out as

the primary method of construal of epistemic modality. However, the importance

of various components or constructions did stand out when the place on the

speaker on the epistemic scale is considered. For example, the further from

certainty the speaker was on the epistemic scale, the more verbal mood was

important, and other components played a secondary role and were less prevalent.

6. Given its prevalence in epistemic constructions, a typology of -constructions

from an epistemic standpoint would be useful not only in gaining a better

understanding of the encyclopedic meaning of the particle, but in constructing a

typology of epistemic constructions in general.

10. Conclusions

There is far more to the construal of epistemic modality than is covered above. The

topic itself is complex, and also forms an open-ended class. The present study was

concerned only with laying the groundwork towards a typology of epistemic

constructions. This was accomplished by identifying the components and simple

epistemic constructions used in the construal of epistemic modality. Additionally, several

epistemic constructions were analyzed so that points of interest could be identified for

further study. Furthermore, several Complex Epistemic Constructions were examined,

and again analyzed to identify points of interest. Finally, some general observations were

made. From all of the above, it is clear that although a great deal of investigation is

necessary towards the goal of understanding epistemic modality and creating a typology

of epistemic constructions in Greek, various regularities in expression appear to make

this goal possible.

1 Nyuts (2001), pp. 21-22.

2 The terms construe and construal are used here as they are in research in cognitive

linguistics: The cover term that has come to be used for different ways of viewing a

particular situation is construal. (Verhagen, 2007, p. 38). In other words, the construal

of epistemic modality refers to the ways in which the speaker, expresses, represents,

captures, etc, her or his particular viewpoint of this modality.

3 One outcome of research in functionalist linguistics is the importance of the context in

which speech or language occurs. Pragmatic as used here relates to the observation that,

in the context of the human behavioral repertoire, language has a specific role to play,

viz. (primarily) to allow communication with other members of the speciesHence,

investigating language also unavoidably means accounting for how this system fulfills

this communicative function (Nyuts, 2001, p. 22)

4 The term space here, e.g base space, hypothetical space, etc, is borrowed from

Fauconnier (1985; 2007), who describes mental spaces as a basic and common aspect

of human language.. The concept is used in a number of different approaches to language

in cognitive linguistics. It refers to very partial assemblies constructed as we think and

talk for purposes of local understanding and action (Fauconnier, 2007, 351). In other

words, during the course of discourse, speakers construct local spaces where important

elements of the conversation are located and may be expanded upon. It would be helpful

to condiser and example: Suppose that we are engaged in a conversation about Romeo

and Juliet and the following statement is made:

(1) Maybe Romeo is in love with Juliet.

The English sentence brings in a frame from our prestructured background cultural

knowledge, X IN LOVE WITH Y, with two roles highlighted (the lover x and the loved

one y)The word maybe is a space builder; it sets up a Possibility space relative to the

discourse Base space at that point. The Base space contains elements a and b associated

with the names Romeo and Juliet (Fauconnier, 2007, 355). In the construal of

epistemic modality in Greek, a possibility space is invariably constructed out of the base

space, and the epistemic stance of the speaker concerns the likelihood of the realization

of the state of affairs in that possibility space. The term state of affairs is borrowed from

Functional Grammar and is an all-encompassing term covering the entity to which the

whole of the predicate with its arguments refers, irrespective of whether this entity is an

event, an action, a situation, etc (Wakker, 1994, p. 7n14).

5 See note 4 above.

6 Krkkinen (2003) p. 32.

7 The term constructions here refers to constructions as they are conceived of in various

construction grammars, which posit that there is a uniform representation of all

grammatical knowledge in the speakers mind in the form of generalized construction

everything from words to the most general syntactic and semantic rules can be

represented as constructions (Croft, 2007, p. 471). The most important aspect of

construction grammars is the idea that syntax and lexicon form a continuum, rather than

being two separate components (Goldberg, 1995, p. 7, Langacker, 2008, p. 161).

Additionally, constructions are organized in a taxonomic network (Croft, p. 476-477),

and vary from very fixed to highly variable and schematic (ibid, pp. 470-471). All of

speech is formed from combining various constructions (Langacker, 2008, chaps. 1 and

6).

8 All of the texts were taken from the Perseus Project of Tufts University

(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-

Roman). These included the speeches of Antiphon, Andocides, Demosthenes, Lysias, and

the Apology of Plato.

9 The Greek grammars consulted in the present study include Smyth (1956), Humbert

(1960), Schwyzer & Debrunner (1966), Goodwin (1889), and Khner & Gerth (1904).

10 See, e.g. Dancygier & Sweester (2005, sect. 2.4) and Dancygier (2004, chap. 2).

11 On the usage of particles in general, as well as the emphatic usage of these particles,

see Denniston (1950).

12 See Smyth, sect. 2896.

13 Sect 1762.

14 p. 64.

15 Ibid.

16 p. 27.

17 Langacker, pp. 37-38.

18 As opposed to a dictionary view (see Langacker, pp. 38-39). An encyclopedic view of

lexical semantics, lexical meaning resides in a particular way of accessing an open

ended body of knowledge pertaining to a cerain type of entity (Langacker, p. 39).

19 In other words, rather than simply describe a force has, it is possible to describe

its meanings as if it were any other lexical item. This is true of all particles, and would be

a superior method of describing them in Greek grammars.

20 Croft, pp. 476-77.

21 Croft, pp. 467; Croft and Cruse (2004) p. 253.

22 The levels of the syntax-lexicon continuum may be found in Croft and Cruse, p. 255:

23 Khner & Gerth, p. 115.

24 Goodwin pp. 115-116.

25 Schwyzer & Debrunner p. 623, Smyth sect. 944.

26 Apart from Greek grammars, see, e.g., Wakker, Seiler (1997), and Greenberg (1986).

27 Wierzbicka (1997) pp. 15-18.

28 Goodwin, pp. 168-69.