UNIVERSITA DEGL!

STUDI DI BOLOGNA DIPARTIMENTO DI FILOLOGIA CLASSICA E MEDIOEVALE

CENTRO DI STUDI RETORICI E GRAMMATICALI

PAPERS ON GRAMMAR

x

EDITED BY

GUALTIERO CALBOLI

HERDER EDITRICE ROMA 2008

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of l.6yo;.

Donna Shalev

in fond and respectful memory of Prof. Haiim B. Rosen, with whom I first read the Poetics in Arabic

I. Austin to Aristotle and Back: Grammar and Logic

When John Austin first gave his William James Lectures at Harvard University in 1955, lectures which were subsequently published in his renowned How to Do Things with Words, he ascribed the ideas there to the year 1939, noting the place of their first appearance, the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. The first lecture in Austin's fundamental book opens with a discussion of the essence of the concept 'statement' and in particular with the essence of the common space between philosophers and grammarians, as may be seen, in fuller context, in passage (1) below:

(1) J.L Austin, How To Do Things With Words (Lecture I): "It was for too long the assumption of philosophers that the business of a 'statement' can only be to 'describe' some state of affairs, or to 'state some fact', which it must do either truly or falsely. Grammarians, indeed, have regularly pointed out that not all 'sentences' are (used in making) statements: there are, traditionally, besides (grammarians ') statements, also questions and exclamations, and sentences expressing commands or wishes or concessions. And doubtless philosophers have

•

This paper develops thoughts arising from my presentation of theories of discourse in

antiquity, in a paper read (in Hebrew) in June, 2004 in Jerusalem, on the occasion of the retirement of Shoshana Blum-Kulka. The current paper focuses more closely on the reflexes of Aristotelian (and other) definitions in the Arabic tradition, and is partly funded by ISF Grant 1266/05. I would like to thank colleagues from the Hebrew University, in the Depts. of Classics, of Arabic Language and Literature, of Philosophy, and of Jewish Thought, who patiently discussed points with me.

244

Donna Sbalev

not intended to deny this, despite some loose use of 'sentence' for 'statement'. Doubtless, too, both grammarians and philosophers have been aware that it is by no means easy to distinguish even questions, commands, and so on from statements by means of the few and jejune grammatical marks available, such as word order, mood, and the like: though perhaps it has not been usual to dwell on the difficulties which this fact obviously raises. For how do we decide which is which 1 What are the limits and definitions of each 1"

In his fluent manner, Austin already here recalls what is on offer beyond the statement, according to the grammarians ("questions and exclamations, and sentences expressing commands or wishes or concessions"). Austin's following words imply that the grammarians did in fact recognize the plurality of acts that are involved in sentences, and indeed he sets up an opposition between this and between philosophers' analyses in practice, where they do not exclusively mean "statement" when they use the term "sentence". After Austin admits the complex nature of identifying sentences that are not statements ("it is by no means easy to distinguish even questions, commands, and so on from statements"), he focuses on a philosophical treatment, and naturally, unfolds his well-known

1 breakthroughs.

To my mind, the terms "grammarians" and "philosophers" in passage (1) above are loaded: they point to a tension between formal criteria and criteria of meaning and function - less dependent on form, more amenable to abstraction and generalization. All the same, there is no escaping the fact that Austin's examples are mostly from English,2 and he does use the semantics of verbs in defining the speech acts which verbs signal. 3 Is it possible that Austin is hinting

1 Precursors for the concept 'performative', and a consistent terminology - perhaps Austin's most well-known breakthrough but one not discussed in our current study - have been suggested in the medieval and later Arabic tradition, in a broad range of disciplines, in the reading of Larcher (1993) under the term 'insha' and its derivatives.

2 There is also an example from Classical Greek (a quotation on p. 9 of Euripides, Hippolytus 62, and from other languages (e.g. Latin, p. 65). Likewise it is well worth remarking Austin's sensitivity to cultural differences (rather than the blind universalism found in the work of many theoreticians), as it shines through from his examples and their discussion.

3 Leech elaborates on this in chapter 9 of his book Principles of Pragmatics.

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of Mryo~

245

here, among other things, at Aristotle and his many commentators? At the Stoic thinkers on language (who forged flexible relations between the formal category mood and the function and intention of an expression 4)? Is he giving expression to ripples of the debate between logic and grammar which have reverberated since medieval times under the widening influence of Aristotle's Organon?

The early stages in the evolving continuum from Aristotelian logic to Austinian speech act theory have been charted and surveyed in the exemplary studies of Schenkeveld (1984) - to whom lowe much in this discussion - of Nuchelmans (1973) for later Western tradition, and of Versteegh (1977) for the transition into Arabic culture.

The tension between grammarians and philosophers lived on in the Arabic tradition as a dynamic debate between upholders of traditional Arabic philology, and innovating, universalizing logic. The debate, as played out in the belletristic tradition by two illustrious figures in 10th century Baghdadi intellectual circles,5 has received richly-textured attention in the work of Endress,6 of Mahdi (1970) and others in their wake. We will see in the texts below that along with philosophers and grammarians, others were entered into the foray: from dramatic and oratorical performers (in the Greek tradition) to theological dialecticians (the 'mutakallimiin' of the Arabic tradition).

4 Cf. E.g. Pinborg (1975: 91) on the Stoic division by meaning - as opposed to a category that is grammatically identifiable. For Aristotelian classification "almost coinciding with the division into grammatical moods" see Versteegh (1977: 146 with note 144) and his reference to Stein thaI.

5

The debate took place in 932 AD (320 after the Hijra) in the salon of Ibn al-Furat,

vizier of the caliph al-Muqtadir. The Christian translator and logician Abu Bishr Matta ibn Yunus (unsuccessfully) defends logic in the attack of the theological dialectician (mutakallim, practicer of kaliim) and philologist/grammarian Abu Sa'Id as-Sfrafi, It is documented, inter alia, in the belletristic texts in dialogic format by Abu Hayyan atTawhidi, in the "eighth night" (I, 108-128, Cairo edition) of the collection of conversational soirees called On Pleasure and Conviviality.

6 His most well-known work on this debate was published in 1986, but important contributions were made by Endress much earlier. The broader chronological and textual context of this debate has been surveyed in the monograph of Elamrani-Jamal (1983), with translations giving non-Arabists access to important texts.

246

Donna Shalev

The flexible and internally varied list of forms and modes of speech within the traditional treatments, and speech acts and speech act types as suggested by Austin himself in (1) above, ultimately gelled into a trinity of questions, commands and statements. These three modes recur consistently in many modern treatments of pragmatics, speech act theory, and grammar, as expressed in the terms of the respective fields. Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) derive a tripartite scheme from their observations of discourse situations in the classroom, in which the initiating moves may be 'statement', 'question', or 'command'r Halliday and Hasan (1976) introduce 'question', 'statement' and 'command'c as a framework for analyzing the structural and other cohesive ties between their three pairs of initiating and reactive moves (within a much larger study of mechanisms for cohesion, not necessarily in dialogue but limited to spoken modem English). Lyons (1977: II §16.1) gives the statements, questions, and commands in terms of their functions, and Levinson (1983) in terms of sentence type, which are universal. 9

Exceptionally, the division in A Grammar of Contemporary English of Quirk et al. (1972: §7.53) breaks this scheme by adding the exclamation to the

. d dIO

statement, question an cornman .

At the risk of prematurely exposing the material before its natural place in the discussion, I observe that in almost all the passages 11 listing and discussing

7 Sinclair and Coulthard (1975: 26-28). These three situations are put into parallel with three discourse categories (informative, elicitation, and directive) as well as with three grammatical categories (declarative, interrogation, and imperative).

8 Along with their respective reactions in Halliday and Hasan (1976: §4.4.3): question::response, statement::assent, and command::assent.

9 Levinson (1983: 242): "There are certain recurring linguistic categories that do need explaining, e.g., it appears that the three basic sentence types interrogative, imperative and declarative are universals ... "

10 Interestingly the section title (and it alone) pays lip service to the 'holy trinity' of statement, question and command.

11 Ari. De int., in passage (4) below, does not include 'question' (but the commentators give all); Quint. 10, (8) below, does not include command; and al-Farabi in (11) below does not include 'question' (for his 'request', talab, see n. 56 below). The following passages will be discussed: D.L. 9.53 (2); D.L. 7.65-8 (3); Ari. De into 16b33ff (4); its

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of MJ'YOC;

247

types or forms of speech 12 in the variety of ancient traditions surveyed, in some form or another the three acts of 'statement', 'question', and 'command' (viz., declarative, interrogative and directive sentence types) recur consistently.Y but not exclusively. What is interesting is which others are included, and in which traditions. The detailed sub-classification of 'questions', not only in the Stoic tradition, and the cross-over between 'requests' and 'commands', merit some comment; likewise the expression of these nuances in later tradition. In this study I examine the Arabic tradition.

In the coming pages, extra attention will be devoted to the 'statement' type, its terms and definitions and their internal variety. Those which are somehow derived from or defined in terms of (or are otherwise related to) the statement or to the declarative form are most interesting, in particular the so-called (sotranslated) 'narration', 'response', and the 'exclamation'. In the Arabic tradition one must further address the influence of the expanded Organon on the choice of terms and the treatment of material in works such as the Poetics, all the while recalling the intellectual and cultural setting for these texts.

medieval Arabic translation by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (ed. Pollak) (4'); Ari. Po. 1456b8ff (5); its medieval Arabic translation by Abu Bishr Matta ibn Yunus (edd. multi) (5'); Sa'adia Ga'on Elements of Hebrew Poetry, Arabic introd. (6); Sincere Brethren Epistles 1.410 (7); Quint. 10 11.3.176 (8); Judah ha-Levi Kuzari 11.72 (9); Ammonius ad De int., 2.9ff (10); al-Farabi ad De int., 51ff (ed. Kutsch-Marrow) (11). Other texts are introduced in the notes for comparison and contrast.

12 As A6yot, in passage (2) below, 1tUe~£VEC; A6yrov (2); Ac:X't'<1 UU't'O't'EAfi (3); crxfJp,u't'u Ac:~£ro<; in (5), and db'll A6you in (9). In the Arabic tradition aqsiim al-qawl (6), aqiiwil (4') and (7), ashkiil al-maqiila (5'). Versteegh (1977: 147) refers to 'andsir al-kaliim, reminiscent of 1tUe~£VEC; A6yrov in (2).

13 Statement/declarative et sim.: cpacrt v in passage (2); a~iro~u in (3); ct1tocpavt't'xoc; A6yoC; in (4, 9); btTrY'llcrtC; in (5); I;adfth in (5'); khabar in (6) and in (7); indicant in (8); ruiizim (4'), and in (10); enuntiativa in translations and commentaries of (4) by Boethius and Moerbeke. Command/directive et sim. EV't'OA~ (2, 5); 1tQocr't'ux't'tXOC; A6yoC; (3, 9), further along in (5) E1tt't'a~tC;; amr in (5'), in (6, 10) and all medieval Arab sources; imperativa in commentary of Boethius. Question/interrogative et sim.: EQOO't'llcrtC; in (2 - all three taxonomies) in (5); £Qro't''ll~u, 1tucr~u, £1tU1toQll't'txov 1tQay~u in (3); £Qro't'll~u't'tXOC; A6yoC;'in (9); su'iil in (5') and in (7); mas'ala in (6); interrogant in (8).

248 Donna Shalev

II. Protagoras the First Inventor, Diodes the Stoic

A figure from antiquity to whom general notions on discourse are ascribed is the Sophist and rhetorician Protagoras. It is true that his writings were not preserved, but we are familiar with the span and nature of his oeuvre through a fair body of ancient sources, as collected in Diels-Kranz' Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. In Greek culture, with its penchant for invention and discovery, it was common practice to attach to suitable mythical, and historical, figures, the label 'first inventor', 7tQro'!o<; 8UQ8,!~<;.14 It is in this context that one must understand the description by Diogenes Laertius of the 'invention' of the division of AOYO<; into types, and its ascription to Protagoras. Passage (2) below, a catalogue of innovations of Protagoras, is taken from Diogenes Laertius' Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers: 15

(2) Diogenes Laertius, Lives 9.52-54: OUTOe; 1q~o3Toe; l.ncr90v dcrE1tQo~aTo IlVUe; bWTOV' xat 1tQo.hoe; ~Qll XQovou DlcOQlcrE xat xalQou DuVallt v E~E9ETO xat AOYroV ayrovae; E1tOl~craTo xat cro~tcrllaTa TOte; 1tQaYllaToAoyoucrt 1tQocr~yaYE' xat T~V DtOvOlav a~de; 1tQoe; Touvolla DlEAEX911 xat TO vUV E1tl- 1tOAatov yevoe; TroV EQtcrnxrov EyewllcrEv' '{va xat Tiurov ~llcrt 1tEQt aUTou' ... 53. OUTOe; xat TO l:roxQanxov ctDOe; TroV AOYroV 1tQroToe; EXt vnoe. xat TOV

, Avncr9Evoue; AOYOV, TOV 1tEtQcOIlEVOV a1tODElXVUElV cil<; oox ecrnv avnAEYElv, OUTOe; 1tQroToe; DlctAExTal, xa90 qrnot I1AOTrov EV Eu9uD~llroc;. xat 1tQroToe; xaTEDEl~E TOe; 1tQoe; TOe; 9EcrEte; E1ttXElQ~crEle;, cO<; ~llcrl V ' AQTElltDroQOe; 6 DlaAEXTIXOe; EV Trol I1Qoe; XQucrt1t1tov. Kat 1tQroToe; TTtV xaAoUIlEvTJV WATJV, E~' ~e; TO ~oQTta (3acrTo~oucrlV, EUQEV, cO<; qmow ' AQl(J't"OTEATJe; EV Trol I1EQt 1tatDEiae;' ~OQIlO~OQOe; yaQ Tjv, roe; xat 'E1tixouQoe; 1tOU ~TJcrl. DldAE TE TOV AOYOV 1tQroToe; de; TETTaQa' 8UXOlJ..llV, EQIDnptV, aTCoxQtotV, 8V't"OJ..llV. oi De de; f;1tTO' Otfrrrlmv, 8Q<1n1)O"tV, anoxQtotv, EV't"OJ..llV, anaYY8J..tav, 8UXOlJ..llV, XJ..l1otV, oU<; xat 1tu9Ilevae; ct1tE AOyroV.' AAXtDollae; De TeTTaQae; Aoyoue; ~TJcri' cpaot v, aTCOcpaot v, 8QID't"TIot v, nQOO"a1'oQ8txn v.

14 On the inventor as a phenomenon in the ancient world, see the article by Thraede s. v. "Erfinder" in the Reallexikon fUr Antike und Christentum. In the context of language among the Greeks, and the figures of Prometheus and Palamedes, see Gera (2003, 123 ff).

15 For Protagoras as arch-inventor in the language arts, from later ancient Greek sources, and the place of passage (2) above within the composition of those sources, see Shalev (2006); for the formulation of the narrative of Protagoras and others as founding figures in select Ancient Greek (and medieval Arabic) traditions, see Shalev (forthcoming).

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of MlyOC;

249

"This man [Protagoras, D.S.] was the first to exact a fee of a hundred minae [for tutoring D.S.] and the first to distinguish the parts of time/6 to emphasize the importance of seizing the right moment, to institute contests in debating, and to teach rival pleaders the tricks of their trade. Furthermore, in his dialectic he neglected the meaning in favour of verbal quibbling, and he was the father of the whole tribe of eristical disputants now so much in evidence... He too first introduced the method of discussion which is called Socratic. Again, as we learn from Plato in the Euthydemus, he was the first to use in discussion the argument of Antisthenes which strives to prove that contradiction is impossible, and the first to point out how to attack and refute any proposition laid down: so Artemidorus the dialectician in his treatise In Reply to Chrysippus .... He was the first to mark off the parts of discourse into four, namely, wish, question, answer, command; others [say he, D.S.] divided into seven parts, narration.i question, answer, command, rehearsal, wish, summoning; these he called the basic forms of speech. Alcidamas made discourse fourfold, affirmation, negation, question, address." (transl. Hicks).

In a broader context of the description of Protagoras as a founding figure in the technique and theoretical analysis of questions in discourse,18 he appears as the inventor of the taxonomy of speech types. Among the innovations and inventions of Prot agoras in the language arts and in discourse, Diogenes includes the division of time into parts, timing, rhetorical contests, sophistic trickery and a variety of developments in genres of argumentation. Diogenes refers to two versions for the division attributed to Protagoras, but this does not minimize the fact that he is the father of this division, at least in a cultural, if not a purely historical conception. Likewise, from a retrospect of eight hundred years which separate the period of Diogenes from that of Protagoras, Diogenes adds to his 'tradition' an element of complexity, and a credible scientific aura, as it were, by mentioning an alternative founding figure, the sophist Alcidamas,

16 In Hicks' translation, "tenses of the verb". I adopt here the interpretation in Dunn (2001).

17 Thus Hicks. This is not an ideal translation; although the term Ot~YTJcnc; comes to mind, no connotation is felt of the Greek term's rarer, technical use for 'statement' (on which see in particular discussion for (5) below).

18 For emphasis in D.L. on language arts in his invention passages, see Shalev (2006: section 3, with conspectus).

250

Donna Shale v

whose list is of a different nature and orientation than either of the two lists ascribed to Protagoras. Diogenes' account does not enter into illustration or correlation of the types of speech with formal sentence types, or with grammatical moods (pace Hicks, in a note ad locum). The subject at hand is elements of speech (nu8J!8vcC; A6yrov).

The interesting elements in the classifications ascribed to Protagoras are the inclusion of cln6xQtcnc; and cUXcOAll in both the shorter and the longer lists (both of which also include EQol'rllCnc; and EV't"OA~) which go well beyond the modern (English-oriented) triad 'question, command, statement' described in section 1. above. In fact, 'statement' (cpacHC;, cln6cpavcnc;, clnocpav't"1xoc; A6yoc;), as we expect it from our experience of Aristotle's19 Organon and its derivatives is not represented in Protagoras; however, the 'answer' (cln6xQ1CJ1C;) has affinities to the statement in some of its functions and essence, and - according to some _20 is formally germane to the declarative sentence type. In fact, two of the three 21 A6y01 added in the longer list ascribed to Protagoras in passage (2) above - those termed 01 ~YllCJ1C; and clnayycAta, are not commonly found in the repertoire of proposition theory presented in Greek logical texts, and the activity they imply is close to varieties of performance of descriptions

22 and accounts.

19 Although of course historically subsequent to Protagoras by more than a generation, Aristotle's treatment, in the narrow, early Organon has long been considered more canonical and commands priority and influence.

20 In my view, more work needs to be done on the formal characteristics of the sentence patterns used when performing the acts of response, assent, and consent, and on comparing and contrasting these patterns with declarative sentences in non-reactive moves. See Shalev (2003).

21 Th d - d d h ' I •

e act terme XA:r)CJ1C; oes emerge un er at er terms: XA:rrnxoc; AOYOC; ill

Ammonius, passage (8) below; nidii' in (10) and (11), and possibly in (6) (where it has been interpreted as exclamatory); vocativa in Boethius' commentary to (4) and a parallel to (8).

22 anUYY£AtU is given as a terminus technicus in Ernesti's Lexicon Technologiae Graecorum Rhetoricae, where, aside from equating it with A£~1C; (elocutio), he cites it as a specific term for a historical account, from D.H. on Demosthenes. It is also used in (' non-logical ') Aristotle, as a mode of presentation/delivery (e.g. Po. 6. 1449b26). It

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of w'YOC;

251

The chapter on Protagoras (whence his list of AOY01) in Diogenes' work appears among the chapters on Sophists. An alternative tradition of division of speech types, in (3) below, is excerpted by Diogenes from Diodes of Magnesia,23 in Diogenes' Life of Zeno, in a sequence of chapters on Stoic philosophers. The terminology, reasoning, and examples are those associated with the Stoic theory of AEX't" a 24.

(3)

25 from D.L. Lives 7.65-68 :

a~troJla oE ecrnv 0 ecrnv aATleEC; 11 tPEUOOC;· 111tQuYJla atrro't"EAEC; a1t0cpov't"(JV ocrov ecp' eauTrot olov TJIlEQO ecrTt, ~trov 1tEQt1tOTEt

"Statement is that which is either true or false, or an act complete in itself, capable of being denied in and by itself e.g. 'It is day'; 'Dion is walking' "(Chrysippus, Dialectical Definitions).

OtOCPEQEt 0' a~lroJla xa,- eQID"t'TlJla xa,- 1tucrJla xa,- 1tQocr"t'ax"t'txov xo'- oQXtXOV xa,- oQo"t'txov xa,- un09E"t'txOv xat nQocrayoQEu"t'tXOv xat nQuYJlo OJlOtOV a~troJlan

"There is a difference between statement, yes-no question, wh question, command, oath, prayer, supposition, address, and quasi-statement".

would be interesting what emerges from a collection and analysis of technical uses in the corpus of Rhetores graeci (e.g. Spengel).

23 The 'fragment' of Diocles in D.L. 's Life of Zeno of Citium begins VII.49, with the following introduction: ... xat at)"t'o e1tt AE~EroC; "t'ieTlcrt !\toXAfjC; 0 MaYVTlC; i» "t'fjt

, E1ttOQOllfjt -rrov cptAOcrOCProV, AEYrov oiiro»;: ... Scholars such as Sandbach doubt the length of the excerpt from Diocles, but Schenkeveld (1984: 301 n. 23) includes our section within it.

24 Provisionally defined in Schenkeveld (1984: 301) "contents of thought to be expressed in words".

25 The content of (3) is an abridged version of the passage in D.L., in a list rather than continuous form. My translation often departs from Hicks': e.g. 'statement' for his 'judgement'; more function-based terms for his sentence-types or formal-based list 'interrogation, inquiry, imperative, adjurative, optative, hypothetical, vocative'. Further on, heavily indebted to Schenkeveld's discussion of this passage, I attempt in my translation of the individual treatments to put more emphasis on the relationship between utterance and the act involved, as felt in the Greek wording of the Stoic analysis of types of 1tQuYJlO or AEXTOV. In general 1tQuYlla I translate as 'act'. Sluiter (1997) also treats parts of this passage.

252

Donna Shalev

a~tO>lla yue EO''t"tV 0 AiyovTe<; a1tocpatVOlleSa, o1tee ~ aATJS&; EO''t"tV ~ tj.Ieuoo<;. [Statement differs from the other acts expressed in sentence form] for a statement is [a sentence] which when we utter [it] we are performing an assertion, an [object of utterance] which is either true or false.

EeroTTJlla oE EO''t"t 1teaYlla aUToTeA£<; IlEV, cO<; xoi TO a~tO>lla, alTTJ't"txov oE a1tOXetO'ero<;, OlOV "aea ye TJIlEea EO'Tt;"

A yes-no question is, like the statement, an act complete-in-itself, yet [unlike the statement, a verbal act] performing a demand for an answer (e.g. "Is it day?");

TOUTO oE oiirs aATJ8E<; EO''t"t v oUTe tj.Ieuoo<;· IDO'Te TO IlEV "TJIlEea EO'Tt v" a~tO>lla EO'Tt, TO OE "&ea ye TJIlEea EO'Tt v;" EeroTTJlla.

And this [i.e. the yes-no question involving a demand for an answer] is neither true nor false; consequently the [utterance] "It is day" is a statement, whereas the [utterance] "Is it day?" - a yes-no question.

1t\)O'lla oE EO'Tt 1teaYlla 1teo<; 0 O'UIl~OAtxro<; oUx eO''t"t v a1tOXet veO'Sat, cO<; E1tt TOU eeO>TTlllaTo<;, Nat, aAw oel eirreiv "oixsi EV TrotOe Trot T01tO>t."

A wh question is an act to which it is not possible to reply in a token manner, as [one can reply] to a yes-no question [with a mere] vat, but [to a (wh) question such as "where does he live?,,26] it is necessary to answer [more fully with] "he lives in such and such a place."

1teOO'Tax't"txov oE EO'Tt 1teaYlla, 0 AiyovTe<; 1teoO'TUO'O'ollev, OlOV "O'u IlEV ~uot~e Ta<; E1t' 'Ivuxou QOu<;"

A command is a [verbal] act which when we utter [it] we perform a command, e.g. [the utterance] "Go thou to the waters of Inachus" (NauckAdesp. fro 177).

(The definition and example for the oath are missing in the text). <1teoO'ayoeeu't"txov> oE EO''t"t 1teaYlla 0 si AiYOt 't"t<;, 1teoO'ayoeet)Qt av, OlOV ", ATeeiOTJ XUOtO'Te, ava~ avoerov' AyUlleIlVOV."

<An address> is a [verbal] act which, if someone should utter [it], he would be performing an address, e.g. "Most glorious son of Atreus, lord of men, Agamemnon." (ll. 9.96).

01l0toV 0' EO'Tt v a~trolla't"t 0 Tilv EXcpOeav exov a~trolla't"txilv 1taeU 't"t voc IlOetOU 1tAeOvaO'llov ll1tuSo<; e~ro 1tt1tTet TOU YEvou<; TroV a~tO>llaTO>v, OlOV "xaAo<; y' 0 1taeSevrov", "cO<; lletalltOTJtO'tv Ellcpeeil<; 0 ~OUXOAO<;."

26 Supplied from an apparently typically recurring example for a wh-question, found elsewhere in the literature (see von Amim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 2, section entitled neet AeXTrov aUToTeAiOv).

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of lO'Yo~

253

A quasi-statement is [an act] which, [although] its utterance has the features of a statement, by dint of an addition of some part [of it] or [by dint of] pathos,27 it falls outside of the statement type, e.g. "Indeed the Parthenon is beautiful.", "How like Priam's sons the cowherd is (NauckAdesp. fro 286)."

"Eo-n ai: XOt S7ta1toQT]nxov n 1tQoYJlO atevT]vOXoC; a~troJlo't"OC;, 0 ei AEYOt nc;, <l1toQotT] avo "oQ' Eon ouyyevEC; n AU1tT] XOt ~toC;;"

There is also as it were (rt) an act of hesitation [lit.: aporetic utterance], differing from the statement, [an act] which if someone should utter it, he is probably [expressing] being in an impasse (lit: aporia): [e.g.] "Can it be that pain and life are somehow akin?".

In the context of the passage from which (3) is excerpted, Diogenes quotes in fact the Stoic theory of language which did not survive in a composition of its own. The taxonomy reveals a cocktail of sentence types and patterns, of speech act types, and of very specific speech acts. In contrast to Schenkeveld, who focuses on the Stoic theory, with comments on its relationship to non-Stoic theories, the present study attempts a less subtle overview over a broader habitus. Passage (3) is for us merely a sample passage representative of the whole Stoic body of thought on modes of speech, which significantly contributed to the way we look at types or modes of speech today. What stands out in this passage, and also renders it a paragon of Stoic passages, are the examples,28 the blend of form and meaning, the subtle distinctions which lead to many items, and the heterogeneous natures of these items (the above-mentioned 'cocktail').

The group 'questions' as treated in (3) raises interesting points in terminology, sub-classification, relationship between speech act and sentence type, and

27 The translation of this passage is very difficult, and can be misleading of the message in the original. The translation given in Sluiter (1997: 237) is helpful, in particular involving the term 1tAeovaoJlov: " ... that which having the form of an axiom falls outside the class of axioms because it exceeds it by an extra word or by emotion ... ". See a looser rendering in the discussion, below.

28 At times from epic and tragedy, at other times invented pedestrian phrases, typical and recurring in the Stoic corpus (see Schenkeveld's conspectus of the examples used for the different Aex't"a in the Stoic corpus in his table II). See also emphasis given by Sluiter (1997: 241) to the role of examples from poetry, and to the influence of the Stoics' interest in style to later emphasis on "stylistic side and downplaying that of logic".

254

Donna Shalev

axis of definition. Terms for 'question' in many of the ancient sources, often derived from EQro't'aro which in Stoic sources has been specialized for yes-no questions, are used in other sources (e.g. passages (2) above or (5) below) without distinguishing yes-no, wh, or other questions. Other speech acts in interrogative form, as, for example the E1ta1toQl1't'tXo<; A,oyo<; are considered.f We are able to distinguish what type of question the term refers to by the examples, but also because the types of questions are defined in the Stoic theory in terms of the nature of the response (token, or assent for the EQID't'l1fla and more fully formed and informative phrases for the 1tUafla). By way of comment I add that the token (aufl~oA,Ov) used in Diocles' example - val, is, in some forms of dialogue at least, more typically used to mark assent (to a statement, formed as a declarative or as a rhetorical question) than to mark a response (to a question); 30 the term aUfl~OA,txroC; used in the discussion in (3) of the nature of answers to yes-no questions, and cognate terms, recur elsewhere in similar

31 contexts.

A particularly interesting type, the "quasi-statement" (OflOtOV a~to)fla't't) - termed in later Stoic taxonomies "beyond the statement,,32 - illustrated in the original by an exclamative sentence opening with roc;, and by an assertive sentence, which may likewise be interpreted as exclamative, and including the particle yt as a sign of added pathos: "Indeed the Parthenon is beautiful" (xaA,oc; v' 0 IIaQ9EvIDv). The explanation, in the text itself, is phrased in terms

f .c d .1 s:: I, , ~ 1 "" , 33 "

o rorm an tone: OflOtOV oe so-nv a~trofla't't 0 "t"11V ExcpoQUV EXOV

29 In modem, post-Austinian treatments, such distinctions are also found, for English, in the Grammar of Quirk et al. For Classical Greek Tragedy, "aporetic questions" are part of the classification in Mastronarde's map (1979: 17t) of information-seeking questions and other interrogatives.

30 And never in consent to a command. See Shalev (2003) for evidence from Platonic dialogue.

31 In passages of a technical nature like (3), but also in exegetical and broader cultural passages (in Philo and Plutarch, respectively), as I discuss elsewhere in connection with Greek dialogue technique.

32 1 "', ):'

rrAtov 11 a~t(olla. See Schenkeveld's table I for sources.

33 The manuscripts have eicr<poQav rather than excpoQav, a modem conjecture.

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of A.O'Yo~

255

a~t(OJ1anX1)V 1tuQa 'rtVOC;; J1oQlou 1tAeovucrJ10V Tl rra90C;; E~ro rrirrrat 'rOD yevouc;; TroV a~troJ1a'rrov (in loose translation: "like a statement in form, but with some added element for pathos, therefore falling outside the [parameters of] the type 'statements' ").

Just as the quasi-statement is termed and defined with reference to the statement, the same technique of comparison and contrast is used in the definitions of other utterances: the EQroTYJJ1U is likened to the a~iroJ1u in one element of its essence important in the Stoic theory,34 namely its autonomous nature, but is distinct from the statement in the task it performs; the rruouc is differentiated from the EQIDTYJJ1U.

A strong common feature shared by Diodes' presentation and non-Stoic definitions is the setting of the statement apart from the other acts of utterance in terms of being either true or false.

ill. The priority given to statements in the discipline of logic

The first in-depth treatments of acts of speech in Greek sources preserved in the wording of those who formulated them rather than merely in a later, retrospective quotation, are to be found in Aristotle.

The Organon, the collection of works in logic which were learned as an organic unit in the schools in later antiquity, are more concerned with dialectics, with argumentation of a more formal kind in the abstract, than with a theory of discourse which is able to reflect moves in natural conversation, or in some natural(istic) medium. The list of works considered as belonging to the Organon was not yet stabilized until later Antiquity in the Greek tradition, nor was it consistent in the Arabic and later European curricula. Very roughly put, the early Organon was relatively speaking narrow.35 The Arabic Organon usually included in addition to translations of the traditional works (listed in the note above), also a translation of Porphyrius' Eisagoge, of Aristotle's Rhetoric,

34 Which features a fundamental differentia of A£xTa (="contents of thought to be expressed in words"), i.e. whether they are aUTon;A:ll or EAAlnll (see e.g. D.L. 7.63, and cf. other passages in SVF 2).

35 Ari. Cat., Int., An. Pr., An. Post., Top., S.E.

256

Donna Shalev

and sometimes of his Poetics. It was shown in Walzer (1934) that already Greek antiquity featured a broader, more inclusive Organon. 36

In his De interpretatione, quoted in passage (4) below, one of the works consistently included in the Organon, Aristotle limits the scope of his treatment of AOyO<; 37 to the definition of the statement, the a1tocpav't'txo<; A,oyo<;, in the realm of logic:

(4) Aristotle, De interpretatione 16b33 ff: anOcpaVT1:XO~ as ou nw;, all' €v rot TO aA,116euetv Tl t!>Eu5Ea9at um1exEt' oUx EV anaat 5£ um1eXEt, olov ..; EUx~ A6yo~ JJZv, all OUT' aA,116Ttc; omE t!>eu5"~. 01 ~v OOV allot acpEla9coaav, -Qll't"oQuc.ii~ yae Tlnot trnX~ OiXEto't"EQa ..; (J)c£tl>t~, - ...

"Not every sentence is a statement-making sentence, but only those in which there is truth or falsity in all sentences: a prayer is a sentence but is neither true nor false. The present investigation deals with the statement-making sentence; let the other [types of sentence] be dismissed - indeed their investigation belongs rather to rhetoric or to poetics ••• [emphasis D.S.]" (transl. Ackrill )38

As may be seen in the words of Aristotle, a statement (aTtocpavTlxo<; AOY0<;) is a sentence whose utterance lies on an axis of truth and falsehood. The other,

36 More detail on the evolving Organon in the Latin tradition can be found in Solmsen (1944); in the Arabic tradition, in Black (1990) a survey of previous studies and her own interpretation of what is called by Arabists (e.g. Dahiyat) the context theory.

37 The Greek word A6yo~ has many applications, and even within the pool of Aristotelian terminology used in the Organon, the term A6yo~ is variously employed. In the specific context of passage (4) and related passages it is customary to translate A6'Yo~ as 'sentence', 'expression', 'statement', and related terms. Schenkeveld interprets A.Oyo<; here as a "meaningful group of words" (p. 293); there are those who prefer in this passage to interpret A.OYOt; in the sense of "speech" or even "an act of speech".

38 Some adaptations have been made here to Ackrill's translation: I translate acpeia9coaav more literally than his ''we can dismiss"; the punchline effect of a parenthetical yae phrase is rendered more literal than Ackrill's choice of subordinate clause "since consideration of them belongs rather to the study of rhetoric or poetry". (This effect is retained in the medieval Arabic translation, where the particle idh is used with an independent phrase, rather than a dependent causal clause. See also EndressGutas s.v.).

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of MryOC;

257

non-assertoric A,oyo<; (or non-declarative sentences), which do not gravitate on this axis, are not relevant to this logic and may be dismissed (acp£lo9cooov).39

One may posit that at this point philosophical discussion divorces itself of anything non-declarative. Modem philosophy to a certain extent perpetuated the priority of the type 'statement' which was so convenient for Aristotle here, at the expense of types and forms of A,oyo<; with non-declarative content, which philosophers "skipped over"; these were in fact treated, but 'merely' in rhetoric and poetics. Not only is the concept of assertion singled out here, but also the term used in this very influential passage, anocpov't"lXO<; A,oyo<;: This term, part of a logical conception, reflected by its terminological apparatus, is distinct from terms such as ~hTJY1l01<;, anoYY£A,lO, anoxQun<; and others; moreover, the two families of terms are usually kept apart in the literature.40

IV. The discussions in "QT)TOQlxf) .•. l11tOlT)Ttxfa"

In his poetic theory - In Poetics, chapter 19 Aristotle discusses patterns of expression - the Greek term used is OXTJJlo't"o, a term with heavily formal

• 41

connotations:

39 The later Greek form of the verb ending mayor may not be one of the sources for the confusion in the Arabic translation of this text (otherwise rendered by Ishaq quite slavishly): nahnu tdrikiihii (lit.: 'we are its abandoners').

40

In the Arabic tradition, both De into and Po. (originally belonging to two distinct

bodies of Aristotelian literature) shared membership in the Organon. Nevertheless, the distinction was preserved between the concept translated (and later termed by Arabic logicians) qawl dliizim (,statement-making sentence') and the concepts termed lJ,adfth (,information, report'), and generally khabar (,information', 'story', 'sentence') as we shall see with respect to passages (5) and (6) below (as well as in contexts where khabar was not used to denote 'predicate').The term EVX~ in (4) above is translated into Arabic as du'ii', a term not used elsewhere in logical works of 'newcomers' to the Organon (in fact no two Arabic passages in our study render the term 'prayer' with the same term, see below in discussion to passage (11». The term du'ii' for 'prayer' is used in an 11th century taxonomy by the Andalusian theoretician Ibn Hazm, as discussed by Versteegh (1977: 147).

41 When Diogenes Laertius discusses Protagoras' classification, he speaks in terms of the division of ).,oyo<; (OtElAE ... TOV ).,oyov) or of the fundaments of ).,oYOt ( ... ou<; xat 1tUe~Eva<; c:t1tE ).,oyrov). In De interpretatione, Aristotle's discussion revolves around the

258 Donna Shalev

(5) Aristotle, Poetics, XIX. 1456b8ff. Trov (if: re8Qt Ti}V A£~tV ev JlSV eanv d(ioe; 88roQ10e; TO OXl]JlOTO Tile; A£~80><;, a eon v d(isvOt Tile; ureoxQt nxile; xot TOU Ti}V TOtOUTTJV EXOVTOe; aQXt T8XTOvtXl]V, olov T1 ev't"ol1] XOt T1 EUX1] XOt ~lfrrr1<nC; xOt UnEllf) XOt e~c; xot unoXQt<nc; XOt et Tt aAM> TOtoUTOV. reoQo YOQ Ti}V TOUTroV yvroOt v 11 ayvotov ou(if:V de; Ti}V rtot TJTtxi}v Eret TtJlTJJlO CPSQ8TOt 0 n xot a~tov oreou(iile;. n YOQ av ru; ureoAOpOt liJlOQTilo80t a nQroTOYOQOe; Eret TlJlOt, on 8Ux808ot OiOJl8VOe; Eret TOTT8t drerov "Jlilvtv a8t(i8 880"; TO YOQ X8A£uoOt, CPTJ01V, reot8tV n 11 JlTJ em:ra;lC; eonv. 6to reoQ8108ro roc; aAATJe; XOt OU Tile; rroi TJTtxile; QV 88cOQTJJlO.

"As regards the Diction (Ti}V A£~tV), one subject for inquiry under this head is the turns given to the language when spoken (OXl]JlOTO Tile; A£~8roe;); e.g. the difference between command (evToAl]) and prayer (8UXl]), simple statement «itl]YTJote;) and threat (are8tAi]), question (EQcOTTJote;) and answer (areoxQtOte;), and so forth. The theory of such matters, however, belongs to Elocution (Tile; ureoXQt nxile;) and the professors of that art. Whether the poet knows these things or not, his art as a poet is never seriously criticized on that account. What fault can one see in Homer's 'Sing of the wrath, Goddess'? - which Prot agoras has criticized as being a command where a prayer was meant, since to bid one do or not do, he tells us, is a command. Let us pass over this, then, as appertaining to another art, and not to that of poetry." (transl. I. Bywater).

Here in the Poetics Aristotle is discussing in fact the manners of speaking in concrete terms, as they are conceived in his art of "elocution", the technique of performance - U1tOXQl T1X~ T£XVll in his terminology. The context of manners of speaking, then, is here not logical, not philosophical, or even semantic. We find that the tragic performer - the actor, and the epic performer - the rhapsode, need to distinguish between the manner in which they express a command, a plea, a story, a threat, a question, an answer, etc., in order to perform their verses correctly in Greek. At issue is not only the oral tradition, with its renowned tradition of drama, of dialogue, of oratory: the Greek language is intonational, not only in individual words, but also in its sentence patterns. It is no surprise that the sensitivity the Greeks held for factors of intonation was well developed, as reflected also in grammar, commentary of literary texts, and of

logical, theoretical character of statements, in terms which point to the meaning or notion rather than the form of the statement.

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of MryOC;

259

the classification of acts of speech, whether for abstract logical aims, or for performance.

Terms similar to the ones we saw earlier in passages (2), (3), and (4) above come to divide the logos through an entirely different prism in the Poetics: a prism of types of discourse adopted by different characters or narrators. This may perhaps explain why we find in (5) a manner of expression called ch"Y11- otc, and not anocpaV'rtxo<; AOY0<;, the Peripatetic term in other taxonomies, or the Stoic term a~iO)Jla - statement. The terminology had not yet solidified, and it is important to observe that the list is open-ended, as well as flexible in its terminology: Aristotle ends his list in (5) with the expression "and so forth" (xat e1 -n aAAo 'tOtOU'tOV).42 Likewise the areas of discussion are heterogeneous: the term Ot "Y11at<; is introduced in order to denote a narrative mode of presentation in literary compositions, distinct from a dialogue mode, which is represented in this list by the combination of terms £QID't11ot<; xat anoXQtot<;: epic or tragic heroes, depending on the situation in the plot, perform for example acts of threat, of entreaty, or of command (anetA", eUX", EV'tOA,,), as well as acts of insult, of flattery, manipulative persuasion, promise, and a wide range of other acts of speech, which constitute a significant proportion of the events which take place between personalities with sensitive egos and honour, such as Achilles in Homer's Iliad, Hippolytus in Euripides' tragedy of the same name, and many others. The importance of this division for the theory of poetics hinges on the fact that the works were performed in front of an audience, out loud, accompanied not only by music and dance, but also appropriate gestures and intonation. Likewise the division was still discussed separately for each discourse area, with respect to its significance to the discipline in which that mode of discourse is treated.

There is possibly a 'genetic' connection between Aristotle's division in the Poetics, as we saw in (5) above, and the taxonomy attributed to Protagoras by Diogenes Laertius in passage (2). Not only because Protagoras is mentioned in both passages, but because the term attributed to him for the declarative "fundamental of speech" is the term Ot "Y110t<; - a vestige of the original use in

42 Schenkeveld (1984: 298) compares Ammonius ad An.Pr. 24b18.

260

Donna Shalev

a context of modes of discourse in poetic and other artistic composition (in contrast, for example, with dialogic presentationj.Y

Aristotle's division of the turns of expression, crX1UloTo T11<; /J;~6ro<; as he terms them in the Poetics (5), blending modes of performance, discourse, and proposition, and yielding the forms €VTO"'~, 6UX~, Ot ~Yllcrt<;, an6t"'~' 8Qc.OTll(H<;, anoxQtcru; as part of a flexible 44 and open-ended list, is preserved in the Arabic tradition. The 9th century Christian scholar Abu Bishr Matta, who probably did not know Greek, produced an Arabic translation from a text of the Poetics in Syriac.45 Another translation into Arabic was made at the end of the period of translation activity by the philosopher Yahya b. 'AdI, but it has not survived.46 Matta's Arabic translation retains the list in its original order, more or less intact, using terms some of which reappear in the other Aristotelian treatments of ",oyo<; in their Arabic manifestations. The patterns of expression (Ari. crx~~oTa T11<; /J;~6ro<;) (ashkiil al-maqUla) in the reading of Badawi follow:47 command (amr), entreaty ($aliit), report (hadfth), statement (4jazm), question (su'iil), answer (4jawiib).48 Broadly speaking, a number of terms

43 Cf. Also onaYYEAla in (2) above, and in contrast to dramatic performance, n. 23 above.

44 Command, EV't'OAT], is later on in the same passage referred to as Enl 't'a~t<;. The forms EQID't'l1crt<; and onoxQtcrt<; emerge in some readings of the passage at large as one single mode defined by the phrase EQID't'l1crt<; xat onoxQtcrt<;. See the commentary of Lucas ad loco (In the Arabic translation, the two are connected by 'or' (aw).)

45 Only a small fragment has been recovered of the Syriac translation, the definition of tragedy, but not our passage. For details, see Peters (1968: 28) and his reference to Tkatsch (1928) I 155a-b.

46 Evidence for this translation is given in Peters (1968: 28t) and discussed in Dahiyat (1974: 5ff) with respect to the influence of Yahya b. 'AdI's (better) translation on the commentary in Arabic by Avicenna to the Poetics and divergences in that commentary to the Arabic translation of the Poetics which survives, by Abu Bishr Matta.

47 The whole passage in its Arabic translation offers other interesting points of comparison and contrast, well beyond the scope of this paper.

48

Contrast the terms used in the commentary of Ibn SIna to the Po. (=Shifa' Part I

(manp,q) section 9 (fann al-shi'r): VI.25): command (amr), prayer (tadarru'Y, statement (ikhbar), threat (tahaddud), inquiry (istijham), advice (i'lam). The discrepancy may

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of w')'o;

261

(saldt, I;,adlth, Tharad) in Matta's translation of the Poetics are uncommon in analogous lists elsewhere in the Arab tradition, especially of logical texts in the Organon. The discrepancy between the Greek and its Arabic rendering centers on the terms Ot~Yllat<;" and a1tEtA.~ and the respective pendants /:ladlth and djazm: the Greek 'simple statement' and 'threat' have evolved into 'report' and 'statement'; or, in an alternate reading 'report' (/:ladlth) and '? [a word of unclear meaning]' (/:lara4).49

By this time, the Poetics was included in the Organon, and, although it is difficult to prove, one cannot ignore the infiltration of the logical term diazm into the list, perhaps as a gloss to the term /:ladlth, which did not find its place in the repertoire of technical terms for 'statement' or for 'narrative mode',50 either

reflect the tradition of Yahya b. 'Adl's translation (of the lost Greek manuscript). The later commentary of Ibn Rushd (Averroes) gives a list of four types: statement (khabar), question (su'al), command (amr), and prayer itadarru'v. Two features of the list from the Poetics which saliently differentiate it from the logical tradition are maintained, in shared wording, in both commentaries: the context of delivery (al-akhdh bi 'l-wuruilh - for more on this expression as a dramatic term see Moreh, 1992: 133), and the emphasis on form (shakl).

49 Given in Tkatsch's edition, and rendered in Badawi's translation into modern Arabic as 'threat' (tahdfd). My own search in the lexica has not yielded anything close to 'threat' for the word harad. It is not impossible palaeographically that the same combination of letters, with divergent interpretation of the diacritics, were read harad by Tkatsch and 4Jazm by Badawi. Other possible avenues to explore are the confusion of harad with the paleographically similar term for 'suggestion', 'ard, which also appears as part of a list of types of utterance meanings (ma'iini al-kalams of the 10th century Grammarian Ibn Faris (sal}ibf, p.179 and p.182 ed. el-Chouemi). Ibn Faris' ten types come in pairs: 'statement and question' (khabar wa-istikhbar), 'command and prohibition' (amr wa-nahy), 'request and prayer' (talab wa-du'ii'y; 'suggestion and urging' {'ar{i wa-tahdidy, and 'wish and amazement' (tamannin wa-ta'adjdjub).

50 The term IJ,adfth has a lemma in the lexicon of Afnan (for Arabic and Persian terms translated from Greek philosophical texts), where it is given as a pendant (in translations by Abu Bishr Matta from Ari. Metaph. 1704b - never a part of the Organon) for the Greek llu80<; or its derivatives. In the Poetics, rendered into Arabic by the same translator, llu80<; is not translated by haattb. The term IJ,adfth is sometimes part of the hendiadys used to translate llu80<;: 'old-wives-tales and storytelling' (al-khurafa wa-

262

Donna Shalev

in texts translated from the Greek tradition or in original works on logic or 51

grammar or style.

It seems that the 'genetic' connection between division into modes of presentation and expression in the Poetics leaves its mark even after 1,400 years, in the work of Jewish intellectual and community leader Sa'adia Ga'on, who wrote in (Judaeo-) Arabic during the 10th century.T In the Arabic introduction to his Hebrew-Arabic Dictionary.i" Sa'adia defined these as the modes of speaking used by "all people" (rJjam'i' an-nasi. Yet Sa'adia wrote the work as a tool for poets, and, as in Aristotle's Poetics, the modes of expression are primarily those of professional performers of compositions of an oral nature,

hikiiyat al-I}adfth) - for this method of translating technical terms, see Heinrichs (1969: 123, with his references to Tkatsch); for a discussion of the concept behind this term, see Drory (2000: 36ff). The concept of narrative in the Arabic tradition and commentary of the Poetics (and the terminology involved) are treated in Stroumsa (1992). The range of terms and subtleties of their applications is laid out by Pellat in the Encyclopedia of Islam', s.v. "Hikaya",

51 The terms fliazm, qawl fliiizim, qadiyya, and khabar, all appear in logic in the technical uses revolving around statement, assertion, judgment, even declarative sentence. That they are covered in the lexica of the philosophical terms e.g. of al-Farabi by Alon (2003), or of Ibn STnll by Goichon (1938), testifies to this technical status (both these excellent lexica cover a far wider corpus of texts than the oeuvres of the respective authors). Khabar also makes the cross-over with the concept of 'predicate' in grammatical theory (e.g. Ghersetti 2002), and with the concept 'narrative' in performance and literary theory (rhetoric and poetics) where it is put into opposition with 'inshii' (see Larcher 1993) - and is used in Arabic criticism as the term for a specific (bellestristic) historiographical subgenre (as discussed e.g. in Leder (1992».

52 Sa' adia wrote in Hebrew and Arabic and, after leaving his native Egypt and subsequently Jerusalem, was active in Baghdad in the period overlapping that of the translation movements, the study of Greek science and logic, and intellectuals such as Abu Bishr Matta (the translator among other texts of the Poetics, and the defender of logic in the famous debate with the grammarian as-Slrafi at the court of the vizier (see n. 6 above».

53 In the first, Hebrew, version under the title Collection (Egron), then, in the second, expanded, Arabic version, called Elements of Hebrew Poetry (kitiib usiil al-shi'r al'ibriint).

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of wyoC;

263

such as epic and drama (although in the case of Sa'adia's dictionary, possibly this passage is included in the introduction, in the context of poetic theory, as a conventional fixture, like similar passages elsewhere in introductions to works on poetics and grammar):

(6) Tr. of Arabic Introduction to Sa'adia Ga'on, Elements of Hebrew Poetry: "And these are the middle (elements), which are the essence of poetry, and the two endpieces are merely guarding them - and they are, even if their types are numerous, herein ... three fundamental ones: one is the parts of speaking (aqsiim al-qawl) which all people (4iamf' an-niis) speak (yatakallamu), these being the address (nida'),54 the question (mas'ala), the narration (khabar), the command (amr), the

. 55

request (shifa'), "

54 The term nidii', appearing in germane Arabic passages, e.g. the Epistles of the Sincere Brethren, passage (7) below, and al-Farabi's commentary on De int., passage (11) below, more commonly renders terms indicating the act of address (XA.llTIXO~ A.6yo~, xA.fi(n~), itself problematic. The modern Hebrew translation of this passage in Allony's edition of Sa'adia Gaon's Egron suggests that the term denotes exclamation here. Possibly under the influence of Allony's interpretation, nidii' is rendered 'exclamation' in analogous passages elsewhere in the oeuvre of Sa'adia himself, and in a (possible) precursor, alMuqammas, whose Twenty Chapters, written in the first half of the 9th c., contains a taxonomy of speech act types in Chapter Fifteen, on Command and Prohibition (15.2). I bring the English translation of S. Stroumsa from her 1989 edition (with terms in the original inserted in square brackets): " ... The definition of command and prohibition is: an utterance addressed by a powerful rational being to a rational being of inferior power. Now that we have presented this (definition), let us take up the subject from the start <and say that speech [kaliim]> can express a command [amr], <a question add. D.S.> [su'iil], a wish [ragl!ba], a call [nidal or an announcement [khabar]." The meaning of nidii in Judaeo-Arabic texts needs further thought, in the context of Greek and Arabic sources and parallels, as well as Syriac intermediaries (as suggested by Stroumsa in pers. comm.).

55 The term in this passage for 'request', shifa', is not part of the repertoire of logic in translation or in later derivative literature. The term for 'request' comes immediately after the term for 'command' (amr), suggesting a model of attenuated command addressed to a superior (as opposed to the 'command' addressed to an inferior). This model, in Greek commentaries, passed into Arabic logic, as is attested more fully, in al-Farabi in passage (11) below, with the three-part system of 'command' to an inferior (amr), 'entreaty' to a superior (tadarru'), and 'request' from an equal (talab). Analogous passages in the Arabic

264

Donna Shalev

In the list in (6) we also have a type called 'narration, narrative'; 56 although within a literary discussion (on Hebrew poetry), the list of modes of speaking is presented here by Sa' adia as falling within the province of normative usage, "parts of speaking which all people speak". 57

Some derivatives are very close, such as translations (e.g. of passages (4) and (5) above), while others carryover the terminology and taxonomy, even the order of terms, in introductions and other set passages, such as that of Sa' adia in passage (6) above, or native, but dependent commentaries, such as that of alFarabi, given in (11) below. Passage (7), representing a whole body of looser derivatives, is written in a spirit of syncretism, and in an encyclopedically composed work.58 Thus, the Epistles of Sincere Brethren,59 of the 10th century,

tradition are referred to in Alon, S.v. amr. Cf. the hierarchy in Ibn SIna as summarized in n. 59 below, and also the 4-part classification of commands in terms of interlocutor power-relations, in the Judaeo-Arabic of al-Muqammas, chapter 15.

56 The term also appearing in other lemmata and definitions by Sa'adia is khabar (narrative), as in others writing in Judaeo-Arabic. For details, see Allony's commentary, p.76 with notes 200 ff. In his view the division of speaking into types entered this literature before Sa'adia, through Kara'ite sources. For a more recent discussion with an updated collection of references, see Stroumsa (2002, appendix 3).

57 Unless we interpret his term for 'speak' (yatakallamu) as 'employing dialectic discourse', deriving from kaliim in its more technical sense. I personally do not prefer this interpretation here, both because of "all people" in the immediate context (and broader context of S.'s views on convention), and because the passage is part of a helpmanual also for a more general readership. Clearly this needs to be determined by experts more versed in the uses of the term kaliim and its derivatives in the corpus as a whole.

58

In an analogous work not part of this study, the Kitiib ash-Shifii' of Ibn Sina (d.

1037/428), there is also a division of types of speech (see Versteegh, (1977: 147)). Ibn Slna's scheme (in 1.3.5, p.31.8ff in the Madkour-Hudayri edition) is closer to the later commentaries, and integrates speech within the broader dynamics of speaker-addressee. The analysis involves a distinction between communication emerging from the speaker (akhbiir, with subtypes); acts seeking verbal response, isti'liim, istifhiim); and utterances inducing action from the addressee (command from an equal iltimiis, from a superior amr/nafy, or from an inferior tadarru '/mas'ala). On the so-called encyclopaedic nature and features in the Epistles of Sincere Brethren see Peters (1968: 113); and in Ibn Sina's Book of Healing (Kitiib al-Shifii') Peters (1968:105).

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of wyoC;

265

ill a four-book compendium of knowledge ranging from theology to magic, integrate many sources, from a variety of Moslem sub-persuasions and foreign philosophies. Epistle 12 (entitled Baramimiyiisy 60 in Book I, integrates material from De interpretatione:

(7) Sincere Brethren, transl. of Epistle 12, 1.410 (ed. Bustani): "The types of utterance are two (wa 'l-aqawil naw'iin): what entails truth and falsehood, namely

61

assertions (akhbiir) - in affirmation (fdiiib) and negation (salb), and what does

not entail truth and falsehood, four tp>es: command (amr), question (su'iil), address (nida'), and wish (tamannin)".6

This is certainly a remote reflection of what one finds in Ishaq ibn Hunayn's translation of the De int., closer in fact to epitomizing the commentaries of this work. Yet it is not faithful terminologically in the way the commentary of al-

63

FarabI is, as we shall see in (11) below. It must be said, however, that, along

with the 'assertion', the four other types of utterance listed, including the 'wish', accurately echo those given in commentaries to De int., such as that of Ammonius, in passage (10) below.64

59

In Arabic Rasd'il Ikhwiin as-Safii'. Also known as the 'Brethren of Purity', they were a

heterogeneous group of scholars and intellectuals who were based in Basra and around whom a degree of mystery and legendary status developed. On the members of the circle and their place in the broader intellectual scene of their time, see, e.g., Kraemer (1992); on the Greek, and other foreign substrates in their Epistles, see Netton (1982).

60 a corruption of the Greek title of Aristotle's De interpretatione, 1tEQl. f;QJlllvda~. 61

the plural of the term khabar.

62 The Arabic counterparts to the Greek notion termed EUXf), EUXOJA.f}, EUXTtXO~ A6yo~ are more heterogeneous in their terminology: we have seen du'ii' in the translation of the De into (see note 41); and salat in the translation of the Po.

63 'Statement' in the Epistles (passage 7 above) is derived from khabar, as in passage (6), from Sa'adia, in contrast to al-Farabi's use of diazmldiiizim in passage (11), the term used also in the translation of passage (4) from De into

64 Elsewhere in the Epistles (111.119-120 Bustanl), mention is made of the existence of multiple versions of taxonomy, varying between 4, 6, and 10 types of propositions (akhbiir), the basic four being 'assertion', 'question', 'command', and 'prohibition' (khabar, istikhbiir, amr, nahy).

266

Donna Shalev

In the De interpretatione, as we saw in (4) above, Aristotle relegated the reader to the spheres of "rhetoric or poetics". In Greek rhetorical theory one finds discussion of the formal classification of types of speech, or of the structure of the speech, but the focus rests on the strategies of the orator. In this context, the discussion in Aristotle, Rhetoric III.18 revolves around the methods of constructing questions leading, through cross-examination, to aporia of the opponent: these issues remind us more of dialectic applications than of theoretical discussions on discourse, and on modes of discourse.

In my view a contribution from the theory of oratory which is relevant to the development of notions and terms having to do with discourse may be found in Quintilian. The following passage, (8), written in the first century A.D., was very influential on later proposition theory. The theory of rhetoric among the ancients was highly concentrated on the performance aspects, and, as we see in (8) below, on intonation, and its links with emotions:

(8) Quintilian 10 11.3.176: Quid quod eadem uerba mutata pronuntiatione indicant adfirmant exprobant negant mirantur indignantur interrogant inrident eleuant? .. et ne morer, intra se quisque uel hoc uel aliud quod uolet per omnis adfectus uerset: uerum esse quod dieimus seiet.

"Again, if the Delivery is changed, the same words can suggest, affirm, reproach, deny, wonder, show indignation, ask a question, mock, or disparage!. .. In short, if the reader... will run [a word] through the whole range of emotions, he will realize the truth of what I am saying." (transl. D.A. Russell).

Quintilian is instructing the budding orator to manipulate the modulations in his voice. The cross-section on the axis of intonations puts emotive utterances, such as the expression of wonder and anger, on a par with other, unrelated, forms of expression of a different order, such as indication or reporting, affirmation or negation, and questions. Within the same framework one may mention gestures, and recall that a fair part of the same book, Book 11 of Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria is devoted to a semiotic code of manual gestures consensual among those in the profession of oratory. It must be kept in mind

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of A.Oyo<;

267

that the theory of delivery in antiquity applied to oratory, to poetry, and also to 65

non-verbal arts such as dance.

Passage (9) below, from the later medieval Arabic tradition, also integrates the elements of oral performance, non-verbal elements of delivery of emotional nuance, and types of utterance, and is worth presenting alongside the passage from Quintilian in (8) above. The 12th century Jewish poet and philosopher from Spain, Judah ha-Levi, composed a polemic apologia to attacks on Judaism in a belletristic dialogue form of conversation between the king of Khazaria and a Jewish interlocutor also referred to as the Rabbi. The work was written in Judaeo-Arabic, but translated early on into medieval Hebrew by Samuel ibn ribbon, the first of a legion of translations into other languages. Within a larger context of the argument for the supremacy of Hebrew, and of Biblical poetics, towards the end of Part II of the Book of Kuzari, the discussion turns to the advantages of oral communication (mushafaha) over writing, and to the power of oral performance in conveying subtleties of meaning, and specifically, the performance of the musical 'accents' of the Biblical text:

(9) Judah ha-Levi, Book of Kuzari, tr. Hirschfeld, part II. 70-72: "The Rabbi: ... Rhymed poems, however, which are recited, and in which a good metre is noticeable are neglected for something higher and more useful. 71. Al-Khazari: And what may that be? 72. The Rabbi: The faculty of speech is to transmit the idea of the speaker into the soul of the hearer. Such intention, however, can only be carried out to perfection by means of oral communication. This is better than writing.66 .•. Verbal communication finds various aids either in pausing or continuing ... , according to the requirements of the sentence, by raising or lowering the voice, in expressing astonishment [ta'adjdjub],

65 The theory of performance is emphasized by Koller (1958) as another source for taxonomies, for terminology, and for analysis in the realm of language, and even to some terms and distinctions that are prevalent in the ancient theory of Grammar. Along the same lines, in another impressive culture, with family links to Greek culture - the culture of India - one also finds discussions of modes of discourse and expression of emotions within the framework of the theory of drama, in a well-known work of uncertain date, under the title Natya Sastra, ascribed to Bharata Muni.

66 In the original: wa-hiidha al-maqsiid min al-lugha tahsil mii fi nafs al-mukhii.tib fi nafs al-siimi' wa-hiidhii al-qasd iii yutammu 'alii kamala uts hi 'I-mushiifaha li-anna li '1- mushiifaha [adlun 'alii al-mukiitaba.

268

Donna Shalev

question [su'iil], narrative [khabar], desire [targl!ib], fear [tarhfb] or submission [taf/arru 1 by means of gestures, without which speech by itself would remain inadequate. Occasionally the speaker even has recourse to movements of eyes, eyebrows, or the whole head and hands, in order to express anger, pleasure, humility or haughtiness to the degree desired. In the remnant of our language which was created and instituted by God, are implanted subtle elements calculated to promote understanding, and to take the place of the above aids to speech. These are the accents with which the holy text is read [i.e. 'cantillation', D.S.]. Thel ... separate question from answer, the beginning from the continuation of the speech,6 haste from hesitation, command from request, on which subject books might be written ... "

Some of the terminology is reminiscent of that used in taxonomies found in translations of Greek logic, as well as in derivative and native logical treatises, yet on the whole this list features a heterogeneous terminology, content, and sequence. The dialogue form, the polemic setting, and the date of the text of passage (9) are far removed from those of the other Arabic and Judaeo-Arabic sources quoted in this study, but the existence of a list in the context of delivery and emotion is reminiscent of passage (8) from Quintilian and passage (6) from Sa'adia Gaon on the one hand, and, more indirectly, of the Poetics and its Arabic translation and commentary tradition on the other.

V. Nachleben and compromise

Aristotle in his logical mode relegates non-assertoric speech to disciplines and to textual domains which have hosted theoretical discussions no less subtle than those in the logical repertory. As we shall soon see, the concepts addressed in these discussions outside of logic proper, along with their terminological manifestations, crept back into the discussions under the auspices of the Organon proper, primarily through the commentators of De interpretatione. It is the very passage from the De interpretatione of Aristotle, which we read in (4) above - an exclusionary definition of declarative expressions- which served as the point of departure for interpretations and elaborations in other

67

In the original, this also may denote "the subject from the predicate" tal-ibtidii' min

al-khabar); it has been suggested to me (by Prof. Scolnicov, p.c.) that the idea of beginning and continuation in cantillation is not unrelated to syntactic distribution in the conceptualization of these phenomena.

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of A.O'Yo~

269

sources, as illustrated by many of the passages in this article. Since the De interpretatione in particular, and the Organon as a whole, were part of the school curriculum since antiquity, they were privileged with survival, commentary,68 epitomization, translation, and wide distribution. Passage (10) below presents a summary of the comments of Ammonius from the 5th century A.D., as one representative of an entire corpus of commentary. A more detailed account may be found in Nuchelmans (1973) and Schenkeveld (1984).

(10) Ammonius, commentary on De interpretatione, 2.9ff (Busse): Speech is of five types:

Speech for performing an address (XA.llnXOc; A.6yOC;); e.g. co ~axaQ' ATQetOll (II. 3.182, "Oh, blessed son of Atreus")

Speech for performing a command (rtQocrTaXTlXOC; A.oyOC;); e.g. ~acrx' tSt, 7'IQt Taxda, ... (If. 8.399, "Go on up, swift Iris ... ")

Speech for performing a question (EQroTll~aTlxoc; A.oyoC;);69 e.g. Tic; rtOSEV Ecrcr' avoQrov; (Od. 7.238, "Who are you? From where?")

Speech for wishing (EUXTtXOC; AOyOC;); e.g. at yaQ, ZED TE rtaTEQ... (If. 4.288 "Would, father Zeus ... that.. .")

And speech for stating (artocpavTlXOC; AOYOC;), by which we make statements

, , 70 '" ,

(artocpatvEcrSat) on some fact or other (rtQay~aTEta); e.g. SEOt OE TE rtcvrc

Iocotv (Od. 4.379 "And the gods know everything.") or tPuxi] rtocra aSavaToc;. (PI. Phdr. 245c5 "All soul is immortal.")

68 The exegetical activity involving the oeuvre of Aristotle is discussed in the articles in the volume edited by Sorabji in 1990. An introduction to the commentary tradition of the De interpretatione and al-Farabi's place in it is given in Zimmermann (1982). An introduction of the commentary tradition of the De interpretatione, with special reference to Averroes (Ibn Rushd) and the other Arab translators, commentators, and translators of commentaries on this work and others from the Organon, is given by Benmakhlouf and Diebler (2000).

69 Interestingly, this list includes only one type of interrogative act. The term used is derived from f;QroTll~a, used earlier in some theorists (e.g. Diocles the Stoic in passage (3) above) specifically for the yes-no question, and traditionally used by later theorists in opposition to mJcr~a for the wh-question (see the progymnastic literature and other authors in Spengel's collection). The example Ammonius gives for EQroTll~aTtXOC; A.oyoC; in passage (9) is of a wh-question.

70 May also be translated: "make definitions".

270

Donna Shalev

This list was particularly long-lived and had a wide influence even in cultures where Greek was not widely known, yet which was highly receptive of anything directly or indirectly to do with the "first teacher", Aristotle. In passage (11) below one may see the accurate transfer from Ammonius, over a gap of almost 500 years, and in fact 1,300 years after Aristotle himself, in the Arabic commentary of the 9th_10th century philosopher al-Farabl.

(11) al-Farabt, commentary on Aristotle, De interpretatione, pp. 5lf (edd. KutschMarrow, trans. Zimmermann): "Not every sentence (qawl) is a statement (diiizim)": At this point, it is necessary to divide sentences into their primary types (anwii'), that is, command (amr), request (talab), entreaty (tadarru'y; address (nitlii'), and statement (dJ.iizim). Despite this, we find that the formal patterns (ashkiil) of the command, the request and the entreaty in languages in which we are knowledgeable ('arafniihii) are the same formal patterns, and all fall under one part with respect to their form, and differ only with respect to the addressee (mukhiitab)."

Granted, al-Farabi's taxonomy is abstract, but stems ultimately from notions and conceptions based on facts of the Greek language. Further along in the passage al-Farabi elicits examples from the Arabic language, and he makes theoretical observations about the gap between their language and "languages in which we are knowledgeable", in his words. Al-Farabi repeats the mention of the addressee which features in the Greek commentators; moreover, he tries to reconcile a taxonomy he received from the Greek logical tradition within a grammatical tradition bearing formal patterns.

Final Remarks

The 'trinity' we meet today, of statement, command, and question, continues three acts of speech identified, illustrated and discussed consistently and continually from antiquity.

Yet up until and including Austin, these three were not exclusive. The only exclusionary trend was that of the 'logical' Aristotle, for example in De interpretatione, setting 'statement' apart (but implicitly admitting others, even when relegating them outside logic, to the fields of rhetoric and poetics).

Aristotle himself treats narrative, reactive, and other modes for performing statements with a distinct terminology in his own discussion of rhetoric and poetics; most saliently, the term Ot ~Yllat<;; for something close to a statement.

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of M)'Yo~

271

This variety in terms and concepts was maintained in translation, for example the Arabic translations of De interpretatione (by Ishaq b. Hunayn) and Poetics (by Abu Bishr Matta). However, by the time these texts were being translated, the Organon had opened up to include the Rhetoric, and sometimes also the Poetics. This may be connected with, if not lie behind, the infiltration of the logical term for statement (djazm) in the Arabic translation of the Poetics, and of the versatile term khabar and its derivatives, hailing from the worlds of grammar, historiography, and performance, into the logical writings.

In the Arabic tradition, lists of modes of utterance, forms of utterance, or types of speech appear in settings not strictly logical, but often retaining some of the terminology typical of logical writings, as passages in introductions to dictionaries, to grammatical and to poetical works, as well as in passages in works of remote genres such as polemic dialogue, with seemingly little connection to their surroundings. However, often the more narrow context in which these lists appear turns out to involve performance and delivery, where these lists may have perhaps been included in homage to the locus classicus in the Poetics by the 'First Teacher' Aristotle.

The preoccupation with the tension between logic and grammar in Arabic sources may also have played a part in the treatment of speech act typesloyalties dividing between the Greek logical tradition, the translations, and the facts of the Arabic language.

References

Afnan, Soheil (1969), A Philosophical Lexicon in Persian and Arabic. Beirut: Dar elMashreq.

Alon, Ilai (2002), Al-Farabi's Philosophical Lexicon. 2 volumes. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

Austin, 1.L. (19752), How To Do Things With Words. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.

Arnmonius, In Aristotelis De interpretatione commentarius, ed. A. Busse, in:

CommentariaAristotelica Graeca IV.5. 1897. Berlin: Reimer.

Aristoteles, Liber De interpretatione ed. L. Minio-Paluello 1949. Oxford: Clarendon.

272

Donna Shalev

Badawi, 'Abd ar-Rahman, (ed.). Aristoteles Fann al-Shi'r (neel ttomttxii; e Graeco transtulit commentis auxit ac critica editione antiquae Arabicae version is et Alfarabi, AvicennaeAverroisque commentariorum). 1953. Cairo.

Benmakhlouf, A. - S. Diebler, (2000), (intr., trad., annot.), Averroes. Commentaire moyen sur le de Interpretatione. Paris: Vrin.

Bharatamuni (n.d.) The Natya Sastra tr. into English by a Board of Scholars 1986, 21996.

Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.

Black, D.L. (1990), Logic and Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics in Medieval Arabic Philosophy. Leiden-New York-Kebenhavn-Koln: Brill.

Dahiyat, I.M. (1974), Avicenna's Commentary on the Poetics of Aristotle. A Critical Study with an Annotated Translation of the Text. Leiden: Brill.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers ed. M. Marcovich, 1999.

Stuttgart-Leipzig: Teubner.

Drory, R. (2000), Models and Contacts. Arabic Literature and its Impact on Medieval Jewish Culture. Leiden: Brill.

Dunn, F. (2001), "Protagoras and the Parts of Time". Hermes 129.547-550. Elamrani-lamal, A. (1983), Logique Aristotelienne et grammaire arabe (etude et documents). Paris: Vrin.

Endress, G. (1986), "Grammatik und Logik". In B. Mojsisch (Hrsg.) Sprachphilosophie in Antike u. Mittelalter. 163-233. Amsterdam: Griiner.

Endress, G. - Gutas, D. (1992-), A Greek and Arabic Lexicon. Materials for a Dictionary of the Mediaeval Translations from Greek into Arabic. Leiden: Brill.

al-Farabi, Abu Nasr (d. 950/339). Alfarabi's Commentary on Aristotle's peri hermeneias (De interpretatione) ed., intr., Wilhelm Kutsch, Stanley Marrow, 21971. Beyrouth:

Dar el-Mashreq.

Gera, D.L. (2003), Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language and Civilization. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Ghersetti, A. (2002), "La Definition du Habar (enonce assertit) dans la pensee rhetorique de 'Abd al-Qahir al-Gurganl", In: Leder, S., et al. (eds.) Studies in Arabic and Islam. Leiden: Brill, 367-377.

Goichon, A.-M. (1938), Lexique de la langue philosophique d'Ibn Sind (Avicenne). Paris. Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. (1976), Cohesion in English. London: Longmans.

Heinrichs, Wolfhardt (1969), Arabische Dichtung und griechische Poetik: Hazim alQartagiinnis Grundlegung der Poetik mit Hilfe aristotelischer Begriffe. Beirut.

Ibn Faris, Abu Husayn Ahmad (10th c.). As-Siihibi Ii Fiqh al-Luga. Traite de grammaire arabe. Ed. Moustafa el-Chouemi, 1964/1383. Beirut: A. Badran.

Ibn Sina (=Avicenna), al-Husayn b. 'Abdallah, Abu 'All (b. 980/370). The Book of Healing (Kitab al-Shifo'). Part I, Logic (al-mantiqi; Section 3 De interpretatione (al-

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of MryO~

273

'ibiiras . I. Madkour, M. Hudayri (eds.) 1970/1390. Cairo: Ministry of Culture and Education.

Ikhwan as-Safa' (Sincere Brethren) (end of 10th c.). Epistles (Rasii'il). Bustani (ed.), 1957. Beirut: Dar Sader.

Judah ha-Levi, (12th c.). Book of Kuzari. H. Hirschfeld (intr., comm., tr.) 1946. New York: Pardes. [Kitiib al-radd wa' l-dalil fi al-din al-dhalil ial-kitiib al-khazariy, D.Z. Baneth, H. Ben-Shammai (eds.) 1977. Jerusalem: Magnes.]

Koller, H. (1958), "Die Anfange der griechischen Grammatik". Glotta 37. 5-39. Kraemer, J. (1986), Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam. Leiden: Brill.

Larcher, P. (1993), "Les arabisants et la categoric de 'Insii', Histoire d'une 'occultation'." Historiographia Linguistica 20/2-3. 259-282.

Leder, S. (1992), "The Literary use of khabar. A basic form of historical writing". In:

Conrad, L., and Cameron A., (eds.) Late Antiquity and Early Islam, Princeton, 277- 315.

Leech, G.N. (1983), Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longmans. Levinson, S. (1983), Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J. (1977), Semantics, II. London: Cambridge University Press.

Mahdi, M. 1970. "Language and Logic in Classical Islam". In: von Grunebaum, G.E. (ed.), Logic in Classical Islamic Culture. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 51-83.

Mastronarde, D. (1979), Contact and Discontinuity: Some Conventions of Speech and Action on the Greek Tragic Stage. Berkeley - Los Angeles - London: University of California Press.

Moreh, Shmuel (1992), Live Theatre and Dramatic Literature in the Medieval Arab World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

al-Muqammas, Dawtid ibn Marwan. (9th c.). Twenty Chapters ('Ishrun Maqiila). S.

Stroumsa (ed., intr., tr., comm.). 1989. Leiden - New York - Kebenhavn - Koln:

Brill.

Netton, I. (1982), Muslim Neoplatonists. An Introduction to the Thought of the Brethren of Purity (Ikhwiin al-Safii']. London - Boston - Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.

Nuchelmans, G. (1973), Theories of the Proposition. Ancient and Medieval Conceptions of the Bearers of Truth and Falsity. Amsterdam.

Peters, F.E. 1968. Aristoteles Arabus. The Oriental Translations and Commentaries on the Aristotelian Corpus. Leiden: Brill.

Peters, F.E. (1968), Aristotle and the Arabs. New York: NYU Press; London: University of London Press, Ltd.

Pinborg, J. (1975), "Classical Antiquity: Greece" in: T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, v. 13,1 (Historiography of Linguistics), 69-126. The Hague-Paris.

Pollak, I. (1913), Die Hermeneutik des Aristoteles in der arabischen Ubersetzung des Ishiik ibn Honain. Herausgegeben und mit einem Glossar der philosophischen

274

Donna Shalev

Termini versehen. Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft. [Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, B. XIII, no. 1].

Quintilianus, Institutio oratoria ed., intr. Tr. H.E. Butler, v. I-IV. 1920-1943. London:

Heinemann.

Quirk et al. (1972), A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longmans.

Sa'adia Ga'on, Sa'Id ibn Yiisuf al-Fayyiimi (d. 942/331). The Collection: Elements of Hebrew Poetry (Ha-Egron: kitab usiil al-shi'r al- 'ibriinii. N. Allony (ed., intr., comm.), 1979. Jerusalem: Academy of Arts and Sciences, [Judaeo-Arabic and Hebrew].

Schenkeveld, D.M. (1984), "Stoic and Peripatetic Kinds of Speech Act and the Distinction of Grammatical Moods". Mnemosyne 37.3-4.291-353.

Shalev, D. (2003), "Yes (and No) in Ancient Literary Greek" in: M. Bondi - S. Stati (eds.), Dialogue Analysis 2000,351-360. Tiibingen: Niemeyer.

Shalev, D. (2006), "The Role of eUQT]J..lo't'o in the Lives of Diogenes Laertius, and Related Literature". Hermes 134. 309-337.

Shalev, D. (Forthcoming)," 'First Inventor' as Canonical Founding Figure in Greek Culture: Protagoras, Controversy, Rivalry of 1tQcihol eUQe't'oi". In: Ben-Sasson, M., et al. (eds.) Canon and Genizah. Jerusalem: Magnes. [in Hebrew].

Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975), Towards an Analysis of Discourse. London:

Oxford University Press.

Sluiter, I. (1997), "Parapleromatic Lucubrations". In: Rijksbaron, A. (ed.), New Approaches to Greek Particles. Proceedings of the Colloquium held in Amsterdam, January 4-6, 1996, to honour C.J. Ruijgh on the occasion of his retirement. Amsterdam: Gieben, 233-246.

Solmsen, F. (1944), "Boethius and the History of the Organon". American Journal of Philology 65.69-74.

Sorabji, R. (1990) (ed.), Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and their Influence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Stroumsa, S. (1992), "Avicenna's Philosophical Stories: Aristotle's Poetics Reinterpreted". Arabica 39. 183-206.

Stroumsa, S. (2002), Saadiah Gaon: A Jewish Thinker in a Mediterranean Society. TelAviv. 7-42. [in Hebrew].

al-Tawhldi, 'All b. Muhammad, Abu Hayyan (d.1023/414). On Pleasure and Conviviality (=al-imta' wa 'l-mu'iinasa). A. Amin, A. al-Zain (eds.). 1939-1944. Cairo: Lajnat al-Ta'Iif

Thraede, K. "Erfinder". II (geistesgeschichtlich)" col. 1191ff. in Reallexikon fUr Antike und Christentum. Hrsg. Th. Hauser. 1950-. Stuttgart: Hiersemann.

Speech Act Theory and Ancient Sources for the Division of lvO'YOC;

275

Tkatsch, 1. (1928), Die arabische Ubersetzung der Poetik des Aristoteles und die Grundlage der Kritik des griechischen Textes. Wien - Leipzig: Holder - Pichler - Tempsky.

Versteegh, C.H.M. (1977), Greek Elements in Arabic Linguistic Thinking. Leiden: Brill. Walzer, R. (1934), "Zur Traditionsgeschichte der Aristotelischen Poetik". Studi italiani di Filologia Classica. N.S. XI. 5-14 = Greek into Arabic, pp. 129-136.

Zimmermann, F. (1981), Al-Farabi's Commentary and short Treatise on Aristotle's de In terpretatione. Translated with introduction and notes. Oxford: British Academy and OUP.

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem donna@vms.huji.ac.il