In:Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska
[Figurative Thought and Language 8] 2020
► pp. 95–119
Chapter 4The Greek connective gar
Different genres, different effects?
Published online: 20 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.04cas
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.04cas
Abstract
Traditional accounts of the Greek connective gar offer an inadequate causal definition,
while multiplying descriptive categories. Linguistic accounts have paid little attention to the role of
gar in different kinds of communication. This article proposes a relevance-theoretic procedural
explanation which provides a unifying cognitive explanation for gar’s communicative role.
Gar indicates that the premise it introduces is relevant in relation to a previously communicated
claim, which, when combined with implicit assumptions, it strengthens. This strengthening may work itself out
differently in diverse kinds of communication: typically, as confirmation in argumentation, and explanation in
narrative. Perceived differences in stylistic effects sometimes associated with gar are attributable
not to multiple functions, but to recognition of differing communicator goals in narrative and argumentation.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Traditional and linguistic accounts of gar
- 3.Argumentation and narrative
- 3.1Defining argumentation and narrative
- 3.2Gar in argumentation and narrative
- 4.A procedural account of gar
- 4.1Blass’s proposed account of gar
- 4.2Examples of gar in argumentation and hortatory material
- 4.3Gar in narrative texts
- 5.Different stylistic effects?
- 6.Epistemic vigilance and stylistic effects?
- 7.Communicator goals, expectations of relevance and stylistic effects
- 8.Conclusions
Notes References
References (22)
Bakker, S. (2009). On
the curious combination of the particles γάρ and
οὖν. In S. Bakker, & G. Wakker (Eds.), Discourse
cohesion in ancient
Greek (pp. 40–61). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Bauer, W., Danker, F. W., Arndt, W. F., & Wilbur Gingrich, F. (Eds.). (2000). A
Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, 3rd
edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Black, S. (2002). Sentence
conjunctions in the Gospel of
Matthew. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Blass, R. (1998). Constraints
on relevance in Koine Greek in the Pauline letters. Unpublished paper presented at SIL Exegetical Seminar, Nairobi, 29th May to 19th
June, 1993.
(2005). Manipulation
in the speeches and writings of Hitler and the
NSDAP. In L. De Saussure, & P. Schulz (Eds.), Manipulation
and ideologies in the twentieth
century (pp. 169–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
De Jong, I. (1997). Γάρ
introducing embedded narratives. In A. Rijksbaron (Ed.), New
approaches to Greek particles,
ASCP 7 (pp. 175–185). Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.
Levinsohn, S. (2000). Discourse
features of New Testament Greek. A coursebook on the information structure of New Testament
Greek. 2nd
ed. Dallas: SIL International.
Runge, S. (2010). A
discourse grammar of New Testament Greek. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrikson Publishers.
Slings, S. (1997). Adversative
relators between PUSH and POP. In A. Rijksbaron (Ed.), New
approaches to Greek
particles (pp.101–129). Amsterdam J. C. Gieben.
Sperber, D. (2001). An
evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Philosophical
Topics 29:401–413.
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic
Vigilance. Mind &
Language, 25, 359–393.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance:
Communication and Cognition, 2nd
ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thrall, M. (1962). Greek
particles in the New Testament. New Testament tools and studies
III. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Unger, C. (2002). Global
coherence, narrative structure and expectations of relevance. Paper presented
at the conference Relevance Theory and Literature, University of Huddersfield, 12th-13th September, 2002.
(2012). Epistemic
vigilance and the function of procedural indicators in communication and
comprehension. In E. Wałaszewska, & A. Piskorska (Eds.), Relevance
theory: More than
understanding (pp. 45–73). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Wilson, D. (2011). The
conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and
future. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti, & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural
meaning: Problems and
perspectives (pp. 3–26). Emerald Group Publishing.
(2012). Modality
and the conceptual-procedural distinction. In E. Wałaszewska, & A. Piskorska (Eds.), Relevance
theory: More than
understanding (pp. 23–43). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Wright, N. T. (2013). Paul and the faithfulness of God. Parts I-IV, vol. 2. Christian Origins and the Question of God 4. London: SPCK.
Zakowski, S. (2016). She
was twelve years old: on γάρ and Mark 5:42. University of Ghent. [URL].
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Piskorska, Agnieszka
2023. Has madam read Wilson (2016)?. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 33:3 ► pp. 486 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.