Tomaz Potocnik, University College London
In this exploratory paper, I address the linguistic phenomenon of vagueness in Latin. According to Fraser (2010: 25), “most expressions are vague, although we do not realise it.” Vagueness is a part of speakers’ communicative competence and knowing how to interpret vague expressions is a central feature of everyday conversation (Jucker et al. 2003: 1738). In view of this apparent omnipresence of vagueness in everyday language and the fact that every speaker is endowed with the ability to produce and interpret vague expressions, it is reasonable to assume that the same was true for Latin and its speakers. However, even though substantial results have been achieved in investigating other pragmatic phenomena in Latin, the phenomenon of vagueness—understood here as strategic use of vague expressions in expressing reference, categorization, quantity, or propositional attitude (see Channell 1994 and Jucker et al. 2003)—has not yet been systematically studied in Latin. This paper, focussing on Roman Comedy, is an effort to bridge this gap.
Assuming that vagueness is a semi-deliberate, addressee-oriented communicative strategy, I explore its functions on the level of communicative efficiency (as a focussing device intended for ease of processing) and on the level of speaker’s intentions. In so doing, I also explore the role of common ground (see Jucker et al. 2003; for Latin, see Rodríguez 2021, especially Risselada 2021) in producing and interpreting vague expressions.
In the example below, Olympio uses a polysemous expression rem ‘thing’ to refer to his current actions:
non mihi licere meam rem me solum, ut uolo, loqui atque cogitare sine ted arbitro?
‘Aren’t I allowed to talk and think about my business alone, as I like it, without you as my witness?’ (Plautus, Casina 89–90; transl. De Melo 2011)
As the subsequent communicative moves show, the addressee had no difficulty in recovering the intended meaning. Rather than causing ambiguity or miscommunication, using rem enabled Olympio to maintain the flow of the conversation and to achieve his communicative intentions. As I hope to show in this paper, this and similar strategic uses of vagueness reflect, expectedly, many observations made for modern languages.
My analysis suggests that the phenomenon of vagueness in Latin can be subject to rigorous analysis (as already shown for comparable pragmatic phenomena in Latin) and that the results can be put side by side with findings on vagueness in modern languages. I also touch upon wider issues, such as the difficulties in applying modern linguistic methods to Latin dialogic sources; pragmatic consciousness of Roman authors; and the role of pragmatic approaches in understanding the Kunstsprache of the Roman comediographers.