The paratactic and appositional nature of Homeric Greek syntax, as compared with Classical Greek syntax, is currently explained in two different ways. According to the archaism theory, originally proposed in the context of late 19th and early 20th century research into comparative-historical grammar, Homeric language preserves features of an early syntactic typology in which this way of constructing and combining clauses is not primarily an aspect of a particular poetic style but rather a standard feature of ordinary everyday language. According to the orality theory, originally proposed in the context of early 20th century research on oral poetics, it is primarily the particular way in which the Homeric poems were composed and performed that is responsible for these features. The first two chapters of this dissertation are focused on reframing the archaism and orality theories in light of comparative evidence from late 20th century linguistic work on crosslinguistic syntax and structural differences between spoken and written language, and particularly on identifying areas where the two theories thus reframed make different predictions about what sorts of structural differences should exist between Homeric and Classical Greek; the final two chapters are focused on an analysis and comparison of Homeric and Classical Greek mechanisms of quantification that provides new evidence in support of the archaism theory. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]