![International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) Vol. 2, No.6, December 2013
leads to express his thought through his speeches and for this reason the verb οἶμαι is on the top
of the most frequent words, bigrams and most frequent lexical bundles. Julian as political speaker
uses mostly lexical bundles oriented to his political text's organization; actually, in praises the
most frequent lexical bundles express personal stance (lexical bundles orientes to speaker) but
most of the others are oriented to the text adopting Hyland' models. In his invective speeches uses
mostly lexical bundles oriented to text organization. In whole corpus it is noted that Julian uses
mostly text oriented lexical bundles even though lexical bundles oriented to his political opionion
with verbs such as οἶμαι, (think), οἶδ (know). The certain notes give us the opportunity to
understand that Julian promotes himself as an emperor who knows very well what says and why.
He promotes his political opinion through personal stance lexical bundles but he uses them in a
moderating way, because he wants to persuade through arguments. He is not arrogant and
everything he does is a product of rationality and deep consideration.
Julian uses also some other prefabricated sentences in his speeches (see table 8), even though they
do not occur very often in his text production, as their frequency is very limited. This does not
mean that these expressions cannot operate as formulaicity, but it enables us to understand that
Julian as text producer had a variety of formulaic choices and was interested to remain his text
productivity and informativity. This makes his political texts so important for the byzantine
literature.
Table 8: Non recurrent lexical bundles
Lexical bundles
Function
ξυνελόντι δὲ εἰπεῖν
Summarization - Directive
speech act
ἐνταῦθα παραβάλωμεν
Contrast - directive speech
act
σκοπεῖν δὲ […] ἄξιον
Εvaluation - directive speech
act
ἑκὼν ἀφίημι
Clarification - representative
speech act
ὑπὲρ δὲ […] σκεπτέον ἔτι
Emphasis - directive speech
act
Ἀλλ ἐπανίωμεν ἐπ ἐκεῖνο Focus - directive speech act
̓
̓
πάλιν
In table 8 we see some non-recurrent lexical bundles with certain rhetorical function. It could be
said that Julian had the opportunity to choose a new one each time from the lexicon of these
phrases because the byzantine Greek language had a very high level productivity. These
prefabricated sentences were introduced into the text in order to help the speaker to satisfy his
communicative goal.
Some examples:
Ἐνταῦθα παραβάλωμεν, εἰ βούλεσθε, τὴν Πλάτωνος φωνήν. τί τοίνυν οὗτος ὑπὲρ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ
λέγει καὶ τίνας περιτίθησιν αὐτῷ φωνὰς ἐν τῇ κοσμογενείᾳ σκόπησον, ἵνα τὴν Πλάτωνος καὶ
Μωυσέως κοσμογένειαν ἀντιπαραβάλωμεν ἀλλήλαις. (Now, if you please, we will compare the
utterance of Plato. Observe then what he says about the creator, and what words he makes him
67](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/flaviusclaudiusjuliansrhetoricalspeechesstylisticandcomputationalapproach-140108220704-phpapp02/85/Flavius-claudius-julian-s-rhetorical-speeches-stylistic-and-computational-approach-7-320.jpg)
![International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) Vol. 2, No.6, December 2013
speak at the time of the generation of the universe, in order that we may compare Plato's account
of that generation with that of Moses.)
(Against Galilaeos 49a)
The lexical bundle ἐνταῦθα παραβάλωμεν as a means of involvement is a directive speech act,
which helps Julian to ensure the hypothetical equality between speaker and hearer. In this way the
audience feels that it can participate into the text's production. So, Julian uses a variety of
prefabricated sentences7, with certain structure and certain communicative goal. This happens
because the byzantine Greek language has such a flexibility to promote the communicative goal
of the speaker.
3. CONCLUSIONS
Through the above analysis we can understand that Julian uses lexical choices that contain words
of evaluative and directive character as to promote his political opinion. Besides this, the adopted
methodology enables us to study his personal style, which relies on the philosophical and
religious syncretism. The lexicogrammatic structures inform us about the content of his speech
acts and the frequency of certain lexical bundles. The only thing that remains for future work is to
do similar researches in other authors of the Byzantine Greek literature as to extract statistical and
linguistic information.
REFERENCES
[1]
For the text of these speeches see Wright, W. C. (1912-1913). The works of the emperor Julian.
London: Loeb Clas. Libr.
[2]
For more information about his life and his rhetoric see Fouquet, C. (1985). Julien, la mort du monde
antique. Paris: Belles Lettres, and Alexandropoulos, G. (2012). Text and context in Flavius Claudius
Julian's political speeches: coherence, intertextuality and communicative goal. PhD Thesis. University
of Athens. Edition in Lincom (forthcoming).
[3]
For more details about corpora see Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, McCarthy, M. J. (2004). Touchstone: From corpus to coursebook.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis. ComputerAssisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.,Teubert, W. (2000) Corpus Linguistics
– A Partisan View. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,4:1, 1-16.
[4]
Antconc
is
a
freeware
concordancer
software
program
(http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html). Anthony, L. (2006). Developing a freeware,
multiplatform corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, 49(3), 275-286.
[5]
For more details about lexical bundles see Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at...:
Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25 (3), 371-405.
[6]
Hyland, K. (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for specific
purposes, 27(1), 4-21., Hyland, K. (2008b). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and
postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1).
[7]
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: collocations and formulae. In:
Cowie, A. P. (Ed.), Phraseology. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 145-160., Wray, A. (1992) The
Focusing Hypothesis:The Theory of Left Hemisphere Lateralised Language Re-Examined. John
Benjamin’s, Amsterdam, Wray, A. (1998). Protolanguage as a holistic system for social interaction.
68](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/flaviusclaudiusjuliansrhetoricalspeechesstylisticandcomputationalapproach-140108220704-phpapp02/85/Flavius-claudius-julian-s-rhetorical-speeches-stylistic-and-computational-approach-8-320.jpg)
Flavius claudius julian's rhetorical speeches stylistic and computational approach
- 1. International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) Vol. 2, No.6, December 2013 Flavius Claudius Julian's rhetorical speeches: stylistic and computational approach Dr. Alexandropoulos Georgios ling.george82@yahoo.gr National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to examine the rhetorical, political speeches of Julian the emperor using computational tools. For this reason, in this research we apply corpus linguistics techniques for the automatic extraction of word, collocation lists and lexical bundles from Julian’s speeches; using corpus linguistics techniques we will draw conclusions about his style and character. KEYWORDS Byzantine Greek Literature, Corpus Linguistics, Stylistics, Rhetorical and political speeches. 1. INTRODUCTION In this study we chose eight rhetorical, political speeches1 of Flavius Claudius Julian2 the emperor and we created a corpus3 of 57, 562 words. In our study we use the Antconc4 program in order to extract the most frequent words lists, the bigrams, to study the use of the epistemic verb οἶμαι (think) and the lexical bundles5 (3 - 6 words). Our classification is based on Biber et al. (2004) and Hyland (2008a,b) models6. 2. A FEW STATISTICS ELEMENTS IN APPLYING CORPUS LINGUISTICS TECHNIQUES TO JULIAN'S RHETORICAL SPEECHES 2.1 FREQUENCY WORDS LIST It is useful for the purpose of our research to present the most frequent words in Julian's political speeches in order to define the ideological character of his message. Table 1 gives the 10 most frequent words (with stemming) in the total corpus and then in praises and invective speeches. Table 1: Frequency words list Frequency words list Frequency words list in in whole corpus praises Θεός (357) Λόγος (161) Λόγος (244) βασιλεύς (157) ἔργον (173) οἶμαι (91) DOI : 10.5121/ijnlc.2013.2605 Frequency words list in invective speeches Θεός (331) Λόγος (83) ἄνθρωπος (83) 61
- 2. International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) Vol. 2, No.6, December 2013 βασιλεύς οἶμαι ἄνθρωπος ψυχή ἀρετή ἄξιον ἀρχή (173) (134) (118) (103) (92) (60) (56) ἀρετή (80) πόλεμος (56) ψυχή (56) ἄξιον (55) ἀρχή (45) δίκη (42) ἄνθρωπος (35) Μωυσῆς ψυχή μᾶλλον οἶμαι Διογένης φιλοσοφία Κύριος (50) (47) (43) (43) (27) (21) (18) No one can deny that both praises and invective speeches represent the theocratic and social character of Julian's policy, since words as Θεός (God) and power are frequently used. In addition, words as ψυχή (soul), justice (δίκη) and ἀρετή (virtue) are combined with the meaning of intellectual and moral value in Julian's political work. In the center of his political thought we can find concepts as ἄνθρωπος (man) and φιλοσοφία (philosophy); this can be interpreted on the basis of his philophical and religious syncretism. It is also observed that the verb οἶμαι (think) declines in use in invectives speeches, which explains the fact that the ideological position of the orator expresses this time the intertextualistic source such as Moses, Diogenes (Μωυσῆς, Διογένης); this happens as he wants to be opposed with others through the sources in order to persuade, divide the audience and achieve social, political and religious reformation and reconstruction. 2.2 BIGRAMS Table 2: The first 30 Bigrams in the praises 35 32 29 27 27 24 22 20 19 19 καὶ τῶν 18 καὶ τῆς μὲν γὰρ 17 δὲ καὶ 17 καὶ τὴν 16 πρὸς τοὺς 16 τῶν ἄλλων 15 δὲ οἶμαι 15 καὶ πρὸς 15 τῶν ἔργων 15 καὶ τοῖς 14 παρὰ τῶν 14 τε καὶ καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῆς 12 ὁ δὲ 12 τῶν λόγων 12 ἄν τις 13 ἐν τοῖς 13 ὑπὲρ τῶν 12 καὶ τὸ μὲν οὖν δὲ τὴν εἰ καὶ δὲ τῆς δὲ ἤδη δὴ καὶ οἱ μὲν οἶμαι καὶ τὰ μὲν 29 28 28 τοῦ θεοῦ 18 ἐν τῷ καὶ τῆς τοὺς θεοὺς 17 12 12 Table 3: The first 30 Bigrams in invective speeches 47 35 33 τῶν θεῶν 25 καὶ τὰ τε καὶ καὶ τῶν καὶ τὸ 27 ὁ θεὸς 25 24 23 20 19 μὲν οὖν 19 ἀλλὰ καὶ καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς καὶ τὸν εἰ δὲ καὶ ὁ καὶ τοῖς μὲν γὰρ 47 δὲ καὶ 32 31 30 18 62
- 3. International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) Vol. 2, No.6, December 2013 18 18 18 16 τὰ τοιαῦτα τὸ δὲ ἐκ τῶν εἰ μὴ 16 16 16 16 16 καὶ τοὺς παρὰ τοῖς πρὸς τοὺς τὸ μὲν ὑπὲρ τῶν 16 ὑπὸ τοῦ Table 4: The first 30 bigrams in 8 speeches 91 89 74 61 61 59 57 56 54 49 δὲ καὶ καὶ τὴν 45 τε καὶ ἐν τοῖς 44 44 καὶ τῆς 44 καὶ τὰ 47 καὶ τῶν 47 43 μὲν γὰρ 42 καὶ τὸ 41 καὶ τὸν 39 μὲν οὖν 39 ὁ θεὸς καὶ τοῖς 36 36 πρὸς τοὺς 36 ἀλλὰ καὶ 34 ὁ δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν 33 τῶν ἄλλων 32 καὶ καὶ οὐκ πρὸς 32 31 τῶν θεῶν δὲ οἶμαι καὶ τοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῆς τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ δὴ καὶ τῶν ἔργων 33 εἰ δὲ In general, bigrams are collocations of length ''two words'' as a pairs of words. Here, they are going to be presented the extracted bigrams lists from Julian's eight rhetorical speeches. The next tables present the top bigrams in terms of their frequency occurrence. From the above lists we can draw some conclusions. Actually, in table 1 we see that Julian as political speaker uses words such as τῶν ἔργων (deeds), τῶν λόγων (reasons); these words help him to rely his political praises on deeds and reasons of certain facts in the framework of the evidence. In addition to this, it is clearly seen that verb δὲ οἶμαι (I think) is used in order to express his political opinion about the personalities that deserve the praise. Yet, in his invective speeches (table 2) Julian relies on bigrams related with the god (ὁ θεὸς, τοῦ θεοῦ, τοὺς θεοὺς) as he tries to promote a new god and reject the new god of the Christianism in whom byzantine citizens believe. In table 3 we see that the most frequent bigrams contain words like "καὶ'' (δὲ καὶ,καὶ τῶν, καὶ τὴν, τε καὶ) as a corollary of their cohesive nature. 2.3 Epistemic verb οἶμαι (think) At this point of my research, I will try to describe the functions of the verb οἶμαι (think) as it is a verb that remains on the top of the lexical choices (in frequency words list and in bigrams) in Julian's political speeches. Certainly, the use of this verb follows: i) Parenthetical use for comment of present or past situations. τοῦτο δὲ οἶμαι καὶ μάλα εἰκότως συμβαίνει. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐφ ο ἷς συνίσασιν αὑτοῖς ἀπολειφθεῖσιν ̓ ἀγαθοῖς, τοῖς κεκτημένοις βασκαίνουσιν, ὅτῳ δὲ τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῆς τύχης ἐστὶ λαμπρὰ καὶ οἷα οὐδενὶ τῶν ἄλλων, τὰ δὲ ἐκ τῆς προαιρέσεως τῶν ἐκ τῆς τύχης μακρῷ σεμνότερα, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτου δεόμενος τῷ κεκτημένῳ φθονήσειεν. (And this is, I think, very natural. For when men are conscious that 63
- 4. International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) Vol. 2, No.6, December 2013 they lack certain advantages, they envy those who do possess them, but when a man is more brilliantly endowed by fortune than any of his fellows, and by his own initiative has won even higher dignities than fate had assigned him, he lacks nothing, and there is none whom he need envy.) (Panegyric in Honor of the Emperor Constantius, Oration I 44cd) In the above example Julian exposes his opinion for certain situations and simultaneously promotes himself as a modest character. In this way, he gains more supporters as he gives the impression that he respects the different opinion and takes the audience into consideration. ii) Parenthetical use with impersonal verbs of deontic significance προσήκει δὲ οἶμαι καὶ περὶ τούτων ἐν βραχεῖ διελθεῖν, ὅπως μὴ τῆς ἀρχῆς φανῇς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς κληρονόμος. (On this point also I think I must say a few words to show that virtue was bequeathed to you as well as a throne.) (Panegyric in Honor of the Emperor Constantius, Oration I 7d) In the above example Julian uses again the certain verb in order to express his opinion in a way that will promote him as political pattern which avoids of impressive words and syntactic choices as he believes that the praise must rely only on the emperor's piety and values. iii) Combination with infinitive complements of present, future and directional value. τούτῳ γὰρ οἶμαι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πάντων διοίσειν τὸν λόγον. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν πράξεων ἵστανται, ἀποχρῆν οἰόμενοι πρὸς τὴν τελείαν εὐφημίαν τὸ τούτων μνησθῆναι, ἐγὼ δὲ οἶμαι δεῖν περὶ τῶν ἀρετῶν τὸν πλεῖστον λόγον ποιήσασθαι, ἀφ ὧν ὁρμώμενος ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον τῶν κατορθωμάτων ἦλθες. ̓ τὰ μὲν γὰρ πλεῖστα τῶν ἔργων, σχεδὸν δὲ πάντα, τύχη καὶ δορυφόροι καὶ στρατιωτῶν φάλαγγες καὶ τάξεις ἱππέων συγκατορθοῦσι, τὰ δὲ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔργα μόνου τέ ἐστι τοῦ δράσαντος, καὶ ὁ ἐκ τούτων ἔπαινος ἀληθὴς καθεστὼς ἴδιός ἐστι τοῦ κεκτημένου. οὐκοῦν ἐπειδὴ ταῦθ ἡμῖν σαφῶς διώρισται, ̓ τῶν λόγων ἄρξομαι. (For some limit themselves to your exploits, with the idea that a description of these suffices for a perfect panegyric, but for my part I think one ought to devote the greater part of one's speech to the virtues that were the stepping-stones by which you reached the height of your achievements. Military exploits in most cases, nay in almost all, are achieved with the help of fortune, the body-guard, heavy infantry and cavalry regiments. But virtuous actions belong to the doer alone, and the praise that they inspire, if it be sincere, belongs only to the possessor of such virtue. Now, having made this distinction clear, I will begin my speech.) (Panegyric in Honor of the Emperor Constantius, Oration I 5ab) In the certain example Julian's purpose is to create a praise relied on the virtue mostly; the verb οἶμαι accompanied by the infinitive διοίσειν exposes the orator's commitment and intentionality to focus on virtue and not in army achievements. In the second case the verb οἶμαι accompanied by the infinitive δεῖν appears to the surface the orator's political comment, as through this utterance empowers the directionality and deontic character of his message. No one can ignore the presence of the first personal pronoun ἐγὼ before the verb οἶμαι as a means of political orator's involvement and notification of his opinion in social level. Through this structure he leads the audience to the thought that they must follow him as he is a political person who does not insist on deeds, as others do, but in virtue and piety. 64
- 5. International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) Vol. 2, No.6, December 2013 iv) Parenthetical use in subordinate clause ὅστις οὖν ἂν ἐθέλῃ Κυνικὸς εἶναι καὶ σπουδαῖος ἀνήρ, αὑτοῦ πρότερον ἐπιμεληθείς, ὥσπερ Διογένης καὶ Κράτης ἐξελαυνέτω μὲν τῆς ψυχῆς ἅπαντα ἐκ πάσης τὰ πάθη, ὀρθῷ δὲ ἐπιτρέψας τὰ καθ ἑαυτὸν λόγῳ καὶ νῷ κυβερνάσθω. κεφάλαιον γὰρ ἦν, ὡς ἐγὼ οἶμαι, τοῦτο τῆς Διογένους ̓ φιλοσοφίας. (Then let him who wishes to be a Cynic, earnest and sincere, first take himself in hand like Diogenes and Crates, and expel from his own soul and from every part of it all passions and desires, and entrust all his affairs to reason and intelligence and steer his course by them. For this in my opinion was the sum and substance of the philosophy of Diogenes.) (To the Uneducated Cynics 201d) The expression of his political thought about the Cynic philosophy will further legitimize his views on the undermining of the social fabric because of the Modern Cynics. The subordinate clause ὡς ἐγὼ οἶμαι encompasses Julian's view and the main clause through the evaluative expression κεφάλαιον γὰρ ἦν establishes and guarantees the value of these as a kind of review about the content of the original Cynics. 2.4 Lexical bundles At this point of our research, we will try to find the lexical bundles and define their functions. The below tables give us information about the most frequent bundles in Julian's rhetorical, political speeches after the exclusion criteria (ex. lexical bundles ending in articles, lexical bundles with random numbers, fragments of other bundles, random section titles, lexical bundles without meaning). Table 5: Frequency and function of the first 10 lexical bundles in praises Frequency Lexical bundles Function 9 repeats δὲ οἶμαι καὶ Personal stance - text oriented 6 ὃ δὴ καὶ Referential expression - Precision text oriented 5 πρὸς τοὺς Referential expression - text ἀδελφοὺς oriented 5 πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον Place reference - text oriented 4 καὶ περὶ τούτων Referential expression - text oriented 4 πολὺ δὲ πλέον Referential, comparative reference - text oriented 4 τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον Time reference - text oriented 4 ὑπὲρ μὲν τούτων Referential expression - text oriented 3 δι' ἁσδηποτοῦν Causative expression - text αἰτίας oriented 3 δὲ οὐκ οἶδα Personal stance - speaker oriented 65
- 6. International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) Vol. 2, No.6, December 2013 Table 6: Frequency and function of the first 10 lexical bundles in invective speeches Frequency Lexical bundles Function 7 repeats εἰ μὲν οὖν Referential expression - hypothetical view - text oriented 7 εἶπεν ὁ θεός Report expression - text oriented 7 μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ Discourse organizer - emphasis - text oriented 7 πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς Reference - text oriented 6 πάντα ἁπλῶς τὰ Referential expression - Imprecision τοιαῦτα text oriented 5 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Report expression - text oriented 5 τῶν παρ' ἡμῖν Referential expression - text oriented 5 ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ''Place'' reference - text oriented 5 ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ Reference - text oriented 4 κύριος ὁ θεός Title - text oriented σου Table 7: Frequency and function of the first 10 lexical bundles in whole corpus Frequency Lexical bundles Function 13 repeats δὲ οἶμαι καὶ Personal stance - Speaker oriented 13 ὃ δὴ καὶ Reference - Text oriented 11 μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ Discourse organizer - emphasis- Text oriented 11 οὐ γὰρ δὴ Disoucrse organiser -Text oriented 7 εἰ μὲν οὖν Referential expression - hypothetical view - Text oriented 7 ὑπὲρ μὲν τούτων Reference - Text oriented 6 ναὶ μὰ Δία Oath for special conversational occasion - Text oriented 6 πάντα ἁπλῶς τὰ Referential expression - Imprecision τοιαῦτα Text oriented 5 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Report expression - Text oriented 5 οὐκ οἶδ ὅπως Personal stance - Speaker oriented The above tables give us the opportunity to define the functions of the lexical bundles in Julian's political speeches. In table 5 we note that the most frequent lexical budle contains the verb οἶμαι (think); this can be interpreted cause of the praise's nature. In praises Julian tries to expose his personal opinion about the elements of the political virtue. In blames this lexical bundles of personal stance are not appeared since this time Julian focus on intertextualistic source which expresses simultaneously his opinion. New lexical bundles and new functions are appeared in blames, such as report, imprecision etc. In whole corpus we note again that the lexical bundles with referential and stance functions are on the top; this gives us the capability to say that Julian 66
- 7. International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) Vol. 2, No.6, December 2013 leads to express his thought through his speeches and for this reason the verb οἶμαι is on the top of the most frequent words, bigrams and most frequent lexical bundles. Julian as political speaker uses mostly lexical bundles oriented to his political text's organization; actually, in praises the most frequent lexical bundles express personal stance (lexical bundles orientes to speaker) but most of the others are oriented to the text adopting Hyland' models. In his invective speeches uses mostly lexical bundles oriented to text organization. In whole corpus it is noted that Julian uses mostly text oriented lexical bundles even though lexical bundles oriented to his political opionion with verbs such as οἶμαι, (think), οἶδ (know). The certain notes give us the opportunity to understand that Julian promotes himself as an emperor who knows very well what says and why. He promotes his political opinion through personal stance lexical bundles but he uses them in a moderating way, because he wants to persuade through arguments. He is not arrogant and everything he does is a product of rationality and deep consideration. Julian uses also some other prefabricated sentences in his speeches (see table 8), even though they do not occur very often in his text production, as their frequency is very limited. This does not mean that these expressions cannot operate as formulaicity, but it enables us to understand that Julian as text producer had a variety of formulaic choices and was interested to remain his text productivity and informativity. This makes his political texts so important for the byzantine literature. Table 8: Non recurrent lexical bundles Lexical bundles Function ξυνελόντι δὲ εἰπεῖν Summarization - Directive speech act ἐνταῦθα παραβάλωμεν Contrast - directive speech act σκοπεῖν δὲ […] ἄξιον Εvaluation - directive speech act ἑκὼν ἀφίημι Clarification - representative speech act ὑπὲρ δὲ […] σκεπτέον ἔτι Emphasis - directive speech act Ἀλλ ἐπανίωμεν ἐπ ἐκεῖνο Focus - directive speech act ̓ ̓ πάλιν In table 8 we see some non-recurrent lexical bundles with certain rhetorical function. It could be said that Julian had the opportunity to choose a new one each time from the lexicon of these phrases because the byzantine Greek language had a very high level productivity. These prefabricated sentences were introduced into the text in order to help the speaker to satisfy his communicative goal. Some examples: Ἐνταῦθα παραβάλωμεν, εἰ βούλεσθε, τὴν Πλάτωνος φωνήν. τί τοίνυν οὗτος ὑπὲρ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ λέγει καὶ τίνας περιτίθησιν αὐτῷ φωνὰς ἐν τῇ κοσμογενείᾳ σκόπησον, ἵνα τὴν Πλάτωνος καὶ Μωυσέως κοσμογένειαν ἀντιπαραβάλωμεν ἀλλήλαις. (Now, if you please, we will compare the utterance of Plato. Observe then what he says about the creator, and what words he makes him 67
- 8. International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) Vol. 2, No.6, December 2013 speak at the time of the generation of the universe, in order that we may compare Plato's account of that generation with that of Moses.) (Against Galilaeos 49a) The lexical bundle ἐνταῦθα παραβάλωμεν as a means of involvement is a directive speech act, which helps Julian to ensure the hypothetical equality between speaker and hearer. In this way the audience feels that it can participate into the text's production. So, Julian uses a variety of prefabricated sentences7, with certain structure and certain communicative goal. This happens because the byzantine Greek language has such a flexibility to promote the communicative goal of the speaker. 3. CONCLUSIONS Through the above analysis we can understand that Julian uses lexical choices that contain words of evaluative and directive character as to promote his political opinion. Besides this, the adopted methodology enables us to study his personal style, which relies on the philosophical and religious syncretism. The lexicogrammatic structures inform us about the content of his speech acts and the frequency of certain lexical bundles. The only thing that remains for future work is to do similar researches in other authors of the Byzantine Greek literature as to extract statistical and linguistic information. REFERENCES [1] For the text of these speeches see Wright, W. C. (1912-1913). The works of the emperor Julian. London: Loeb Clas. Libr. [2] For more information about his life and his rhetoric see Fouquet, C. (1985). Julien, la mort du monde antique. Paris: Belles Lettres, and Alexandropoulos, G. (2012). Text and context in Flavius Claudius Julian's political speeches: coherence, intertextuality and communicative goal. PhD Thesis. University of Athens. Edition in Lincom (forthcoming). [3] For more details about corpora see Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, McCarthy, M. J. (2004). Touchstone: From corpus to coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis. ComputerAssisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.,Teubert, W. (2000) Corpus Linguistics – A Partisan View. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,4:1, 1-16. [4] Antconc is a freeware concordancer software program (http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html). Anthony, L. (2006). Developing a freeware, multiplatform corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(3), 275-286. [5] For more details about lexical bundles see Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25 (3), 371-405. [6] Hyland, K. (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for specific purposes, 27(1), 4-21., Hyland, K. (2008b). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1). [7] Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: collocations and formulae. In: Cowie, A. P. (Ed.), Phraseology. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 145-160., Wray, A. (1992) The Focusing Hypothesis:The Theory of Left Hemisphere Lateralised Language Re-Examined. John Benjamin’s, Amsterdam, Wray, A. (1998). Protolanguage as a holistic system for social interaction. 68
- 9. International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) Vol. 2, No.6, December 2013 Language & Communication 18, 47-67. , Wray, A. & M. Perkins (2000). The Functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language & Communication 20 (2000), 1 – 28. 69