This chapter compares two reading lists of Greek literature, one from the Augustan Age and one from the Second Sophistic: Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ On Imitation and Dio of Prusa’s letter On... Show moreThis chapter compares two reading lists of Greek literature, one from the Augustan Age and one from the Second Sophistic: Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ On Imitation and Dio of Prusa’s letter On Training for Public Speaking (oration 18). Although several scholars have argued that the two lists are similar, this chapter argues that they are fundamentally different. Dionysius prefers Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Herodotus and Demosthenes, he ignores Hellenistic and imperial writers, and he demands that his students work hard. Dio recommends Menander, Euripides, Xenophon and Aeschines, he includes orators from the Augustan Age, and he tells his addressee that laborious training is not needed. In many points Dio’s reading list corresponds more closely to Quintilian’s contemporary canon (in Institutio oratoria book 10) than to Dionysius’ On Imitation. Three factors can explain the differences between the reading lists presented by Dionysius and Dio: their audiences, the literary preferences of the Augustan Age and the Flavian Age, and the genres of their works. Dionysius’ reading list is part of a serious rhetorical treatise which foregrounds the ‘beauty’ of classical Greek literature. Dio’s reading list is presented in a light-hearted letter which adopts a more pragmatic (and at times humoristic) approach to rhetorical imitation. Show less
This contribution is a plea to pay more systematicattention to the infrequently studied, fine-grained grammatical phenomenon ofcomplementation in the analysis of political discourse. The way the... Show moreThis contribution is a plea to pay more systematicattention to the infrequently studied, fine-grained grammatical phenomenon ofcomplementation in the analysis of political discourse. The way the Dutchradical populist Geert Wilders uses complementation serves as a case study tothat end. In the first half of the contribution, an in-depth description of thephenomenon of complementation is given; it is argued that the use ofcomplementation affects the degree of certainty by which a speaker presents hisideas. The second half of the contribution reports on a diachronic analysis ofGeert Wilders’ use of complementation in 47 parliamentary speeches held between2004 and 2009. It is argued that Wilders’ use of complementation significantlydecreases between 2004 and 2009. The decrease is not a gradual transition: abreak occurs between 2006 and 2007. This is an indication that Wilders offersless room for discussion from this period onwards. Strikingly, Wilders’ changeduse of complementation coincides with the moment that political scientistsindicate as the moment that Wilders’ political views radicalized. The casestudy not only shows that studying complementation can add to the inventory oflinguistic phenomena relevant to the analysis of political discourse; it alsostresses the significance of combining quantitative and qualitative methods ofanalysis for the quantification of stylistic phenomena. Show less
