In this paper, a linguistic analysis of the Itinerarium Egeriae, one of the oldest documented Christian pilgrimages to the eastern Mediterranean, is presented. The aim of the work is to present characteristics related to Vulgar Latin. The linguistic analysis is focused on characteristics which are not in keeping with classical norms, in an attempt to describe certain changes with regard to Classical Latin and traditional grammar, which may cause difficulty for the reader. It is evident that the Itinerarium Egeriae is not characterized by ornate expression like the texts of classical writers, but it offers interesting, if sometimes confusing, deviations from classical norms. The paper is divided into two parts. In the first section Egeria, the purpose of the trip, the text, the author’s ability to observe, and her style aimed at spiritual instruction are presented. Egeria’s style of Latin are the subject of the second and main section of the work, which includes language, style, literary aspect and phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical characteristics of travel writing.

Language, as the linguistic manifestation of extralinguistic experiences, often functions as a means for the creation and expression of societal inequality. In addition to the fact that the participants of social reality are almost never socially equal, which means that someone has power over others, the linguistic reflection of those relationships always derives from the author, who has the power to control the context; his practical instrumentation comes from his own lexical and grammatical choices, as well as their conscious and targeted combination. In this paper, the focus is on noticing and distinguishing, and analyzing and interpreting the choices of V. Paterculus as an author within the framework of collective agency and the topoi with which the Roman national identity is first built, and then positioned as superior to the identities of the peoples with whom the Romans came into contact. While for authors from the 1st century A.D. the language strategies touched on in this paper were not available, since they were neither described nor defined before the 20th century, ancient writers used them completely unconsciously in their spontaneous writing; therefore, these texts, as well as modern ones, are subject to linguistic analysis, interpretation and criticism precisely according to the guidelines of modern language criteria. In this paper one of the possible methods of analysis of the construction of the national and supranational identity of a nation in the historiographical discourse will be offered; the analysis will be based on discursive strategies and macro-strategies offered by the discursive-historical approach and based on empirical data gathered in tabular reviews. An indispensable part of the analysis will be the analyst’s criticism, which derives from democratic norms, human rights and the criteria of rational argumentation from today’s temporal, cultural and political context, because the purpose of critical discourse studies is to expose and point out how domination, i.e., the abuse of social power and inequality, are realized and reproduced in text and speech, but also on how to oppose them in a social and political context (van Dijk 2001, 352).

In oral and written communication there exist various linguistic tools by which one tells or asks their interlocuter to do something. In such cases, one most often uses the imperative, even though in different languages there are different ways to attain a goal, i.e., to realize the intention or request of the message sender. In Latin, there existed along with the imperative a mood called the subjunctive through which speakers could express commands or prohibitions, but also suggestions, desires, requests, counsel, or encouragement for the message receiver to complete a certain act. The content mentioned can be expressed using the present (e.g., You are shutting up now!) or the future tenses (e.g., You are going to the library tomorrow!), or with certain periphrastic forms (e.g., This job ought to be finished!). The form, then, does not always correspond with the anticipated content; that is, one type of content can be expressed using various forms. This paper is directed at the observation and analysis of the various forms and functions of commands used by Cicero in his epistles, as well as on their classification according to which of them prevail in individual groups of letters. Along with this, seeing as in some examples ambiguous forms of the imperative are found, whose function is conditioned due to various pragmatic parameters and contextual frameworks, the goal is to also to point out the importance of context and its elements, especially those of a socio-political, cultural or historical environment and the role of participants in the choice, usage, and interpretation of forms of the command.

Rhetoric in Ancient Rome was a very specific type of discourse construction used to shape, present, and interpret specific works of individuals and then present them to critics. Depending on the perspective of the orator, defense counsel, or plaintiff, discourse strategies were aimed at legitimizing or delegitimizing a specific act. Words and wise acts of a skillful orator, which Cicero was renowned for, were often as powerful as weapons; they not only uncovered the intentions and objectives of participants in a given situation, but they reflected the social and political image of Rome, including the context of the event. The paper presents one of the possible methods of analyzing Cicero’s speeches made for the defense of Milo, a notable Roman charged for the murder of aristocrat Clodius Pulcher. It is based on the discourse-historical approach of R. Wodak and M. Reisigl. It is a qualitative analysis focused on the linguistic construction of the defense of the defendant at a trial. The analysis will show the discourse constructions produced under the influence of a set of specific social factors, in this case, the political environment in Rome, the ideological affiliation of speakers, and the main discussion participants – Milo and Pulcher, their political roles, and the degree of formality. The paper’s theoretical framework is a critical analysis of the discourse.

Generative (grammar) means precisely formulated, explicit grammar. American linguist A. N. Chomsky strove for such a maximally precise, universal grammar. He bases the foundation for his thoughts on the possibility of the existence of a universal grammar on his own belief that the ability for language is inherent in human beings, i.e., that the grammatical structure not only of our own language, but of language in general, is engrained in our minds. This syntactician is interested not only in the definition and analysis of the sentence structure, but also in the inherent relation between grammar and logic. Chomsky’s starting point is that it is possible, within the confines of one language, to form an infinite number of statements using a finite number of words (Glovacki-Bernardi, et al., 2007, p. 190.); while doing so, the focus is on grammatically correct, meaningful statements, as in the opposite situation, grammatical rules which point to the logical relationship within them would lose their meaning. This is, at the same time, one of the foundations of his generative theory. Chomsky confirmed a set of rules through which he attempted to place grammar into a universal framework within which every language can find the laws ruling its own logical grammatical functioning. In applying these laws, it is possible to form paradigms which will serve as indicators of structural differences and similarities between languages, which we will demonstrate in this paper using examples from French and Latin.

The subject of this article will be the analysis of the application of two modern linguistic approaches to the ancient text. It is about M. Halliday's systemic functional linguistics (SFL) and critical discourse analysis (CDA) through whose patterns we will analyze Suetonius' account of two Roman emperors, Augustus and Nero. Since the language is a strong link between SFL as a linguistic approach and CDA, a movement that unites several different disciplines, including linguistic ones, focused on social change, this article will try to shed light on the role, connection and effectiveness of SFL and CDA in a biographical presentation of a personalities. Critical discourse analysis defines language as a social practice, an essential component of creating social relations and changing them; therefore, it focuses on the language in use - discourse, and analyzes it within the broader social, political, historical, cultural and any other context in which it is realized.