1887
Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1566-5852
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9854

Abstract

Abstract

The investigation of the pragmatic marker in trial proceedings from 1560 to 1800 shows a genre-specific usage profile with regard to its uses and functions. Courtroom “professionals” (lawyers, judges and other officials) use significantly more frequently than lay speakers (witnesses, victims and defendants). The former use it to segment and highlight stages in the argumentation, as well as to control and to disalign with others’ interactive behaviour. Self-defending litigants share these functional preferences to some extent, while all other lay persons use for structuring their answers and dominantly in direct-speech contexts. in professional legal speech thus functions as a strategic metapragmatic framing strategy.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00020.cla
2019-02-01
2019-12-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jhp.00020.cla.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00020.cla&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2002English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bolinger, Dwight
    1989Intonation and Its Uses. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brinton, Laurel
    2006 “Pathways in the Development of Pragmatic Markers in English”. InAns van Kemenade and Bettelou Los (eds), The Handbook of the History of English, 307–334. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470757048.ch13
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757048.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  4. CED = A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 2006 Compiled under the supervision ofMerja Kytö (Uppsala University) andJonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Culpeper, Jonathan and Merja Kytö
    2010Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Defour, Tine
    2008a “And so now…: The Grammaticalisation and (Inter)subjectification of now”. InTerttu Nevalainen, Irma Taavitsainen, Päivi Pahta and Minna Korhonen (eds), The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present, 17–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/silv.2.05def
    https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.2.05def [Google Scholar]
  7. 2008b “The speaker’s Voice: A Diachronic Study on the Use of well and now as Pragmatic Markers”. English Text Construction13: 62–82. 10.1075/etc.1.1.06def
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.06def [Google Scholar]
  8. Emsley, Clive, Tim Hitchcock and Robert Shoemaker
    2003–2017 “Crime and Justice – Trial Procedures”, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 7.2, 07July 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fraser, Bruce
    1996 “Pragmatic Markers”. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association6 (2): 167–190. 10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra [Google Scholar]
  10. Hale, Sandra Beatriz
    2004The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52 [Google Scholar]
  11. Holt, Elizabeth and Alison Johnson
    2010 “Legal Talk: Socio-Pragmatic Aspects of Legal Talk: Police Interviews and Trial Discourse”. InMalcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, 21–36. London and New York: Taylor and Francis. 10.4324/9780203855607.ch2
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607.ch2 [Google Scholar]
  12. Innes, Bronwen
    2010 “‘Well, That’s Why I Asked the Question Sir’: Well as a Discourse Marker in Court”. Language in Society39 (1): 95–117. 10.1017/S0047404509990662
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990662 [Google Scholar]
  13. Janney, Richard W.
    2007 “‘So your Story now is that…’: Metapragmatic Framing Strategies in Courtroom Interrogation”. InWolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler (eds), Metapragmatics in Use, 223–234. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.165.15jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.15jan [Google Scholar]
  14. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara
    1998 “Pragmatic Particles in Early Modern English Court Trials”. InRaimund Borgmeier, Herbert Grabes and Andreas H. Jucker (eds), Anglistentag 1997. Giessen. Proceedings, 47–56. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lutzky, Ursula
    2012Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.227
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.227 [Google Scholar]
  16. OBC = Old Bailey Corpus 1720–1913, extended version, offline v2.1. 2012ff. Compiled byMagnus Huber, Magnus Nissel, Patrick Maiwald and Bianca Widlitzki.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. OED = Oxford English Dictionary, third edition in progress 1989- Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online: www.oed.com/; s.v.nowadv., conj., n.1, and adj. (updated entry, Dec. 2003).
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  20. Schourup, Lawrence
    2011 “The Discourse Marker now: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach”. Journal of Pragmatics43: 2110–2129. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  21. Tkačuková, Tatiana
    2015 “A Corpus-Assisted Study of the Discourse Marker well as an Indicator of Judges’ Institutional Roles in Court Cases with Litigants in Person”. Corpora: Corpus-Based Language Learning, Language Processing and Linguistics10 (2): 145–170. 10.3366/cor.2015.0072
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0072 [Google Scholar]
  22. Waring, Hansun Zhang
    2012 “Doing Disaffiliation with now-Prefaced Utterances”. Language and Communication3 (3): 265–275. 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. WordSmith Tools (version 5.0)
    WordSmith Tools (version 5.0) 2010PC software by Mike Scott. Lexical Analysis Software and Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00020.cla
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.00020.cla
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentation , conversational control , disalignment , framing , legal language and pragmatic marker
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error