1887
Volume 8, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

There are certain areas where present-day studies of language use can learn from history. Using a dialogue-analytic approach, this study investigates dialogic features and interpersonal management in the early English courtroom. Drawing upon a corpus of 81 opening statements from the (1759–1799), the quantitative and qualitative analysis reveals that this courtroom action game is highly dialogic and that an active jury was significantly presupposed in this particular historical setting. The lawyers consistently endeavored to solicit solidarity and in-groupness through pronominal choices, and to argumentatively negotiate agreement and secure consent through directives, shared knowledge markers, asides, and questions. The findings testify to the central role of dialogism and interpersonal negotiation in historical courtroom action games.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00021.cha
2018-11-02
2019-09-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2013 “Analyzing Modal Adverbs as Modal Particles and Discourse Markers.” InDiscourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description, ed. byLiesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie, and Paola Pietrandrea, 89–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.234.04aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234.04aij [Google Scholar]
  2. Alschuler, Albert
    2005 “Narrative and Normativity: Comments on the Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial.” Journal of Legal History26: 91–97. 10.1080/01440360500034628
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01440360500034628 [Google Scholar]
  3. Archer, Dawn
    2002 “‘Can Innocent People be Guilty?’: A Sociopragmatic Analysis of Examination Transcripts of the Salem Witchcraft Trials.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics3: 1–30. 10.1075/jhp.3.1.02arc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.3.1.02arc [Google Scholar]
  4. 2005Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760): A Sociopragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.135
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.135 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2010 “The Historical Courtroom: A Diachronic Investigation of English Courtroom Practice.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. byMalcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson, 185–198. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203855607.ch13
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2014 “Historical Pragmatics: Evidence form the Old Bailey.” Transactions of the Philological Society112: 259–277. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12011
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12011 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1986Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Beattie, John
    1986Crime and the Courts in England 1660–1800. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bogoch, Bryna
    1999 “Courtroom Discourse and the Gendered Construction of Professional Identity.” Law and Social Inquiry24: 329–375. 10.1111/j.1747‑4469.1999.tb00133.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1999.tb00133.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Briggs, Charles and Richard Bauman
    1992 “Genre, Intertextuality, and Social Power.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology2: 131–172. 10.1525/jlin.1992.2.2.131
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1992.2.2.131 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cairns, David
    1998Advocacy and the Making of the Adversarial Criminal Trial 1800–1865. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarthy
    2006Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide to Spoken and Written Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cavalieri, Silvia
    2011 “The Role of Metadiscourse in Counsels’ Questions.” InExploring Courtroom Discourse: The Language of Power and Control, ed. byAnne Wagner and Le Cheng, 79–110. Surrey: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cecconi, Elisabetta
    2012The Language of Defendants in the 17th Century English Courtroom: A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Prisoners’ Interactional Role and Representation. Berlin: Peter Lang.10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0376‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0376-2 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chaemsaithong, Krisda
    2012 “Performing Self in the Witness Stand: Stance and Relational Work in Expert Witness Testimony.” Discourse & Society23: 456–486. 10.1177/0957926512441111
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512441111 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2014 “Dramatic Monologues: The Grammaticalization of Speaking Roles in Courtroom Opening Statements.” Pragmatics24: 757–784. 10.1075/prag.24.4.04cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.4.04cha [Google Scholar]
  18. Chang, Yanrong
    2004 “Courtroom Questioning as a Culturally Situated Persuasive Genre of Talk.” Discourse & Society15: 705–722. 10.1177/0957926504046501
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504046501 [Google Scholar]
  19. Danet, Brenda
    1980 “Language in the Legal Process.” Law and Society Review15: 445–565. 10.2307/3053192
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3053192 [Google Scholar]
  20. Duszak, Anna
    (ed.) 2002Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.98
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fuller, Janet
    1993 “Hearing between the Lines: Style Switching in a Courtroom Setting.” Pragmatics3: 29–43. 10.1075/prag.3.1.02ful
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.3.1.02ful [Google Scholar]
  22. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Haydock, Roger and John Sonsteng
    1991Trial: Theories, Tactics, Techniques. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hitchcock, Tim and Robert Shoemaker
    2007 “The Value of the Proceedings as a Historical Source. Old Bailey Proceedings Online.” www.oldbaileyonline.org (accessed5 Nov 2017)
  25. Hobbs, Pamela
    2003 “‘Is That What We’re Here about?’: A Lawyer’s Use of Impression Management in a Closing Argument at Trial.” Discourse & Society14: 273–290.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2008 “‘It’s Not What You Say but How You Say It’: The Role of Personality and Identity in Trial Success.” Critical Discourse Studies5: 231–248. 10.1080/17405900802131744
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900802131744 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hostettler, John
    2006Fighting for Justice: The History and Origins of Adversary Trial. Hook: Waterside Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Huber, Magnus
    2007 “The Old Bailey Proceedings (1674–1834): Evaluating and Annotating a Corpus of 18th and 19th Century Spoken English.” www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/01/huber
  29. Hyland, Ken
    2001 “Bringing in the Reader: Address Features in Academic Articles. Written Communication18: 549–574. 10.1177/0741088301018004005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2005 Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies7: 173–192. 10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ilie, Cornelia
    1994‘What Else can I Tell you’: A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kitagawa, Chisato and Adrienne Lehrer
    1990 “Impersonal Uses of Personal Pronouns.” Journal of Pragmatics14: 739–759. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90004‑W
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-W [Google Scholar]
  33. Landsman, Stephen
    1990 “The Rise of the Contentious Spirit: Adversary Procedure in Eighteenth Century England.” Cornell Law Review50: 498–609.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Langbein, John
    1999 “The Prosecutorial Origins of Defence Counsel in the Eighteenth Century: The Appearance of Solicitors.” Cambridge Law Journal58: 314–365.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2003The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ma, Yue
    2008 “Exploring the Origins of Public Prosecution.” International Criminal Justice Review18: 190–211. 10.1177/1057567708319204
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567708319204 [Google Scholar]
  37. Martin, J. R. and Peter White
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  38. Matoesian, Gregory
    2001Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Mauet, Thomas
    2013Trial Techniques and Trials, 9th ed.New York: Wolters Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. May, Allyson
    2003The Bar and the Old Bailey 1750–1850. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pascual, Esther
    2006 “Fictive Interaction within the Sentence: A Communicative Type of Fictivity in Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics17: 245–267. 10.1515/COG.2006.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.006 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pennycook, Alastir
    1994 “The Politics of Pronouns.” ELT Journal48: 173–178. 10.1093/elt/48.2.173
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/48.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rosulek, Laura
    2015Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337613.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337613.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sacks, Harvey
    1992Lectures on Conversations, vol.1 and 2. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Searle, John R.
    1976 “The Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society5: 1–24. 10.1017/S0047404500006837
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  46. Shoemaker, Robert
    2008 “The Old Bailey Proceedings and the Representation of Crime and Criminal Justice in Eighteenth-Century London.” Journal of British Studies47: 559–580. 10.1086/587722
    https://doi.org/10.1086/587722 [Google Scholar]
  47. Stygall, Gail
    1994Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.26 [Google Scholar]
  48. Traugott, Elizabeth
    2011 “Constructing the Audiences of the Old Bailey Trials 1674–1834.” InCommunicating Early English Manuscripts, ed. byPaivi Pahta and Andreas Jucker, 69–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Weigand, Edda
    2000 “The Dialogic Action Game.” InDialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue, ed. byMalcolm Coulthard, Janet Cotterill, and Fraces Rock, 1–18. Tubingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110941265‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110941265-002 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2005 “Conflict Resolution in Court.” Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Special issue of Studies in Communication Sciences193–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2010 “Language as Dialogue.” Intercultural Pragmatics7: 505–515. 10.1515/iprg.2010.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.022 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2018 “Dialogue: The Key to Pragmatics.” InFrom Pragmatics to Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes, 5–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.31.02wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.31.02wei [Google Scholar]
  53. Zupnik, Yael-Janette
    1994 “A Pragmatic Analysis of the Use of Person Deixis in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics21: 339–384. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90010‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90010-8 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00021.cha
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00021.cha
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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