Dialogic features and interpersonal management in the early courtroom action game

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. Archer, Dawn
   2005 Questions 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. Archer, Dawn
   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. Archer, Dawn
   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
   1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Beattie, John
   1986 Crime 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
    1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
12. Cairns, David
    1998 Advocacy and the Making of the Adversarial Criminal Trial 1800–1865. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarthy
    2006 Cambridge 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
    2012 The 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. Chaemsaithong, Krisda
    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.) 2002 Us 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
    1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Haydock, Roger and John Sonsteng
    1991 Trial: 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. Hobbs, Pamela
    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
    2006 Fighting 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. Hyland, Ken
    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. Langbein, John
    2003 The 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
    2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
38. Matoesian, Gregory
    2001 Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Mauet, Thomas
    2013 Trial Techniques and Trials, 9th ed.New York: Wolters Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
40. May, Allyson
    2003 The 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
    2015 Dueling 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
    1992 Lectures 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
    1994 Trial 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. Weigand, Edda
    2005 “Conflict Resolution in Court.” Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Special issue of Studies in Communication Sciences193–202.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Weigand, Edda
    2010 “Language as Dialogue.” Intercultural Pragmatics7: 505–515. 10.1515/iprg.2010.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.022 [Google Scholar]
52. Weigand, Edda
    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]