Cover not available
Part of
English Historical Linguistics: Change in structure and meaning
Edited by Bettelou Los, Claire Cowie, Patrick Honeybone and Graeme Trousdale
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 358] 2022
► pp. 245–262

Chapter 10
Shifting responsibility in passing information

Stance-taking in Sir Thomas Bodley’s diplomatic correspondence

ORCID logo | University of Innsbruck
Within the subfield of historical pragmatics, this paper focuses on the linguistic means used for transmitting knowledge and signalling stance in a sample of Early Modern diplomatic correspondence, a text-type that, while partly codified and formulaic, shows individual variation according to topic, correspondents, and other contextual factors. Sir Thomas Bodley’s diplomatic missions in several countries produced a substantial corpus of correspondence between him and the Court. The paper examines Bodley’s strategies for the reporting and assessment of information, while conveying different levels of involvement vs. distancing. The results show that Bodley is especially cautious about the reliability of sources of the information he gathers, as is shown by the vast array of linguistic means he employs to convey his stance towards the information and its sources.
Keywords: historical pragmatics, diplomatic correspondence, Early Modern English, stance, evidentiality, epistemic scales
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and theoretical background
  • 2.The sample
  • 3.Framing reliability of information
  • 4.Modulating epistemic scales and specifying source authority
  • 5.Further stance-related strategies: Appearance vs. truth, shared vs. new information
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • Source
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.358.10maz
References (36)
Source
Diplomatic Correspondence of Thomas Bodley, 1585–1597, Centre for Editing Lives and Letters, based at University College London. Chief editor Robyn Adams. Last accessed April 2019. URL: [URL]
References
Barton, Ellen. L. 1993. Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English 55(7). 745–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and writing. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 261–272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2006. Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(5). 569–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. (ed.). 2011. Historical sociopragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Lungo Camiciotti, Gabriella. 2006. “Conduct yourself towards all persons on every occasion with civility and in a wise and prudent manner; this will render you esteemed”: Stance features in nineteenth-century business letters. In Marina Dossena & Susan Fitzmaurice (eds.), Business and official correspondence: Historical investigations, 153–174. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2014. Letters and letter writing in Early Modern culture: An introduction. Journal of Early Modern Studies 3. 17–35.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina & Susan Fitzmaurice (eds.). 2006. Business and official correspondence: Historical investigations. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse. Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. & Elise Kärkkäinen. 2012. Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text & Talk 32(4). 433–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Mel. 2017. Royal language and reported discourse in sixteenth-century correspondence. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 18(1). 30–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita & Etsuko Oishi. 2014. Evidentiality in discourse. Intercultural Pragmatics 11(3). 321–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2006. Diplomatic business: Information, power, and persuasion in Late Modern English diplomatic correspondence. In Marina Dossena & Susan Fitzmaurice (eds.). Business and official correspondence: Historical investigations, 77–106. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas & Jasper Holmes. 2007. A history of English evidential verbs of appearance. English Language and Linguistics 11(1). 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio. 2006. Communal Correspondence in Early Modern English: The Philosophical Transactions Network. In Marina Dossena & Susan Fitzmaurice (eds.), Business and official correspondence: Historical investigations, 17–46. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany & Douglas Biber. 2014. Stance markers. In Karin Aijmer & Christoph Rühlemann (eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook, 219–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany, Douglas Biber, & Turo Hiltunen. 2011. The expression of stance in early (1665–1712) publications of the Philosophical Transactions and other contemporary medical prose: Innovations in a pioneering discourse. In Irma Taavitsainen & Päivi Pahta (eds.), Medical writing in Early Modern English, 221–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grund, Peter. 2017. Description, evaluation and stance: Exploring the forms and functions of speech descriptors in Early Modern English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 16(1). 41–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2). 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.) 2010. Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. 2009. Style as stance: Stance as the explanation for patterns of sociolinguistics variation. In Alexandra Jaffe (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives, 171–193. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landert, Daniela. 2017. Meta-communicative expressions and situational variation of stance marking: I say and I tell (you) in Early Modern English dialogues. Nordic Journal of English Studies 16(1). 120–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López Couso, Maria José. 1996. On the history of methinks: From impersonal construction to fossilized expression. Folia Linguistica Historica 17(1–2). 153–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Imogen & Mel Evans. 2019. “Right trusty and well-beloved”: The socio-pragmatics of gender, power and stance in sixteenth-century English letters. In Ursula Lutzky & Minna Nevala (eds.), Reference and identity in public discourses, 67–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 2015. Epistemic legitimisation and inter/subjectivity in the discourse of parliamentary and public inquiries. Critical Discourse Studies 12(3). 261–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzon, Gabriella. 2014. The pragmatics of Sir Thomas Bodley’s diplomatic correspondence. Journal of Early Modern Studies 3. 117–131.Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2013. Making knowledge visible in discourse: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Studies 15(5). 627–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevala, Minna. 2011. Altering distance and defining authority: Person reference in Late Modern English. In Jonathan Culpeper (ed.), Historical Sociopragmatics, 61–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okulska, Urszula. 2006. Textual strategies in the diplomatic correspondence of the Middle and Early Modern English periods: The narrative report letter as a genre. In Marina Dossena & Susan Fitzmaurice (eds.), Business and official correspondence: Historical investigations, 47–76. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna. 1999. Male and female styles in 17th correspondence: i think. Language Variation and Change 11. 123–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Correspondence. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: Historical pragmatics, 651–677. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Variation and change in patterns of self-reference in early English correspondence. In Jonathan Culpeper (ed.), Historical sociopragmatics, 83–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 2003. Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English, 1–17. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface (Current Research in the Semantic/Pragmatic Interface 6). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willliams, Graham T. 2013. Women’s epistolary utterance: A study of the letters of Joan and Maria Thynne, 1575–1611. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar