Article published in:
The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 113–130

Persuading and arguing with the reader

Fictive interaction as discourse organizing device in witchcraft pamphlet prefaces (1566–1621)

| Hanyang University, South Korea
Integrating Goffman’s concept of footing (1981), this chapter examines textually monologic – but conceptually dialogic – prefatory materials of Early Modern English witchcraft pamphlets (1566 to 1621) and explicates how pamphleteers consistently invoke and inhabit different speaking roles to set up fictive exchanges with imagined addressees. By alternating between speaking perspectives during such fictive interaction, the pamphleteer is able to persuade and argue with the here-and-now reader, thereby promoting the reception of the main text.
Keywords: authorial role, character role, footing, interlocutory role, speaking roles
Published online: 01 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.06cha
References
Bakhtin, M.M
(1981) Discourse in the novel. In M.M. Bakhtin (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin (pp. 259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
(1984) Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
(1986) Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, R
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chaemsaithong, K
(2011) Discursive control and persuasion in Early Modern News Discourse: The case of English witchcraft pamphlets and their prefaces (1579–1621). English Text Construction, 4, 228–256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Interaction in early modern news discourse: The case of English witchcraft pamphlets and their prefaces (1566–1621). Text & Talk, 33, 167–188.Google Scholar
Claridge, C
(2010) News discourse. In A. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Historical pragmatics (pp. 587–620). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Gerrig, R.J
(1990) Quotation as demonstration. Language 66, 784–805. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, S
(1983) The Elizabethan pamphleteers: Popular moralistic pamphlets 1580–1640. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
Cooren, F
(2010) Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Communication theory at the center: Ventriloquism and the communicative constitution of reality. Journal of Communication, 62, 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cooren, F., & Sandler, S
(2014) Polyphony, ventriloquism, and constitution: In dialogue with Bakhtin. Communication Theory, 24, 225–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N
(1992) Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, M
(1999) Reading witchcraft: Stories of English witches. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2000) Early Modern witches: Witchcraft cases in contemporary writing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goffman, E
(1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C
(2007) Interactive footing. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk: Reporting speech interaction (pp. 16–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D
(1981) Breakthrough into performance. In D. Hymes (Ed.), “In vain I tried to tell you”: Essays in Native American ethnopoetics (pp. 79–141). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Koshik, I
(2005) Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koven, M
(2002) An analysis of speaker role inhabitance in narratives of personal experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 167–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1999) Virtual reality. Studies in Linguistic Sciences, 29, 77–103.Google Scholar
Levack, B
(2006) The witch-hunt in Early Modern Europe (3rd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Pascual, E
(2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOTGoogle Scholar
(2006a) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 245–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text & Talk, 26, 383–402. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, J
(2003) Pamphlets and pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D
(1986) Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narratives. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 311–322). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) Hearing voices in conversation, fiction, and mixed genres. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding (pp. 89–113). Norwoord NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(1995) Waiting for the mouse: Constructed dialogue in conversation. In D. Tedlock & B. Mannheim (Eds.), The dialogic emergence of culture (pp. 198–217). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
[1989] (2007) Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 399–420. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zelizer, B
(1989) Saying as collective practice: Quoting and differential address in the news. Text, 9, 369–388.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Xiang, Mingjian & Esther Pascual
2022. Debate with zhuangzi. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 137 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 may 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.