Article published in:
Historical (socio)pragmatics at present
Edited by Matylda Włodarczyk and Irma Taavitsainen
[Journal of Historical Pragmatics 18:2] 2017
► pp. 214–234

Discursive (re)construction of “witchcraft” as a community and “witch” as an identity in the eighteenth-century Hungarian witchcraft trial records

| Lancaster University
This paper provides a qualitative historical (socio)pragmatic analysis of records of three eighteenth-century Hungarian witchcraft trials using a socio-cognitive model of discursive community and identity construction. I aim to describe how the general social and legal context of witchcraft became situated and interpreted in the actual witchcraft trial records from the delegated officials’ perspective. I argue that in the analysed records, the officials did not simply apply a codified definition of “witchcraft”, but they discursively (re)constructed “witchcraft” as a community and “witch” as the defendants’ identity. Thus, from the officials’ perspective, discursive community and identity construction established a relationship between the general context of witchcraft and the actual witchcraft trials. In order to reconstruct this process, I investigate the linguistic constructs by which the delegated officials actively created “witchcraft” and the defendants’ “witch” identity as mental constructs.
Keywords: cognitive pragmatics, community, Hungarian, identity, witchcraft trial
Published online: 09 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00003.pet
References

References

Archer, Dawn
2002 “Can Innocent People be Guilty?” A Sociopragmatic Analysis of Examination Transcripts from the Salem Witchcraft Trials”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3 (1): 1–30 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bessenyei, József
(ed.) 1997 A Magyarországi boszorkányság forrásai I. [‘Sources of the Hungarian Witchcraft I.’]. Budapest: Balassi.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary
1999 “ ‘Why be Normal?’: Language and Identity Practices in a Community of Nerd Girls”. Language in Society 29 (2): 203–23.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall
2005 “Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach”. Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 585–614. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas
2007 Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
2009 “Historical Sociopragmatics: An Introduction”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10 (2): 179–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Elena Semino
2000 “Constructing Witches and Spells: Speech Acts and Activity Types in Early Modern England”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (1): 97–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A.
2007 “Comments on Context and Conversation”. In Norman Fairclough, Giuseppina Cortese and Patrizia Ardizzone (eds), Contemporary Social Change, 281–316. Bern: Peter Lang Bern.Google Scholar
2012 “Discourse and Knowledge”. In James P. Gee and Michael Handford (eds), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 587–603. Routledge. London.Google Scholar
Doty, Kathleen and Risto Hiltunen
2009 “Formulaic Discourse and Speech Acts in the Witchcraft Trial Records of Salem, 1692”. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (3): 458–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dömötör, Tekla
1982 Hungarian Folk Beliefs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope and Saly McConnell-Ginet
1995 “Constructing Meaning, Constructing Selves: Snapshots of Language, Gender and Class from Belten High”. In Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz (eds), Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self, 459–507. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
(ed.) 2014a Magyar generatív történeti mondattan [‘Hungarian Generative Historical Syntax’]. Budapest: Akadémiai.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2014b The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gecsei, Lajos
1984 Tanúk és vádlottak vallomásai. A Békés vármegyei boszorkányperekből [‘Witness and Defendant Testimonies. From Békés County Witchcraft Trials’]. Békéscsaba: Békés Megyei Tanács.Google Scholar
Hajdu, Lajos
1985 Bűntett és büntetés Magyarországon a XVIII. század utolsó harmadában [‘Crime and Punishment in Hungary in the Last Quarter of the Eighteenth Century’]. Budapest: Magvető.Google Scholar
Kiss, Jenő and Ferenc Pusztai
(eds) 2005 Magyar nyelvtörténet [‘A History of the Hungarian Language’]. Budapest: Osiris.Google Scholar
Klaniczay, Gábor
1986 “Boszorkányhit, boszorkányvád, boszorkányüldözés a XVI–XVIII. Században” [‘Witchcraft Belief, Accusation of Witchcraft and Witch-Hunt in the 16–18th centuries’]. Ethnographia 97 (2–4): 257–95.Google Scholar
Komáromi, Tünde
2002 “Hat boszorkány rontásai. Kolozsvár, 1854” [‘Spells of Six Witches. Cluj, 1854’]. In Töhötöm Árpád Szabó (ed.), Életutak és életmódok [‘Life Courses and Lifestyles’], 7–37. Kolozsvár/Cluj-Napoca: Kriza János Néprajzi Társaság.Google Scholar
Koncz Ibolya, Katalin
2005 “A boszorkánykutatásban megjelenő 15–18. századi történeti érvelések” [‘Historical Arguments in the Research of Witchcraft from the 15–18th century’]. Jogtörténeti tanulmányok 40 (8): 281–99.Google Scholar
2007 A boszorkányüldözés jogtörténeti kérdései a Német-római Birodalomban és a Királyi Magyarországon [‘Legal History Questions of Witch-Hunt in the Holy Roman Empire and in the Hungarian Kingdom’]. Unpublished PhD thesis. Miskolc: University of Miskolc.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán
2010 Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pócs, Éva
1995 “Malefícium-narratívok – konfliktusok – boszorkánytípusok (Sopron vármegye 1529–1768)” [‘Maleficium Marratives – Conflicts – Witch Types (Sopron county, 1529–1768)’]. Népi kultúra – Népi társadalom [‘Folk Culture – Folk Society’] 17: 9–66.Google Scholar
R. Várkonyi, Ágnes
1990 “Közgyógyítás és boszorkányhit” [‘Common Healing and Witchcraft Belief’]. Ethnographia 101 (3–4): 384–437.Google Scholar
Sárosi, Zsófia
2003 “Historical Sociopragmatics: A New Approach to the Study of the History of Hungarian”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50 (3–4): 435–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2012 “Generalizing the Apparently Ungeneralizable: Basic Ingredients of a Cognitive – Pragmatic Approach to the Construal of Meaning-in-Context”. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics, 3–24. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schram, Ferenc
1970 Magyarországi boszorkányperek 1529–1768. I. [‘Hungarian Witchcraft Trials 1526–1768. I.’]. Budapest: Akadémiai.Google Scholar
Sinha, Chris
2007 “Cognitive Linguistics, Psychology and Cognitive Science”. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 1266–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1995 [1986] Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackweil.Google Scholar
Suhr, Carla
2011 Publishing for the Masses: Early Modern English Witchcraft Pamphlets. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Sz. Kristóf, Ildikó
2013 “Witch-Hunting in Early Modern Hungary”. In Brian P. Levack (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, 334–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuggy, David
2007 “Schematicity”. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 82–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2007 “Construal and Perspectivization”. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 48–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wenger, Etienne
2000 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar