Article published In:
Journal of Historical PragmaticsVol. 20:1 (2019) ► pp.1–19
Special issue JHP 19:2
“But it is not prov’d”
A sociopragmatic study of the discourse marker but in the Early Modern English courtroom
Previous studies have found discourse markers to be represented with only low frequencies in Early Modern English
trial proceedings, especially when compared to other dialogic and fictional text types from the same period. Nevertheless, they
comprise certain classes of markers, such as contrastive markers, which operate on different levels of discourse. This study aims
to provide further insights into the use of the coordinator but in a sociopragmatically annotated corpus of trial
proceedings from the period 1560 to 1760. Drawing on contextual information, the analysis will assess the distribution of
but throughout the Early Modern English period and address certain peaks in its use. In addition, the
sociopragmatic information included in the corpus will be consulted to discover which trial participants used the form repeatedly
in their speech and with which functions. Overall, this study will therefore offer an innovative sociopragmatic profile of
but as a contrastive marker in Early Modern English trials.
Keywords: contrastive markers, corpus linguistics, Early Modern English, sociopragmatics, trial proceedings
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The contrastive marker but
- 3.Identifying units of speech in historical transcripts
- 4.Extending the Sociopragmatic Corpus
- 5.Analysis of the discourse marker but in the SPC
- 6.Conclusion
- Note
-
Sources -
References
References (24)
CED = A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. 2006. Compiled under the supervision of Merja Kytö (Uppsala University) and Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University).
SPC = Sociopragmatic Corpus. 2007. Annotated under the supervision of Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University). A derivative of A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760, compiled under the supervision of Merja Kytö (Uppsala University) and Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University).
Archer, Dawn. 2005. Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760): A Sociopragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Archer, Dawn and Jonathan Culpeper. 2003. “Sociopragmatic Annotation: New Directions and Possibilities in Historical Corpus Linguistics”. In Andrew Wilson, Paul Rayson and Tony McEnery (eds), Corpus Linguistics by the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech, 37–58. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
Blake, Norman F. 1996. A History of the English Language. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Brinton, Laurel J. 2010. “Discourse Markers”. In Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Historical Pragmatics, 285–314. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Csulich, Gabriela. 2016. “(Im)politeness, Social Status, and Roles in the Early Modern English Courtroom: Your Lordship and Traitor in High Treason and Ordinary Criminal Trials”. In Minna Nevala, Ursula Lutzky, Gabriella Mazzon and Carla Suhr (eds), The Pragmatics and Stylistics of Identity Construction and Characterisation. Available online at: [URL]
Culpeper, Jonathan and Merja Kytö. 1999. “Modifying Pragmatic Force. Hedges in Early Modern English Dialogues”. In Andreas H. Jucker, Gerd Fritz and Franz Lebsanft (eds), Historical Dialogue Analysis, 293–312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues. Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, Bruce. 2009. “An Account of Discourse Markers”. International Review of Pragmatics 1(2): 293–320.
. 2013. “Combinations of Contrastive Discourse Markers in English”. International Review of Pragmatics 5(2): 318–340.
. 2015. “The Combining of Discourse Markers – a Beginning”. Journal of Pragmatics 861: 48–53.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hammer, Paul E. J. 2004. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. “Devereux, Robert, second earl of Essex (1565–1601)”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online edition, October 2008. Accessed 13 January 2017 at: [URL]
Hopkins, Paul. 2004. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. “Rookwood, Ambrose (1664–1696)”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online edition, January 2008. Accessed 18 January 2017 at: [URL]
Jucker, Andreas H. 2002. “Discourse Markers in Early Modern English”. In Richard Watts and Peter Trudgill (eds), Alternative Histories of English, 210–230. London: Routledge.
Langbein, John H. 2003. The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lutzky, Ursula. 2012. Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Redeker, Gisela. 1991. “Linguistic Markers of Discourse Structure”. Linguistics 291: 1139–1172.
Salmon, Eric. 2004. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. “Cibber, Theophilus (1703–1758)”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online edition, May 2005. Accessed 13 November 2017: [URL]
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Graham T. 2013. Women’s Epistolary Utterance: A Study of the Letters of Joan and Maria Thynne, 1575–1611. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Williams, Penry. 2004. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. “Babington, Anthony (1561–1586)”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online edition, September 2015. Accessed 13 November 2017 at: [URL]
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Wright, David, Jeremy Robson, Helen Murray-Edwards & Natalie Braber
2022. The pragmatic functions of ‘respect’ in lawyers' courtroom discourse: A case study of Brexit hearings. Journal of Pragmatics 187 ► pp. 1 ff. 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 january 2023. 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.