This paper draws on the trial section of the Sociopragmatic Corpus to explore the interaction of judges and defendants in the English courtroom (1640–1760). I show that defendants tended to be more actively involved in their defence than defendants are today, because of: (i) the absence of legal counsel (although this was changing during our period), and (ii) a perceived need that defendants should demonstrate their own innocence, via their response(s) to evidence given against them. I also reveal that the judges’ role differed from the role adopted by judges today. Rather than presiding over the court, they were actively involved in the trial’s production. Moreover, several of the treason trials within the corpus suggest that their interaction with defendants did not follow a question–answer format. Consequently, I propose that we might need to study more than questions and answers to fully appreciate the dynamics of the historical courtroom.
2023. A Review of Foreign Courtroom Discourse Studies. Modern Linguistics 11:05 ► pp. 2311 ff.
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad
2019. Register, Genre, and Style,
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2012. Performing self on the witness stand: Stance and relational work in expert witness testimony. Discourse & Society 23:5 ► pp. 465 ff.
Archer, Dawn
2011. Facework and im/politeness across legal contexts: An introduction. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 7:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Cecconi, Elisabetta
2011. Power confrontation and verbal duelling in the arraignment section of XVII century trials. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 7:1
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.