This study examines the practices of scribes who recorded the examinations of those accused of witchcraft in Salem in 1692. The data consists of 68 records of examinations held between March and October 1692 and in January 1693. Each record is coded for two features: use of contextual commentary and evaluative adjectives or adverbs which suggest attitudes and values of the scribes and reflect the pragmatic context. Records are also coded according to presentation in direct discourse or reported discourse. Records presented in direct discourse and those occurring in the early period of the trials contain the greatest number of both contextual commentary and evaluative/subjective adjectives or adverbs. The analysis reveals that the majority of the records are written by four identified scribes.
2009. Formulaic discourse and speech acts in the witchcraft trial records of Salem, 1692. Journal of Pragmatics 41:3 ► pp. 458 ff.
Grund, Peter J.
2012. Textual History as Language History? Text Categories, Corpora, Editions, and the Witness Depositions from the Salem Witch Trials1. Studia Neophilologica 84:sup1 ► pp. 40 ff.
Grund, Peter J.
2020. Writing the Salem Witch Trials. In A Companion to American Literature, ► pp. 73 ff.
Inoue, Miyako
2018. Word for Word: Verbatim as Political Technologies. Annual Review of Anthropology 47:1 ► pp. 217 ff.
2018. Prose Structure. In The Linguistics of Spoken Communication in Early Modern English Writing, ► pp. 135 ff.
Marcus, Imogen
2018. Early Modern English Manuscript Letters as Data: Distinguishing Between Holograph and Scribal Writing. In The Linguistics of Spoken Communication in Early Modern English Writing, ► pp. 39 ff.
Peikola, Matti
2012. Supplicatory Voices: Genre Properties of the 1692 Petitions in the Salem Witch-Trials1. Studia Neophilologica 84:sup1 ► pp. 106 ff.
Tachino, Tosh
2017. Documenting knowledge mobilization: a quantitative analysis of citation and reported speech in a Canadian public inquiry. Text & Talk 37:6 ► pp. 735 ff.
Tachino, Tosh
2021. Mobilizing knowledge. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 15:3
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 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.