Article published in:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 8:3 (2018) ► pp. 341362
References

References

Aijmer, Karin
2013 “Analyzing Modal Adverbs as Modal Particles and Discourse Markers.” In Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description, ed. by Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie, and Paola Pietrandrea, 89–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alschuler, Albert
2005 “Narrative and Normativity: Comments on the Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial.” Journal of Legal History 26: 91–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Archer, Dawn
2002 “ ‘Can Innocent People be Guilty?’: A Sociopragmatic Analysis of Examination Transcripts of the Salem Witchcraft Trials.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3: 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760): A Sociopragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “The Historical Courtroom: A Diachronic Investigation of English Courtroom Practice.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson, 185–198. New York: Routledge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Historical Pragmatics: Evidence form the Old Bailey.” Transactions of the Philological Society 112: 259–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail
1986Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Beattie, John
1986Crime and the Courts in England 1660–1800. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bogoch, Bryna
1999 “Courtroom Discourse and the Gendered Construction of Professional Identity.” Law and Social Inquiry 24: 329–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, Charles and Richard Bauman
1992 “Genre, Intertextuality, and Social Power.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 2: 131–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson
1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, David
1998Advocacy and the Making of the Adversarial Criminal Trial 1800–1865. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 360 ]
Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarthy
2006Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide to Spoken and Written Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cavalieri, Silvia
2011 “The Role of Metadiscourse in Counsels’ Questions.” In Exploring Courtroom Discourse: The Language of Power and Control, ed. by Anne Wagner and Le Cheng, 79–110. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Cecconi, Elisabetta
2012The Language of Defendants in the 17th Century English Courtroom: A Sociopragmatic Analysis of the Prisoners’ Interactional Role and Representation. Berlin: Peter Lang.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2012 “Performing Self in the Witness Stand: Stance and Relational Work in Expert Witness Testimony.” Discourse & Society 23: 456–486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Dramatic Monologues: The Grammaticalization of Speaking Roles in Courtroom Opening Statements.” Pragmatics 24: 757–784. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Yanrong
2004 “Courtroom Questioning as a Culturally Situated Persuasive Genre of Talk.” Discourse & Society 15: 705–722. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danet, Brenda
1980 “Language in the Legal Process.” Law and Society Review 15: 445–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duszak, Anna
(ed.) 2002Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, Janet
1993 “Hearing between the Lines: Style Switching in a Courtroom Setting.” Pragmatics 3: 29–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Haydock, Roger and John Sonsteng
1991Trial: Theories, Tactics, Techniques. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, Tim and Robert Shoemaker
2007 “The Value of the Proceedings as a Historical Source. Old Bailey Proceedings Online.” http://​www​.oldbaileyonline​.org (accessed 5 Nov 2017)
Hobbs, Pamela
2003 “ ‘Is That What We’re Here about?’: A Lawyer’s Use of Impression Management in a Closing Argument at Trial.” Discourse & Society 14: 273–290.Google Scholar
2008 “ ‘It’s Not What You Say but How You Say It’: The Role of Personality and Identity in Trial Success.” Critical Discourse Studies 5: 231–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hostettler, John
2006Fighting for Justice: The History and Origins of Adversary Trial. Hook: Waterside Press.Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus
2007 “The Old Bailey Proceedings (1674–1834): Evaluating and Annotating a Corpus of 18th and 19th Century Spoken English.” http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/journal​/volumes​/01​/huber
Hyland, Ken
2001 “Bringing in the Reader: Address Features in Academic Articles. Written Communication 18: 549–574. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 7: 173–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia
1994‘What Else can I Tell you’: A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato and Adrienne Lehrer
1990 “Impersonal Uses of Personal Pronouns.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 739–759. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 361 ]
Landsman, Stephen
1990 “The Rise of the Contentious Spirit: Adversary Procedure in Eighteenth Century England.” Cornell Law Review 50: 498–609.Google Scholar
Langbein, John
1999 “The Prosecutorial Origins of Defence Counsel in the Eighteenth Century: The Appearance of Solicitors.” Cambridge Law Journal 58: 314–365.Google Scholar
2003The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ma, Yue
2008 “Exploring the Origins of Public Prosecution.” International Criminal Justice Review 18: 190–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Peter White
2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory
2001Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mauet, Thomas
2013Trial Techniques and Trials, 9th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
May, Allyson
2003The Bar and the Old Bailey 1750–1850. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Pascual, Esther
2006 “Fictive Interaction within the Sentence: A Communicative Type of Fictivity in Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 17: 245–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, Alastir
1994 “The Politics of Pronouns.” ELT Journal 48: 173–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosulek, Laura
2015Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992Lectures on Conversations, vol. 1 and 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1976 “The Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5: 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shoemaker, Robert
2008 “The Old Bailey Proceedings and the Representation of Crime and Criminal Justice in Eighteenth-Century London.” Journal of British Studies 47: 559–580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stygall, Gail
1994Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth
2011 “Constructing the Audiences of the Old Bailey Trials 1674–1834.” In Communicating Early English Manuscripts, ed. by Paivi Pahta and Andreas Jucker, 69–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda
2000 “The Dialogic Action Game.” In Dialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, Janet Cotterill, and Fraces Rock, 1–18. Tubingen: Niemeyer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Conflict Resolution in Court.” Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Special issue of Studies in Communication Sciences 193–202.Google Scholar
2010 “Language as Dialogue.” Intercultural Pragmatics 7: 505–515. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 “Dialogue: The Key to Pragmatics.” In From Pragmatics to Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes, 5–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zupnik, Yael-Janette
1994 “A Pragmatic Analysis of the Use of Person Deixis in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 21: 339–384. Crossref[ p. 362 ]Google Scholar