Article published in:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 8:3 (2018) ► pp. 341–362

Dialogic features and interpersonal management in the early courtroom action game

The case of the opening statement

| Hanyang University Seoul (South Korea)
There are certain areas where present-day studies of language use can learn from history. Using a dialogue-analytic approach, this study investigates dialogic features and interpersonal management in the early English courtroom. Drawing upon a corpus of 81 opening statements from the Proceedings of the Old Bailey (1759–1799), the quantitative and qualitative analysis reveals that this courtroom action game is highly dialogic and that an active jury was significantly presupposed in this particular historical setting. The lawyers consistently endeavored to solicit solidarity and in-groupness through pronominal choices, and to argumentatively negotiate agreement and secure consent through directives, shared knowledge markers, asides, and questions. The findings testify to the central role of dialogism and interpersonal negotiation in historical courtroom action games.
Keywords: audience orientation, early courtroom action games, engagement resources, interpersonal negotiation
Published online: 02 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00021.cha
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
2005 Questions 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
1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Beattie, John
1986 Crime 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
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, David
1998 Advocacy and the Making of the Adversarial Criminal Trial 1800–1865. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 360 ]
Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarthy
2006 Cambridge 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
2012 The 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.) 2002 Us 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
1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Haydock, Roger and John Sonsteng
1991 Trial: 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
2006 Fighting 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
2005 Stance 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
2003 The 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
2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory
2001 Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mauet, Thomas
2013 Trial Techniques and Trials, 9th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
May, Allyson
2003 The 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
2015 Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures 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
1994 Trial 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