Dialogic features and interpersonal management in the early courtroom action game
The case of the opening statement
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Historical courtroom and opening statements
- 3.Dialogic features and interpersonal management
- 4.Method
- 5.Findings
- 5.1Building solidarity and fostering in-groupness
- 5.1.1Second-person pronouns
- 5.1.2Inclusive first-person plural pronouns
- 5.2Negotiating meaning and securing consent
- 5.2.1Appeals to shared knowledge
- 5.2.2Asides
- 5.2.3Directives
- 5.2.4Questions
- 6.Conclusion
- Note
-
References
References (53)
References
Alschuler, Albert. 2005. “Narrative and Normativity: Comments on the Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial.” Journal of Legal History 261: 91–97.
Archer, Dawn. 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.
Archer, Dawn. 2014. “Historical Pragmatics: Evidence form the Old Bailey.” Transactions of the Philological Society 1121: 259–277.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Beattie, John. 1986. Crime and the Courts in England 1660–1800. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bogoch, Bryna. 1999. “Courtroom Discourse and the Gendered Construction of Professional Identity.” Law and Social Inquiry 241: 329–375.
Briggs, Charles and Richard Bauman. 1992. “Genre, Intertextuality, and Social Power.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 21: 131–172.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cairns, David. 1998. Advocacy and the Making of the Adversarial Criminal Trial 1800–1865. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide to Spoken and Written Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2012. “Performing Self in the Witness Stand: Stance and Relational Work in Expert Witness Testimony.” Discourse & Society 231: 456–486.
Chang, Yanrong. 2004. “Courtroom Questioning as a Culturally Situated Persuasive Genre of Talk.” Discourse & Society 151: 705–722.
Danet, Brenda. 1980. “Language in the Legal Process.” Law and Society Review 151: 445–565.
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Haydock, Roger and John Sonsteng. 1991. Trial: Theories, Tactics, Techniques. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
Hitchcock, Tim and Robert Shoemaker. 2007. “The Value of the Proceedings as a Historical Source. Old Bailey Proceedings Online.” [URL] (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 141: 273–290.
Hobbs, Pamela. 2008. “‘It’s Not What You Say but How You Say It’: The Role of Personality and Identity in Trial Success.” Critical Discourse Studies 51: 231–248.
Hostettler, John. 2006. Fighting for Justice: The History and Origins of Adversary Trial. Hook: Waterside Press.
Huber, Magnus. 2007. “The Old Bailey Proceedings (1674–1834): Evaluating and Annotating a Corpus of 18th and 19th Century Spoken English.” [URL]
Hyland, Ken. 2001. “Bringing in the Reader: Address Features in Academic Articles. Written Communication 181: 549–574.
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 71: 173–192.
Ilie, Cornelia. 1994. ‘What Else can I Tell you’: A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Kitagawa, Chisato and Adrienne Lehrer. 1990. “Impersonal Uses of Personal Pronouns.” Journal of Pragmatics 141: 739–759.
Landsman, Stephen. 1990. “The Rise of the Contentious Spirit: Adversary Procedure in Eighteenth Century England.” Cornell Law Review 501: 498–609.
Langbein, John. 1999. “The Prosecutorial Origins of Defence Counsel in the Eighteenth Century: The Appearance of Solicitors.” Cambridge Law Journal 581: 314–365.
Langbein, John. 2003. The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ma, Yue. 2008. “Exploring the Origins of Public Prosecution.” International Criminal Justice Review 181: 190–211.
Martin, J. R. and Peter White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Matoesian, Gregory. 2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mauet, Thomas. 2013. Trial Techniques and Trials, 9th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer.
May, Allyson. 2003. The Bar and the Old Bailey 1750–1850. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Pascual, Esther. 2006. “Fictive Interaction within the Sentence: A Communicative Type of Fictivity in Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 171: 245–267.
Pennycook, Alastir. 1994. “The Politics of Pronouns.” ELT Journal 481: 173–178.
Rosulek, Laura. 2015. Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversations, vol. 1 and 21. Oxford: Blackwell.
Searle, John R. 1976. “The Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 51: 1–24.
Shoemaker, Robert. 2008. “The Old Bailey Proceedings and the Representation of Crime and Criminal Justice in Eighteenth-Century London.” Journal of British Studies 471: 559–580.
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.
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.
Weigand, Edda. 2005. “Conflict Resolution in Court.” Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Special issue of Studies in Communication Sciences 193–202.
Weigand, Edda. 2010. “Language as Dialogue.” Intercultural Pragmatics 71: 505–515.
Weigand, Edda. 2018. “Dialogue: The Key to Pragmatics.” In From Pragmatics to Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes, 5–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zupnik, Yael-Janette. 1994. “A Pragmatic Analysis of the Use of Person Deixis in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 211: 339–384.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
李, 静
2023.
A Review of Foreign Courtroom Discourse Studies.
Modern Linguistics 11:05
► pp. 2311 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.