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
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.
Zupnik, Yael-Janette
1994 “
A Pragmatic Analysis of the Use of Person Deixis in Political Discourse.”
Journal of Pragmatics 211: 339–384.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
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 3 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.