Cover not available
Part of
Legal Pragmatics
Edited by Dennis Kurzon and Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 288] 2018
► pp. 65–80

Chapter 3
Implicatures in Early Modern English courtroom records

| University of Vienna

This paper studies the role of conversational implicatures in the 17th century courtroom discourse. My hypothesis is that the use of the literal vs. non-literal language runs along the distinction between the powerless interrogated (the defendant, the witnesses) and the powerful interrogators (the judge, the counsel). While the interrogated had to resort to literal language in order to observe one of the rules of the Miranda warning (“Anything you say can be used against you”), the interrogators often employed different kinds of non-literal language for rhetorical purposes. Thus, the implicatures derivable from their discourse were instances of irony and even figures of speech, like metonymy or metaphor, which is illustrated by excerpts from three Early Modern English courtroom records. The trials of two representatives of the English nobility, The Trial of Titus Oates and The Trial of Lady Alice Lisle (both dated 1685) are contrasted with a unique case of the trial of a monarch, The Trial of King Charles (1649). The analysis reveals that while my hypothesis is corroborated by the data from the former trials, in the trial of a monarch some additional socio-historical variables have to be considered.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The analysis
    • 2.1The trial of Charles I (1649)
      • 2.1.1Historical background
      • 2.1.2Implicatures in the trial of Charles I
    • 2.2The trial of Titus Oates
      • 2.2.1Historical background
      • 2.2.2The analysis
    • 2.3The trial of Lady Alice Lisle
      • 2.3.1Historical background
      • 2.3.2Implicatures in The Trial of Lady Alice Lisle
  • 3.Final remarks
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.288.03kry
References

References

Primary sources]

Hargrave, Francis
(ed.) 1730 A Complete Collection of State-Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and other Crimes and Misdemeanours from the Reign of King Richard II to the End of the Reign of King George I. London: J. Walthoe Sen.Google Scholar
KING CHARLES HIS TRYAL AT THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SITTING IN WESTMINSTER HALL, TOGETHER WITH THE SEVERAL SPEECHES OF DUKE HAMILTON, THE EARL OF HOLLAND, AND THE LORD CAPEL, IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR EXECUTION
, ON FRIDAY, MARCH 9 1649 THE SECOND EDITION.Google Scholar

Secondary sources

Archer, Dawn
2005 Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cannon, John
(ed.) 1997 The Oxford Companion to British History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gardiner, Juliet and Neil Wenborn
(eds.) 1997 The Columbia Companion to British History. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
1975 “Logic and Conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics 3, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1989, Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara
2000 “Representations of Orality in Early Modern English Trial Records”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7(2): 213–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Synchronic and Diachronic Investigations in Pragmatics. Poznan: Motivex.Google Scholar
2012 “From Monarch, through Traitor, to Martyr and Saint: Power Shift in the Trial of King Charles I”. In Intercultural Communication Past and Present, ed. by Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky, 245–262. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis
1995 “The Right of Silence. A Socio-pragmatic Model of Interpretation.” Journal of Pragmatics 23: 55–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “The Politeness of Judges: American and British Judicial Behaviour”. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 61–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
2000 The Language War. Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
Leo, R. A. and Thomas, G. C.
(eds.) 1998 The Miranda Debate: Law, Justice and Policing. Boston: North-Eastern University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2001 Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Melinkoff, David
1963 The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu
1994 “Ladies and Gentlemen. The Generalization of Titles in Early Modern English”. In English Historical Linguistics 1992, ed. by Francisco Fernandez, et al, 317–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robertson, Geoffrey
2005 The Tyrannicide Brief. The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Trevelyan, George MacCauley
1973 English Social History. London: Book Club Associates.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2021. Naming as doing: Identities, positioning, and ideologies in capital trials. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 57:2 ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
李, 静
2023. A Review of Foreign Courtroom Discourse Studies. Modern Linguistics 11:05 ► pp. 2311 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 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.