The use of videlicet in early modern slander depositions

Journal of Historical Pragmatics

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 245-263

  Moore, Colette ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Discourse marker; Early Modern English; Grammaticalization; Legal language; Slander depositions

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248715506     PISSN: 15665852     EISSN: 15699854     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/jhp.7.2.05moo     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Blakemore, Diane. 1988. So as a constraint on relevance. In: Ruth M. Kempson (ed.). Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183-195.
2. Brinton, Laurel. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. (Topics in English Linguistics). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
3. Brinton, Laurel J. 2000. The importance of discourse types in grammaticalization: The case of anon. In: Susan C. Herring, Pieter van Reenen and Lene Schosler (eds.). Textual Parameters in Older Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 139-162.
4. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Merja Kyto. 1999. Modifying pragmatic force: Hedges in Early Modern English dialogues. In: Andreas H. Jucker, Gerd Fritz and Franz Lebsanft (eds.). Historical Dialogue Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 293-312.
5. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Merja Kyto. 2000. Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1.2, 175-99.
6. Cusack, Bridget (ed.). 1998. Everyday English 1500-1700: A Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
7. Fisher, John Hurt. 1996. The Emergence of Standard English. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.
8. Fleischman, Suzanne. 1991. Discourse as space/Discourse as time: Reflections on the metalanguage of spoken and written discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 16, 291-306.
9. Fraser, Bruce. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38, 19-33.
10. Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 383-395.
11. Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6.2, 167-190.
12. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1997. Alors and donc in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics 28, 153-187.
13. Helmholz, Richard H. 1985. Select Cases on Defamation to 1600. London: Selden Society.
14. Hope, Jonathan. 1993. Second person singular pronouns in records of Early Modern ‘spoken’ English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 94, 83-100.
15. Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 1.1, 91-110.
16. Jucker, Andreas H. 2002. Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In: Richard Watts and Peter Trudgill (eds.). Alternative Histories of English. London: Routledge, 210-230.
17. Jucker, Andreas H., and Sara W Smith. 1998. “And people just you know like ‘wow’”: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In: Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv (eds.). Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171-201.
18. Koch, Peter. 1999. Court records and cartoons: Reflections of spontaneous dialogue in early Romance texts. In: Andreas H. Jucker, Gerd Fritz and Franz Lebsanft (eds.). Historical Dialogue Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 399-430.
19. Koivisto-Alanko, Paivi, and Matti Rissanen. 2002. We give you to wit: Semantics and grammaticalisation of the verb wit in the history of English. In: Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi and Matti Rissanen (eds.). Variation Past and Present: VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 13-32.
20. Kroon, Caroline. 1997. Discourse markers, discourse structure and Functional Grammar. In: John H. Connolly, Roel M. Vismans, Christopher S. Butler and Richard A. Gatward (eds.). Discourse and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 17-32.
21. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 1997. From temporal adverbs to discourse particles. In: Terttu Ne-valainen and Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honor of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 319-328.
22. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2000. Representations of orality in Early Modern English trial records. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1.2, 201-230.
23. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2003. Verbal abuse in Early Modern English court trial records: a micro case study. Paper read at 8th International Pragmatics Conference, Toronto 2003.
24. Kyto, Merja. 1996. Manual to the Diachronic Part of The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Coding Conventions and Source Texts. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.
25. Lenker, Ursula. 2000. So^lice and witodlice: Discourse markers in Old English. In: Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach and Dieter Stein (eds.). Pathways of Change: Grammatical-ization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 229-249.
26. Maschler, Yael. 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual communication. Language in Society 23, 352-366.
27. Moore, Colette. 2002. The treatment of direct speech in Early Modern slander depositions. In: Donka Minkova and Robert Stockwell (eds.). Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 339-416.
28. Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. But, Only, Just: Focusing Adverbial Change in Modern English 1500-1900. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 51). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
29. Norrick, Neal R. 2001. Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 849-878.
30. Pahta, Paivi, and Saara Nevanlinna. 2001. On markers of expository exposition. North-Western European Language Evolution 39, 3-51.
31. Rissanen, Matti. 1997. Introduction. In: Matti Rissanen, Merja Kyto and Kirsi Hiekkonen (eds.). Grammaticalization at Work: Studies of Long-term Developments in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-15.
32. Rissanen, Matti. 2000. Standardisation and the language of early statues. In: Laura Wright (ed.). The Development of Standard English, 1300-1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117-130.
33. Romaine, Suzanne, and Deborah Lange. 1991. The Use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66.3, 227-279.
34. Schendl, Herbert. 2002. Mixed language texts as data and evidence in English historical linguistics. In: Donka Minkova and Robert Stockwell (eds.). Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 51-78.
35. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Schourup, Lawrence C. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York: Garland.
37. Schourup, Lawrence C. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107, 227-265.
38. Stein, Dieter. 1985. Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In: Roger Eaton, Olga Fischer, Willem Koopman and Frederike van der Leek (eds.). Papers from the Fourth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 283-302.
39. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65.1, 31-55.
40. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper read at ICHL XII, at Manchester. http://www.stanford.edu/˜traugott/papers/discourse.pdf.
41. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Vázquez Veiga Nancy. 2000. Discourse markers: A pragmatic category? In: Héctor Campos, Elena Herberger, Alfonso Morales-Front and Thomas J. Walsh (eds.). Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of the Millennium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 352-363.