“can innocent people be guilty?”: A sociopragmatic analysis of examination transcripts fromthe salemw itchcraft trials

Journal of Historical Pragmatics

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 1-30

  Archer, Dawn ^a  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84989382497     PISSN: 15665852     EISSN: 15699854     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/jhp.3.1.02arc     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Atkinson, John, and Paul Drew. 1979. Order in Court. London: The Macmillan Press Limited.
2. Boyer, Paul, and Stephen Nissenbaum. 1974. Salem Possessed: The Social Origin of Witchcraft. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
3. Boyer, Paul, and Stephen Nissenbaum. 1977. The Salem Witchcraft Papers: Verbatim Transcripts of the Legal Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Outbreak of1692. I-III. New York: Da Capo Press.
4. Churchill, Lindsey. 1978. Questioning Strategies in Sociolinguistics. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
5. Coulthard, Richard Malcolm. 1981. Developing the description. In: Richard Malcolm Coulthard and Martin Montgomery (eds.). Studies in discourse analysis. London: Routledge, 13-31.
6. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Merja Kyto. 1999. Investigating non-standard language in a corpus of Early Modern English dialogues: Methodological considerations and problems. In: Irma Taavitsainen, Gunnel Melchers and Paivi Pahta (eds.). Writing in Nonstandard English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 171-187.
7. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Merja Kyto. 2000. Gender voices in the spoken interaction of the past: A pilot study based on Early Modern English trial proceedings. In: Dieter Kastov-sky and Arthur Mettinger (eds.). The History of English in a Social Context (Trends in Linguistics 129). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 53-89.
8. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Elena Semino. 2000. Constructing witches and spells: Speech acts and activity types in Early Modern England. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1.1, 97-116.
9. Culpeper, Jonathan, Mick Short and Peter Verdonk. 1998. Exploring the Language of Drama. London: Routledge.
10. Goody, Esther N. 1978. Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. London: Academic Press, 41-58.
12. Hale, Sandra, and John Gibbons. 1999. Varying realities: Patterned changes in the interpreter’s representation of courtroom and external realities. Applied Linguistics 20/2:203-220.
13. Hargrave, Francis. 1776.81. A Complete Collection of State-trials and Proceedings for High-treason, and other Crimes and Misdemeanours. Fourth ed. London: Printed by T. Wright.
14. Harris, Sandra. 1984. Questions as a mode of control in magistrates’ courts. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 49, 5-27.
15. Hiltunen, Risto. 1996. “Tell me, be you a witch?”: Questions in the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law (2), 17-37.
16. Hudson, Richard A. 1975. The meaning of questions. Language 51.1, 1-31.
17. Jacobs, Andreas, and Andreas H. Jucker. 1995. The historical perspective in pragmatics. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.). Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3-36.
18. Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.). 1995. Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
19. Kiefer, Ferenc. 1979. What do the conversational maxims explain? Linguisticae Investigationes 3.1, 57-74.
20. Konig, David. 1979. Law and Society in Puritan Massachusetts: Essex County, 1629-1692. Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press.
21. Lakoff, Robin T. 1990. Talking Power: The Politics of Language. New York: Basic Books.
22. Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
23. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. Activity types and language. In: Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds.). Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66-100.
25. Longman Dictionary of the English Language. 1984. London: Longman Group Limited.
26. Luchjenbroers, June. 1997. In your own words: Questions and answers in a supreme court trial. Journal of Pragmatics 27, 477-503.
27. Maley, Yon, and Rhondda Fahey. 1991. Presenting the evidence: Constructions of reality in court. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 5/10, 3-17.
28. Mishler, Elliot G. 1975. Studies in dialogue and discourse II: Types of discourse initiated by and sustained through questioning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 4.2, 99-121.
29. Rissanen, Matti. 1997. “Candy no Witch, Barbados”: Salem Witchcraft Trials as evidence of Early American English. In: Henrich Ramisch and Kenneth Wynne (eds.). Language in Time and Space: Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Viereck on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik - Beihefte, Heft 97) Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 183-193.
30. Rosenthal, Bernard. 1993. Salem Story: Reading the Witch Trials of 1692. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. London: Blackwell.
32. Thomas, Jenny. 1986. A Pragmatic Approach to the Analysis of Confrontational Interaction. Unpublished PhD thesis. Dept of Linguistics and MEL: Lancaster University
33. Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman Group Limited.
34. Trevelyan, George M. 1973. English Social History. London: Book Club Associates.
35. Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
36. Woodbury, Hanni. 1984. The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica 48.3/4, 197-228.