Email this article “I can give reasons for that opinion if required”: Metadiscourse and gender in historical expert and lay witness testimonies
Abstract
Drawing on previous research, this study aims to investigate the use of metadiscoursive features in the transcripts from trials regarding the crimes of birth-concealing and infanticide committed in England between the 19th and the 20th centuries. Generally, the prisoner or defendant was a young woman who worked as a cook, a lady’s maid, a servant in a house, or a seamstress at a tailor. The transcripts of testimonies are selected from the Old Bailey Proceedings Online, a fully searchable website providing accounts of all the records of crimes committed in London and Middlesex between 1674 and 1913. Seminal works on historical pragmatics (Jucker 2008), research on language and power in court (Maley 2000, Stygall 2001, Cotterill 2003, Heffer 2005, Chaemsaithong 2012), together with influential studies on the historical courtroom discourse (Culpeper and Kytö 2000, Kryk-Kastovsky 2006) have revealed that several differences in the witnesses’ speech production are more often than not, gender and social status related. After a sociopragmatic and historical pragmatic analysis of the social and professional roles of the witnesses involved in the trials in the ad hoc corpora, this work investigates how certain metadiscoursive features (Hyland 2005), such as boosters, hedges, and self-mentions, contribute to express certainty, confidence and personal involvement or contrariwise, uncertainty, indecision or hesitation about the statements uttered, and the narratives exposed before judges and lawyers in court. The corpus-driven analysis was supported by a thorough qualitative study of the data, which allowed to draw the conclusions that the interactional metadiscoursive strategies used in the testimonies are rhetorical tools that help negotiate identity, credibility, power, gender roles, professional position, and social status in the institutional context under scrutiny.
References
Austin J.L. 1962, How to Do Things with Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MS.
Benveniste É. 1990 [1958], La Soggettività nel Linguaggio, in Problemi di Linguistica Generale, Il Saggiatore, Milano.
Cecconi E. 2010, Witness Narratives in 17th Century Trial Proceedings: A Case Study of Historical Courtroom Public Discourse, in Brownlees N., Del Lungo G. and Denton J. (ed.), The Language of Public and Private Communication in a Historical Perspective, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 245-262.
Chaemsaithong K. 2012, Performing Self on the Witness Stand: Stance and Relational Work in Expert Witness Testimony, in “Discourse and Society” 23 [5], pp. 465-486.
Claridge C., Jonsson E. and Kytö M. 2019, Entirely Innocent: A Historical Sociopragmatic Analysis of Maximizers in the Old Bailey Corpus, in “English Language and Linguistics” 24 [4], pp.855-874.
Claridge C., Jonsson E. and Kytö M. 2021, A Little Something Goes a Long Way: Little in the Old Bailey Corpus, in “Journal of English Linguistics” 49 [1], pp. 61-89.
Conley J.M., O'Barr W.M. and Lind E.A. 1979, The Power of Language: Presentational Style in the Courtroom, in “Duke Law Journal” 1978 [6], pp. 1375-1399.
Cotterill J. 2003, Language and Power in Court. A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York.
Crowther M.A. 1981, The Workhouse System, 1834-1929: The History of an English Social Institution, Routledge, London.
Culpeper J. and Kytö M. 2000, Gender Voices in the Spoken Interaction of the Past: A Pilot Study Based on Early Modern English Trial Proceedings, in Kastovsky D. and Mettinger A. (ed.), The History of English in a Social Context, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 53-89.
Curzon L.B. 1995, Dictionary of Law, Macdonald and Evans, Estover, Plymouth.
Emsley C. 1996, The English Police: A Political and Social History, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Routledge, London.
Emsley C. 2005, Crime and Society in England, 1750-1900, Routledge, London.
Garzone G. and Santulli F. (ed.), 2008, Il Linguaggio Giuridico: Prospettive Interdisciplinari, Giuffrè Editore, Milano.
Giordano M. 2012, The Old Bailey Proceedings: Quoted Dialogue and Speaker Commitment in Witness Testimony, in Mazzon G. and Fodde L. (ed.), Historical Perspectives on Forms of English Dialogue, FrancoAngeli, Milano, pp. 321-342.
Giordano M. 2015, The Old Bailey Proceedings: Medical Discourse in Criminal Cases, in Gotti M., Maci S.M. and Sala M. (eds.), The Language of Medicine: Science, Practice and Academia, CERLIS Series, Vol. 5, CELSB Libreria Universitaria, Bergamo, pp. 231-253.
Giordano M. 2016, Courtroom Discourse in Common-Law Contexts. Past and Present, Aipsa Edizioni, Cagliari.
Heffer C. 2005, The Language of Jury Trial. A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York.
Hitchcock T., Shoemaker R., Emsley C., Howard S. and McLaughlin J. 2003-18, The Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 1674-1913. www.oldbaileyonline.org (24.10.2025).
Huber M. 2007, The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1674-1834. Evaluating and Annotating a Corpus of 18th- and 19th-century Spoken English, in Meurman-Solin A. and Nurmi A. (ed.) Annotating Variation and Change. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/01/huber/ (24.10.2025).
Huber M., Nissel M. and Puga K. 2016, The Old Bailey Corpus 2.0, 1720-1913: Manual. http://fedora.clarin -d.uni-saarland.de/oldbailey/documentation.html (24.10.2025).
Huddleston R. and Pullum G. 2002, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hyland K. 1998a, Boosting, Hedging and the Negotiation of Academic Knowledge, in “Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse” 18 [3], pp. 349-382.
Hyland K. 1998b, Hedging Scientific Research Articles, John Benjamin, Amsterdam.
Hyland K. and Tse P. 2004, Metadiscourse in Scholastic Writing: A Reappraisal, in “Applied Linguistics” 25 [2], pp. 156-177.
Hyland K. 2005, Metadiscourse. Exploring Interaction in Writing, Continuum, London and New York.
Hyland K. and Jiang, K. 2019, Text-organizing Metadiscourse: Tracking Changes in Rhetorical Persuasion, in “Journal of Historical Pragmatics” 20 [1], pp. 137-164.
Jucker A.H. 2008, Historical Pragmatics, in “Language and Linguistics Compass” 2 [5], pp. 894-906.
Kryk-Kastovsky B. 2006, Historical Courtroom Discourse. Introduction, in “Journal of Historical Pragmatics” 7 [2], pp. 163-179.
Maley Y. 2000, The Case of the Long-nosed Potoroo. The Framing and Construction of Expert Witness Testimony, in Sarangi S. and Coulthard M. (ed.) Discourse and Social Life, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, England, pp. 246-269.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Merriam-Webster: America’s Most Trusted Dictionary.
Milroy C.M. 2017, A Brief History of the Expert Witness, in “Academic Forensic Pathology” 7 [4], pp. 516-526.
Mnookin J.L. 2001, Scripting Expertise: The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Reliability, in “Virginia Law Review” 87 [8], pp. 1723-1845.
Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G. and Svartvik J. 1985, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, London.
Stygall G. 2001, A Different Class of Witnesses. Experts in the Courtroom, in “Discourse Studies” 3 [3], pp. 327-349.
Stewart W.J. 2007, Collins Dictionary of Law, Collins, London.
Walker D.M. 1980, The Oxford Companion to Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Watson K.D. 2010, Forensic Medicine in Western Society: A History, Routledge, London.
Widlitzki B. and Huber M. 2016, Taboo Language and Swearing in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century English: A Diachronic Study Based on the Old Bailey Corpus, in López-Couso M.J., Méndez-Naya B., Núñez-Pertejo P. and Palacios-Martínez I.M. (ed.), Corpus Linguistics on the Move. Exploring and Understanding English through Corpora, Brill/Rodopi, Leiden, pp. 313-336.
Zedner L. 1991, Women, Crime, and Custody in Victorian England, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Full Text: PDF
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
