The purpose of this paper is to describe the discourse strategies of the defendants of the Salem witchcraft trials in 1692. Evidence is derived from the original documents now being re-edited by an international team. A framework for the discussion is provided by politeness theory, although it cannot be applied as such to seventeenth-century courtroom circumstances. In four of the eight cases selected, the defendants followed successful discourse strategies and saved their lives; in another four, the strategies were less successful and the defendants had to die.
Cooperativeness was vital for a successful defence. This included providing the court with details and admitting what the person was accused of but denying hurting other people intentionally. The defendant did not argue with the examiner but was humble and willing to help.
Unsuccessful defendants stubbornly refused to admit their guilt, denied all involvement in witchcraft, questioned the validity of the evidence and even the intelligence of the court.
2012. “I am a Gosple Woman”: On Language in the Courtroom Discourse during the Salem Witch Trials, with Special Reference to Female Examinees. Studia Neophilologica 84:sup1 ► pp. 55 ff.
Rissanen, Matti
2012. Power and Changing Roles in Salem Witch Trials: The Case of George Jacobs, Sr.. Studia Neophilologica 84:sup1 ► pp. 119 ff.
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2011. In Pursuit of an Expert Identity: A Case Study of Experts in the Historical Courtroom. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 24:4 ► pp. 471 ff.
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2012. Performing self on the witness stand: Stance and relational work in expert witness testimony. Discourse & Society 23:5 ► pp. 465 ff.
Doty, Kathleen L. & Risto Hiltunen
2009. Formulaic discourse and speech acts in the witchcraft trial records of Salem, 1692. Journal of Pragmatics 41:3 ► pp. 458 ff.
Grund, Peter
2007. FROM TONGUE TO TEXT: THE TRANSMISSION OF THE SALEM WITCHCRAFT EXAMINATION RECORDS. American Speech 82:2 ► pp. 119 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 october 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.