Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- 27 Interpersonal Pragmatics
- 28 Sociocognitive Pragmatics
- 29 Conversation Analysis and Sociopragmatics
- 30 Corpus Pragmatics
- 31 Variational Pragmatics
- 32 Historical Sociopragmatics
- 33 Emancipatory Pragmatics
- 34 Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Pragmatics
- 35 Second Language Pragmatics
- Index
- References
32 - Historical Sociopragmatics
from Part III - Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- 27 Interpersonal Pragmatics
- 28 Sociocognitive Pragmatics
- 29 Conversation Analysis and Sociopragmatics
- 30 Corpus Pragmatics
- 31 Variational Pragmatics
- 32 Historical Sociopragmatics
- 33 Emancipatory Pragmatics
- 34 Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Pragmatics
- 35 Second Language Pragmatics
- Index
- References
Summary
Historical sociopragmatics studies the social dimension of language use from a historical perspective. Like historical pragmatics in general, it must rely on written data (except for the very recent past), which poses some specific analytical challenges. In this contribution, we show how approaches to these challenges have developed in recent years. The research focus in historical sociopragmatics has followed the trend in sociopragmatics, where the earlier focus on a mapping between specific linguistic forms and specific pragmatic functions is increasingly extended to a wider consideration of the discursive nature of pragmatic entities whose function only emerges in the interaction between conversational partners. We illustrate such a discursive approach with an analysis of a sequence of letters from the Breadalbane Collection, 1548--83, in which leading members of a Scottish Highland clan negotiate their relationships, their respective roles and the wider impact of events that led to growing tensions between them.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 687 - 709Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Sources
Dawson, J. (ed.). (2004/2007). The Breadalbane Collection, 1548–1583. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. www.ed.ac.uk/divinity/research/resources/breadalbane.Google Scholar
National Records of Scotland, Edinburgh. Papers of the Campbell Family, Earls of Breadalbane (Breadalbane Muniments), MS NRS GD112/39/3/24, MS NRS GD112/39/3/26, MS NRS GD112/39/3/27, MS NRS GD112/39/5/2.Google Scholar
References
Archer, D. E. (2005). Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnovick, L. K. (1999). Diachronic Pragmatics: Seven Case Studies in English Illocutionary Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bax, M. (2010). Epistolary presentation rituals: Face-work, politeness, and ritual display in Early Modern Dutch letter-writing. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Historical (Im)politeness. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 37–85.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18(2), 159–212.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. (1999). ‘Why be normal?’: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society, 28(2), 203–23.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In Duranti, A., ed., A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 369–94.Google Scholar
Busse, U. (2002). Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-Syntactic Variability of Second Person Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (2002). A History of Clan Campbell: From Flodden to the Restoration. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, R., Peikola, M., Salmi, H., Varila, M.-L., Skaffari, J. and Hiltunen, R. (2013). Pragmatics on the page. European Journal of English Studies, 17(1), 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cathcart, A. (2006). Kinship and Clientage: Highland Clanship 1451–1609. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, C. (2018). Now in the historical courtroom. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 19(2), 223–42.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. and Kytö, M. (eds.). (2020). Punctuation in Context – Past and Present Perspectives. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, J. (2013). The role of communities of practice in the emergence of Scottish Standard English. In Kopaczyk, J. and Jucker, A. H., eds., Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–49.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–67.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2009). Historical sociopragmatics: An introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), 179–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2010). Historical sociopragmatics. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69–94.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011b). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Archer, D. E. (2008). Requests and directness in Early Modern English trial proceedings and play texts, 1640–1760. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Speech Acts in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–84.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Crawshaw, R. and Harrison, J. (2008). ‘Activity types’ and ‘discourse types’: Mediating ‘advice’ in interactions between foreign language assistants and their supervisors in schools in France and England. Multilingua, 27, 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Hardaker, C. (2017). Impoliteness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 199–225.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. (ed.). (1997). Campbell Letters 1559–1583. Edinburgh: Scottish History Society.Google Scholar
DOST = Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue. (2004/2014). University of Dundee/University of Glasgow. www.dsl.ac.uk/.Google Scholar
Grainger, K. (2011). ‘First order’ and ‘second order’ politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group, ed., Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 167–88.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. and Jucker, A. H. (1995). The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, A. H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (ed.). (1995). Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2012). ‘These imputations are too common, sir’: Politeness in Early Modern English dialogues: The case of Ben Jonson’s Volpone, or The Fox. In Mazzon, G. and Fodde, L., eds., Historical Perspectives on Forms of English Dialogue. Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli, pp. 40–58.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2014). Courtesy and politeness in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 49(3), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2017). Pragmatics and language change: Historical pragmatics. In Huang, Y., ed., Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 550–66.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Locher, M. A. (2017). Introducing Pragmatics of Fiction: Approaches, trends and developments. In Locher, M. A. and Jucker, A. H., eds., Pragmatics of Fiction, Handbooks of Pragmatics 12. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Pahta, P. (2011). Communicating manuscripts: Authors, scribes, readers, listeners and communicating characters. In Pahta, P. and Jucker, A. H., eds., Communicating Early English Manuscripts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (2000). Diachronic speech act analysis: Insults from flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 67–95.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.). (2010). Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (2013). English Historical Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. (2010). Exploring the historical Chinese polite denigration/elevation phenomenon. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Historical (Im)politeness. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 117–45.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z., Haugh, M. and Chang, W.-L. M. (2013). Aggression and perceived national face threats in Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese CMC discussion boards. Multilingua, 32(3), 343–72.Google Scholar
Keay, J. and Keay, J. (eds.). (2000). Collins Encyclopedia of Scotland. Rev. ed. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Kopaczyk, J. and Jucker, A. H. (eds.). (2013). Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kopytko, R. (1995). Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeare’s plays. In Jucker, A. H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 515–40.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. (2010). Data in historical pragmatics. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Historical Pragmatics, Handbooks of Pragmatics 8. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 33–67.Google Scholar
Kytö, M., Grund, P. and Walker, T. (2011). Testifying to Language and Life in Early Modern England. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Language Change, Volume 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leitner, M. (2015). Conflicts in Early Modern Scottish letters and law-courts. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Leitner, M. (2017). Curses or threats? Debating the power of witches’ words in 17th-century Scottish courtrooms. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 16(1), 145–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9–33.Google Scholar
Lutzky, U. (2012). Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marcus, I. (2018). The Linguistics of Spoken Communication in Early Modern English Writing: Exploring Bess of Hardwick’s Manuscript Letters. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics, Handbooks of Pragmatics 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Moore, C. (2011). Quoting Speech in Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nevala, M. (2004). Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-Pragmatic Functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1995). Constraints on politeness: The pragmatics of address formulae in early English correspondence. In Jucker, A. H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 541–601.Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. (1899–2020). Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oed.com/.Google Scholar
Pahta, P. and Jucker, A. H. (eds.). (2011). Communicating Early English Manuscripts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Petikó, M. (2017). Discursive (re)construction of ‘witchcraft’ as a community and ‘witch’ as an identity in the eighteenth-century Hungarian witchcraft trial records. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(2), 214–34.Google Scholar
Reutner, R. (2016). Politisch-parlamentarisches Sprachhandeln am Beispiel der Sprachenfrage in der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie. Dargestellt am Sprechhandlungstyp Drohung. In Ernst, P. and Werner, M., eds., Linguistische Pragmatik in Historischen Bezügen. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 313–24.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, B., Adams, G. A., Burns, M., Grund, P., Hiltunen, R., Kahlas-Tarkka, L., Kytö, M., Peikola, M., Ray, B. C., Rissanen, M. and Roach, M. K. (eds.). (2009). Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sairio, A. (2017). ‘Now to my distress’: Shame discourse in eighteenth-century English letters. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(2), 295–314.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S. A. and Traugott, E. C. (1995). The semantic and pragmatic development of substitutive complex prepositions in English. In Jucker, A. H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–73.Google Scholar
Smith, J. J. (2012). Older Scots: A Linguistic Reader. Edinburgh: The Scottish Text Society.Google Scholar
Smith, J. J. (2017). From secreit script to public print: Punctuation, news management and the condemnation of the Earl of Bothwell. Huntington Library Quarterly, 80(2), 223–38.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.). (2002). Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. Reprint. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 95–119.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 639–56.Google Scholar
Suhr, C. (2011). Publishing for the Masses: Early Modern English Witchcraft Pamphlets. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. (2017). Meaning-making practices in the history of medical English: A sociopragmatic approach. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(2), 252–70.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. and Pahta, P. (2013). The Corpus of Early English Medical Writing (1375–1800) – a register-specific diachronic corpus for studying the history of scientific writing. In Meurman-Solin, A. and Tyrkkö, J., eds., Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data, Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 14. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, VARIENG. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/14/index.html.Google Scholar
Williams, G. T. (2013). Women’s Epistolary Utterance: A Study of the Letters of Joan and Maria Thynne, 1575–1611. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, M. (2013). British colonial office correspondence on the Cape Colony (1820–1821): Metatextual keywords vs. analytic categories. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 49(3), 399–428.Google Scholar
Włodarczyk, M. and Taavitsainen, I. (2017). Introduction: Historical (socio)pragmatics at present. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(2), 159–74.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by