DOCSLIB.ORG

Gender-Related Terms in English Depositions, Examinations And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gender-Related Terms in English Depositions, Examinations And ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 132 Editores Rolf Lundén, Merja Kytö & Monica Correa Fryckstedt Sara Lilja Gender-Related Terms in English Depositions, Examinations and Journals, 1670–1720 Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Ihresalen, Engelska parken, Humanistiskt centrum, Thunbergsvägen 3L, Uppsala, Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 10:15 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Abstract Lilja, S. 2007. Gender-Related Terms in English Depositions, Examinations and Journals, 1670–1720. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 132. 245 pp. Uppsala. ISBN 978-91-554-6801-9. This dissertation focuses on gender-related terms as well as adjectives and demonstratives in connection with these terms used in texts from the period 1670–1720. The material in the study has been drawn from both English and American sources and comes from three text categories: depositions, examinations and journals. Two of these text categories represent authentic and speech-related language use (depositions and examinations), whereas the third (journals) is representative of a non-speech-related, non-fictional text category. While previous studies of gender-related terms have primarily investigated fictional material, this study focuses on text categories which have received little attention so far. The overarching research question addressed in this study concerns the use and distribution of gender-related terms, especially with regard to referent gender. Data analyses are both quantitative and qualitative, and several linguistic and extra-linguistic factors are taken into account, such as the semantic domain to which the individual gender-related term belongs, region of origin and referent gender. Adjectives and demonstratives collocating with the gender-related terms are also investigated, as previous research has shown that referent gender has an impact on the use of adjectives as well. The results show that the use of gender-related terms is influenced by both region of origin and referent gender. It is suggested that this is due in part to the difference in nature between Early Modern English society and the early American colonies, and in part due to the social roles which men and women had. Referent gender also has an impact on the type of adjectives used in connection with gender-related terms: adjectives collocating with gender-related terms denoting men have positive connotations to a larger extent than do adjectives collocating with their female counterparts; meanwhile, gender-related terms denoting women tend to collocate with negative adjectives. Keywords: adjectives, corpus linguistics, A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760, demonstratives, depositions, Early Modern English, examinations, female, gender, gender- related terms, historical sociolinguistics, journals, male, Salem Witchcraft Papers Sara Lilja, Department of English, Box 527, Uppsala University, SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden © Sara Lilja 2007 ISSN 0562-2719 ISBN 978-91-554-6801-9 urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-7508 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-7508) Printed in Sweden by Elanders Gotab, Stockholm 2007 Distributor: Uppsala University Library, Box 510, SE-751 20 Uppsala www.uu.se, [email protected] To my family, with gratitude and love Contents Acknowledgements.......................................................................................17 Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................19 1.1 Aim and Scope ...................................................................................19 1.2 Power Structures in the Discourse of the Early Modern English Courtroom ................................................................................................27 1.3 Conventions Regarding Orthography, Corpus Citations and Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................30 1.4 Outline of the Study ...........................................................................31 Chapter 2. Material and Methodology ..........................................................33 2.1 Introductory Comments......................................................................33 2.2. Material .............................................................................................33 2.2.1 The Texts Studied: An Overview ...............................................33 2.2.2 The Speech-Related Material......................................................35 2.2.3 The Speech-Related Texts Included in the Study.......................41 2.2.4 The Issue of Text Reliability ......................................................43 2.2.5 The Non-Speech-Related Material .............................................45 2.2.6 The Non-Speech-Related Texts Included in the Study...............46 2.3 Methodology ......................................................................................47 2.3.1 Extracting the Gender-Related Terms ........................................48 2.3.2 Extracting the Adjectives and Demonstratives...........................49 2.4 Summary and Concluding Remarks...................................................54 Chapter 3. Gender-Related Terms ................................................................56 3.1 Introductory Comments......................................................................56 3.2 Terminology and Definitions .............................................................56 3.3 The Semantics of Gender-Related Terms: An Overview...................60 3.3.1 The Semantic Pejoration of Female Terms.................................60 3.3.2 Women, Ladies and Girls: Talking about Adult Females...........62 3.3.3 The Use of Epicene Terms with Gendered Beings: Creatures, Persons and Children ........................................................66 3.4 Summary and Concluding Remarks...................................................71 Chapter 4. An Overall View of the Data.......................................................73 4.1 Introductory Comments......................................................................73 4.2 The Overall Distribution of Gender-Related Terms...........................75 4.2.1 Distribution across Text Category ..............................................75 4.2.2 Distribution across Region of Origin..........................................79 4.2.3 Distribution across Referent Gender...........................................83 4.3 Adjectives and Demonstratives: An Overall View ............................86 4.3.1 Introductory Remarks .................................................................86 4.3.2 The Adjectival Data: Overall Distribution..................................87 4.3.3 The Demonstrative Data: Overall Distribution...........................97 4.4 Summary and Concluding Remarks.................................................100 Chapter 5. The Use of Gender-Related Terms............................................102 5.1 Introductory Comments....................................................................102 5.2 The Distribution of the Gender-Related Terms across the Text Categories...............................................................................................103 5.2.1 Central Terms ...........................................................................103 5.2.2 Relational Terms.......................................................................104 5.2.3 Epicene Terms ..........................................................................106 5.2.4 Occupational Terms..................................................................106 5.2.5 Title Terms ...............................................................................108 5.2.6 Depreciative Terms...................................................................110 5.2.7 Appreciative Terms ..................................................................113 5.2.8 RSP Terms................................................................................114 5.2.9 Section Summary......................................................................116 5.3 Regional Variation ...........................................................................116 5.3.1 Central Terms ...........................................................................117 5.3.2 Relational Terms.......................................................................119 5.3.3 Epicene Terms ..........................................................................121 5.3.4 Occupational Terms..................................................................123 5.3.5 Title Terms ...............................................................................124 5.3.6 Depreciative Terms...................................................................127 5.3.7 RSP Terms................................................................................129 5.3.8 Section Summary......................................................................130 5.4 The Distribution of Gender-Related Terms across Referent Gender .....................................................................................131 5.4.1 Central Terms ...........................................................................131 5.4.2 Relational Terms.......................................................................134 5.4.3 Epicene Terms ..........................................................................137 5.4.4
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historical Studies Journal 2013
    Blending Gender: Colorado Denver University of The Flapper, Gender Roles & the 1920s “New Woman” Desperate Letters: Abortion History and Michael Beshoar, M.D. Confessors and Martyrs: Rituals in Salem’s Witch Hunt The Historic American StudiesHistorical Journal Building Survey: Historical Preservation of the Built Arts Another Face in the Crowd Commemorating Lynchings Studies Manufacturing Terror: Samuel Parris’ Exploitation of the Salem Witch Trials Journal The Whigs and the Mexican War Spring 2013 . Volume 30 Spring 2013 Spring . Volume 30 Volume Historical Studies Journal Spring 2013 . Volume 30 EDITOR: Craig Leavitt PHOTO EDITOR: Nicholas Wharton EDITORIAL STAFF: Nicholas Wharton, Graduate Student Jasmine Armstrong Graduate Student Abigail Sanocki, Graduate Student Kevin Smith, Student Thomas J. Noel, Faculty Advisor DESIGNER: Shannon Fluckey Integrated Marketing & Communications Auraria Higher Education Center Department of History University of Colorado Denver Marjorie Levine-Clark, Ph.D., Thomas J. Noel, Ph.D. Department Chair American West, Art & Architecture, Modern Britain, European Women Public History & Preservation, Colorado and Gender, Medicine and Health Carl Pletsch, Ph.D. Christopher Agee, Ph.D. Intellectual History (European and 20th Century U.S., Urban History, American), Modern Europe Social Movements, Crime and Policing Myra Rich, Ph.D. Ryan Crewe, Ph.D. U.S. Colonial, U.S. Early National, Latin America, Colonial Mexico, Women and Gender, Immigration Transpacific History Alison Shah, Ph.D. James E. Fell, Jr., Ph.D. South Asia, Islamic World, American West, Civil War, History and Heritage, Cultural Memory Environmental, Film History Richard Smith, Ph.D. Gabriel Finkelstein, Ph.D. Ancient, Medieval, Modern Europe, Germany, Early Modern Europe, Britain History of Science, Exploration Chris Sundberg, M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Index to Map of Salem Village 1692
    INDEX TO MAP OF SALEM VILLAGE 1692 | Small Size (in separate window) | Medium Size (in separate window) | Large Size (in separate window) | The attached map shows all the dwellings present in Salem Village and the key locations of Salem Town in 1692. Quadrant 1 1. John Willard 3. Francis Peabody 5. William Hobbs 6. John Roberinson 7. William Nichols 8. Bray Wilkins 9. Aaron Way 10 Thomas Baily 11. Thomas Fuller, Sr. 12. William Way 13. Francis Elliot 14. Jonathan Knight 15. Thomas Cave 16. Philip Knight 17. Isaac Burton 18. John Nichols, Jr. 19. Humphrey Case 20. Thomas Fuller, Jr. 21. Jacob Fuller 22. Benjamine Fuller. 23. Deacon Edward Putnam 24. Sgt. Thomas Putnam 25. Peter Prescot 26. Ezekiel Cheever 27. Eleazer Putnam 37. John Putnam, Jr. 44. William Small 45. John Darling Quadrant 2 2. Isaac Easty 4. Joseph Porter 28. Henery Kenny 29. John Martin 30. John Dale. 31. Joseph Prince 32. Joseph Putnam 33. John Putnam Ill 34. Benjamin Putnam 35. Daniel Andrew 36. John Leach, Jr. 39. Mary Putnam 40. Alexander Osborn & James Prince 41. Jonathan Putnam 42. Goerge Jacobs, Jr. 43. Peter Cloyse 46. James Putnam 47. Capt. John Putnam 48. Daniel Rea 49. Henry Brown 53. Joseph Herrick 67. Jeremiah Watts 68. Edward Bishop (Sawyer) 69. Edward Bishop (Husb.) 70. Capt. Thomas Rayment 86. Exercise Conan Quadrant 3 54. John Phelps 55. Goerge Flint 56. Ruth Sibley 57. John Buxton 58. William Allin 59. Samuel Brabrook 60. James Smith 71. Joseph Hutchinson, Jr. 72. William Buckley 89. Joseph Swinnerton 90. Benjamine Hutchinson 91.
    [Show full text]
  • Lineage Book, National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution
    0041312 (^cnealostcal ^otietp of ^tal) l.ifjrarj> j^Q 15838 Nov, 1933 Date. LINEAGE BOOK National Society OF THE Daughter? of the American Ke volution VOLUME CXXXjV IlIIrDt — I ]40>Oa 19J7 Amy Cftr.ss^viLLL Lun-ni: //f.Oorrin \VASffIN-GTON\ D. C. FAMILY HISTORY LIBRARY 35 NORTH WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84150 : ; o DAUGHTERS OE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, John Rowe (1737-1801) served as captain and major in the Massa- chusetts troops, under Colonels James Collins and Ebenezer Bridges. He was born in Gloucester, Mass. ; died at Ballston Spa, N. Y. Also No. 94847. MRS. JULIA FINLAYSON PETERS. 133003 Born in Jefferson County, Fla. Wife of Charles A. Peters. Descendant of John Gilmer, as follows; 1. John Finlayson (1854-1907) m. 1876 Elizabeth Hines (b. 1853). 2. Whitson J. Hines (1811-75) rn- 1834 Julia Christian (1812-83). 3. Gabriel Christian (b. 1774) m. 1808 Harrison Gilmer (1776-1854). 4. John Gilmer m. 1771 Mildred Thornton Meriwether (T 1826). John Gilmer (1748-93) was an officer under Marquis de Lafayette at the siege of Yorktown. He was born in Williamsburg, Va. died ; at Broad River, Ga. Also No. 129499. MRS. ADELINE HUFF ROSENBLATT. 133004 Born in Cocke County, Tenn. Wife of W. L. F. Rosenblatt. Descendant of John Huff, as follows 1. James T. Huff (b. 1839) m. 1868 Jane Stokely (1842-1902). 2. Jehu Stokely (1814-85) m. 1836 Adeline Burnett (1820-82). 3. John Stokely (1786-1823) m. 1808 Mary Huff (1787-1821). 4. John Huff m. 1784 Mary Corder (1766-1842). John Huff (1758-1843) - served as private in Capt.
    [Show full text]
  • The Salem Witch Trials [Type Text] Elise Forte the Many Faces of The
    The Salem Witch Trials [Type text] Elise Forte The Many Faces of the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692 By: Elise Forte Dr. Sheila O’Hare LI861 Current Issues in Information Transfer Salem Witch Trials [Type text] Forte 2 Introduction The Salem Witch Trials of 1692 are cause for great speculation and mystery. It appears to have occurred suddenly, causing mass hysteria not just locally but regionally as well. After the executions of 20 individuals, the accusations and convictions ended and life, for all intents and purposes, continued on. The Salem Witch Trials are of historical significance for nothing like it has happened in early American history, in that extreme, before. “It lasted longer, jailed more suspects, condemned and executed more people, ranged over more territory, and afterwards was quickly repudiated by the government as a colossal mistake” (Ray, 2010). The 16th and 17th centuries acknowledged the existence of witches and witchcraft, but few executions ever happened, and nothing to the extreme of Salem. Europe was an ocean away and the trials and tribulations experienced on the continent had no meaning for those who lived in pre-Colonial America. The closest event that has happened that is similar to the panic and fear similar to the Salem Witch Trials is the era of McCarthy and Communism. Many scholars have taken an in- depth look at the who, why, and how of the incidents that transpired in 1692. The Salem Witch Trials were so intense for a short duration of time that the incidents has even entered the world of pop culture with Arthur Miller’s award-winning play The Crucible, and inspiring movies such as the 1958 film Bell, Book, and Candle and 1992’s Hocus Pocus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Records of the Salem Commoners, 1713-1739
    *h'l^\ ''"<> ' ' i t> . ft'. ' { I V ?.' yC> » '<^. r-^^ 7, , 'X' S ^"-n^. "»' <^^^ "'° ,%^ "V •- .^° ' = o^ *' > V % y •^. m^" ^^ X •^•° / ^ ^"^ rV^^^': ^o v^ ^0 ° <^- o^O. ^<^^ " O ' <^^ N \^ \> ,V r'. ^ -^ ^y^^* ^ ^ ..0^ ^P-^^^ -A .0 * 4^ <o ^..<< - .V THE RECORDS ^ f OF THE SALEM COMMONERS 1713-1739 COPIED BY " GEORGE FRANCIS DOW [From the Historical Collections of the Essex Institute, Volumes xxxvi-xxvix.l ' SALEM, MASS. PRINTED FOR THE ESSEX INSTITUTE 1903 SALEM COMMONERS RECORDS, 1713-1739. COPIED BY GEORGE FRANCIS DOW. First Booke of records of Minutes of y*' proprietors of y® Common lands in Salem & of their first Meeting which was y^ 29 Day of June 1713. A list of y^ proprietors as uel Golthites Junr in Salem 5 Daniel Epes Esqr 2 SALEM COMMONERS RECORDS, 1713-1739. [List of the proprietors] thiit attended y"^ proprietors Meeting in y*" Low ro(tnie where wee tir.sl began it, John Marsh Sen'" 1 Samuel Golthite 1 John Hutchison I Daniel Andrews 3 Wni Upton 1 Daniel Mackintire 1 Samuel Upton 1 Abraham Locyer 1 John Putnam Jun^' 1 John Nicholls 2 James Gould Sen"" 1 Stephen Sewall 2 Cap* John Gardner 2 Memorand". There was mr John Traske L* Jeremiah Neal Willard & Severall others to y® Number of about a doz° was at y'' beginning of y® Meeting with & seemed to Join with vs whilst y'' warrant was read & Seuerall debates & appeard to be a concurrence betwixt y'' proprietors & Cottagers viz that thay would choofse aConiitte ol both forts to Move to y^ Generall Court an Explanation of y'^ Law referring to Cottnges which all would set downe on & yet to y'" Surprise of Many of vs mr Jn*^ Trafke Sen'" Just as y** Moderator was chose slipt one of y'^ original warrants oft' y'" Table & put it in his pocket & nioued out of y*^ roome with about 10 or a Doz'^ more followed him & went vp in y*" Chamber oner y^ roome where wee were Met & tho wee fent to them to come & proceed on y*^ buf isness of y*" Meeting as they had begun but they did not comei Attest Stephen Sewall Cler.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Beyerl Y
    EARLY RECORDS of the TOWN OF BEYERL Y ESSEX COUNTY MASS. Volume I Births, Marriages and Deaths Copied by AUGUSTUS A. GALLOUPE Published by EBEN PUTNAM, BOSTON 1907 PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. This opportunity of printing the early vital records of Beverly is due to the generous co-operation of Mr. Augustus A. Galloupe, long known as one of the most painstaking and accurate of our local historians and genealogists. Mr. Gal­ loupe's collection of materials relating to Beverly families, and hJs lifelong familiarity with the Beverly and Essex County records pointed him out as pre-eminently fitted to make the copy of the difficult first volume of Beverly records. No one now living can qualify with Mr. Galloupe in fitness for this work. Although through physical infirmity not able to use a pen without great discomfort, Mr. Galloupe devoted several months to making first a pencil copy, and from that an ink copy of the records of births, marriages and deaths in the first volume of Beverly Records, in which volume were also entered the records* of the business affairs of the town. Illness and family bereavement prevented his continuing immediately with a like copy of the second volume, and although the intention was to copy and print all of the records to the year 1850, it was decided to make available for genealogical research the contents of the first volume, by printing the same in installments in The Genealogical Magazine, reprinting the matter for future publi­ cation in a separate volume. The record of births through 1704, as recorded in the first volume of records, appeared in the maga­ zine in accordance with this plan, and also some of the earliest marriages and deaths, and intentions of marriage to 1715.
    [Show full text]
  • Vital Records of Danvers, Massachusetts, to the End of The
    iii 1 1! The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924092203623 VITAL RECORDS OF D A N V E R S MASSACHUSETTS TO THE END OF THE YEAR I 849 VOLUME II. MARRIAGES AND DEATHS PUBLISHED BY THE ESSEX INSTITUTE SALEM, MASS. 1910 NEWCOMB & GAUSS Printers SRlem, Massachusetts ABBREVIATIONS a.—age. ait.—about. 6. —bom. ie/.—befoie. 6et —between. dp.—baptized. 6ur,—buried. c. s. I.—First Congregational Church records (Salem Village), Danvers. o. R. 2.—South Congregational Church records (Middle Precinct), Peabody. c. B. 3. —First Baptist Church records, Danvers. c. s. 4.—Universalist Church records, Peabody. c. B. 5.—First Unitarian Church records, Peabody. o. «. 6. —Baptist Church records, Peabody. o. a. 7. —^Records of the Salem Monthly Meeting, Society of Friends, now in possession of the Lynn Society. 0. R. 8.—Records of the Amesbury Monthly Meeting, Society of Friends. cA.—child. chn.—children. Co.—county. d.—daughter; day; died. Dea.—deacon. dup.—duplicate entry. a. R. I.—gravestone record, Wadsworth Cemetery, Summer street, Danvers. e. R. 2.—^gravestone record, Nurse private burial ground, off Pine street, Tapleyville. 4 ABBREVIATIONS 0. R. 3.—gravestone record, Endicott private burial ground, Dan- versport. 0. s. 4. —gravestone record, Preston Street Cemetery, Hathorne. o. R. 5.—gravestone record, Prince private burial ground. Spring street, Danvers. e. B. 6.—gravestone record, Putnam private burial ground, Hathorne. o. R. 7. —gravestone record, .Russell private burial ground, Dan- versport.
    [Show full text]
  • Ryal Side from Early Days of Salem Colony
    Gc 974.402 Sa32pi 1822518 REYNOLDS HISTORICAL GENEALOGY COLLECTION ' »/! I RYAL SIDE FROM EARLY DAYS OF SALEM COLONY . RYAL SIDE FROM EARLY DAYS OF SALEM COLONY By CALVIN P. PIERCE With Illustrations CAMBRIDGE Printed at The ‘'Riverside Tress for The Beverly Historical Society MDCCCCXXXI SHOWING SUBDIVISIONS AND LOCATIONS OF LANDMARKS, ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE SURVEYS 29X Granted to Edmund Mar¬ 37 Salt House Point E Mill Lane— 1657 Woolestone (Danvers) River I2x Head bound of John Leach’s 19 First landing-place — 37X Location of Salt House F Henry Herrick’s Rock Land of Jacob Barney land, black oak tree shall —1636 163S 38 Ensign Dixie’s Cove G John Green’s Gate and Boundary — Leach and Barney, 13 Leased to John Batchelder — 20 Present location of U.S. 30 Leased to John Green — 39 Israel Green’s house site of first house since 1643 1677 M.A.A. Club House 1677 40 John Green’s house H Captain John Dodge Elliott Street — new part, 1810 13X Head bound of JohnBatchelder’s 21 Conant Street 30X Green’s Hill 41 Draper’s Point — second house land, white oak tree. 2ix Horse Bridge 31 Coal Pit Hill, site of Ryal Junction of Elliott Street and landing-place I Felton’s Meadow Dark Lane 14 Cornelius Baker farm 22 Cabot Street Side Schoolhouse 42 Bushnell Lot — 1636 J Holton’s; also Creesy’s 15 Land of Cornet Howard 23 Balch Street 32 Granted to JohnWinthrop, Long; also Leach’s Cove 43 Land of Henry Herrick Meadow Old Leach burial lot 15X Chanted Swamp 24 Old Planter’s Path Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Sarah Vibber: the Accuser Who Managed to Stay on the Right Side of Wrong During
    1 Annie Roman Professor Norton Hist. 2090 November 29, 2017 Sarah Vibber: The Accuser Who Managed to Stay on the Right Side of Wrong During the Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692 Introduction The Salem witchcraft crisis began in January 1692 when two young girls named Abigail Williams and Betty Parris fell ill. Betty’s father, the Reverend Samuel Parris, consulted the only doctor in Salem Village, who diagnosed the girls as being “under an Evil Hand.”1 Soon after that, Abigail and Betty accused Parris’ slave of bewitching them, thus setting off a chain of accusations and arrests that would result in the deaths of twenty innocent people. Although most of the accusers were girls and teenagers, older women also claimed to be afflicted. Four married women, including Bathshua Pope, Ann Putnam, Sr., Margaret Goodale, and Sarah Vibber, joined the girls in claiming to be tormented by the apparitions of supposed witches. At thirty-six, Sarah Vibber was the oldest afflicted person who made formal legal complaints during the witchcraft crisis, and she was a crucial witness for the court. Mary Beth Norton noted in In the Devil’s Snare that adult men played a critical role in legitimizing the complaints of the afflicted girls and women. During the Salem witchcraft crisis, accusations made by afflicted women and children only resulted in legal action if adult male “gatekeepers” found those accusations credible. According to Norton, female accusers 1 Mary Beth Norton, In the Devil’s Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002), 19. 2 confronted three levels of male gatekeepers (heads of households, examining magistrates, and judges and jurors) when seeking justice.2 Bathshua Pope, for example, claimed to be afflicted during examinations, but made no depositions or statements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Knowledge: Evidence and Evidentiality in the Witness Depositions from the Salem Witch Trials.” American Speech 87(1): 7–38
    KU ScholarWorks | http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu Please share your stories about how Open Access to this article benefits you. The Nature of Knowledge: Evidence and Evidentiality in the Witness Depositions from the Salem Witch Trials by Peter Grund 2012 This is the author’s accepted manuscript, post peer-review. The original published version can be found at the link below. Grund, Peter. 2012. “The Nature of Knowledge: Evidence and Evidentiality in the Witness Depositions from the Salem Witch Trials.” American Speech 87(1): 7–38. Published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00031283-1599941 Terms of Use: http://www2.ku.edu/~scholar/docs/license.shtml This work has been made available by the University of Kansas Libraries’ Office of Scholarly Communication and Copyright. Peter J. Grund. 2012. “The Nature of Knowledge: Evidence and Evidentiality in the Witness Depositions from the Salem Witch Trials.” American Speech 87(1): 7–38. (accepted manuscript version, post-peer review) The Nature of Knowledge: Evidence and Evidentiality in the Witness Depositions from the Salem Witch Trials PETER J. GRUND University of Kansas Abstract: This article explores evidentiality (or the linguistic marking of source of information), a topic that has received little attention in studies on the history of English. Using witness depositions from the witch trials in Salem, MA, in 1692–1693 as material, the article reveals that a number of linguistic features are used to indicate source of information, especially verb phrases (e.g. see, hear, tell) and prepositional phrases (e.g. to my knowledge, in my sight). It also shows that direct sensory experience and reports are the most common semantic categories of evidentiality in the documents, while inference and assumption are relatively uncommon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anatomy of Correction: Additions
    KU ScholarWorks | http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu Please share your stories about how Open Access to this article benefits you. The Anatomy of Correction: Additions, Cancellations, and Changes in the Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Trials by Peter Grund 2007 This is the author’s accepted manuscript, post peer-review. The original published version can be found at the link below. Peter Grund. 2007. “The Anatomy of Correction: Additions, Cancellations, and Changes in the Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Trials.” Studia Neophilologica 79(1): 3–24. Published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00393270701287439 Terms of Use: http://www2.ku.edu/~scholar/docs/license.shtml This work has been made available by the University of Kansas Libraries’ Office of Scholarly Communication and Copyright. Peter Grund. 2007. “The Anatomy of Correction: Additions, Cancellations, and Changes in the Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Trials.” Studia Neophilologica 79(1): 3–24. (accepted manuscript version, post-peer review) The Anatomy of Correction: Additions, Cancellations, and Changes in the Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Trials1 Peter Grund, Uppsala University 1. Introduction The Salem witchcraft trials of 1692 hold a special place in early American history. Though limited in comparison with many European witch persecutions, the Salem trials have reached mythical proportions, particularly in the United States. The some 1,000 extant documents from the trials and, in particular, the pre-trial hearings have been analyzed from various perspectives by (social) historians, anthropologists, biologists, medical doctors, literary scholars, and linguists (see e.g. Rosenthal 1993: 33–36; Mappen 1996; Grund, Kytö and Rissanen 2004: 146). But despite this intense interest in the trials, very little research has been carried out on the actual manuscript documents that have survived from the trials.
    [Show full text]
  • 8.5 X12.5 Doublelines.P65
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-66166-9 - Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt Edited by Bernard Rosenthal Frontmatter More information RECORDS OF THE SALEM WITCH-HUNT This book represents the first comprehensive record of all legal documents per- taining to the Salem witch trials, in chronological order. Numerous newly dis- covered manuscripts, as well as records published in earlier books that were over- looked in other editions, offer a narrative account of the much-written-about episode in 1692–93. The book may be used as a reference book or read as an unfolding narrative. All legal records are newly transcribed, and errors in previous editions have been corrected. Included in this edition is a historical introduction, a legal introduction, and a linguistic introduction. Manuscripts are accompanied by notes that, in many cases, identify the person who wrote the record. This has never been attempted, and much is revealed by seeing who wrote what, when. Bernard Rosenthal has written widely on American literature and culture. His monographs include City of Nature and Salem Story, and he has also edited many published volumes, including The Oregon Trail by Francis Parkman, Jr. He is also the author of numerous articles and reviews. Rosenthal has received at different times four grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities as well as a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission in support of this book. One of his NEH grants was in collaboration with Benjamin Ray, partially in support of this book; another was to support this book’s comple- tion.
    [Show full text]