I’m thinking and you’re saying: Speaker stance and the progressive of mental verbs in courtroom interaction

Magdalena Szczyrbak

doi:10.1515/text-2019-0145

Abstract

Abstract This study investigates the use of progressives with mental verbs in courtroom talk and shows a range of subjective meanings which are not delivered by the simple form. Looking at the data from a British libel trial, it explores patterned co-occurrences with first-person subjects vs. second- and third-person subjects, revealing both emphatic, polite and interpretative uses of the analyzed items. In addition, context-sensitivity and speaker status (judge vs. other participants) are shown to be significant factors affecting both the choice of verbs and their interactional configurations. The findings reveal not only well-established uses of “progressive statives” (wonder and think) but also less conventional ones which convey intensity and expressivity (e.g., understand, remember and want). It is also revealed that the use of progressives with mental verbs differs from the deployment of progressives with communication verbs. In both groups of verbs, however, the interpretative meaning is common. In sum, the study situates progressives with mental verbs among stancetaking resources which speakers employ to share their thoughts, wishes and desires, and to position themselves against other interactants and their propositions.

Highlights

This study investigates the use of progressives with mental verbs in courtroom talk and shows a range of subjective meanings which are not delivered by the simple form
It is argued here that the progressive construction is a vehicle for subjective meanings which are not delivered by the simple form of verbs
The study demonstrates that progressives are vehicles for subjective meanings which are not delivered by the simple form of verbs

Summary

Introduction

This study investigates the use of progressives with mental verbs in courtroom talk and shows a range of subjective meanings which are not delivered by the simple form. The study reported here, in turn, looks at courtroom data to show how patterns with mental verbs, which typically do not attract the progressive form, instantiate both tentative and emphatic modes of expression reflecting the subjectification of various language structures (Traugott and Dasher 2002) It explores patterned co-occurrences with first-person subjects vs second- and third-person subjects, revealing both emphatic, polite and interpretative uses of the analyzed forms. Of particular interest to the current investigation is the “interpretative” (Huddleston and Pullum et al 2002) or “experiential” (Wright 1995) progressive, conveying the speaker’s epistemic stance at a particular moment or his/her “interpretation or evaluation of some state of affairs” (Wright 1995: 156) The use of this form in courtroom talk, and especially its co-occurrence with communication verbs, has featured in several investigations (Szczyrbak 2016, 2018).

Objectives

Results

Conclusion