1897-1059 DIMINUTIVITY AND EVALUATION IN COURTROOM INTERACTION: PATTERNS WITH LITTLE (PART 1) Szczyrbak Magdalena author Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie, Polska, ul. Gołębia 24, 31-007 Kraków Correspondence to: Magdalena Szczyrbak magdalena.szczyrbak@uj.edu.pl 22 03 2018 Volume 135, Issue 1 2018 59 68 Copyright © 2018 2018 <p style="text-align: left;">This article presents the results of a corpus-assisted discourse study into the use of the diminutive marker little in an adversarial trial. It explores the recurrent patterns and the evaluative meanings associated with the use of little, and furthermore looks at the broader interactional context in which these patterns and meanings are found. Drawing on the concepts of stance (du Bois 2007), evaluation (Hunston 1994) and semantic prosody (Louw 1993), it demonstrates how interactants in the courtroom setting lay claim to epistemic priority by stressing the relevance of their own testimony while discrediting the opponent and diminishing the importance of unwanted evidence. The analysis also shows that patterns with little are linked to politeness and mitigation, and that they soften the austerity of communication. The data seem to suggest as well that the evaluative uses of little are more common in references to the primary reality of the courtroom than in references to the out-of-the-courtroom reality, in the case of which denotative meanings prevail. Most importantly, however, the study reveals that despite the formality of courtroom interaction, analytic diminutives with little are a frequent interactional device and, further, that their polarities depend on interplay with other discourse elements as well as the interpersonal goals that the speakers are trying to achieve.</p> 1 Alonso A. 1933/1961. Noción, emoción, acción y fantasía en los diminutivos. – Alonso A. (ed.). Estudios linguisticos: temas españoles. Madrid: 161–189. 2 Biały P. 2012. Synthetic diminutives in English nursery rhymes: Formations with the suf­fix -ie. – Prace Naukowe Akademii im. Jana Długosza w Częstochowie 8: 113–121. 3 Biały P. 2013. On the priority of connotative over denotative meanings in Polish diminu­tives. – Studies in Polish Linguistics 8.1: 1–13. 4 Bois J.W. du. 2007. The stance triangle. – Englebretson R. (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 139–182. 5 Candia S. de, Spinzi C., Venuti M. 2013. “I don’t know the answer to that question”: A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of White House press briefings. – Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 7.1: 66–81. 6 Clark C. 2009. “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists’: How UK and US televi­sion news reported the 2003 Iraq conflict. – Morley J., Bayley P. (eds.). Corpus-assisted discourse studies on the Iraq conflict. Wording the war. London, New York: 165–185. 7 Debras C. 2015. Stance-taking functions of multimodal constructed dialogue during spoken interaction. – Ferré G., Tutton M. (eds.). Gesture and speech in interaction. [4th edition]. Nantes: 95–100. 8 Dressler W.U., Barbaresi L.M. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German and other languages. Berlin. 9 Dressler W.U., Barbaresi L.M. 2001. Morphopragmatics of diminutives and augmentatives: On the priority of pragmatics over semantics. – Kenesei I., Harnish R.M. (eds.). Perspec­tives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 43–58. 10 Gorzycka D. 2012. A note on diminutive types and functions in English: A case study of diminutive use in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. – Głaz A., Kowalewski H., Werem­czuk A. (eds.). What’s in a text? Inquiries into the textual cornucopia. Newcastle upon Tyne: 149–163. 11 Goźdź-Roszkowski S., Pontrandolfo G. 2013. Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: A cor­pus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgments. – International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse 3: 9−69. 12 Heltberg K. 1964. O deminutywach i augmentatywach. – Prace Filologiczne 18.2: 93–102. 13 Hunston S. 1994. Evaluation and organisation in academic discourse. – Coulthard M. (ed.). Advances in written text analysis. London: 191–218. 14 Hunston S. 2007. Using a corpus to investigate stance quantitatively and qualitatively. –Englebretson R. (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 27–48. 15 Hunston S. 2011. Corpus approaches to evaluation. Phraseology and evaluative language. London, New York. 16 Jurafsky D. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of diminutives. – Language 72.3: 533–578. 17 Leech G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London. 18 Lombardo L. 2009. Positioning and stance in TV news reporting of the 2003 Iraq war: The anchor on CBS and the news presenter on BBC. – Morley J., Bayley P. (eds.). Corpus-assisted discourse studies on the Iraq conflict. Wording the war. London, New York: 141–164. 19 Louw B. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of se­mantic prosodies. – Baker M., Francis G., Tognini-Bonelli E. (eds.). Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 157–176. 20 Miller D.R., Johnson J.H. 2009. Strict vs. nurturant parents? A corpus-assisted study of con­gressional positioning on the war in Iraq. – Morley J., Bayley P. (eds.). Corpus-assisted discourse studies on the Iraq conflict. Wording the war. London, New York: 34−73. 21 Morley J., Partington A. 2009. A few frequently asked questions about semantic – or evalu­ative – prosody. – International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14.2: 139–158. 22 Partington A. 1998. Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. [= Studies in corpus linguistics 2]. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. 23 Partington A. 2008. The armchair and the machine: Corpus-assisted Discourse Research. – Taylor Torsello C., Ackerley K., Castello E. (eds.). Corpora for university language teach­ers. Bern: 95–118. 24 Partington A., Duguid A., Taylor C. 2013. Patterns and meanings in discourse. Theory and practice in corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. 25 Pontrandolfo G., Goźdź-Roszkowski S. 2015. Exploring the local grammar of evaluation: The case of adjectival patterns in American and Italian judicial discourse. – Research in Language 12.1: 71–91. 26 Schneider K.P. 2003. Diminutives in English. Tübingen. 27 Schneider K.P. 2013. The truth about diminutives, and how we can find it: Some theoreti­cal and methodological considerations. – SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10.1: 137–151. [available at: http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL22/pdf_doc/08.pdf]. 28 Schneider K.P., Strubel-Burgdorf S. 2012. Diminutive -let in English. – SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 9.1: 15–32. [available at: http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL20/pdf_doc/02.pdf]. 29 Scott M. 2012. WordSmith Tools (version 6). Stroud. 30 Staverman W.H. 1953. Diminutivitis neerlandica. De Gids 116: 407–419. 31 Taylor J.R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford. 32 Thompson G. 1997. Introducing functional grammar. London. 33 Venuti M., Nasti C. 2014. The Lisbon Treaty and the British press. A corpus-based contrastive analysis of evaluation resources. – Research in Language 12.1: 27–47. 34 Volek B. 1987. Emotive signs in language and semantic functioning of derived nouns in Rus­sian. Amsterdam, New York.