Abstract
There are certain areas where present-day studies of language use can learn from history. Using a dialogue-analytic approach, this
study investigates dialogic features and interpersonal management in the early English courtroom. Drawing upon a corpus of 81
opening statements from the Proceedings of the Old Bailey (1759–1799), the quantitative and qualitative analysis
reveals that this courtroom action game is highly dialogic and that an active jury was significantly presupposed in this
particular historical setting. The lawyers consistently endeavored to solicit solidarity and in-groupness through pronominal
choices, and to argumentatively negotiate agreement and secure consent through directives, shared knowledge markers, asides, and
questions. The findings testify to the central role of dialogism and interpersonal negotiation in historical courtroom action
games.