Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 25:2 (2018) ► pp.310–336

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Studying characterization in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible

A cognitive stylistic analysis

 | Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
 | Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
 | Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
Published online: 25 November 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17029.far
Abstract
Apart from the stylistic and cognitive studies which have already been done separately on Miller’s The Crucible, this paper provides a new insight into the play and its system of characterization by integrating these approaches. To this end, the paper draws on Jonathan Culpeper’s cognitive stylistic theory of top-down and bottom-up processes in literary text comprehension and characterization. Based on this holistic framework, the paper takes advantage of such stylistic tools as speech acts, the Cooperative Principle and politeness theory to examine features of the language used by the characters Proctor and Danforth. In this regard, the article assimilates those linguistic elements with the embedded schemata within the play. Consequently, the study reveals that Proctor’s complex characterization does not coincide with the readers’ schema and thus they form their impression of his character based on piecemeal integration. On the other hand, Danforth’s character reinforces the readers’ schema about a representative of the church discourse and thus they comprehend his character on the basis of confirmatory categorization. The paper concludes that while Proctor and Danforth have a passive existence in the text or in people’s minds, it is only in the interaction between their language and the readers’ minds that they come into existence.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
  • 3.The dominant schemata in The Crucible
  • 4.Examining characterization by integrating the mind and the text
    • 4.1Extract 1
    • 4.2Extract 2
    • 4.3Extract 3
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (45)
References
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aziz, Amal G. A. & Huda S. Al Qunayeer. 2014. Social hysteria versus individual dilemma: A pragmatic study of character relationship in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible . European Scientific Journal 10(35). 238–256.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bentley, Eric (ed.). 1972. Thirty years of treason: Excerpts from hearings before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1938–1968. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergeron, David M. 1969. Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and Nathaniel Hawthorne: Some parallels. The English Journal 58(1). 47–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonnet, Jean M. 1982. Society vs. the individual in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible . English Studies 63(1). 32–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Budick, Miller. 1985. History and other spectres in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible . Modern Drama 28(4). 535–552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carr, Robert K. 1950. The Un-American Activities Committee. The University of Chicago Law Review 18(3). 598–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ciekawy, Diane. 2005. Witchcraft. In Maryanne C. Horowitz (ed.), New dictionary of the history of ideas, vol. 61, 2476–2479. New York: Thomson Gale.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, Guy. 1994. Discourse and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2001. Language and characterisation: People in plays and other texts. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Carolina Fernandez-Quintanilla. 2017. Fictional characterisation. In Miriam A. Locher & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Pragmatics of fiction, 93–128. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Dan McIntyre. 2010. Activity types and characterisation in dramatic discourse. In James Eder, Fotis Jannidis & Ralf Schneider (eds.), Characters in fictional worlds: Understanding imaginary beings in literature, film, and other media, 176–207. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Mick Short & Peter Verdonk (eds.). 1998. Exploring the language of drama: From text to context. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dijk, Teun Adrianus van. 1987. Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988. Social cognition, social power and social discourse. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8(1–2). 129–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Social cognition and discourse. In Howard Giles & William P. Robinson (eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology, 163–183. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T. & Steven L. Neuberg. 1990. A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In Mark P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 231, 1–74. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T. & Shelley E. Taylor. 1991. Social cognition, 2nd edn. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts, vol. 31, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamilton, Craig. 2007. The cognitive rhetoric of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible . In Marina Lambrou & Peter Stockwell (eds.), Contemporary stylistics, 221–231. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Allegory, blending, and censorship in modern literature. Journal of Literary Semantics 40(1). 23–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Edward E. 1990. Interpersonal perception. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Edward E. & Keith E. Davis. 1965. From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 21, 219–266. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Edward E. & Daniel McGillis. 1976. Correspondent inferences and the attribution cube: A comparative reappraisal. In John H. Harvey, William J. Ickes & Robert F. Kidd (eds.), New directions in attribution research, vol. 11. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelley, Harold H. 1967. Attribution theory in social psychology. In David Levine (ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 192–238. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1972. Attribution in social interaction. In Edward E. Jones, David E. Kanouse & Harold H. Kelley (eds.), Attribution perceiving the causes of behavior, 1–26. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1973. The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist 28(2). 107–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lowe, Valerie. 1998. Unhappy confessions in The Crucible: A pragmatic explanation. In Jonathan Culpeper, Mick Short & Peter Verdonk (eds.), Exploring the language of drama: From text to context, 128–141. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Robert A. 1977. Arthur Miller’s The Crucible: Background and sources. Modern Drama 20(3). 279–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur. 1953. The Crucible: A play in four acts. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan, Edmund S. 2008. Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and the Salem witch trials: A historian’s view. In Harold Bloom (ed.), Bloom’s modern critical interpretations: Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, new edn., 41–53. New York: Infobase Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saari, Peggy. 2001. Witchcraft in America (Elizabeth Shaw ed.). Detroit MI: UXL, Gale Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1975. Indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 31, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sogliuzzo, A. Richard. 2012. Arthur Miller’s The Crucible: Witchcraft and mob hysteria in America. In Nancy van Deusen & Leonard M. Koff (eds.), Mobs: An interdisciplinary inquiry, vol. 31, 363–382. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stine, Jean C. 1983. Contemporary literary criticism (Jean C. Stine ed.), vol. 261. Detroit MI: Gale Research Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
United States. 1951–52. [Communist activities] Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, eighty-second congress, first-second sessions. Washington: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from [URL] (24 December 2018)
. 1953–54. [Communist activities] Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, eighty-third congress, first-[second] session[s]. Washington: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from [URL] (24 December 2018)
. 1955–56. Hearing[s] before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, eighty-fourth congress, first-second sessions. Washington: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from [URL] (24 December 2018)
Weisman, Richard. 1984. Witchcraft, magic and religion in 17th century Massachusetts. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wyer, Robert S. & Thomas K. Srull (eds.). 1984. Handbook of social cognition, vol. 11. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Shi, Xinyu & Libo Huang
2024. Literary metamorphosis: a corpus-assisted approach to characterisation in The Rouge of the North and “The Golden Cangue”. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue