Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.729-752
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2017
Received Oct 2017 Revised Nov 2017 Accepted Dec 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.17.4.201712.729

Grammatical Identities at Work : A Case Study of Courtroom Talk

Krisda, Chaemsaithong
Hanyang University, Tel: 02-222-00753 krisda@hanyang.ac.kr

Abstract

Chaemsaithong, K. 2017. Grammatical identities at work: A case study of courtroom talk.Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 17-4, 729-752. Viewing grammar choices as pragmatically motivated, this study analyzes the ways in which opposing lawyers manipulate clausal components to construct different identities and alternate versions of reality in the opening event of a high-profile American trial. Drawing upon Halliday’s concept of transitivity (1994), or grammatical positioning or social actors, the findings reveal systematic differences between the two sides and ideological bases of the presenters. It is argued that these grammatical choices constitute a powerful instrument in assigning moral agency and negotiating guilt and innocence, thereby potentially striking a profound impact on the outcome of the trial.

Keywords:

courtroom, grammar, identity, lawyer, reality, transitivity

References

  • Aldridge, M. and J. Luchjeonbroers. 2007. Linguistic manipulations in legal discourse: Framing questions and ‘smuggling’ information. International Journal of Speech, Language, and Law 14, 83-105. [https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v14i1.85]
  • Beach, W. 1985. Temporal density in courtroom interaction:Constraints on the recovery of past events in legal discourse.Communication Monographs 52, 1-18.. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758509376093]
  • Cotterill, J. 2003. Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O. J. Simpson Trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave. [https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230006010]
  • Fairclough, N. 2000. New Labour, New Language. London: Routledge.
  • Figueiredo, D. 1998. An analysis of transitivity choices in five appellate decisions in rape cases. Revista Fragmentos 8, 97-113.
  • Fowler, R. 1986. Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Guang, S. 2010. An analysis of the transitivity system in courtroom discourse. Chinese Semiotic Studies 4, 245-257. [https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2010-0214]
  • Halliday, M. 1978. Language as Social Semiotics: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.
  • Halliday, M. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
  • Hasan, R. 1988. The analysis of one poem: Theoretical issues in practice. In D. Birch and M. O. Tool, eds., Functions and Styles, 45-73. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Lind, A. and G. Ke. 1985. Opening and closing statements. In S. M. Kassin and L. S. Wrightsman, eds., The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure, 229-253. London: Sage.
  • Pennington, N. and R. Hastie. 1991. A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cordoza Law Review 13, 519-557.
  • Perrin, T. L., H. M. Caldwell and C. A. Chase. 2003. The Art and Science of Trial Advocacy. Cincinati: Anderson.
  • Rosulek, L. 2008. Manipulating silence and social representation in the closing arguments of a child sexual abuse case. Text and Talk 28, 529-550. [https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.026]
  • Rosulek, L. 2015. Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337613.001.0001]
  • Spiecker, S. and D. Worthington. 2003. The influence of opening statement/closing argument organization strategy on juror verdict and damage awards. Law and Human Behavior 24(4), 437-456. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024041201605]