Vol. 67 No. 4 (2019)
Article

Names and Identities in Courtroom Narratives

PDF
  • Krisda Chaemsaithong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00277738.2018.1490515

Published 2019-10-02

Copyright (c) 2018 American Name Society

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This study seeks to examine how the use of names serves to accomplish the process of identity construction in institutional discourse. Drawing upon six opening addresses from three high-profile trials, the study analyzes the forms, functions, and frequency of names that lawyers use to refer to defendants and victims in their narratives. The quantitative and qualitative analysis reveals that the prosecution and the defense differ starkly in how they use names to construct the identities of the characters. Such systematic differences contribute to ascribing polarized identities to the characters, which in effect negotiates reality by (de)legitimizing guilt and responsibility claims and mediating jurors’ perceptions.

PDF

References

  1. Ainiala, Terhi, and Jan-Ola Ostman. 2017. “Introduction: Socio-Onomastics and Pragmatics.” In Socio-onomastics: The Pragmatics of Names, edited by Terhi Ainiala and Jan-Ola Ostman, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  2. Aldrin, Emilia. 2016. “Names and Identity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming, edited by Carole Hough, 382–394. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Aldrin, Emilia. 2018. “Naming, Identity, and Social Positioning in Teenager's Everyday Mobile Telephone Interaction.” Names: A Journal of Onomastics. (in press)
  4. Allerton, D.J. 1996. “Proper Names and Definite Descriptions with the Same Reference: A Pragmatic Choice for Language Users.” Journal of Pragmatics 25: 621–633.
  5. Anchimbe, Eric. 2011. “On not Calling People by their Names: Pragmatic Undertones of Sociocultural Relationships in a Postcolony.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1472–1483.
  6. Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall. 2005. “Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach.” Discourse Studies 7: 585–614.
  7. Clayman, Steven. 2010. “Address Terms in the Service of Other Actions: The Case of News Interview Talk.” Discourse and Communication 4: 161–183.
  8. Conley, Robin. 2016. Confronting the Death Penalty: How Language Influences Jurors in Capital Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. D’hondt, Sigurd. 2010. “The Cultural Defense as Courtroom Drama: The Enactment of Identity, Sameness, and difference in Criminal Trial Discourse.” Law & Social Inquiry 35: 67–98.
  10. De Fina, Anna. 2003. Identity in Narrative: A Study of Immigrant Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  11. De Fina, Anna, Deborah Schiffrin, and Michael Bamberg, eds. 2006. Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Dickey, Eleanor. 1997. “Forms of Address and Terms of Reference.” Journal of Linguistics 33: 255–274.
  13. Gerritzen, Doreen. 1999. “Changes in the Naming Patterns for Girls and Boys in the Netherlands against the Cultural Background (XXth Century).” Onoma 34: 181–195.
  14. Halliday, M.A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1989. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Hart, Christopher. 2011. “Legitimising Assertions and the Logico-Rhetorical Module: Evidence and Epistemic Vigilance in Media Discourse on Immigration.” Discourse Studies 13: 751–769.
  16. Levinson, Stephen. 2007. “Optimizing Person Reference: Perspectives from Usage on Rossel Island.” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, edited by N.J. Enfield and Tanya Stivers, 29–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Lind, Allen, and Gina Ke. 1985. “Opening and Closing Statements.” In The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure, edited by Saul Kassin and Lawrence Wrightsman, 229–253. London: Sage.
  18. Matoesian, Gregory. 2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. McKinlay, Andrew, and Chris McVittie. 2011. Identities in Context: Individuals and Discourse in Action. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
  20. Mondada, Lorenza. 2004. “L’annuncio del Nome del Paziente come Dispositivo Strutturante per L’attivita.” Revista di Psicolinguistica Applicata 2: 65–78.
  21. Murphy, Gregory. 1988. “Personal Reference in English.” Language in Society 17: 317–349.
  22. O’Barr, William. 1982. Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
  23. Pennington, Nancy, and Reid Hastie. 1991. “A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision Making: The Story Model.” Cordoza Law Review 13: 519–557.
  24. Rosulek, Laura. 2008. “Manipulative Silence and Social Representation in the Closing Arguments of a Child Sexual Abuse Case.” Text & Talk 28: 529–550.
  25. Rosulek, Laura. 2015. Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. Schegloff, Emanuel. 2007. “Categories in Action: Person-Reference and Membership Categorization.” Discourse Studies 9: 433–461.
  27. Spiecker, Shelley, and Debra Worthington. 2003. “The Influence of Opening Statement/Closing Argument Organizational Strategy on Juror Verdict and Damage Awards.” Law and Human Behavior 27: 437–456.
  28. van Langendonck, Willy. 2007. Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  29. van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.