Grammatical Identities at Work: A Case Study of Courtroom Talk

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.