English Language and Linguistics 25(2) 117 http://dx.doi.org/10.17960/ell.2019.25.2.007 Functions of Names in Capital Trials Krisda Chaemsaithong* (Hanyang University)⋅ Yoonjeong Kim** (Hanyang University) Chaemsaithong, Krisda & Kim, Yoonjeong. 2019. Functions of Names in Capital Trials. English Language and Linguistics 25.2, 117-139. Viewing every linguistic act as involving choices, this study seeks to understand how naming choices reflect and aid in realizing the ideological positions of language users in institutional discourse. Drawing upon ten opening addresses from the penalty phase of capital trials, the quantitative and qualitative analysis identifies the forms, functions and frequencies of names that lawyers use to refer to the defendants and victims in their speeches. The findings reveal that the two sides differ starkly in terms of naming choices and purposes for which names are used (or not used). Such systematic differences contribute to shaping interpersonal relationships between the trial participants (the jurors, the defendants and the lawyers) and partly constructing aggravating and mitigating circumstances for the person on trial and his impending sentence. Key words: courtroom, naming, penalty phase, pragmatic function, opening address 118 Krisda Chaemsaithong⋅Yoonjeong Kim 1. Introduction A great deal of research has provided insights into the structural and sociolinguistic properties of names. Kennedy (2015), for example, examines how nicknames are coined and finds that nickname coinage reflects relative power of coiners over recipients, while McConnell-Ginet (2003) and Edwards (2006) identify different conventions for naming across cultures, countries or social groups. One major strand of studies explores the roles of names in constructing and negotiating social identities during interaction (Suzman 1994, Li 1997, Joseph 2004, Aceto 2002, Aldrin 2016). Scollon and Scollon (1995) provide an interesting example. When Mr. Chu, a Hong Kong exporter, met an American buyer on the airplane, he introduced himself using his anglicized name. However, the American buyer insisted on using Mr. Chu’s Chinese given name, regarding such a choice as a token of respect for Mr. Chu’s culture. Nevertheless, Mr. Chu himself felt embarrassed. According to the researchers, this miscommunication results from different naming strategies for establishing solidarity between the two cultures, namely, symmetrical solidarity in Western culture and hierarchical system in Chinese culture (Scollon and Scollon 1995: 123). Along the same lines, Li (1997) observes that Hong Kong bilinguals adopt anglicized names to establish rapport with each other. This strategy allows users to avoid hierarchical relationships that are embedded in the Chinese address form, thereby becoming a solidarity marker. More recently, Widner and Chicoine (2011) suggest that Arabic job seekers are discriminated against by the hiring personnel due to the perceived race/ethnicity in the applicants’ names. Another major strand of research focuses on address terms and reveals how interlocutors’ relationship (e.g. social distance and power) and formality of the settings affect naming choices (Brown and Gilman 1972, Ervin-Tripp 1972, Keshavarz 2001). It is argued that American culture is first-name oriented, while Korean culture is restricted in the use of first names, only employed among peer groups of children and young people and by an older person addressing a child or younger person in the family. Instead, title and family-name are the default form, despite strong solidarity between interlocutors (Hwang 1991). The central idea in Functions of Names in Capital Trials 119 these studies is that names not only establish different social identities of the bearer, but can also be used to construct and negotiate interpersonal relationships during interaction. Adopting the view of names as “doing” words, the present study responds to recent calls for a deeper understanding of the pragmatic-functional aspects of names (e.g. Ainiala and Ostman 2017; Aldrin 2019) and examines how names are used in interpersonal negotiation and identity management, and how they mediate an audience’s perception and experiences during an interaction. Specifically, the current study explores how names become a high-stakes linguistic resource in the institutional context of the courtroom for lawyers to manage their case presentation, and how they serve to (de)legitimize a death sentence. Based on ten opening statements in the penalty phase of capital trials―an uninterrupted monologic speech addressed to the jury―with the legal aim of presenting an overview or “road map” of the evidence to be presented, the study endeavors to answer the following questions: 1) What are the forms, functions, and frequencies of names lawyers use to position the characters in their opening speeches?, 2) How does the use of names index the presenter’s ideological positions and communicative goals?, and 3) To what extent do the prosecution and defense differ in their use of names? As will be shown shortly, naming practices create polarized identities for the defendant and victims and, in effect, partly construct the aggravating and mitigating factors that will determine the defendant’s sentence choice. To scholarship in pragmatics and discourse analysis, this study contributes to not only revealing the complex, intertwined relationships between names and their pragmatic functions in the institutional setting of the courtroom, but also to putting into practice the social-constructivist approach to reality construction. The analysis unfolds in several parts. First, we discuss the socio-linguistic context of the genre under study, and proceed to presenting the relationships between names and their socio-pragmatic functions in interaction. The findings are presented for the defendants and victims, and the conclusion reflects on how different identities enacted through naming serve in the meaning-making process and in shaping perceptions in this institutional context. 120 Krisda Chaemsaithong⋅Yoonjeong Kim 2. Opening Address in the Penalty Phase of Capital Trials Capital trials differ from ordinary criminal trials in that they feature a bi-furcated procedure. In addition to the guilt phase found in ordinary criminal trials, where the jury weighs evidence (be it testimony, exhibits or documentary material) presented by each side and judges culpability accordingly, a second phase—the penalty phase— follows, should the defendant be found guilty. In this second phase, the same set of jury is entrusted with the fact-finding task of considering whether aggravating factors (reasons that would incline jurors toward the death sentence) presented by the prosecution outweigh mitigating factors (reasons that would incline jurors toward the life sentence) presented by the defense. For a death sentence, the jury must determine that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating ones, or else life imprisonment will be imposed. Occurring before the presentation of evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the penalty phase opening statement is supposed to be a non-argumentative summary presentation of the type of evidence each party intends to present to the jury (Palmer 2014: 122). Legal scholars believe that storytelling in this discursive event will create strong mental images that last throughout the trial (Powell 2001: 90, Spiecker and Worthington 2003, Burt 2008) and, thus, becomes particularly critical for the defendant on the verge of being executed because lawyers cannot put her on the stand to tell her own life story. It is recommended that an effective opening statement in the sentencing phase of a capital trial “must, then, develop the nature and character of the people involved. Developing the character of key players as a way of explaining why things happened the way they did provides a useful opportunity to address the virtues and vices of those whose conduct is under scrutiny” (Powell 2001: 94). That is, lawyers can take jurors from the realm of outside observers to that of an actor in the event being recreated by describing the events and people as seen through the client’s eyes. As many jurors begin to form opinions about the case during the opening address and may reach at least a tentative conclusion about the verdict before the presentation of evidence (Bright 2000), the opening statement can be a determining factor in (de)legitimizing a death sentence. Bucolo and Cohn (2010) show that when lawyers included comments in the opening to make race Functions of Names in Capital Trials 121 of the African-American defendant a salient matter (i.e. playing the race card), jurors rendered significantly fewer guilty verdicts than when the materials were deleted. Interestingly, the opening may become corruptive as well. For instance, the prosecutor overstates what will be shown and over-promises about the evidence to be shown later, a maneuver that can sow an early bias among jurors who will later not be able to remember what has been promised in the opening (Kleinig 2008: 133). As we will see shortly, naming choices become a contested practice that serve to manage impression of and evaluate characters in lawyers’ narratives, and in some cases, to the extent of exaggerating the criminal acts. The next section discusses various forms of naming and how such choices can be manipulated for pragmatic effects in courtroom discourse. 3. Names and Their Pragmatic Functions A functional linguistic perspective holds that language