Naming as doing: Identities, positioning, and ideologies in capital trials

Abstract Adopting a socio-pragmatic view on linguistic choices, this study aims to show how proper names come to function as an ideologically-significant resource for identity construction, impression management, and the negotiation of meaning-making. Drawing upon twelve opening addresses from the penalty phase of capital trials, the research identifies the forms, functions and frequencies of the naming choices that the prosecution and defense use to reference the defendants and victims. The findings reveal characteristic patterns in the two sides’ speeches both in terms of the naming choices and purposes for which such choices are (not) used. It is argued that, despite the defense’s attempts to neutralize the damaging effects, this value-laden practice potentially construes distance and exaggerates differences between the person on trial and the victims, and shapes the relationship between the defendant and jury in such a way that hinders empathy and understanding, thereby becoming one of the aggravating factors itself.