Abstract Adopting a functional view of language, this study critically explores clausal patterns in lawyers’ opening address in an American criminal trial. Underpinned by the assumption that no linguistic options are value-free, the quantitative and qualitative analysis uncovers the syntactic choices employed by the opposing sides and accounts for them in terms of the presenters’ ideological positions concerning the guilt and innocence of the defendant. The findings reveal stark differences between the two sides. Such systematic differences in clausal configurations not only constitute a prime meaning-making strategy that serves to construct polarized positioning of the same people and events, but are also likely to strike a profound impact with the jurors, potentially leading them to make tentative conclusions at this initial stage of case presentation.

中文翻译：

---

语法冲突时：法庭话语中的有罪和无罪的谈判

摘要本研究采用语言的功能观，批判性地探索了美国刑事审判中律师致开幕词中的从句模式。在没有语言选择没有价值的假设的基础上，定量和定性分析揭示了对立双方使用的句法选择，并根据主持人关于被告有罪和无罪的意识形态立场对它们进行了解释。调查结果揭示了双方之间的明显差异。子句配置之间的这种系统性差异不仅构成了一种主要的意义制造策略，可用来建构同一个人和事件的两极分化定位，而且还可能会对陪审员产生深远的影响，