Cover not available
Article published In:
English Text Construction
Vol. 14:2 (2021) ► pp.231–252

Stance and engagement in selected Nigerian Supreme Court judgments

| Redeemer’s University
| Redeemer’s University

The study investigates stance and engagement strategies of Nigerian Supreme Court judges in constructing arguments in their opinions. Fifty purposively selected judicial opinions were quantitatively and qualitatively analysed using Hyland’s stance and engagement model. The findings reveal that Nigerian Supreme Court judges used more stance than engagement features. Among the stance features found, the judges used more self-mention devices to establish authorial presence and distinguish their views from others. Prevalent among engagement markers, on the other hand, are directives, informed by the normative nature of the text and the judges’ keenness to owning such prescribed norms.

Keywords: engagement, judgments, Nigeria, stance, supreme court
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Judgment in the Nigerian Supreme Court
  • 3.The stance and engagement model in judicial opinions
  • 4.Data and method
  • 5.Findings and analysis
    • 5.1Stance features in the Supreme Court judgments
      • 5.1.1Self-mention features in the judgments
      • 5.1.2Attitude markers in the judgments
      • 5.1.3Boosters in the judgments
      • 5.1.4Hedges in the judgments
    • 5.2Engagement features in Nigerian Supreme Court judgments
      • 5.2.1Directives in the judgments
      • 5.2.2Knowledge reference in the judgments
      • 5.2.3Questions in the judgments
      • 5.2.4Reader pronouns
      • 5.2.5Asides in the judgments
  • 6.Concluding discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 24 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.21021.dan
References
Agaba, James
2015 Practical Approach to Criminal Litigation in Nigeria (3rd ed.). Lagos: Nelag Company Limited.Google Scholar
Asein, John
2005 Introduction to Nigerian Legal System. Lagos: Ababa Press.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay
1993 Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan
2009 Register, Genre and Style. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward
1989 Styles of stance in English lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9(1): 93–124.Google Scholar
Breeze, Ruth
2013 Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(2): 229–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Giving voice to the law. Speech act verbs in legal academic writing. In Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings: A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary Perspective, Goźdź-Roszkowski Stanisław & Pontrandolfo Gianluca (eds). London: Routledge, 221–239.Google Scholar
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2005 Stance expressions in the courtroom. English Language and Linguistics 21(2): 41–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements. Folia Linguistica 51(1): 103–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Florence Oluwaseyi
2021 A genre analysis of selected substance-based judgments of the Nigerian Supreme Court. Covenant Journal of Language Studies 9(1): 55–70.Google Scholar
Daniel, Florence Oluwaseyi & Unuabonah, Foluke Olayinka
(2020) The generic structure of procedure-based Nigerian Supreme Court judgments. JESAN 22(2): 143–159.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John
2007 The stance triangle. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation and Interaction, Englebretson Robert (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 139–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Federal Judicial Centre
2013 Judicial writing manual: A pocket guide for judges (2nd ed.).Google Scholar
Feteris, Eveline
1999 Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions (2nd ed.). Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Prototypical argumentative patterns in a legal context: The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of legal decision. Argumentation 29(3): 61–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finegan, Edward
2010 Corpus linguistics approaches to ‘legal language’: Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, Coulthard Malcom & Johnson Alison (eds). London: Routledge, 65–77.Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanislaw
2019 ‘It’s not just a fact that the law requires this, but it is a reasonable fact: Using the Noun that-pattern to explore stance construction in legal writing. In Corpus-based Research on Variation English Legal Discourse, Fanego Teresa & Rodríguez-Puente Paula (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław & Pontrandolfo, Gianluca
2013 Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: A corpus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgments. International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse 13(2): 9–69.Google Scholar
2014 Facing the facts: Evaluative patterns in English and Italian judicial language. In Language and Law in Professional Discourse: Issues and Perspectives, Guliana Garzone, Salvi Rita, Tessuto Girolamo, Williams Christopher, & Bhatia Vijay (eds). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar, 10–28.Google Scholar
(eds) 2018 Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris
2007 Judgment in court: Evaluating participants in courtroom discourse. In Language and the Law: International Outlooks, Kredens Krzysztof & Goźdź-Roszkowski Stanisław (eds). Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 45–179.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
(2004) Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 131, 133-151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2): 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2008 Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies 8(2): 1–23.Google Scholar
2010 Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 125–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Disciplines and discourses: Social interactions in the construction of knowledge. In Writing in the Knowledge Society, Starke-Meyerring, Doreen & Pare, Anthony & Artemeva, Natasha & Horne, Miriam & Yousoubova, Larissa (eds). West Lafayette: Parlor Press, 193–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Tse, Polly
2004 Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics (25)21: 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan. & Thompson, Geoffery
(eds) 2000 Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kalejaiye, Abiola Sakirat
2016 A linguistic analysis of selected Nigerian appellate court judgments. PhD dissertation, Babcock University.
Keramati, Rezaei Shirin, Kuhi Davud, & Saeidi Mahnaz
2019 Cross-sectional diachronic corpus analysis of stance and engagement markers in three leading journals of Applied Linguistics. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies 6(2): 1–25.Google Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis
2001 The politeness of judges: American and English judicial behaviour. Journal of Pragmatics 33(1): 61–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leubsdorf, John
2001 The structure of judicial opinions. Minnesota Law Review 86(447): 447–496.Google Scholar
Martin, James & White, Peter
2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzi, Davide
2010 ‘This argument fails for two reasons…’: A linguistic analysis of judicial evaluation strategies in US Supreme Court judgments. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 23(4): 373–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 ‘The words are plain and clear…’: On interpersonal positioning in the discourse of judicial interpretation. In Interpersonality in Legal Genres, Breeze Ruth, Gotti Maurizio, & Guinda Carmen Sancho (eds). Switzerland: Peter Lang, 39–62.Google Scholar
Ogunsiji, Ayotunde. & Olaosun Ibrahim
2012 Pragmatic acts in court-rulings: A case of Nigeria’s Supreme Court judgement on Obi versus Uba. Papers in English and Linguistics 168–181.Google Scholar
Sanni, Oluwole Oluwatobi
2016 The role of forensic linguistics in courtroom cross examination. Ife Studies in English 12(2): 1–12.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence
1993 The Language of Judges. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczyrbak, Magdalena
2014 Stancetaking strategies in judicial discourse: Evidence from US Supreme Court opinions. Studia Linguistica Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 1311: 91–120.Google Scholar
Tracy, Hodge & Hodge, Danielle
2018 Judge discourse moves that enact and endanger procedural justice. Discourse and Society 29(1): 63–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vazquez-Orta, Ignacio
2013 Authoritative intervention in legal discourse: A genre-based study of judgements and arbitration awards. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 91–104.Google Scholar