Stance and engagement in selected Nigerian Supreme Court judgments
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.
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
References (43)
References
Agaba, James. 2015. Practical
Approach to Criminal Litigation in Nigeria (3rd
ed.). Lagos: Nelag Company Limited.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Asein, John. 2005. Introduction
to Nigerian Legal System. Lagos: Ababa Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bhatia, Vijay. 1993. Analysing
Genre: Language Use in Professional
Settings. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan. 2009. Register,
Genre and Style. New York: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Breeze, Ruth. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2005. Stance
expressions in the courtroom. English Language and
Linguistics 21(2): 41–59. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2017. Evaluative
stancetaking in courtroom opening statements. Folia
Linguistica 51(1): 103–132. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Daniel, Florence Oluwaseyi & Unuabonah, Foluke Olayinka. (2020). The generic
structure of procedure-based Nigerian Supreme Court
judgments. JESAN 22(2): 143–159.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Du Bois, John. 2007. The
stance triangle. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity,
Evaluation and Interaction, Englebretson Robert (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 139–182. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Federal Judicial Centre. 2013. Judicial
writing manual: A pocket guide for judges (2nd ed.).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Feteris, Eveline. 1999. Fundamentals
of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions (2nd
ed.). Netherlands: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Feteris, Eveline. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław & Pontrandolfo, Gianluca. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław & Pontrandolfo, Gianluca (eds). 2018. Phraseology
in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary
Perspective. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 131, 133-151. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance
and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse
Studies 7(2): 173–192. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse:
Exploring Interaction in
Writing. London: Continuum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken. 2010. Metadiscourse:
Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English
Studies 9(2): 125–143. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken & Tse, Polly. 2004. Metadiscourse
in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied
Linguistics (25)21: 156–177. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hunston, Susan. & Thompson, Geoffery (eds). 2000. Evaluation
in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of
Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kurzon, Dennis. 2001. The
politeness of judges: American and English judicial behaviour. Journal of
Pragmatics 33(1): 61–85. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leubsdorf, John. 2001. The
structure of judicial opinions. Minnesota Law
Review 86(447): 447–496.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Martin, James & White, Peter. 2005. The
Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mazzi, Davide. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sanni, Oluwole Oluwatobi. 2016. The role of forensic
linguistics in courtroom cross examination. Ife Studies in
English 12(2): 1–12.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Solan, Lawrence. 1993. The
Language of Judges. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2014. Stancetaking
strategies in judicial discourse: Evidence from US Supreme Court opinions. Studia Linguistica
Iagellonicae
Cracoviensis 1311: 91–120.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tracy, Hodge & Hodge, Danielle. 2018. Judge
discourse moves that enact and endanger procedural justice. Discourse and
Society 29(1): 63–85. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Daniel, Florence Oluwaseyi
2024.
That-complement clauses signalling stance in Nigerian Supreme Court lead judgements: a corpus-based study.
International Journal of Legal Discourse 9:1
► pp. 121 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Alaghbary, Gibreel Sadeq
2023.
Is stylistics a hard science? Intersubjective positioning in Language and Literature research article abstracts between 2013 and 2022.
Heliyon 9:11
► pp. e22114 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.