Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 9:2 (2020) ► pp.199–218

Argumentation in Nigerian investigative public hearings

A pragma-dialectical study of defendants’ discourses

| Redeemer’s University
This paper examines defendants’ argumentative discourse in the 2008 Nigerian investigative public hearings on the Federal Capital Territory administration. The data, which consist of nine defendants’ presentations, are analyzed qualitatively, using a combination of the pragma-dialectical and extended pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. The findings show that the hearing panel initially starts of as the institutional protagonist and defendants as the antagonists, and but later serve as the institutional antagonist and protagonists, respectively. The defendants tend to use analogy and causal argumentation schemes while employing subordinative and complementary coordinative argumentation structures. The defendants also employ different strategic maneuvers at different argumentative stages of the critical discussion. Due to the politico-forensic communicative domain and information-seeking genre of the investigative public hearing discourse, the concluding stage is suspended. Thus, the study shows the influence of communicative activity type on the argumentative activities in a critical discussion.
Keywords: argumentative indicators, defendants, investigative public hearings, pragma-dialectics, strategic maneuvering
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The nature and structure of investigative public hearings
    • 1.2The Nigerian FCT investigative public hearings
  • 2.(Extended) pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.Analysis and discussion
    • 4.1The confrontation stage
    • 4.2The opening stage
    • 4.3Argumentation stage
      • 4.3.1Argumentation based on performance of one’s lawful duty
      • 4.3.2Argumentation based on the claim of ignorance
      • 4.3.3Argumentation based on the request for third party presence
      • 4.3.4Argumentation based on the claim of victimization
    • 4.4Concluding stage
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 28 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19004.ola
References (33)
References
Anthonissen, Christine. 2006. “Critical Discourse Analysis as an Analytic Tool in Considering Selected Prominent Features of TRC Testimonies.” Journal of Language and Politics 5(1):171–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Lawrence N. 2007. “Cooperative Conflict and Evasive Language: The Case of the 9–11 Commission Hearings.” In Context and Appropriateness, ed. by Anita Fetzer, 167–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. “‘I Think, Therefore…’: Commitment in Political Testimony.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27 (4): 372–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. “Redundancy and Markers of Belief in the Discourse of Political Hearings.” Language Sciences 331: 268–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernard, Taryn. 2009. Justificatory Discourse of the Perpetrator in TRC Testimonies: A discourse-historical Analysis. M.A. thesis, Stellenbosch University.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan, Mary Bock, and Kay McCormick. 2006. “Narrative Inequality in the TRC Hearings: On the Hearability of Hidden Transcripts.” Journal of Language and Politics 5 (1): 37–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, Zanni. 2007. A Discourse Analysis of Selected Truth and Reconciliation Commission Testimonies: Appraisal and Genre. Ph.D. thesis, University of the Western Cape.Google Scholar
. 2008. “‘Language has a Heart’: Linguistic Markers of Evaluation in Selected TRC Testimonies.” Language of Multicultural Discourses 3(3):189–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Code-switching: An Appraisal Resource in TRC Testimonies.” Functions of Language 18 (2): 183–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, Zanni, Ngwanya Mazwi, Sifundo Metula, and Nosisi Mpolweni-Zantsi. 2006. “An Analysis of What Has Been ‘Lost’ in the Interpretation and Transcription Process of Selected TRC Testimonies.” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics PLUS 331:1–26.Google Scholar
Cavalieri, Silva. 2009. “Reformulation and Conflict in the Witness Examination: The Case of Public Inquiries.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 22 (2): 209–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feteris, Eveline T. 2017. “The Role of Judges in Legal Proceedings: A Pragma-Dialectial Analysis.” In Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Wu Peng, 59–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garssen, Bart. 2017. “Strategic maneuvering in European Parliamentary debate. In Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics,” ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Wu Peng, 145–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makinde, Bankole. 2008. “Must we Kill El-Rufai now?” Nigerian Tribune, 18 April. Retrieved December 18, 2009 from [URL]
Marín-Arrese, I. Juana. 2015. “Epistemic Legitimization and Inter/Subjectivity in the Discourse of Parliamentary and Public Inquiries.” Critical Discourse Studies 12(3): 261–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meinig, Bob. 1998. “Public Hearings: When and How to Hold Them.” MRSC Publications. Retrieved June 2, 2008 from [URL]
Murphy, James. 2016. “Apologies Made at the Leveson Inquiry: Triggers and Responses.” Pragmatics and Society 7 (4): 595–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odebunmi, Akin, and Foluke Unuabonah. 2014. “Defensive Acts in a Quasi-Judicial Hearing.” Ibadan Journal of English Studies 101:105–128.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2004. “There’s Risks in Everything: Extreme-Case Formulations and Accountability in Inquiry Testimony.” Discourse and Society 15(6): 745–766. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tovares, Allan V. 2016. “Going Off-Script and Reframing the Frame: The Dialogic Intertwining of the Centripetal and Centrifugal Voices in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Hearings.” Discourse and Society 27(5): 554–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unuabonah, Foluke. 2012a. “The Generic Structure of Presentations in Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings on the FCT Administration in Nigeria in 2008.” California Linguistic Notes 37(2): 1–23.Google Scholar
. 2012b. Interaction Structure and Pragmatic Features in 2008 National Quasi- Judicial Public Hearing on Federal Capital Territory Administration in Nigeria. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Ibadan.Google Scholar
. 2015. “The Generic Structure of a Public Hearing.” In Essays on Language, Communication and Literature in Africa, ed. by Akin Odebunmi and Joyce Mathangwane, 105–130. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2016. “Contextual Beliefs in a Nigerian Quasi-judicial Public Hearing.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 51(5): 619–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017a. “But as a Stance Marker in Nigerian Investigative Public Hearings.” Pragmatics & Society 8 (3): 400–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. “‘Are You Saying …?’ Metapragmatic Comments in Nigerian Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings.” Pragmatics 27(1): 115–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Direct Quotations in Nigerian Investigative Public Hearings.” Text &Talk 38(4): 503–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. in press. “Appraisal Choices in Nigerian Investigative Public Hearings.” In Discourse, Pragmatics & Society: A Festschrift for Akin Odebunmi, ed. by Adeniyi Osunbade, Foluke Unuabonah, Ayo Osisanwo, Akin Adetunji & Funke Oni. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Van Eemeren, Frans. H. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. “Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse in Political Deliberation.” In Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Wu Peng, 123–144. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verdoolaege, Annelies. 2009. “The Audience as Actor: The Participation Status of the Audience at the Victim Hearings of the South African TRC.” Discourse Studies 11(4): 441–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar