Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 27:1 (2017) ► pp.115–143

“Are you saying …?”

Metapragmatic comments in Nigerian quasi-judicial public hearings

| Redeemer's University, Ede, Nigeria,
This study explores metapragmatic comments in Nigerian quasi-judicial public hearings, involving interactions between complainants, defendants and a hearing panel, with a view to investigating their forms, features, distribution and functions. The data are analysed quantitatively and qualitatively from a discourse-pragmatic framework that incorporates Verschueren’s theory of metapragmatics, Mey’s pragmatic act theory, Grice’s Cooperative Principle and conversation analysis. Four types of metapragmatic comments are used: speech act descriptions, talk regulation comments, maxim adherence/violation related comments and metalinguistic comments. Their distribution and functioning are shown to be partly predictable from properties of the speech event, while they also co-determine the nature and development of the analysed hearings.
Keywords: Interpersonal functions, Textual functions, Nigerian public discourse, Quasi-judicial public hearings, Metapragmatic comments
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 17 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.1.05unu
References (36)
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Berlin, N. Lawrence. 2007. “Cooperative Conflict and Evasive Language: The Case of the 9–11 Commission Hearings.” In Context and appropriateness, ed. by A. Fetzer, 167–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., and H. Sheffer. 1993. “The Metapragmatic Discourse of American-Israeli Families at Dinner.” In Interlanguage Pragmatics, ed. by G. Kasper, and S. Blum-Kulka, 196–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bock, Zanni. 2007. A Discourse Analysis of Selected Truth and Reconciliation Commission Testimonies: Appraisal and Genre. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.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, Z., N. Mazwi, S. Metula, and N. 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
Brinton, J. Laurel. 2008. Comment Clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 1998. Metapragmatics. In Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, ed. by J.L. Mey, 581–585. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Carranza, E. Isolda. 2008. “Metapragmatics in a Courtroom Genre.” Pragmatics 18 (2): 169–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ciliberti, A. , and L. Anderson. 2007. “Metapragmatic Comments in Institutional Talk. A Comparative Analysis across Settings.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 143–166. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Geer, Boel. 2004. “‘Don’t say it’s disgusting!’ Comments on Socio-Moral Behavior in Swedish Families.” Journal of Pragmatics 361: 1705–1725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grundy, Peter. 2008. Doing Pragmatics. (3rd edn). London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Haberland, Hartmut. 2007. “Language Shift in Conversation as a Metapragmatic Comment.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 129–142. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hongladoram, Krisadawan. 2007. “’Don’t blame me for criticising you…’: A Study of Metapragmatic Comments in Thai.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 29–48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hübler, Abel. 2007. “On the Metapragmatics of Gestures.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 107–128. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hübler, A., and W. Bublitz. 2007. “Introducing Metapragmatics in Use.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 1–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacquemet, Marco. 1992. “’If he speaks Italian it’s better’: Metapragmatics in Court.” Pragmatics 2 (2): 111 – 126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janney, W. Richard. 2007. “‘So your story now is that…’: Metapragmatic Framing Strategies in Courtroom Interrogation.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 223–234. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meinig, Bob. 1998. “Public Hearings: When and How to Hold Them.” MRSC Publications. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from [URL]
Mey, L. Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Muntigl, Peter. 2007. “A Metapragmatic Examination of Therapist Reformulations.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 235–262. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penz, Hermine. 2007. “Building Common Ground through Metapragmatic Comments in International Project Work.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 263–292. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pizziconi, Barbara. 2007. “Facework and Multiple Selves in Apologetic Metapragmatic Comments in Japanese.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 49–72. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organisation of Turn Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696 – 735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, S.W., and X. Liang. 2007. “Metapragmatic Expressions in Physics Lectures: Integrating Representations, Guiding Processing, and Assigning Participant Roles.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 167–199. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008. “Face (Im)politeness and Rapport.” In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. by H. Spencer-Oatey, 11–47. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Stude, Juliane. 2007. “The Acquisition of Metapragmatic Abilities in Preschool Children.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 199–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2007. “Metapragmatic Utterances in Computer-mediated Interaction.”. In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 87–106. ed. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unuabonah, O. Foluke. 2012. “The Generic Structure of Presentations in Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings on the FCT Administration in Nigeria in 2008.” California Linguistic Notes 37 (1): 1–23.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
Verdoolaege, Annelies. 2009a. “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
. 2009b. “Dealing with a Traumatic Past: The Victim Hearings of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and their Reconciliation Discourse.” Critical Discourse Studies 6 (4): 297–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use.” Pragmatics 10 (4): 439–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Bamgbose, Ganiu & Erhuvwu Akpomerha
2023. An Analysis of Selected Supreme Court Rulings on Human Rights Violation in Nigeria. Language Matters 54:2 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Olayinka Unuabonah, Foluke
2020. Argumentation in Nigerian investigative public hearings. Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:2 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Unuabonah, Foluke Olayinka
2017. Butas a stance marker in Nigerian investigative public hearings. Pragmatics and Society 8:3 ► pp. 400 ff. DOI logo
Unuabonah, Foluke O.
2018. Direct quotations in Nigerian investigative public hearings . Text & Talk 38:4 ► pp. 503 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.