Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 8:3 (2017) ► pp.400–420

But as a stance marker in Nigerian investigative public hearings

| Redeemer’s University, Ede, Nigeria

This study examines the kinds of stance that but as a contrastive marker signals in Nigerian investigative public hearings, with a view to exploring the contexts in which the stances are made. The study examines forty purposively selected investigative public hearing sessions which involve interactions between complainants, defendants and a hearing panel. The data are analysed qualitatively utilising Du Bois’ (2007) interactional view of stance and Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal system. Results indicate that but signals epistemic, evidential, emotive and evaluative stances within the narrative, interrogative and closing contexts. These stances and their contextual patterns depend heavily on the roles, goals and knowledge of the participants as stancetakers who position themselves, and align with other participants and the wider discourse community in order to express evaluation and intersubjective positioning.

Keywords: appraisal, contrastive marker, evaluation, intersubjective positioning, investigative public hearings, stance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A brief background to the Nigerian federal capital territory (FCT) administration hearings
  • 3.Theoretical considerations
  • 4.Method
  • 5.Analysis and findings
    • 5.1The discursive context of but in the hearings
      • 5.1.1Narrative context
      • 5.1.2Interrogative context
      • 5.1.3Closing context
    • 5.2But and stance
      • 5.2.1 But signalling epistemic stance
      • 5.2.2 But and evidential stance
      • 5.2.3 But signalling evaluative stance
      • 5.2.4 But indexing affective stance
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.3.04unu
References
Aijmer, Karin
2013 Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Aull, L. Laura, and Zak Lancaster
2014 “Linguistic Markers of Stance in Early and Advanced Academic Writings: A corpus-based comparison.” Written Communication 32(2):151–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
1981 The Dialogic Imagination (translated by C. Emerson & M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Baratta, Alexander M.
2009 “Revealing Stance through Passive Voice.” Journal of Pragmatics 411: 1406–1421. 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 A. 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
Bernard, Taryn
2009 Justificatory Discourse of the Perpetrator in TRC Testimonies: A discourse-historical Analysis. Unpublished MA Thesis. Stellenbosch University.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas
2006 “Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 51: 97–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Bock, Zanni
2007 A Discourse Analysis of Selected Truth and Reconciliation Commission Testimonies: Appraisal and Genre. Unpublished PhD 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, Silvia
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
Du Bois, John W.
2007 “The Stance Triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming, & Danae Paolino
1993 “Outline of discourse transcription.” In Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research ed. by Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert, 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Englebretson, Robert
2007 “Stancetaking in Discourse: An Introduction.” In Stancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1996 “Pragmatic Markers.” Pragmatics 6 (2): 167–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Towards a Theory of Discourse Markers.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by K. Fischer, 189–204. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2009 “An Account of Discourse Markers.” International Review of Pragmatics 11: 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “The Sequencing of Contrastive Discourse Markers in English.” Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture 11: 29–35Google Scholar
2013 “Combinations of Contrastive Discourse Markers in English.” International Review of Pragmatics 51: 318–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “The Combining of Discourse Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics 861: 48–53, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany and Douglas Biber
2015 “Stance Markers.” In Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, ed. by Karin Aijmer and Christoph Rühlemann, 219–248 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken
2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keisanen, Tina and Elise Kärkkäinen
2014 “Stance.” In Pragmatics of Discourse, ed. by Klaus P. Schneider and Anne Baron, 295–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Peter White
2005 the Language age of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mei, S. Wu
2006 “Creating a Contrastive Rhetorical Stance: Investigating the Strategy of Problemitisation in Students’ Argumentation.” RELC 37 (3): 329–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meinig, Bob
1998 Public Hearings: When and How to Hold Them. MRSC Publications. Retrieved June 2, 2008 from [URL]
Mey, Jacob L.
2001 Pragmatics: An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell PublishersGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczyrbak, Magdalena
2014 “Stancetaking Strategies in Judicial Discourse: Evidence from US Supreme Court Opinions.” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 1311: 91–120.Google Scholar
The Law Reform Commission
(2003) Consultation Paper on Public Inquiries including Tribunals of Inquiry. Dublin: The Law Reform Commission.Google Scholar
Unuabonah, Foluke
2011 “Event Models: A Socio-Cognitive Study of Selected Interrogations in 2008 Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing on Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Administration In Nigeria.” Studies in Literature and Language 3 (1): 37–44.Google Scholar
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
2016 “Contextual Beliefs in a Nigerian Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing”. Journal of Asian and African studies 5 (5): 619-633. DOI logo.Google Scholar
2017 “ ‘Are you saying?’ Metapragmatic comments in Nigerian quasi-judicial public hearings”. Pragmatics 27 (1): 115-143. DOI logoGoogle 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. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google 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
White, Peter R. R.
2011 “Appraisal.” In Discursive Pragmatics ed. by Jan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren, 14–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Cai, Siying, Wenzhong Zhu & Yuting Wang
2023. Corpus analysis of evaluative language and framework implementation for pharmaceutical industry CSR reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 30:4 ► pp. 2037 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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 september 2023. 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.