Volume 14, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Agaba, James
    2015Practical Approach to Criminal Litigation in Nigeria (3rd ed.). Lagos: Nelag Company Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Asein, John
    2005Introduction to Nigerian Legal System. Lagos: Ababa Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhatia, Vijay
    1993Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan
    2009Register, Genre and Style. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward
    1989 Styles of stance in English lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text9(1): 93–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Breeze, Ruth
    2013 Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics18(2): 229–253. 10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre [Google Scholar]
  7. 2018 Giving voice to the law. Speech act verbs in legal academic writing. InPhraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings: A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary Perspective, Goźdź-Roszkowski Stanisław & Pontrandolfo Gianluca (eds). London: Routledge, 221–239.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chaemsaithong, Krisda
    2005 Stance expressions in the courtroom. English Language and Linguistics21(2): 41–59. 10.17960/ell.2015.21.2.003
    https://doi.org/10.17960/ell.2015.21.2.003 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2017 Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements. Folia Linguistica51(1): 103–132. 10.1515/flin‑2017‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0003 [Google Scholar]
  10. Daniel, Florence Oluwaseyi
    2021 A genre analysis of selected substance-based judgments of the Nigerian Supreme Court. Covenant Journal of Language Studies9(1): 55–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Daniel, Florence Oluwaseyi & Unuabonah, Foluke Olayinka
    (2020) The generic structure of procedure-based Nigerian Supreme Court judgments. JESAN22(2): 143–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Du Bois, John
    2007 The stance triangle. InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation and Interaction, Englebretson Robert (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 139–182. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  13. Federal Judicial Centre
    Federal Judicial Centre 2013Judicial writing manual: A pocket guide for judges (2nd ed.).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Feteris, Eveline
    1999Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions (2nd ed.). Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9219‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9219-2 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2016 Prototypical argumentative patterns in a legal context: The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of legal decision. Argumentation29(3): 61–79. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9376‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9376-0 [Google Scholar]
  16. Finegan, Edward
    2010 Corpus linguistics approaches to ‘legal language’: Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions. InThe Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, Coulthard Malcom & Johnson Alison (eds). London: Routledge, 65–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 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. InCorpus-based Research on Variation English Legal Discourse, Fanego Teresa & Rodríguez-Puente Paula (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–146. 10.1075/scl.91.06goz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.91.06goz [Google Scholar]
  18. 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 Discourse13(2): 9–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2014 Facing the facts: Evaluative patterns in English and Italian judicial language. InLanguage 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]
  20. (eds) 2018Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary Perspective. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Heffer, Chris
    2007 Judgment in court: Evaluating participants in courtroom discourse. InLanguage and the Law: International Outlooks, Kredens Krzysztof & Goźdź-Roszkowski Stanisław (eds). Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 45–179.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hyland, Ken
    (2004) Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing13, 133-151. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2005 Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies7(2): 173–192. 10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2005Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2008 Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies8(2): 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2010 Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies9(2): 125–143. 10.35360/njes.220
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2011 Disciplines and discourses: Social interactions in the construction of knowledge. InWriting in the Knowledge Society, Starke-Meyerring, Doreen & Pare, Anthony & Artemeva, Natasha & Horne, Miriam & Yousoubova, Larissa (eds). West Lafayette: Parlor Press, 193–214. 10.37514/PER‑B.2011.2379.2.10
    https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2011.2379.2.10 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hyland, Ken & Tse, Polly
    2004 Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics (25)2: 156–177. 10.1093/applin/25.2.156
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hunston, Susan. & Thompson, Geoffery
    (eds) 2000Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ivanic, Roz
    1998Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/swll.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kalejaiye, Abiola Sakirat
    2016 A linguistic analysis of selected Nigerian appellate court judgments. PhD dissertation, Babcock University.
  32. 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 Studies6(2): 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kurzon, Dennis
    2001 The politeness of judges: American and English judicial behaviour. Journal of Pragmatics33(1): 61–85. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00123‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00123-X [Google Scholar]
  34. Leubsdorf, John
    2001 The structure of judicial opinions. Minnesota Law Review86(447): 447–496.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Martin, James & White, Peter
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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 Law23(4): 373–385. 10.1007/s11196‑010‑9162‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2014 ‘The words are plain and clear…’: On interpersonal positioning in the discourse of judicial interpretation. InInterpersonality in Legal Genres, Breeze Ruth, Gotti Maurizio, & Guinda Carmen Sancho (eds). Switzerland: Peter Lang, 39–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 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 Linguistics168–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sanni, Oluwole Oluwatobi
    2016 The role of forensic linguistics in courtroom cross examination. Ife Studies in English12(2): 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Solan, Lawrence
    1993The Language of Judges. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226767895.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226767895.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Szczyrbak, Magdalena
    2014 Stancetaking strategies in judicial discourse: Evidence from US Supreme Court opinions. Studia Linguistica Iagellonicae Cracoviensis131: 91–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Tracy, Hodge & Hodge, Danielle
    2018 Judge discourse moves that enact and endanger procedural justice. Discourse and Society29(1): 63–85. 10.1177/0957926517726112
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517726112 [Google Scholar]
  43. Vazquez-Orta, Ignacio
    2013 Authoritative intervention in legal discourse: A genre-based study of judgements and arbitration awards. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada91–104.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): engagement; judgments; Nigeria; stance; supreme court
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error