Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anthonissen, Christine
    2006 “Critical Discourse Analysis as an Analytic Tool in Considering Selected Prominent Features of TRC Testimonies.” Journal of Language and Politics5(1):171–196. 10.1075/jlp.5.1.05ant
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.5.1.05ant [Google Scholar]
  2. Berlin, Lawrence N.
    2007 “Cooperative Conflict and Evasive Language: The Case of the 9–11 Commission Hearings.” InContext and Appropriateness, ed. by Anita Fetzer , 167–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.162.10ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.162.10ber [Google Scholar]
  3. 2008 “‘I Think, Therefore…’: Commitment in Political Testimony.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology27 (4): 372–383. 10.1177/0261927X08322480
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X08322480 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2011 “Redundancy and Markers of Belief in the Discourse of Political Hearings.” Language Sciences33: 268–279. 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2010.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernard, Taryn
    2009 Justificatory Discourse of the Perpetrator in TRC Testimonies: A discourse-historical Analysis. M.A. thesis, Stellenbosch University.
  6. Blommaert, Jan , Mary Bock , and Kay McCormick
    2006 “Narrative Inequality in the TRC Hearings: On the Hearability of Hidden Transcripts.” Journal of Language and Politics5 (1): 37–70. 10.1075/jlp.5.1.04blo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.5.1.04blo [Google Scholar]
  7. Bock, Zanni
    2007 A Discourse Analysis of Selected Truth and Reconciliation Commission Testimonies: Appraisal and Genre. Ph.D. thesis, University of the Western Cape.
  8. 2008 “‘Language has a Heart’: Linguistic Markers of Evaluation in Selected TRC Testimonies.” Language of Multicultural Discourses3(3):189–203. 10.1080/17447140802381201
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17447140802381201 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2011 “Code-switching: An Appraisal Resource in TRC Testimonies.” Functions of Language18 (2): 183–209. 10.1075/fol.18.2.02boc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18.2.02boc [Google Scholar]
  10. 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 PLUS33:1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cavalieri, Silva
    2009 “Reformulation and Conflict in the Witness Examination: The Case of Public Inquiries.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law22 (2): 209–221. 10.1007/s11196‑009‑9103‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-009-9103-y [Google Scholar]
  12. Feteris, Eveline T.
    2017 “The Role of Judges in Legal Proceedings: A Pragma-Dialectial Analysis.” InContextualizing Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Wu Peng , 59–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.12.04fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.04fet [Google Scholar]
  13. Garssen, Bart
    2017 “Strategic maneuvering in European Parliamentary debate. InContextualizing Pragma-Dialectics,” ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Wu Peng , 145–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.12.09gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.09gar [Google Scholar]
  14. Makinde, Bankole
    2008 “Must we Kill El-Rufai now?” Nigerian Tribune, 18April. RetrievedDecember 18, 2009fromtribune.com.ng/index.php
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Marín-Arrese, I. Juana
    2015 “Epistemic Legitimization and Inter/Subjectivity in the Discourse of Parliamentary and Public Inquiries.” Critical Discourse Studies12(3): 261–278. 10.1080/17405904.2015.1013484
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1013484 [Google Scholar]
  16. Meinig, Bob
    1998 “Public Hearings: When and How to Hold Them.” MRSC Publications. RetrievedJune 2, 2008fromwww.mrsc.org/focuspub/hearings.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Murphy, James
    2016 “Apologies Made at the Leveson Inquiry: Triggers and Responses.” Pragmatics and Society7 (4): 595–617. 10.1075/ps.7.4.04mur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.4.04mur [Google Scholar]
  18. Odebunmi, Akin , and Foluke Unuabonah
    2014 “Defensive Acts in a Quasi-Judicial Hearing.” Ibadan Journal of English Studies10:105–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Sidnell, Jack
    2004 “There’s Risks in Everything: Extreme-Case Formulations and Accountability in Inquiry Testimony.” Discourse and Society15(6): 745–766. 10.1177/0957926504046503
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504046503 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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 Society27(5): 554–573. 10.1177/0957926516651365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516651365 [Google Scholar]
  21. Unuabonah, Foluke
    2012a “The Generic Structure of Presentations in Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings on the FCT Administration in Nigeria in 2008.” California Linguistic Notes37(2): 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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.
  23. 2015 “The Generic Structure of a Public Hearing.” InEssays 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]
  24. 2016 “Contextual Beliefs in a Nigerian Quasi-judicial Public Hearing.” Journal of Asian and African Studies51(5): 619–633. 10.1177/0021909614553238
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909614553238 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2017a “But as a Stance Marker in Nigerian Investigative Public Hearings.” Pragmatics & Society8 (3): 400–420. 10.1075/ps.8.3.04unu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.3.04unu [Google Scholar]
  26. 2017b “‘Are You Saying …?’ Metapragmatic Comments in Nigerian Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings.” Pragmatics27(1): 115–143. 10.1075/prag.27.1.05unu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.1.05unu [Google Scholar]
  27. 2018 “Direct Quotations in Nigerian Investigative Public Hearings.” Text &Talk38(4): 503–524. 10.1515/text‑2018‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2018-0012 [Google Scholar]
  28. . in press. “Appraisal Choices in Nigerian Investigative Public Hearings.” InDiscourse, 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Van Eemeren, Frans. H.
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2017 “Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse in Political Deliberation.” InContextualizing Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Wu Peng , 123–144. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.12.08van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.08van [Google Scholar]
  31. Van Eemeren, Frans H. , and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Van Eemeren, Frans H. , Peter Houtlosser , and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2007Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  33. Verdoolaege, Annelies
    2009 “The Audience as Actor: The Participation Status of the Audience at the Victim Hearings of the South African TRC.” Discourse Studies11(4): 441–463. 10.1177/1461445609105219
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609105219 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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