Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Aijmer, Karin
    1996Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London & New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Berlin, N. Lawrence
    2007 “Cooperative Conflict and Evasive Language: The Case of the 9–11 Commission Hearings.”InContext and appropriateness, ed.byA. Fetzer, 167–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.162.10ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.162.10ber [Google Scholar]
  3. Blum-Kulka, S. , and H. Sheffer
    1993 “The Metapragmatic Discourse of American-Israeli Families at Dinner.”InInterlanguage Pragmatics, ed.byG. Kasper, and S. Blum-Kulka, 196–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bock, Zanni
    2007A Discourse Analysis of Selected Truth and Reconciliation Commission Testimonies: Appraisal and Genre. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of the Western Cape.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2008 “‘Language has a Heart’: Linguistic Markers of Evaluation in Selected TRC Testimonies.”Language of Multicultural Discourses3 (3): 189–203. doi: 10.1080/17447140802381201
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17447140802381201 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2011 “Code-switching: An Appraisal Resource in TRC Testimonies.”Functions of Language18 (2): 183–209. doi: 10.1075/fol.18.2.02boc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18.2.02boc [Google Scholar]
  7. 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 PLUS33: 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brinton, J. Laurel
    2008Comment Clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  9. Caffi, Claudia
    1998 Metapragmatics. InConcise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, ed.byJ.L. Mey, 581–585. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Carranza, E. Isolda
    2008 “Metapragmatics in a Courtroom Genre.”Pragmatics18 (2): 169–188. doi: 10.1075/prag.18.2.01car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.2.01car [Google Scholar]
  11. Ciliberti, A. , and L. Anderson
    2007 “Metapragmatic Comments in Institutional Talk. A Comparative Analysis across Settings.”InMetapragmatics in Use, ed.byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 143–166. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.11cil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.11cil [Google Scholar]
  12. De Geer, Boel
    2004 “‘Don’t say it’s disgusting!’ Comments on Socio-Moral Behavior in Swedish Families.”Journal of Pragmatics36: 1705–1725. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.016 [Google Scholar]
  13. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by P. Cole and J. Morgan , 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Grundy, Peter
    2008Doing Pragmatics. (3rd edn). London: Hodder Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Haberland, Hartmut
    2007 “Language Shift in Conversation as a Metapragmatic Comment.”InMetapragmatics in Use, ed.byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 129–142. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.09hab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.09hab [Google Scholar]
  16. Hongladoram, Krisadawan
    2007 “’Don’t blame me for criticising you…’: A Study of Metapragmatic Comments in Thai.”InMetapragmatics in Use, ed.byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 29–48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.04hon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.04hon [Google Scholar]
  17. Hübler, Abel
    2007 “On the Metapragmatics of Gestures.”InMetapragmatics in Use, ed.byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 107–128. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.08hub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.08hub [Google Scholar]
  18. Hübler, A. , and W. Bublitz
    2007 “Introducing Metapragmatics in Use.”InMetapragmatics in Use, ed.byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 1–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.02hub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.02hub [Google Scholar]
  19. Jacquemet, Marco
    1992 “’If he speaks Italian it’s better’: Metapragmatics in Court.”Pragmatics2 (2): 111 – 126. doi: 10.1075/prag.2.2.01jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.2.2.01jac [Google Scholar]
  20. Janney, W. Richard
    2007 “‘So your story now is that…’: Metapragmatic Framing Strategies in Courtroom Interrogation.”InMetapragmatics in Use, ed.byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 223–234. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.15jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.15jan [Google Scholar]
  21. Meinig, Bob
    1998 “Public Hearings: When and How to Hold Them.” MRSC Publications. RetrievedJune 2, 2008, from www.mrsc.org/focuspub/hearings.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Mey, L. Jacob
    2001Pragmatics: An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Muntigl, Peter
    2007 “A Metapragmatic Examination of Therapist Reformulations.”InMetapragmatics in Use, ed.byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 235–262. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.16mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.16mun [Google Scholar]
  24. Penz, Hermine
    2007 “Building Common Ground through Metapragmatic Comments in International Project Work.”InMetapragmatics in Use, ed.byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 263–292. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.17pen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.17pen [Google Scholar]
  25. Pizziconi, Barbara
    2007 “Facework and Multiple Selves in Apologetic Metapragmatic Comments in Japanese.”InMetapragmatics in Use, ed.byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 49–72. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.05piz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.05piz [Google Scholar]
  26. Sacks, H. , E.A. Schegloff , and G. Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organisation of Turn Taking for Conversation.”Language50 (4): 696 – 735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  27. Smith, S.W. , and X. Liang
    2007 “Metapragmatic Expressions in Physics Lectures: Integrating Representations, Guiding Processing, and Assigning Participant Roles.”InMetapragmatics in Use, ed.byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 167–199. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.12smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.12smi [Google Scholar]
  28. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2008 “Face (Im)politeness and Rapport.”InCulturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed.byH. Spencer-Oatey, 11–47. London/New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Stude, Juliane
    2007 “The Acquisition of Metapragmatic Abilities in Preschool Children.”InMetapragmatics in Use, ed.byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 199–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.13stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.13stu [Google Scholar]
  30. Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
    2007 “Metapragmatic Utterances in Computer-mediated Interaction.”. InMetapragmatics in Use, ed.byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 87–106. ed.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.07tan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.07tan [Google Scholar]
  31. Unuabonah, O. Foluke
    2012 “The Generic Structure of Presentations in Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings on the FCT Administration in Nigeria in 2008.”California Linguistic Notes37 (1): 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2016 “Contextual Beliefs in a Nigerian Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing.”Journal of Asian and African Studies, 51(5): 619–633. doi: 10.1177/0021909614553238
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909614553238 [Google Scholar]
  33. Verdoolaege, Annelies
    2009a “The Audience as Actor: The Participation Status of the Audience at the Victim Hearings of the South African TRC.”Discourse Studies11 (4): 441–463. doi: 10.1177/1461445609105219
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609105219 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2009b “Dealing with a Traumatic Past: The Victim Hearings of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and their Reconciliation Discourse.”Critical Discourse Studies6 (4): 297–309. doi: 10.1080/17405900903181135
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900903181135 [Google Scholar]
  35. Verschueren, Jef
    1999Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2000 “Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use.”Pragmatics10 (4): 439–456. doi: 10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver [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