Volume 8, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study examines the kinds of stance that 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 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2013Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748635511
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748635511 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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. doi:  10.1075/jlp.5.1.05ant
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.5.1.05ant [Google Scholar]
  3. Aull, L. Laura , and Zak Lancaster
    2014 “Linguistic Markers of Stance in Early and Advanced Academic Writings: A corpus-based comparison.” Written Communication32(2):151–183. doi:  10.1177/0741088314527055
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1981The Dialogic Imagination (translated by C. Emerson & M. Holquist ). Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baratta, Alexander M.
    2009 “Revealing Stance through Passive Voice.” Journal of Pragmatics411: 1406–1421. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  6. Berlin, Lawrence N.
    2007 “Cooperative Conflict and Evasive Language: The Case of the 9–11 Commission Hearings.” InContext and Appropriateness, ed. by A. Fetzer , 167–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/pbns.162.10ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.162.10ber [Google Scholar]
  7. 2008 “‘I Think, Therefore …’ Commitment in Political Testimony.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology27 (4): 372–383. doi:  10.1177/0261927X08322480
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X08322480 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernard, Taryn
    2009Justificatory Discourse of the Perpetrator in TRC Testimonies: A discourse-historical Analysis. Unpublished MA Thesis. Stellenbosch University.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, Douglas
    2006 “Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes51: 97–116. doi:  10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad , and Edward Finegan
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bock, Zanni
    2007A Discourse Analysis of Selected Truth and Reconciliation Commission Testimonies: Appraisal and Genre. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of the Western Cape.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. 2011 Code-switching: An appraisal resource in TRC testimonies. Functions of Language, 18 (2): 183–209 doi:  10.1075/fol.18.2.02boc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18.2.02boc [Google Scholar]
  14. 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 PLUS331:1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cavalieri, Silvia
    2009 “Reformulation and Conflict in the Witness Examination: The case of Public Inquiries.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law22 (2): 209–221. doi:  10.1007/s11196‑009‑9103‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-009-9103-y [Google Scholar]
  16. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 “The Stance Triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebretson , 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  17. Du Bois, John W. , Stephan Schuetze-Coburn , Susanna Cumming , & Danae Paolino
    1993 “Outline of discourse transcription.” InTalking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Researched. by Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert , 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Englebretson, Robert
    2007 “Stancetaking in Discourse: An Introduction.” InStancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebretson , 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.164.02eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.02eng [Google Scholar]
  19. Fraser, Bruce
    1996 “Pragmatic Markers.” Pragmatics6 (2): 167–190. doi:  10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra [Google Scholar]
  20. 2006 “Towards a Theory of Discourse Markers.” InApproaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by K. Fischer , 189–204. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2009 “An Account of Discourse Markers.” International Review of Pragmatics11: 293–320. doi:  10.1163/187730909X12538045489818
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12538045489818 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2011 “The Sequencing of Contrastive Discourse Markers in English.” Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture11: 29–35
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2013 “Combinations of Contrastive Discourse Markers in English.” International Review of Pragmatics51: 318–340. doi:  10.1163/18773109‑13050209
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-13050209 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2015 “The Combining of Discourse Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics861: 48–53, doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gray, Bethany and Douglas Biber
    2015 “Stance Markers.” InCorpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, ed. by Karin Aijmer and Christoph Rühlemann , 219–248 doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hyland, Ken
    2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies7 (2): 173–192. doi:  10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  27. Keisanen, Tina and Elise Kärkkäinen
    2014 “Stance.” InPragmatics of Discourse, ed. by Klaus P. Schneider and Anne Baron , 295–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, doi:  10.1515/9783110214406‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214406-012 [Google Scholar]
  28. Martin, J. R. & Peter White
    2005the Language age of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mei, S. Wu
    2006 “Creating a Contrastive Rhetorical Stance: Investigating the Strategy of Problemitisation in Students’ Argumentation.” RELC37 (3): 329–353. doi:  10.1177/0033688206071316
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206071316 [Google Scholar]
  30. Meinig, Bob
    1998Public Hearings: When and How to Hold Them. MRSC Publications. RetrievedJune 2, 2008fromwww.mrsc.org/focuspub/hearings.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mey, Jacob L.
    2001Pragmatics: An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishers
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  33. Szczyrbak, Magdalena
    2014 “Stancetaking Strategies in Judicial Discourse: Evidence from US Supreme Court Opinions.” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis1311: 91–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. The Law Reform Commission
    The Law Reform Commission (2003) Consultation Paper on Public Inquiries including Tribunals of Inquiry. Dublin: The Law Reform Commission.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 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 Language3 (1): 37–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 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]
  37. 2012bInteraction 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]
  38. 2016 “Contextual Beliefs in a Nigerian Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing”. Journal of Asian and African studies5 (5): 619-633. doi:  10.1177/0021909614553238.
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909614553238 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2017 “‘Are you saying?’ Metapragmatic comments in Nigerian quasi-judicial public hearings”. Pragmatics27 (1): 115-143. doi:  10.1075/prag.27.1.05unu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.1.05unu [Google Scholar]
  40. 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. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 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:  10.1177/1461445609105219
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609105219 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. White, Peter R. R.
    2011 “Appraisal.” InDiscursive Pragmaticsed. by Jan Zienkowski , Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren , 14–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/hoph.8.02whi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8.02whi [Google Scholar]
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