Chapter 7
The nature of power and control in the interrogative patterns of selected Nigerian courtroom discourse
This study examines power relations in two different but interrelated courtroom trials within the Nigerian socio-judicial space. One reports barrister-questioning strategies in the course of legal proceedings concerning a land dispute, and the other focuses on two election petition tribunal trials involving various barrister-witness dialogues. This article highlights the way language is used as a symbol of power in the two courtroom dialogues. Moreover, it considers questioning procedures in conjunction with the forms of witnesses’ answers and how these reproduce the nature of power and control in this institutional setting. Drawing on pragmatics and insights from Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), we show that courtroom conventions as well as social circumstances impose some constraints on what is said and how it is said. Some insights might, thus, be gained as to the extent in which social and other extra-judicial circumstances may impact the strategy that witnesses adopt to tell their stories during interrogation.
The findings support the interplay between socio-[cultural] circumstances and legal considerations in some typical courtroom trials in Nigeria. It confirms the universality of legal proceedings, especially as regards some similarity in the various interrogative patterns that counsel deploy in courtroom encounters and how these show the asymmetric nature of legal discourse and the effect on text and talk of the participants.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1
Conceptual and theoretical issues
- 1.2
Power and discourse
- 2.Courtroom discourse
- 2.1Interrogatives as discourse in the courtroom
- 2.2Conducive questioning in legal pleading
- 3.Nigerian courtroom discourse
- 3.1
The English language and law in Nigeria
- 3.2Sociocultural background of land ownership in Nigeria
- 3.3
Methodology
- 4.The data
- 5.
Information-seeking interrogatives
- 5.1Exploiting presuppositions through information-seeking questions
- 5.2Tracking inconsistencies in legal testimonies
- 5.3Constraining the responses of a witness
- 6.Confirmatory questions as instrument of power and control
- 6.1Speaker’s dominance through conducive questioning
- 6.2Socio-cultural pragmatics in the courtroom setting
- 7.Conclusion
-
References
-
Webography
References
Adegboye, R. O.
1966 An Analysis of Land Tenure Structures in Some Selected Areas in Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: NISER.
Adetugbo, Abiodun
1990 “
Language and the Law in Nigeria” Ogun Journal of Arts, 152–167. Ogun State University Press: Nigeria.
Austin, John L.
1962 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.
Awonusi, Segun
2004 “
The Functions of Nigerian English in Relation to other Nigerian Languages”. In
Dadzie and
Awonusi (eds.), 67–81.
Bolinger, Dwight L.
1957 Interrogative Structures of American English: The Direct Question. Alabama. University of Alabama Press
Bublitz, Wolfram
1981 “
Conducive yes-no Questions in English”
Linguistics, 19:851–870
Dahl, Robert
1961 Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City. New Heavens. CT: Yale University Press
Bublitz, Wolfram and Norrick, Neal
2011 Foundations of Pragmatics Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Daramola, Adeyemi
2011 “
The English Language as a Vehicle of Discourse for Development in Nigeria”
British Journal of Arts and Social Science 3/2, 143–155.
Cotterill, Janet
2010 “
Interpersonal Issues in Court”. In
Interpersonal Pragmatics ed. by
Miriam A. Locher and
Sage L. Graham pp.1–13 Available at
[URL]. Accessed on 28th August, 2017
Fairclough, Norman
1996 Language and Power. New York. Longman
Fairclough, Norman and Wodak, Ruth
1997 “
Critical Discourse Analysis”. In
Introduction to Discourse Analysis, ed. by
Teun van Dijk, 258–284. London: Sage.
Harris, Sandra
1988 “
Court Discourse as a Genre”. In
New Development in Systemic Linguistics, Vol. 2, ed. by
R. Fawcett and
D. Young, 94–112. London: Bloomsbury.
Jacquemet, Marco
1996 Credibility in Court Communicative Practices in the Camorra Trials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara
2006, “
Legal Pragmatics” In
Keith Brown (ed.)
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics Vol.7 2nd edition Elsevier Ltd., pp 16–19
Locher, Miriam and Watts, Richard J.
2008 “
Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behaviour”. In
Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by
Derek Bousfield and
Miriam A. Locher, 77–99. Berlin: Mouton Gruyter. DOI
Locher, Miriam. A and Graham, Sage, L.
2010 “
Introduction to Interpersonal Pragmatics”. In
Interpersonal Pragmatics, ed. by
Miriam A. Locher and
Sage L. Graham, 1–13. Available at
[URL]. Accessed on 28th August, 2017.
Luchjenbroers, June
1997 “
Discourse Dynamics in the Courtroom: Some Methodological Points of Description”.
La Trobe University Working Papers in Linguistics. 4.1: 85–109.
Lukes, Stevenson
1974 Power: A Radical View. London: Macmilian
Mayr, Andrea
2008 Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse. London. Continuum.
McHoul, Alec and Grace, Wendy
2002 A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject. London. Routledge
Monsefi, Roya
2012 “
Language in Criminal Justice: Forensic Linguistics in Shipman Trial”.
International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse 2(2), 43–69.
Neubauer, M.
2006 Modality and Courtroom Discourse: Analysis of Types of Questioning in the Shipman Trial. Unpublished Master’s Thesis: Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Omoniyi, Tope
2004 “
The Acquisition and Use of English as a Second Language in Nigeria”. In
Dadzie and
Awonusi (eds.), 100–118.
Opeibi, Tunde
2008 “
A Study of Interrogatives in Nigerian Courtroom Discourse”. In
Law and Language: Theory and Society, ed. by
Frances Olsen,
Lois Alexander and
Dieter Stein, 145–174. Dusseldorf: Dusseldorf University Press.
Opeibi, Tunde
2012 “
Language Countertrading in Courtroom Exchanges in Nigeria: A Discursive Study”.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature vol.1/5: 49–63.
Piazza, Roberta
2002 “
The Pragmatics of Conducive Questions in Academic Discourse”.
Journal of Pragmatics 34:509–527.
Quirk, Randolph, Svartvik, S, Greenbaum and Leech, G.
1985 A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
Robyn, P.
1987 “
Discourse in Courts: Cooperation, Coercion, and Coherence, Discourse Processes”, 10:3, 201–218.
.
Online Journal; accessed on
18thJune 2017.
Searle, John
1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press
Shuy, Roger
1995 “
How a Judge’s Voir Dire can Teach a Jury What to Say”.
Discourse and Society 6 (2): 207–222
Stenström, A.-B.
1984 Questions and Responses in English Conversation. Malmo: CWK Gleerup
Umeh, J. A.
1973 Compulsory Acquisition of Land and Compensation in Nigeria. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
Van Dijk, Teun
1996 “
Discourse, Power and Access”. In
Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by
C. Caldas-Coulthard, and
M. Coulthard, 84–104. London: Routledge.
Waugh, Linda; Catalano, Theresa; Al-Masaed, Khaled, Do, Tom Hong. and Renigar, Paul. G.
2015 “
‘Critical Discourse Analysis’: Definition, Approaches, Relation to Pragmatics, Critique and Trends”. Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education.
Wodak, Ruth
2002 “
Aspects of Critical Discourse Analysis”.
ZfAL 36 (5–32).
Woodbury, Hanni
1984 “
The Strategic Use of Questions in Court”.
Semiotica 48 (3–4), 197–228.
Webography
César Félix-Brasdefer
(
2007)
Discourse Pragmatics [URL]Accessed 22nd August, 2017.
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Aina, Oluwasola Abiodun & Anthony Elisha Anowu
2023.
Some Pragmatic Points of Description of Conducive Questioning in
Courtroom Interrogation.
Journal of Universal Language 24:2
► pp. 1 ff.
Uwen, God’sgift
2023.
Objection Overruled: Language Dynamics and Power Relations in Courtroom Interactions.
Language Matters 54:2
► pp. 21 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 2024. 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.