Cover not available
Part of
Legal Pragmatics
Edited by Dennis Kurzon and Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 288] 2018
► pp. 133–156

Chapter 7
The nature of power and control in the interrogative patterns of selected Nigerian courtroom discourse

| Crawford University
| University of Lagos, Nigeria
| University of Lagos, Nigeria
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
Published online: 26 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.288.07ain
References (42)
References
Adegboye, R. O. 1966. An Analysis of Land Tenure Structures in Some Selected Areas in Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: NISER.Google Scholar
Adetugbo, Abiodun. 1990. “Language and the Law in Nigeria” Ogun Journal of Arts, 152–167. Ogun State University Press: Nigeria.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Awonusi, Segun. 2004. “The Functions of Nigerian English in Relation to other Nigerian Languages”. In Dadzie and Awonusi (eds.), 67–81.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1957. Interrogative Structures of American English: The Direct Question. Alabama. University of Alabama PressGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram. 1981. “Conducive yes-no Questions in English” Linguistics, 19:851–870 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City. New Heavens. CT: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram and Norrick, Neal 2011. Foundations of Pragmatics Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Carranzer, Isolda. 2008. “Metaphysics as a Courtroom Genre” Pragmatics 18:2, 169–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. LongmanGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman and Wodak, Ruth. 1997. “Critical Discourse Analysis”. In Introduction to Discourse Analysis, ed. by Teun van Dijk, 258–284. London: Sage.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Jacquemet, Marco. 1996. Credibility in Court Communicative Practices in the Camorra Trials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koshik, Irene, 2005. Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2006, “Legal Pragmatics” In Keith Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics Vol.7 2nd edition Elsevier Ltd., pp 16–19 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logo
Luchjenbroers, June. 1997. “Discourse Dynamics in the Courtroom: Some Methodological Points of Description”. La Trobe University Working Papers in Linguistics. 4.1: 85–109.Google Scholar
Lukes, Stevenson. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmilian DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayr, Andrea. 2008. Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse. London. Continuum.Google Scholar
McHoul, Alec and Grace, Wendy. 2002. A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject. London. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Monsefi, Roya. 2012. “Language in Criminal Justice: Forensic Linguistics in Shipman Trial”. International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse 2(2), 43–69.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Omoniyi, Tope. 2004. “The Acquisition and Use of English as a Second Language in Nigeria”. In Dadzie and Awonusi (eds.), 100–118.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Language Countertrading in Courtroom Exchanges in Nigeria: A Discursive Study”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature vol.1/5: 49–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piazza, Roberta. 2002. “The Pragmatics of Conducive Questions in Academic Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 34:509–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Svartvik, S, Greenbaum and Leech, G. 1985. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Robyn, P. 1987. “Discourse in Courts: Cooperation, Coercion, and Coherence, Discourse Processes”, 10:3, 201–218. DOI logo. Online Journal; accessed on 18thJune, 2017.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shuy, Roger. 1995. “How a Judge’s Voir Dire can Teach a Jury What to Say”. Discourse and Society 6 (2): 207–222 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenström, A.-B. 1984. Questions and Responses in English Conversation. Malmo: CWK GleerupGoogle Scholar
Umeh, J. A. 1973. Compulsory Acquisition of Land and Compensation in Nigeria. London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Wang, Jinjun. 2009. “Chinese Questions and Power Relations in Institutional Dialogue”. In Discourse of Course: An Overview of Research in Discourse Studies, ed. by Ian Renkema, 227–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2002. “Aspects of Critical Discourse Analysis”. ZfAL 36 (5–32).Google Scholar
. 2007. “Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry”. Pragmatics and Cognition, 15:1, 203–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, Hanni. 1984. “The Strategic Use of Questions in Court”. Semiotica 48 (3–4), 197–228.Google Scholar
Webography
César Félix-Brasdefer (2007). Discourse Pragmatics [URL]Accessed 22nd August, 2017.
Cited by (2)

Cited by two 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. DOI logo
Uwen, God’sgift
2023. Objection Overruled: Language Dynamics and Power Relations in Courtroom Interactions. Language Matters 54:2 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.