Pragmatic Markers in an Appellate Court Judgment: General Brigadier, A.M Adekunle (Rtd) V. Rockview
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47672/ajl.1236Keywords:
Linguistics, Propositional, Meta-propositional, Appellate Court Judgments.Abstract
Purpose: Linguistics is the scientific study of language; however its meta-implications in Appellate court judgment is yet to be given as much scholarly attention as other legal genres. Most studies on courtroom and particularly court judgement have focused on stylistic analysis, speech act and genre analysis; consequently studies on non-propositional meanings are still lean. Therefore, this study in the bid to further describe language of judges and account for how language is organised to achieve justice, investigated the nature and function pragmatic markers in a select Nigerian Appellate Court Judgement.
Methodology: Using a Purposive random sampling technique, the study selected a property case judgement titled General Brigadier, A.M Adekunle (Rtd) V. Rockview from the Nigerian Weekly Law Reports (1999-2004). It adopted Fraser's 1996 Pragmatic Marker Theory and mixed method of analysis -The quantitative was used in analysing the frequencies of the types of pragmatic markers employed by the judge while pragmatic imports of the markers in the ApCJ were discussed qualitatively.
Findings: These analyses revealed that the selected ApCJ, though linguistic, is also replete with the four variants of pragmatic markers: Basic (44.9% marker), commentary (37.8%) and discourse markers (10.35%) and parallel (3.45%) identified by Fraser's .The appellate judge used the basic markers particularly (the declarative markers) to build up the fact of the case and signal his opinions about them and the imperative markers were verdict pronounced. Commentary markers with (37.8%) were the second class of pragmatic marker observed in the (ApCJ). It comprised the following : Hearsay (3.45%), evidential (13.8%), contrastive markers (3.45%) assessment markers (13.7%) and emphasis marker (6.9%).The judge used more of evidential markers and assessment to predicate his judicial argumentation, implicitly justify the trial court's judgement and thereby build logical bases for partly disallowing the appeal .
Recommendation: The language of ApCJs is laden with pragmatic markers which serve essentially to build up and issues of the case, provide judicial argumentation and ultimately construct the verdicts. Pragmatic makers are greatly exploited by the appellate judge for effective adjudication. Therefore applied linguists and Forensic experts should critically investigate them to ascertain the correctness of the ratio dicidendi and the judge's obiter dictum -crucial variables for establishing judicial accountability and fairness.
Downloads
References
Abdwani, S. "˜The Art of Writing a Court Judgement'. Retrieved from http://www.ijtr.nic.in/webjournal/3.htm
Agangan (2007) A Speech acts Analysis of the Lawyer-Witness Courtroom interactions in the High Court of Lagos in Nigeria .
Blackshield, T (2007) "Judicial Reasoning" in Tony Blackshield, Michael Coper, and George Williams (Eds), Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia pp.373.Retrieved on 22/9/2014 from http://win-more.cases.com/index.php/resources/articles/judicial reasoning
Berk-Seligson, s., (1999) the impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading Questions,
Forensic Linguistics 6:1:30-56.
Chenge, L. King K. & Jian L. (2010) a Discursive Approach to Legal Texts: Court Judgements as an Example. Retrieved 2/1/14 from www.asi journal.com/"¦php/component/easytag.
Chenge, L. (2008) Discourse and Judicial thinking: A Corpus Based Study of Court
judgements in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China'.Retrieved 2/1/15 from
www.asi journal.com/"¦php/component.
Cheng, Le, and Marcel Danesi. "Exploring legal discourse: A sociosemiotic (re) construction."
(2019): 279- 285.
Cotteril, J. Language in Judicial Process. London: Macmillan.
Crystal D. and David, D. (1969). Investigating English Style. London: Longman.
___________. (2000). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Denning, L.J. (2010). The Discipline of Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dumas, B.K (2000).'U.S Pattern Jury Instructions Problems and Proposal' in Journal of
Forensic linguistics, 7:1:49-71.
Farinde, R.O. (2008). Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to the Study of Language. Ogun
State: OlabisiOnabanjo University Press.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic Markers.Pragmatics, 6, 167-190. Retrieved from www.googlescholar.com 23/8/2015.
Gibbons, J. (2003).Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system.
Wiley-Blackwell.
Harindranath, B.G. "˜The Art of Writing a Good Judgement'. Retrieved fromhttp://www.kja.nic.in/article/ART%20OF%20WRITING%20JUDGEMENTS.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-99,792. 26/9/2014.
Komter, M. L. (1994). Accusations and defences in courtroom interaction. Discourse &
Society, 5(2), 165-187.
Kurzon, D. (2001). The politeness of judges: American and English judicial behaviour. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(1), 61-85.
Leung, J. (2015). Lay litigation behaviour in postcolonial Hong Kong courtrooms. Language and
Law/Linguagem e Direito, 2(1), 32-52.
Levi, J. (1993) Evaluating jury Comprehension of Illinois Capital sentencing Instructions, Am
Speech, 68:1:20-49.
Levinson, S. (1983.)Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McMenamin, G. (2002). Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics: Florida: CRS Press.
Mazzi (2005). Grounds and reasons: Argumentative signals in Judicial Texts. Linguistica Filologia, 20, 157-178. 2/5/2014.
Maley, Y. et al., (1995) Orientations in Lawyer-client interviews, Forensic Linguistic. 2:1:42-
Questioning in interpreted testimony, Forensic Linguistic. 6:1:83-108.
Martinovski, B., Mao, W., Gratch, J., & Marsella, S. (2005). Mitigation theory: an integrated
approach. University of Southern California Marina Del Rey Ca Inst for Creative
Technologies.
Martinovski, B. (2006). A framework for the analysis of mitigation in courts: Toward a theory of
mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(12), 2065-2086.
Ogunsiji, A. and Olaosun I.E. (2012). Pragmatic Acts in Court-Rulings: A Case of Nigeria's Supreme Court's Judgement on Obi Versus Uba. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences ISSN: 2046-9578, Vol.4 No.1 Retrieved from on 5/March/2014.
Osisanwo, W. (2003). Introduction to Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics. Lagos: Femolous-
Fetop Publishers.
Tiersma, P. M., &Solan, L. (2002). The Linguist on the Witness Stand: Forensic Linguistics
in American Courts. Language, 78(2), 221-239.Retrieved on 28/7/2015 from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar
Rigney, A. C. (1999) Questioning in interpreted testimony, Forensic Linguistic. 6:1:83-108.
Russel, S. (2004). "˜Three's a Crowd': Shifting Dynamics in the Interpreted Interview in
Solan, L.M (1993). The Language of Judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
__________ (1998) Linguistic Expert as semantic Tour Guides, Forensic. Linguistics.
:2:87-106.
Syal, P and Jindal, D.V. ((2010). An Introduction to Linguistics: Language Grammar and
Semantics. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited.
Unuabonah, F. O., & Gut, U. (2018). Commentary pragmatic markers in Nigerian English. English
World- Wide, 39(2), 190-213.
Verschueren, J., Östman, J., & Blommaert, J. (1995). Handbook of pragmatics.
Wetter, J. G. (1960). The Styles of Appellate Judicial Opinions: A Case Study in Comparative Law. AW Sythoff.
Yule, G. (2002). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Abiola Kalejaiye (PhD), Prof. Wale Osisanwo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
