Refine Search

New Search

Results: 3

(searched for: doi:10.1075/prag.27.1.05unu)
Save to Scifeed
Page of 1
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Journal of Argumentation in Context, Volume 9, pp 199-218; https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19004.ola

Abstract:
This paper examines defendants’ argumentative discourse in the 2008 Nigerian investigative public hearings on the Federal Capital Territory administration. The data, which consist of nine defendants’ presentations, are analyzed qualitatively, using a combination of the pragma-dialectical and extended pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. The findings show that the hearing panel initially starts of as the institutional protagonist and defendants as the antagonists, and but later serve as the institutional antagonist and protagonists, respectively. The defendants tend to use analogy and causal argumentation schemes while employing subordinative and complementary coordinative argumentation structures. The defendants also employ different strategic maneuvers at different argumentative stages of the critical discussion. Due to the politico-forensic communicative domain and information-seeking genre of the investigative public hearing discourse, the concluding stage is suspended. Thus, the study shows the influence of communicative activity type on the argumentative activities in a critical discussion.
Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, Volume 38, pp 503-524; https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2018-0012

Abstract:
This paper examines the forms, frequency and pragmatic functions of direct quotations in Nigerian investigative public hearings on the Federal Capital Territory administration. The quotations are taken from 40 purposively selected investigative public hearings which are analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively from a discourse-pragmatic approach to quotations as well as from the perspective of metapragmatic act theory. The quotations involve both written and spoken quotations, self- and other-quotations, as well as actual and hypothetical quotations. Direct quotations are used in the hearings by quoters to frame their discourse, support their claims, indicate different stances, depict victimhood, serve as reminders, correct misunderstandings, and model discourse. The forms, distribution and functions of these quotations indicate how speakers in the hearings frame their discourse in order to help hearers interpret their talk appropriately.
Published: 13 October 2017
Pragmatics and Society, Volume 8, pp 400-420; https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.3.04unu

Abstract:
This study examines the kinds of stance thatbutas 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 utilisingDu Bois’ (2007)interactional view of stance andMartin and White’s (2005)Appraisal system. Results indicate thatbutsignals 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.
Page of 1
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Back to Top Top