“But I think, with respect, that the trial court was wrong”: but signalling stance in Nigerian Supreme Court Judgements
-
Florence Oluwaseyi Daniel
Abstract
This study investigates the stance functions of but as a contrastive marker in Nigerian Supreme Court judgements to explore other lexical means of marking stances in the legal genre aside value-laden words and lexico-grammatical constructions. The study analysed a corpus of Nigerian Supreme Court judgements comprising lead, supporting and dissenting judgements for stance classification, following the stance triangle model. Findings show that the contrastive marker mostly signals epistemic, evidential, and evaluative stances, an indication that even with but the presentation of subjective positions in judicial opinions entails evaluation of other stance takers’ stances, assertive presentation of such positions alongside cogent evidence to justify and legitimise them. Alignment and affective positions are rarely signalled with but in the corpus, which implies that beyond any other communicative intents, projection of individual voice based on legal principles and facts is more important to the judge than expression of affect or alignment with others.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback, which helped to improve the quality of the initial submission. I would also like to thank the organisers of the 2024 Corpus Linguistics MOOC at Lancaster University for introducing LancsBox X and making it freely available for personal research. Their detailed, step-by-step guide on using the software was especially helpful in analysing the data presented in this paper.
References
Arrese, Marin Juana. 2015. Epistemicity and stance: A cross-linguistic study of epistemic stance strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish. Discourse Studies 17(2). 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614564523.Search in Google Scholar
Aull, Laura & Zak Lancaster. 2014. Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication. 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055.Search in Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay. 1993. Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2006. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.23Search in Google Scholar
Boginskaya, Olga. 2022. Dissenting with conviction: Boosting in challenging the majority opinion. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(2). 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2073.Search in Google Scholar
Breeze, Ruth. 2013. Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(2). 229–253.10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03breSearch in Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav & William Platt. 2024. LancsBox X (Software). Lancaster University. http://lancsbox.lancs.ac.uk.Search in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. & Johanna. Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Daniel, Florence. 2021. A genre analysis of selected substance-based judgements of the Nigerian Supreme Court. Covenant Journal of Language Studies 9(1). 55–70.Search in Google Scholar
Daniel, Florence. 2024. That-complement clauses signalling stance in Nigerian Supreme Court lead judgements. International Journal of Legal Discourse 9(1). 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2024-2005.Search in Google Scholar
Daniel, Florence. 2025. Dissenting with conviction and deference: Boosters and hedges in Nigerian Supreme Court dissents. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 38. 1576–1602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-024-10244-x.Search in Google Scholar
Daniel, Florence & Foluke Unuabonah. 2021. Stance and engagement in selected Nigerian Supreme Court judgements. English Text Construction 14(2). 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.21021.dan.Search in Google Scholar
Du Bois, John. 2007. The stance triangle. In Englebretson Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.07duSearch in Google Scholar
Feteris, Eveline. 2016. Prototypical argumentative patterns in a legal context: The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of legal decisions. Argumentation 29(3). 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9376-0.Search in Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2). 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra.Search in Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2009. An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics 1. 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909x12538045489818.Search in Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2011. The sequencing of contrastive discourse markers in English. Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture 1. 29–35. https://doi.org/10.22364/bjellc.01.2011.04.Search in Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2013. Combinations of contrastive discourse markers in English. International Reviews of Pragmatics 5. 318–340. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-13050209.Search in Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2015. The combining of discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 86. 48–53.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.007Search in Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanislaw. 2019. It’s not just a fact that the law requires this, but it is a reasonable fact: Using the Noun that-pattern to explore stance construction in legal writing. In Teresa Fanego & Paula Rodríguez-Puente (eds.), Corpus-based research on variation English legal discourse, 123–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.91.06gozSearch in Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanislaw. 2020. Communicating dissent in judicial opinions: A comparative, genre-based analysis. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 33. 381–401.10.1007/s11196-020-09711-ySearch in Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanislaw & Pontrandolfo Gianluca. 2013. Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: A corpus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgements. International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse 13(2). 9–69.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Hodge, Tracy. & Danielle Hodge. 2018. Judge discourse moves that enact and endanger procedural justice. Discourse and Society 29(1). 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517726112.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2011. Disciplines and discourses: Social interactions in the construction of knowledge. In Doreen Starke-Meyerring, Anthony Pare, Natasha Artemeva, Miriam Horne & Larissa Yousoubova (eds.), Writing in the knowledge society, 193–214. West Lafayette: Parlor Press.Search in Google Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina & Elise Kärkkäinen. 2014. Stance. In Klaus Schneider & Barron Anne (eds.), Pragmatic of discourse, 295–322. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214406-012Search in Google Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis. 2001. The politeness of judges: American and English judicial behaviour. Journal of Pragmatics 33(1). 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00123-x.Search in Google Scholar
Lutzky, Ursula. 2019. ‘But it’s not prov’d’: A sociopragmatic study of the discourse marker but in the Early Modern English Courtroom. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 20(1). 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00026.lut.Search in Google Scholar
Mazzi, Davide. 2007. The construction of argumentation in judicial text: Combining a genre and a corpus perspective. Argumentation 21. 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9020-8.Search in Google Scholar
McKeown, Jamie. 2022. Stancetaking in the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence (1973-present): Epistemic (im)probability and evidential (dis)belief. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(2). 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2075.Search in Google Scholar
Mendenhall, Allen. 2016. The corrective careers of concurrences and dissents. Faulkner Law Review 8(49). 49–71.Search in Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(00)00006-0.Search in Google Scholar
Poole, Robert. 2021. A corpus-aided study of stance adverbs in judicial opinions and the implications for English for legal purposes. English for Specific Purposes 62. 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.01.002.Search in Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611841Search in Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 2001. Discourse markers, language, meaning and context. In Schiffrin Deborah, Tannen Deborah & Hamilton Heidi (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, Vol. 1, 54–75. United Kingdom: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470753460.ch4Search in Google Scholar
Unuabonah, Foluke. 2017. But as a stance marker in Nigerian investigative public hearings. Pragmatics and Society 8(3). 400–420. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.3.04unu.Search in Google Scholar
Uzelgun, Mehmet, Mohammed Dima, Lewiński Marcin & Castro Paula. 2015. Managing disagreement through yes, but…constructions: An argumentative analysis. Discourse Studies 17(4). 467–484.10.1177/1461445615578965Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
