That-complement clauses signalling stance in Nigerian Supreme Court lead judgements: a corpus-based study

References

Asein, John. 2005. Introduction to Nigerian legal system. Lagos: Ababa Press.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1999. A register perspective on grammar and discourse: Variability in the form and use of English complement clauses. Discourse Studies 1(2). 131–150.10.1177/1461445699001002001Search 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

Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11(1). 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544689.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Connor Ulla & Upton Thomas. 2007. Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.28Search 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

Cheng, Winnie & Le Cheng. 2014. Epistemic modality and court judgements: A corpus-driven comparison of civil cases in Hong Kong and Scotland. English for Specific Purposes 33(1). 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.07.006.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & King Kui Sin. 2008. A court judgment as dialogue. In Edda Weigand (ed.), Dialogue and rhetoric, 267–284. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/ds.2.21cheSearch in Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer. 1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society 85(1). 110–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968x.1987.tb00714.x.Search in Google Scholar

Daniel, Florence. 2021. A genre analysis of selected substance-based judgments of the Nigerian Supreme Court. Covenant Journal of Language Studies 9(1). 55–70.Search in Google Scholar

Daniel, Florence & Foluke Unuabonah. 2020. The generic structure of procedure-based Nigerian Supreme Court judgements. JESAN 22(2). 143–159.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

Deuna, Ina Francesca G. & Rachelle Ballesteros-Lintao. 2022. The language of evaluation in a Philippine drug trial: An appraisal framework perspective. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(2). 163–193. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2068.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John. 2007. The stance triangle. In Englebretson Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.07duSearch in Google Scholar

Federal Judicial Centre. 2013. Judicial writing manual: A pocket guide for judges, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Centre.Search in Google Scholar

Feteris, Eveline. 2016. Prototypical argumentative patterns in a legal context: The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of legal decision. Argumentation 29(3). 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9376-0.Search in Google Scholar

Finegan, Edward. 1995. Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction. In Stein Dieter & Wright Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554469.001Search 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 Fanego Teresa & Rodríguez-Puente Paula (eds.), Corpus-based research on variation English legal discourse, 123–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.91.06gozSearch in Google Scholar

Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław & Gianluca Pontrandolfo. 2013. Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: A corpus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgments. International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse 3(2). 9–69.Search in Google Scholar

Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław & Gianluca Pontrandolfo. 2014. Facing the facts: Evaluative patterns in English and Italian judicial language. In Guliana Garzone, Salvi Rita, Tessuto Girolamo, Williams Christopher & Bhatia Vijay (eds.), Language and law in professional discourse: Issues and perspectives, 10–28. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar.Search in Google Scholar

Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław & Gianluca Pontrandolfo (eds.). 2018. Phraseology in legal and institutional settings: A corpus-based interdisciplinary perspective. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315445724Search in Google Scholar

Gray, Bethany & Douglas Biber. 2015. Stance markers. In Aijmer Karin & Ruhlemann Christoph (eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook, 219–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012Search in Google Scholar

Hafner, Christoph. 2014. Stance in a professional legal genre: The barrister’s opinion. In Ruth Breeze, Maurizio Gotti & Carmen Sancho Guinda (eds.), Interpersonality in legal genres, 137–160. Switzerland: International Academic Publishers.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

Hunston, Susan & Geoffrey Thompson (eds.). 2000. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 133–151.10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2005a. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2005b. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2). 173–192.10.1177/1461445605050365Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Feng Jiang. 2017. ‘We believe that …’: Changes in academic stance marker. Australian Journal of Linguistics 38. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2018.1400498.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Polly Tse. 2005a. Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24. 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Polly Tse. 2005b. Evaluative that constructions signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language 12(1). 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.12.1.03hyl.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

Kozáčiková, Zuzana. 2021. Stance complement clauses controlled by verbs in academic research. Topics in Linguistics 22(1). 16–26. https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2021-0002.Search 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

Lyons, John. 1994. Subjecthood and subjectivity. In Marina Yaguello (ed.), Subjecthood and subjectivity: Proceedings of the colloquium ‘The status of the subject in linguistic theory’, 9–17. Paris: Ophrys.Search in Google Scholar

Marín Arrese, Juana. 2011. Effective versus epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse: Legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility. In Chris Hart (ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, 193–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.43.10marSearch in Google Scholar

Martin, James & Peter White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.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

Mazzi, Davide. 2010. ‘This argument fails for two reasons …’ A linguistic analysis of judicial evaluation strategies in US Supreme Court judgement. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 23. 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0.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

Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2021. I’m thinking you’re saying: Speaker stance and the progressive of mental verbs in courtroom interaction. Text and Talk 14(2). 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0145.Search in Google Scholar

Vazquez-Orta, Ignacio. 2013. Authoritative intervention in legal discourse: A genre-based study of judgements and arbitration awards. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 2013. 91–104.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Jingjing & Le Cheng. 2020. Evidentiality of court judgments in the People’s Republic of China: A semiotic perspective. Semiotica 236–237. 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2020-0031.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Jingjing, Le Cheng & Yi Yang. 2022. A corpus-based interpretation of the discourse–cognitive–society triangle on Chinese court judgments. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications 9. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01491-z.Search in Google Scholar

Ye, Meng & Jamie Mckeown. 2023. Investigating the targeted use of (dis)agreement in leave to appeal decisions of the HKSAR appellate courts: A corpus-assisted discourse analysis. International Journal of Legal Discourse 8(2). 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2012.Search in Google Scholar