Citation: Ado, M.A. (2026). Arbitrators’ Cross-Examination Questions as Directive Speech Acts in Shariah Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings. Tasambo Journal of Language, Literature, and Culture, 5(1), 177-189. www.doi.org/10.36349/tjllc.2026.v05i01.018.
ARBITRATORS’
CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS AS DIRECTIVE SPEECH ACTS IN SHARIAH COURT
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS
By
Mohammed
Ahmed Ado
Department
of English and Literary Studies,
Sa’adu
Zungur University, Bauchi State, Nigeria
ado.mohammedahmed@gmail.com
ado.ahmedmohammed@sazu.edu.ng
ado.ahmedmohammed@yahoo.com
CONTACT:
+2347085931332
Abstract
Judges, prosecutors, and defence
counsels are the most powerful interlocutors in the legal proceedings of
criminal cases, while Arbitrators share the same statutory power in Alternative
Dispute Resolution Proceedings (ADRP) of shariah-based courts. Shariah courts’
ADRP is the most vital procedure that facilitates and actualises
the resolution of civil disputes without formal adjudication. It is cheaper and
faster compared to ordinary judicial proceedings. Thus, this current trend of
formal adjudication attracts this paper. The paper explores the Rhetoric Acts of Arbitrators’ Cross
Examination Questions (CEQU) as directive speech of Shariah courts during ADRP.
Data were obtained from 12 civil cases on Family Dispute Marital Issues (FDMI).
With the aid of the NVivo qualitative software program, the data were sorted,
organised, synthesised, thematised, and coded for the analyses. Guided by Searle’s (1969) directive acts of speech framework, the
data was interpreted and revealed various forms of rhetorical acts arbitrators
used as CEQU during ADRP to resolve disputing issues. It was found that
arbitrators use various forms of rhetorical acts as CEQU in Interactive Turn-Takings
(ITT) during ADRP sessions. The
findings also revealed that the common feature of arbitrators’ CEQU presupposes
the rhetorical acts’ structure. The paper suggested that most of the CEQU
operators are rhetorical markers that
harness the smooth resolution of disputing issue/s. Hence, concluded
that rhetorical acts of CEQU assist arbitrators in resolving disputes in Shariah-Based
ADRP.
Keywords: Arbitrative Proceedings, Alternative
Dispute Resolution, Directive Act of Speech, Judges’ Language, Shariah-Based
Courts
1.1 Introduction
The
impact of language in regulating the social behaviour of interlocutors brands
the choice of diction essential. Obviously, studies on language use in context are timely for
effective interaction during conversation. The discursive study of how language
operates in the legal paradigm is significant, as it influences the content,
form, and interpretation of a legal message (Khoyi & Behnam, 2014). Therefore, the paper focuses on the directive
speech acts used in Shariah-Based Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings
(ADRP). There is a sort of decorum in the interactive turn-taking of ADRP due
to the hierarchical nature of the court. In every Shariah-based ADRP,
Arbitrators are the presiding officials and control the court proceedings. This
motivates the study of rhetorical acts of arbitrators’ Cross-Examination Questions
(CEQU).
Rhetorical
technique enables interlocutors to use language effectively. Speakers use the
art of rhetoric to persuade, influence, or please their hearers (interlocutors)
during conversation. On the other hand, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) deals
with unique approaches to resolve socio-economic or political disputes. ADR
operates outside conventional legal and administrative forums (Mnookin, 1998). ADR also deals with dispute
resolution and courtroom litigation. It covers arbitration, mediation, and
reconciliation proceedings (Wali, 2009).
The concept of ADR was born out of
the quest for alternative means of resolving disputes other than through
litigation. It emanated from the need to avoid the adversarial nature of
litigation processes. It was observed that litigation can no longer sustain the
overrated demands for a justice delivery process due to various hurdles in
conventional courts’ proceedings. Legal scholars consensually concur that the litigation
process is grossly inadequate to serve as the sole avenue for dispute
resolution. This is more specific to developing societies, such as Nigeria. A
lot of disaffection has been generated by the monopolistic hold of litigation
in the administration of justice in Common Law jurisdictions. They range from
the congestion of the court dockets and inordinate delays occasioned by the
inflexibility. The issues also involved a technical and cumbersome procedural
system of litigation. Studies equally reported that litigants received unencumbered
access to the Court of First Instance up to the Supreme Court on the flimsiest
and most frivolous application.
Regretfully, Judges watched helplessly, in deference to the
hallowed principle of fair hearing and the antiquated aphorism. Accordingly, a
Judge must not descend into the arena with the resultant effect that the life
spans of a case are unduly elongated by the years. The unsettling scenario in
the court system is further compounded by the problem. This is especially true
when public confidence and the psyche of the citizenry in the justice system
gradually wane (Gummi, 2009).
These attract the global acceptability of the ADR concept, and the rate of its growth is astonishing. In fact, the
concept originates from Africa, although many sources, as discussed, attribute its
origin to Western countries, such as the United States of America (Usman,
2009). However, Wali (2009) aligned it with the Islamic concept of ‘Al-sulhu’
(reconciliation) as a method of reconciling
disputing parties, contrary to conventional forms of court proceedings.
Therefore, ADRP and Reconciliation Case Proceedings (RCP) are considered the
same, but for convenience, the current paper prefers the term ADRP.
Meanwhile, it was in a quest for a judicial panacea to
overhaul the justice process and ameliorate the problems in the traditional court
system in the United States that the multi-door court was conceptualised. As
reported in Gummi (2009), Professor Frank Sander of Harvard Law School was the
first to propose a dispute resolution centre in the year 1976. This was done with
an array of dispute resolution services charged, with the duty of matching
dispute resolution mechanisms to the characteristics of the dispute. In
furtherance of this proposition, Frank Sander recommended the reformation of
the Court system and procedures. The aim was to accommodate these dispute
options under a single roof. Frank Sander also identified alternatives to the
conventional Court services. These include: mediation, conciliation,
arbitration, as well as hybrid concepts of mediation/arbitration, fact-finding
and ombudsman. Studies on the legal position of RCP/ADR (the
shariah-based) related to arbitration, mediation, and reconciliation on both
criminal and civil cases have received much attention, but with a paucity of concern
towards pragmatic analysis of the peculiarity of speech acts used during the
ADRP sessions. Specifically, the kind of language used by arbitrators in asking
questions during the Shariah-Based Court proceedings.
An arbitrator is an independent neutral third
party who presides over a disputing case. Upon listening to both parties in
dispute, he considers the arguments and evidence presented during the
proceedings. He asks questions, determines the responses, and hands down a
final and binding decision (Wali, 2009). Understanding the arbitrators’ methods of language choice to achieve the desired
communicative impacts during ADRP is significant. The practical use of
some syntactic constructions while giving directives during interactive
turn-taking in conversation is resourceful to manifestations of effective
communication (Chamo,
2012). It is equally significant to understand the impact
of language in making religion pertinent, particularly Islam in modern Nigeria,
for a better society. Therefore, this study explores the Rhetoric
Acts of Arbitrators’ CEQU as directive speech of Shariah courts using ADRP.
2.1 The Concept of ADR
The Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) concept is not new, but the review of related
literature revealed that most existing studies are conceptual. The studies paid
more attention to issues related to meanings and scopes of ADR (Broadbent, 2009; Resolution, 2013). For instance,
Mnookin (1998) focused on ADR as a set of practices and techniques to provide permission
in resolving legal disputes outside the courts via mediation and arbitration.
This study corresponds with this paper as it focuses on the language of
arbitration in Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings (ADRP) context.
In this regards,
Keffi (2009) viewed ADR as a range of mixed
processes via which impartiality facilitates and actualises the resolution of
legal disputes without formal adjudication. According to Keffi (2009), ADR is
much cheaper and faster compared to ordinary judicial proceedings. Thus, it is
considered the most suitable for parties with underlying interests and needs for
resolution (Keffi, 2009).
Supporting Keffi (2009) claim, Mnookin (1998) compared the processes
involved in ADR and concluded that adjudication and negotiation are the most
vital procedures in resolving legal disputes. Mnookin (1998) further
highlighted that ADR procedures are part of the current trends of formal
adjudication during dispute resolution. Edwards (1986), on the other hand, concentrated on the issue of
“Panacea or anathema” as solutions, answers and remedies versus censure and
denunciation of ADR. Resolution (2013) in his study emphasises the reasons that
could attract ADR in substituting formal litigation within the courtroom. The
commonest reason is that most arbitrators and mediators are not legal experts; therefore,
for one to resolve disputes in a specialised manner, one requires expertise.
Secondly, the aim of the conventional courtroom (law) is to resolve disputes
based on conventional rules. Hence, the ADR mechanism is targeted on non-legal
values, whereas disputes are nevertheless normally resolved through the rules
of law. Hunt (2010) further describes the characteristics, mechanisms and
techniques of ADR in contrast to litigation of federal or state conventional
courts' traits of legal practices in the USA.
Meanwhile, Posner (1986) summarises the jury trial
and other methods of ADR and highlights some cautionary observations. These
observations involve the process ADR adopts as a model of plaintiff sensible
behaviour. Accordingly, Posner (1986) states that achievements of ADR ought to
be verifiable through conventional procedures of social and scientific analysis.
Such alternative means of trial are supposed to respect the appropriate legal
and institutional limitations, comprising those originating from the separation
of powers underlined in the constitutional system. Posner (1986) further
asserts that such proposed reform is supposed to be directed to where “right”
is viewed in relation to broad social policy rather than the narrow craft
standard of success. Posner (1986) summarizes that they do not contravene the
arbitrators’ methods of Shariah-Based ADRP. According to Abubakar (2009), in
shariah-based ADRP, Arbitrators avoid decisions that are repugnant to natural
justice, equity, and good conscience or approaches that are inconsistent with
public policy.
In fact, according to Resnik (1994), the concept of
ADR is gaining more popularity and acceptance. This assertion is reflected in
Hodson (2008), who claims that ADR has the chance to propel and change the
future of legal proceedings. In contrast to the difficulties generated by
European legislation/litigation, ADRP is uniquely easy, specifically in cases
related to family law.
Logstrom, Stone, and Goldman (2005) highlight that nowadays
lawyers and parties in dispute use ADR mechanisms increasingly, especially in
areas of construction law, employment law, commercial law, international law,
labour law, or domestic relations. Ryan (1997) equally enumerates the scope and
issues covered by ADR. The scope includes adjudication, arbitration, grievance
arbitration, expedited arbitration, interest arbitration, neutral-expert
fact-finding, Med-Arb, grievance mediation, collective agreement, and mediation
or conciliation. Ryan (1997) also highlights negotiation, internal dispute
resolution, computer-assisted negotiation, and mediation within the scope of
ADR.
Hence, the scholar concludes that ADR as
arbitration is increasingly evolving into Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR). It
is designed to settle disputes between parties before resorting to arbitration
(in which parties have little influence). Hence, Ryan (1997) suggests that the disputing
parties seem to enjoy ADR or IDR much better in shaping remedies. Broadbent
(2009) supported this assertion with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) enactment
of 1999. The CPR provides that the prospective litigants can follow alternative
methods in resolving their disputes. Family dispute resolution, conciliation,
mediation, arbitration, and adjudication were also identified as the numerous
activities involved in ADR (Broadbent, 2009). To this effect, Hodson (2008)
conducts an overview of directives used in mediation. The scope of this paper
relates to Hodson (2008) as both explore the directive speech acts in ADRP.
In another study, Shavell
(1995) conducted an economic analysis of ADR. The study examined the reasons
parties in disputes choose arbitration of their cases using ADR instead of a formal
trial in the court of law. The study also attempted to examine the social
interest involved in the use of ADR. It draws a major distinction between ex ante ADR arrangements (made before disputes arise) and ex post ADR
agreements (made after disputes arise). It identifies and concludes that ex
ante ADR agreements increased the well-being of parties and should generally
and legally be applied. The study discouraged the overall demand for ex ante
ADR. In contrast, the parties in ex post ADR agreements do not consider how
such agreements are going to affect their past behaviours. To that effect, Shavell (1995) concludes that such agreements may certainly not enhance
the welfare of the parties compared to what is obtainable in ex ante ADR. Therefore,
there is no overall public source of encouragement for ex post ADR.
To conclude, the attention of other scholars is on the
relationship of ADR with Shariah law or its position in Islamic law. The
prominent of these studies include: an overview of the modus operandi of the
multi-door court houses (Gummi, 2009), an overview of the substantive law of
sulh in civil and criminal cases (Uthman, 2009), the role of sulh in arms,
economic, and political resolution of conflict among Muslims and Non-Muslims
(Abubakar, 2009), the legal, social and economic roles of As-sulh from the
perspective of jurisprudence (Fiqh) of the Maalik school (Keffi, 2009), Sulhu
in Islamic constitutional law: The role of Emirate in dispute resolution
(Barkindo, 2009), practice and procedure in matrimonial arbitrations (Usman,
2009), the viability of ADR to shariah-based states (Wali, 2009), Islam, Shariah and ADR as mechanisms for
legal redress in the Muslim community (Keshavjee, 2013). The review of
relevant studies suggests reasonable attention is paid to ADR in the Shariah-based
context. However, there is a lack of empirical research on directive speech
acts in ADRP. Hence, this paper conducts an empirical study on language use in the
ADRP Shariah-Based context.
2.2
Legal Arbitration and Interpretation
Arbitration is a process of listening to disputing parties’ arguments
with a neutral mind, reviewing evidence to reach an amicable and favourable
decision for both parties (Barkindo, 2009). Studies revealed that Judges and
Arbitrators share the same status in court proceedings. Both act as presiding
officials during proceedings with the authority to adjudicate issues in dispute
(Wali, 2009). According to Wang (2014), judges dominate legal
proceedings in courts and are considered the highest authority in exercising
power. Moreover, both judges and arbitrators control the discourse of litigants
(Wali, 2009; Wang, 2014). This motivates
the paper to focus on the rhetorical acts of arbitrators in the ADRP context.
Further review indicates that the interlocutors’
discourse in both court litigation and
shariah-based ADR is an interactive form of language exchange (Liao,
2003). However, the right to manage and handle discourse in court is not
equally shared among the interlocutors. There is a divergence in the form of
status and social class (Lv, 2011). Speech is typical and formal in legal
proceedings (Maley, 1994). Discourse in the courtroom is obviously characterised
by power and control by designated officials as interviewers and
cross-examiners. For instance, in litigation proceedings, judges, prosecutors,
and the defence counsel are the powerful interlocutors. On the other hand, the
witnesses, defenders, and plaintiffs are the powerless interlocutors (Lv,
2011).
Contrary
reviewed literature revealed that in Shariah-Based ADRP, the Arbitrator is the
most powerful interlocutor (Uthman, 2009). He
controls the proceedings and intervenes in any obstruction during interactive
turn-takings. This draws the attention of the paper to the directive speech
acts of arbitrators’ ADRP.
Meanwhile,
a review of related studies reports a different perspective of power and
control in court. For instance, the emancipation of the court interpreter
contested the absolute power of court presiding officials. Studies indicate
that the introduction of a court interpreter limits the attorney’s power or
control during interactive turn-taking in legal proceedings (Laster &
Taylor, 1994). A recent study illustrated how interpreters interrupt the cross-examiner,
leading to a power challenge (Hale, 2004). The interpreters use six forms of
courtroom interruptive acts during case proceedings: asking for clarification
of a question or an answer; correcting a question when it is an obvious,
unintentional mistake; finishing interpreting a previous, interrupted
utterance; volunteering information; offering a personal opinion; and
protesting against being interrupted (Hale, 2004). This is slightly different from
what is obtainable in the Shariah-based ADRP in Nigeria. Wali (2009) indicated
that arbitrators normally interact directly with the parties in dispute in
their preferred language/s. This limits the chances of interruptions, and that
maintains control of the proceedings.
In another
trend, Lu (2014) indicated that interpreters could directly interrupt a
powerless interlocutor’s excessive answers to the judge's request in the same
manner as the powerful participant could. This kind of interpretation is considered directive due to the extra
empowerment given to the speaker in the courtroom. Lu (2014) also viewed the
interpreter’s
response to questions other than interpretation as a form of interruption. This
is as a result of the deprivation of the statutory right to provide information
based on the legal flow of proceedings.
Lu (2014) further addressed the issue of interruption as a form of the interpreter’s
arbitration to reveal his trivial roles during legal proceedings. It was
revealed that the interpreter plays a significant mediative role in showing
power and control in the courtroom. This corresponds with Hale
(2004), who claims that interpreters interrupt the cross-examiner in litigation
proceedings. However, Arbitrators in Shariah-based ADRP cross-examine the
parties in dispute without interruption, which attracts this study.
Nevertheless,
some studies attached significance to
court interpretation in ensuring justice and equality to people who could not
stand for themselves in courts (Cao, 2014; Shiyao, 2014). Other studies paid attention
to identifying the features of legal terminologies (Hui, 2014). The paper also reviewed
studies related to the translation of legal text for better adjudication (Bo
& Yu, 2014).
In a nutshell, similar to the
obtainable in the Nigerian shariah-based courts, ADR, reviewed studies across
the world concurred that Judges/arbitrators are the most powerful interlocutors
in the courtroom (Shi, 2012; Lv, 2006; Ma, Xie, 2007; Yu, 2010). Hence, motivates
the focus of this study on the rhetorical acts of arbitrators’
cross-examination questions in Shariah courts, ADRP.
This study employed a qualitative ethnographic design in researching
the Rhetoric Acts of arbitrators’ Cross Examination Questions (CEQU) as directive
speech of Shariah courts' Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings (ADRP).
Creswell (2012) asserts that ethnography deals with the study of a group of
people with a peculiar culture within a particular context. Therefore, the central
objective of this paper is to understand the kind of CEQU as directive speech
acts arbitrators perform as social rules of speaking to characterise the
sociolinguistic norms of Shariah-based courts (as reflected in Hymes, 1972,
1972b). It is therefore most likely that the whole characteristics of
ethnographic methods are to interpret texts against the background of cultural
structures or to use texts to reconstruct those cultural structures (Titscer et
al., 2002). Watson-Gegeo and Ulichny (1988) further positioned that
ethnographic analysis is capable of explaining and interpreting both behaviour
and the context in which the behaviour transpired. The context, according to
Watson-Gegeo and Ulichny (1988), refers to the instantaneous situations in
which an activity, event, or interaction takes place. This permits the paper to
describe the Arbitrators’ rhetorical acts of CEQU and provide a holistic
explanation with adequate information as identified during ADRP.
Data were primarily collected in selected shariah courts
within Bauchi State of the North-Eastern Nigeria (West Africa) via a series of
in-depth audiovisual recordings and observations of 12 different ADRP as units
of analysis. The collection was purposefully done through a snowball strategy
in selecting relevant cases against the various numbers of cases of different
natures conducted daily within the state. The permission of court officials and
disputing parties was taken before the data collection commenced. The
researcher ensured self-composure and self-maintenance by acting in good
behaviour while conducting the observation and taking notes of issues of
significance that might be skipped in the Audio-visual recordings of what each
participant was saying or doing during the ADRP. This also enables the
consideration of certain factors as feelings and behaviours of the participants,
as guides in conducting the thematic analyses of the recorded data collected
from each ADRP sitting.
The data was analysed strictly based on family disputes
(FD) and Family Disputes Marital Issues (FDMI). The data were triangulated, transcribed,
and subsequently reviewed to authenticate their validity and reliability (Patton,
1990; Creswell, 2012). In line with Boyatzis (1998), Braun and Clark (2006),
and Creswell (2012), the data were sorted, coded, and thematised using QSR NVivo
data management software. The interpretation was done based on the general
features of the cases used as a unit for analysis on matters relating to
mismanagement of trust, child abuse, immorality, divorce, abuse of marital
obligations, and others. The cases were mostly among or between blood
relations, parents and children, and couples. The total number of participants
was 72, while the overall duration of the whole analysed case proceedings was 5
hours, 35 minutes, and 15 seconds. The coding category being generated from the
data is as follows: FD stands for family dispute, and FDMI for family dispute
marital issues.
On
the other hand, the coding pattern for the court officials takes the features
as follows: Arb represents arbitrator, Sec means secretary, and CLRC refers to an
Islamic cleric, while WH represents ward head. Regarding the parties involved
in disputes, they were coded in accordance with their role during the ADRP, and
these include: FC stands for Female Complainant, MC means Male Complainant, MR represents
Male Respondent, FG for Female Guardian, FREP stands for Female Representative,
WFC for Witness to Female Respondent, while ST.M refers to Stepmother to Female
Respondents, respectively.
The
paper is situated within the frame of Searle's (1969 & 1979) directive
speech acts. Directives Acts deal with
the speakers’ utterances made in an attempt to get the hearer to do
something. Searle (1969 & 1979) further views the directive expressions to
include questions or commands depending on the form the speaker intended to get
the addressee to act. Hence, the paper focuses on the rhetorical acts of
questions in cross-examination during ADRP in the Shariah-Based Courts of
Northern Nigeria.
4.1
Rhetoric Act of Cross-Examination Questions
This paper revealed that Rhetorical Acts of Cross-Examination
Questions fall under Directive Speech Acts used by arbitrators during
Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings (ADRP) in Shariah-based courts. The
Directives utterances in this paper deal with the speaker’s utterances
performed in the attempt to get the addressee to perform some acts or desist
from doing certain acts. For a directive act to be appropriate in shariah-based
courts, the speaker must be in a better position or have the legal right and obligation
to give it, and the addressee must be capable of responding. With the aid of the
NVivo software analysis program, the paper revealed that interlocutors use
Questions in the form of cross-examination during the ADRP.
The illocutionary act of Cross Examination Question
(CEQU) is viewed as a form of directives given by an arbitrator or any other
court official acting as presiding officer to the addressee, demanding him/her
to provide additional explanation or information in agreement or otherwise with
the earlier assertion/s made by another party about the issue involved in a
case. This kind of act aims to obtain a clear picture of the actual state of
affairs of the issue in dispute, which can be subjected to verification.
Examples of excerpts are presented based on general patterns of CEQU utterances
as they appeared in the data.
The paper also identified that one of the common features
of CEQU is through questions with inverted order as the
marker appearing in any of the initial or medial position of the interactive
turn-taking (ITT). Most of these operators precede the subject of the statement
in a CEQU. Many of these kinds of CEQU required more than just “Yes” or “No”
responses as answers. The markers include be, have, or modal
verbs
as in the following excerpts:
[FD-Arbi.1:
ITT 58] “…has he been visiting
them?”
[FDMI-Arb.C3:
ITT 47(2)] “…Are you in the house?”
[FD-Arbi.1:
ITT 42] “He doesn’t take the child
to the hospital?”
[FDMI-Arb.C4:
ITT 71(2)] “…Are you aware of this
information she provided?”
[FDMI-Arb.C4:
ITT 75(2)] “…or is there any
additional information that you may provide over the issue?”
[FDMI-Arb.C8:
ITT 3] “Was it told by your
husband’s relatives?”
[FDMI-Arb.C11:
ITT 26] “And she does love him?”
[FDMI-Arb.C12: ITT 161] “Have you heard what it is said?”
[FDMI-Arb.C11: ITT 92(6)] “…but did you talk to him over the phone?”
However, from the findings, it is observed that the most
common feature of CEQU employed by participants during the ADRP is a question word that has a WH-word
marker and presupposes in its structure. The markers do appear in
any of the initial, medial, or end positions of the interactive turn-taking
(ITT) as in the following excerpts:
[FDMI-Arb.C3:
ITT 47] “Where are you staying now?
[FDMI-Arb.C3:
ITT 47] “Who broke it?”
[FDMI-CLRC.C3:
ITT 89] “What about her complaint
over the issue of lack of feeding?”
[FDMI-Arb.C3:
ITT 29] “He doesn’t look after your
health, as how?”
[FDMI-Arb.C4: ITT 57] “…how many years were you together?”
[FDMI-Arb.C4:
ITT 63] “Mister, what is your name?”
[FDMI-Arb.C5:
ITT 1] “Where are the goods under
discussion?”
[FDMI-Arb.C5:
ITT 18] “Whom are you complaining to?
[ITT
18(2)] Who are you reporting?”
[FDMI-Ast.Sec.C5:
ITT 39] “What about the veil?”
[FDMI-Arb.C5:
ITT 43] “Mr, among these things which one
have you brought?”
[FDMI-Arb.C7:
ITT 10] “…that’s how many months?”
[FDMI-Arb.C8: ITT 5] “Who said it?”
[FDMI-Arb.C8:
ITT 45] “Your ex-husband said what
to you?”
[FDMI-Arb.C8:
ITT 53] “Then how did you know it
was your ex-husband that told them?”
[FDMI-Arb.C10:
ITT 100(2)] “Who came to your house
and insulted your children?”
[FDMI-Arb.C10:
ITT 110(2)] “Who is responsible for
their moral training? Eh?”
[FDMI-Arb.C10:
ITT 242] “What prompted the children
to do this to you?”
[FDMI-Arb.C11:
ITT 20] “Who raised them?”
[FDMI-Arb.C11:
ITT 85] “Why didn’t he come?”
[FDMI-Arb.C11: ITT 138] “Then what happened?
[FDMI-Arb.C12: ITT 2]
“How many years have you spent with
her?”
[FDMI-Arb.C12:
ITT 140(3)] How old is he?”
There are certain
instances where the speakers utilised the CEQU phrasal or clausal format
without using any question operator, hence marked by rising intonation as in the
following excerpts:
[FDMI-Arb.C4:
ITT 49] “And he knew about illness?”
[FDMI-Arb.C4:
ITT 51] “Your uncle or his…?”
[FDMI-Arb.C4:
ITT 73] “And you also heard the information she provided and the appeals she
made?”
[FDMI-Arb.C8:
ITT 9] “Ok, you mean your husband?”
With the aid of NVivo analysis software, it is identified
that in the ADRP, CEQU are monopoly speech acts of court officials. From the
findings, it is shown that this sort of speech act is performed by almost all
classes of court officials, with a single instance of Respondents and Representatives
1 ITT for each. CEQU is moderately employed by the speakers in ADRP, as shown
in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Sources Model on Cross-Examination Questions utterances as
a reflection of participants’ state of mind in depicting truth-value on the
proposition
Table 4.1: Sources and interactional
categories of turn-taking of Cross Examination Question utterances
|
S/N |
Cases |
Sources |
Number of
Turn-Taking |
Percentage |
|
1 |
1 |
FD-Arb.C1 |
21 |
6.89 |
|
2 |
2 |
FD-Arb.C2 |
7 |
2.30 |
|
3 |
7 |
FD-Arb.C7 |
8 |
2.62 |
|
4 |
10 |
FDMI-Arb.C10 |
22 |
7.21 |
|
5 |
11 |
FDMI-Arb.C11 |
31 |
10.16 |
|
6 |
12 |
FDMI-Arb.C12 |
12 |
3.93 |
|
7 |
3 |
FDMI-Arb.C3 |
22 |
7.21 |
|
8 |
4 |
FDMI-Arb.C4 |
51 |
16.72 |
|
9 |
6 |
FDMI-Arb.C6 |
3 |
0.98 |
|
10 |
8 |
FDMI-Arb.C8 |
58 |
19.02 |
|
11 |
9 |
FDMI-Arb.C9 |
11 |
3.61 |
|
12 |
5 |
FDMI-Arb-C5 |
23 |
7.54 |
|
13 |
5 |
FDMI-AST-SEC.C5 |
2 |
0.66 |
|
14 |
8 |
FDMI-AST-SEC.C8 |
1 |
0.33 |
|
15 |
6 |
FDMI-AST-SEC-C6 |
4 |
1.31 |
|
16 |
11 |
FDMI-CLRC.C11 |
10 |
3.28 |
|
17 |
3 |
FDMI-CLRC.C3 |
1 |
0.33 |
|
18 |
4 |
FDMI-CLRC.C4 |
2 |
0.66 |
|
19 |
8 |
FDMI-CLRC.C8 |
2 |
0.66 |
|
20 |
12 |
FDMI-GREP.C12 |
1 |
0.33 |
|
21 |
11 |
FDMI-MR.C11 |
1 |
0.33 |
|
22 |
10 |
FDMI-Sec.C10 |
1 |
0.33 |
|
23 |
11 |
FDMI-Sec.C11 |
1 |
0.33 |
|
24 |
3 |
FDMI-SEC.C3 |
5 |
1.64 |
|
25 |
5 |
FDMI-Sec.C5 |
1 |
0.33 |
|
26 |
8 |
FDMI-SEC.C8 |
4 |
1.31 |
|
Total |
12 |
26 |
305 |
100.00 |
In terms of individual participation in the interactive turn-taking
using CEQU utterances, as shown in Table 4.1, the result highlights FDMI-Arb.C8
as the participant who utilised the highest number of CEQU with 58 ITT
(19.02%), followed by FDMI-Arb.C4
with 51 ITT (16.72%), while the moderate users are FDMI-Arb.C3 and FDMI-Arb.C10
with a similar number of ITT each at 22 (7.21%) respectively. FDMI.Arb.C5 is
slightly different with 23 ITT (7.54%). However, the findings present 7
different participants consisting of Clerics, respondent, sectaries, and their
assistants, with the least number each with 1 ITT (0.33%).
Based on these results, it is
clear that there is decorum in the ADRP and that CEQU is significantly utilised.
Having almost all the participants as court officials, with arbitrators with
the most common number of usages. The minimal presence of Islamic clerics and
courts’ sectaries as participants who used this kind of utterance in the
interactive turn-taking is not surprising. The fact that they are also duty-bound
to ensure successful deliberations in the proceedings with positive
resolution/s of disputing issue/s.
It is confirmed
that arbitrators are fond of using various rhetorical strategies to persuade or
influence their interlocutors in Shariah-based courts, ADRP. These unique
approaches are mostly in the form of directives during CEQU. The aim is
normally to resolve a conflicting issue in dispute, and this result is reconciled
with the engaging argument of Wali (2009). In ADRP, court officials, particularly
the arbitrators, use directive act of
questions in cross-examining the
addressee. The reason is to obtain additional explanation or information on
earlier assertion/s or claims made over the issue involved in the dispute. The
paper also revealed that they use questions with inverted order as a rhetorical
marker in both initial and medial positions of their expressive utterances. In
addition, arbitrators usually use phrasal or clausal format without using any
question operator, but marked by rising intonation in their CEQU during ADRP.
The use of these CEQU facilitates fair hearing and avoids bias for each party
involved in the dispute. This rhetorical strategy gives the hearer or
interlocutor ample chance to counter or respond to any statement made for or
against him/her. These results are in line with Finegan (2012), who believed that speakers normally use this kind
of utterance to get addressees’ replies or perform certain acts.
Moreover,
the consistent use of CEQU rhetoric in ADRP by arbitrators
is due to their
positions as court officials in
the courtrooms. Hence, their utterances in such a context are viewed as effective, being officials with
authority above all other interlocutors or addressees within the ADRP context.
This corresponds with Yu's
(2010) view that the whole legal proceeding is controlled by a presiding judge.
Therefore, to their discretion, Judges can issue orders as questions,
interruptions, or use imperative sentences during proceedings (Lv, 2006). Ma
and Xie (2007) equally aligned with this argument
that judges must be considered the users of the most powerful discourse due to
their dominant role in courts.
Yu (2010)
and Wang (2014) further claimed that judges’ language plays an important role
in assuring justice and fairness of adjudication and proceedings. This could be
the likely rationale during ADRP: employ rhetorical strategies in using CEQU to
persuade the addressees instead of forcing them. Again, the paper also felt
that the dominant use of CEQU utterances by arbitrators in ADRP is due to
Islamic norms and values to ascertain the truth and ensure resolution between
the parties involved in dispute.
References
Abubakar, M. S. (2009). The role of sulh in the arms,
economic, and political resolution of conflict among Muslims and Non-Muslims. In
The Eleventh Annual Judges Conference
organised and held at the Kango conference hotel by the Centre for Islamic Legal
Studies, Institute of Administration, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
Barkindo, I. (2009). Sulhu in Islamic
constitutional law: The role of Emirate in dispute resolution. In The Eleventh Annual Judges Conference
organised and held at the Kango conference hotel by the Centre for Islamic Legal
Studies, Institute of Administration, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
Boyatzis,
R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Braun, V.,
Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic
analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3 (2).
Pp. 77-101. ISSN 1478-0887. University of the West of England.
Broadbent, N. (2009). Alternative dispute
resolution. Legal Information Management, 9(03), 195-198.
Cao, Y. (2014). On the building of talent pools of court
interpreters in Mainland China. In The Fourth International Conference on
Law, Language and Discourse (LLD) (p. 134).
Creswell,
J. W. (2012). Educational research:
Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research.
New Jersey: Pearson Education. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Edwards, H.
T. (1986). Alternative dispute
resolution: Panacea or anathema. Harvard Law Review, 668-684.
Finegan,
E. (2007). Language: Its structure and
Use (5th edition). Boston: Thomson/Wadsworth, University of
Southern California.
Finegan,
E. (2012). Language: Its structure and use
(6th edition), Boston: Thomson/Wadsworth, University of Southern
California.
Gummi, H. J. L. H. (2009). An overview of the modus
operandi of the multi-door courthouses. In The
Eleventh Annual Judges Conference organised and held at Kango conference hotel
by the Centre for Islamic Legal Studies, Institute of Administration, Ahmadu
Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
Hale, S.
(2004). The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law,
the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hodson, D. (2008). The EU mediation directive: The European
encouragement to family law ADR. International Family Law, 209-16.
Hunt, R. (2010). Alternative dispute resolution. ADR
Bulletin, 11(1), 5.
Hymes, D. (1972). Model of interaction of language
and social life. In John J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (ed.), directions in
sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of
communication, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 35-71.
Hymes, D. (1972b). On communication competence.
In: John B. Pride- John Holmes (ed.), 269-293.
Keffi, S. U. D. (2009). The legal, social and
economic roles of As-sulh from the perspective of jurisprudence (Fiqh) of the
Maalik school. In the Eleventh
Annual Judges Conference organised and held at the Kango conference hotel by the
Centre for Islamic Legal Studies, Institute of Administration, Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria, Nigeria.
Keshavjee, M. (2013). Islam, shariah and alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms for legal redress in the Muslim community
(Vol. 6). IB Tauris.
Khoyi, A. M., & Behnam, B. (2014). Discourse of
law: Analysis of cooperative principles and speech acts in Iranian law courts. Asian
Journal of Education and e-Learning, 2(4).
Laster,
K., & Taylor, V. (1994). Interpreters and the legal system.
Leichhardt: The Federation Press.
Liao, M. (2010). A
comparative study of Chinese and American criminal sentencing discourse. ESP
Across Cultures, 7, 105-128.
Logstrom, B. A., Stone, B.
M., & Goldman, R. W. (2005). Resolving Disputes with Ease and Grace. ACTEC
J., 31, 235.
Lu, S. (2014). The interpreter’s mediation of power
and control through interruptions in the Chinese courtroom discourse. In The
Fourth International Conference on Law, Language and Discourse (LLD) (p.
140).
Lv, W.
(2011). A study on the power of speech in the court. Beijing: China
Social Science Press
Ma, Y.,
& Xie, X. (2007). The microstructure of the discourse of a strong role
in proceedings. Academic Forum, 12.
Maley, Y.,
(1994). The language of the law, In: John Gibbons (ed.), Language and
the Law. New York: Longman Group UK Limited.
Mnookin, R. H. (1998). Alternative
dispute resolution (p. 2). Harvard Law School.
Patton,
M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Posner, R. A. (1986). The summary jury trial and
other methods of alternative dispute resolution: Some cautionary observations. The
University of Chicago Law Review, 366-393.
Resnik, J. (1994). Many doors--closing doors--Alternative
dispute resolution and adjudication. Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., 10, 211.
Resolution, A. D. (2013). Alternative dispute
resolution. Edwards, H. T. (1986). Alternative dispute resolution: Panacea or
anathema? Harvard Law Review, 668-684.
Ryan, C. (1997). Alternative dispute resolution.
Industrial Relations Centre, Queen's University.
Searle,
J. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the
philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle,
J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In:
Peter Cole and Jerrold Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, volume 3: Speech
Acts, 41-58. London: Academic Press.
Searle,
J. (1979). Expression and meaning:
studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Shavell, S. (1995). Alternative dispute resolution:
an economic analysis. The Journal of Legal Studies, 1-28.
Shi, G. (2012). An analysis of modality in Chinese
courtroom discourse. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 7(2),
161-178.
Shiyao, Z. (2014). Court interpreting and judicial justice.
In The Fourth International Conference on Law, Language and Discourse (LLD)
(p. 169).
Titscher,
S. Meyer, M. Wodak, R. & Vetter, E. (2002). Ethnographic method: Methods of text and discourse analysis. Sage
Publishers Ltd, 6 Bonhill Street, London EC2A 4PU.
Usman, J.A. M. (2009). Practice and procedure in
matrimonial arbitrations. In the
Eleventh Annual Judges Conference organised and held at Kango conference hotel
by the Centre for Islamic Legal Studies, Institute of Administration, Ahmadu
Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
Uthman, M. B. (2009). An overview of the
substantive law of sulh in civil and criminal cases. In the Eleventh Annual Judges Conference
organised and held at the Kango conference hotel by the Centre for Islamic Legal
Studies, Institute of Administration, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
Wali, H. J. A. B. (2009). The viability of
alternative dispute resolution in shariah-based states. In the Eleventh Annual Judges Conference
organised and held at Kango conference hotel by the Centre for Islamic Legal Studies,
Institute of Administration, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
Bo, W., & Yu, Z. (2014). The characteristics and translation of legal
terms in English and Chinese. In The Fourth
International Conference on Law, Language and Discourse (LLD) (p. 213)
Wang, X. (2014). Understanding, interpreting and translating the law:
A case study of “gonggongliyi (公共利益)”. In The Fourth International Conference on Law,
Language and Discourse (LLD) (p. 149).
Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Ulichny, P. (1988).
Ethnographic inquiry into second language acquisition and instruction.
Yu, S.
(2010). A study on the court language. Beijing: Peking University Press.
87
Zhang, Q., & Gong, M. (2014). A comparative study
on modality in Chinese and American criminal judgments. In The Fourth
International Conference on Law, Language and Discourse (LLD) (p. 225).
Hui, Z. (2014). A case-based study of translating legal terms. In The Fourth International Conference on Law, Language and
Discourse (LLD) (p. 176).
6 AKNOWLEDGMENT
The
present research was fully supported by the Tertiary Education Trust Fund
(TET-FUND) Nigeria, under Institutional Based Research (IBR), Grant Batch 7
with reference number: TETF/DR&D/CE/UNI/GADAU/IBR/2015/VOL.I,
0 Comments