Cite this article as: Jajere, B. M., Adamu, R. Y., & Saleh, U. (2025). A study of speech acts and some pragmatic features as means of negotiation and conflict resolution among some communities in Yobe State. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 1(1), 73–80. www.doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2025.v01i01.010
A STUDY OF SPEECH ACTS AND SOME PRAGMATIC FEATURES AS
MEANS OF NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION AMONG SOME COMMUNITIES IN YOBE STATE
By
Bello Muhammad Jajere
A Post-Graduate (PhD) Student, Department of Linguistics and
Translation Studies
Bayero University Kano, Kano State.,
&
Rabi Yusuf Adamu
Department of Linguistics and Translation Studies
Bayero University Kano, Kano State.
&
Umar Saleh
Centre for Conflict Management and Peace Studies,
University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria
Abstract
In three
linguistically varied and conflict-prone communities in Yobe State, this study
investigates the function of speech actions and pragmatic techniques in
negotiation and conflict resolution. The study uses a mixed-methods approach to
examine how pragmatic elements like indirectness and politeness, as well as
specific speech actions like requests, promises, apologies, and reassurances,
contribute to conflict management. Academics and civil servants made up the
participation group, which was primarily male and highly educated. The findings
show that most people believe that expressing regret and using courteous
indirect communication can help to defuse tense situations. Although they are
used less frequently, promises and assurances are also used to help achieve
resolution. The majority of respondents stressed the value of being kind, and
indirect language was thought to be a useful tactic for lowering conflict.
Nevertheless, several voiced worries about the tactics' possible lack of
assertiveness and clarity. According to the study's findings, effective dispute
resolution in Yobe State necessitates a sophisticated blend of polite verbal
actions and socially appropriate pragmatic strategies. The study suggests more
research on pragmatic approaches to conflict resolution, inclusive discussion
for various groups, conflict resolution workshops, culturally aligned
communication training, and linguistic strategy training for mediators.
Keywords:
Speech acts, Pragmatic strategies, Conflict resolution, Politeness
1. Introduction
Human interaction inevitably involves conflict, especially
in multiethnic and culturally varied areas like Yobe State in northeastern
Nigeria. Both Islamic and Western traditions have addressed conflict in great
detail because it is a normal aspect of human interaction. However, Islamic
conflict management places a strong emphasis on moral and spiritual aspects
derived from Islamic beliefs in addition to settlement (Jajere, Saleh &
Garba, 2025).
Although political, religious, ethnic, or resource-based
concerns can give rise to disputes, language use and communicative ability
frequently play a major role in how these conflicts are addressed. Linguistics,
especially pragmatics and speech act theory, provides important insights into
how communication helps or hinders negotiation and dispute resolution (Austin,
1962; Searle, 1969). Islamic leadership has always been regarded as a key
factor in settling disputes, upholding justice, and fostering social harmony in
cultures with strong Islamic ideals (Jajere et al., 2025).
Apologies, pleas, promises, and instructions are examples of
speech acts that are essential to interpersonal interactions, particularly in
stressful or conflict-prone circumstances. These linguistic statements serve
social purposes that can either increase or decrease stress in addition to
conveying message (Thomas, 1995). The course of conflict resolution efforts,
for example, can be greatly influenced by the practical application of indirect
language, politeness techniques, and culturally grounded forms of address
(Leech, 1983; Mey, 2001). Conflict resolution in traditional African societies,
such as those in Yobe State, frequently depends on linguistic standards that
are ingrained in the culture and place an emphasis on respect, seniority, and
harmony within the community (Gumperz&Hymes, 1986; Yusuf, 2013).
Language is an active tool that people employ to carry out
acts, particularly when negotiating and resolving conflicts. It is not a
passive medium. According to Austin's (1962) and Searle's (1969) speech act
theory, utterances perform social tasks including commanding, apologising,
threatening, requesting, or promising in addition to just conveying
information. These speech acts play a crucial role in determining the course of
interactions in conflict situations. For example, depending on their pragmatic
aim and linguistic form, directives might either increase or decrease tensions.
The field of pragmatics, which studies meaning in context, sheds more light on
how language users understand these statements in light of social distance,
power dynamics, shared presumptions, and cultural norms (Leech, 1983; Thomas,
1995; Brown & Levinson, 1987).
Researchers have started looking into the significance of
language in peace processes and negotiation on a global scale, especially in
African communities that are prone to conflict. The usefulness of language
analysis in comprehending conflict dynamics is demonstrated by studies like
Opeibi (2009) on political discourse and Ayodabo&Odebunmi (2019) on
pragmatic techniques in Nigerian courts. However, a lot of these research focus
on institutional frameworks or urban areas, paying little attention to non-formal
conflict resolution techniques based on community-based interactions and
indigenous customs. Local actors in Yobe State, including women's
organisations, youth representatives, religious leaders, and traditional
rulers, are essential in settling conflicts through culturally entrenched
communication techniques. Despite this, empirical research on the role of
speech actions and pragmatic methods in these grassroots conflict resolution
situations is conspicuously lacking.
Prioritising formal or political negotiations, past conflict
linguistics research has frequently overlooked the subtle linguistic behaviours
in rural or culturally complex contexts. Because Hausa, Fulfulde, Kanuri, and
Arabic-based religious registers sometimes overlap in multilingual communities
like those in Yobe, this oversight restricts the wider relevance of such
findings to grassroots peacebuilding initiatives. Furthermore, a large portion
of the work now in publication has neglected to discuss how social positions,
power imbalances, and indigenous norms of politeness, indirectness, and respect,
all crucial components of effective communication in conflict
situations—influence speech act choices.
By examining the speech actions and pragmatic techniques
employed in Yobe State's local conflict resolution contexts, this study aims to
overcome these constraints. This study attempts to identify the language
mechanisms used in conflict negotiation and resolution through a qualitative
examination of real conversations from community peace meetings, mediation
sessions, and stakeholder interviews. Additionally, the study will investigate
how cultural norms influence communication decisions and how these understandings
can help create frameworks for peacebuilding that are more successful both
inside and outside of Yobe State.
2. Literature Review
Over the past few decades, linguists and discourse analysts
have become more interested in the study of language in conflict situations
because they understand that communication not only reflects conflict but also
plays a fundamental role in shaping, escalating, and resolving it. An
insightful framework for comprehending how people use language to negotiate
peace, express emotions, assert power, and mend social relationships is
provided by the convergence of speech act theory and pragmatics with conflict resolution.
While identifying current research needs that support the current study, this
review summarises significant scholarly contributions on these domains, with a
specific focus on speech acts, pragmatic techniques, and language practices in
African and Nigerian conflict situations.
The theoretical foundation for comprehending how utterances
carry out actions in social interactions is speech act theory, which was first
presented by Austin (1962) and expanded upon by Searle (1969). Illocutionary
acts, such as warnings, apologies, threats, promises, and directives, have a
significant impact on interpersonal dynamics and results in conflict
situations. The five primary categories of speech acts identified by Searle
(1976) are assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declaratives.
These categories are extremely pertinent to conflict discourse since they
represent the verbal techniques people employ to persuade, command, mitigate,
or reconcile. Numerous studies that apply speech act theory to culturally
entrenched conflict contexts have been influenced by these seminal
publications. For example, Ayodabo and Odebunmi (2019) examined pragmatic acts
in judicial and political communication, revealing how speakers manage face and
power relations through context-sensitive utterances; Akinwotu (2013) studied
Nigerian courtroom discourse and discovered that the strategic use of polite
directives and mitigated threats facilitated conflict management among legal
actors. However, these studies tend to focus on formal and institutional discourse,
leaving informal community-based negotiations and grassroots conflict
resolution relatively unexplored.
A more comprehensive lens for examining communicative
intent, politeness, implicature, and contextual interpretation in negotiation
is provided by pragmatics, which is concerned with meaning as shaped by context
(Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1995). The Politeness Theory developed by Brown and
Levinson in 1987 has been crucial in understanding how people use linguistic
techniques like hedging, indirectness, and deference to avoid face-threatening
behaviours. In delicate encounters, these practical tools frequently work as
conflict-mitigating devices. Scholars have shown how pragmatic communication in
conflict resolution is culturally complex in African cultures. Olateju (2017)
studied the discourse of Yoruba elders and discovered that rhetorical
enquiries, proverbial idioms, and indirect speech were used to resolve
conflicts without inciting animosity. In a similar vein, Akpan and Udoh (2019)
emphasised the effectiveness of pragmatic actions rooted in local culture, such
as appeals to ancestral authority, moral persuasion, and communal duty, in
fostering peace among ethnic communities. These findings challenge universalist
presumptions frequently used in Western-based language theories and highlight
the significance of contextual and cultural sensitivity in pragmatic research.
Despite these developments, the literature nevertheless
exhibits a noticeable linguistic and geographic bias. With little focus on the
multilingual and conflict-prone contexts of Northern Nigeria, the majority of
current pragmatic research in Nigeria focus on Southern regions or dominant
languages like Yoruba and Igbo. Although languages like Hausa, Fulfulde, and
Kanuri are essential for traditional and informal dispute settlement, little is
known about their linguistic and pragmatic systems. Given the ongoing
farmer-herder conflicts and post-insurgency community tensions in northern
states like Yobe, where local mediation techniques and communication skills are
crucial for maintaining peace, this gap is especially important.
The performative and constructive potential of language in
conflict has been further highlighted by the developing area of conflict
linguistics, which Hodges (2011) defines as the linguistic study of war,
negotiation, and peacebuilding discourse. Scholars in this field contend that
language actively creates the social realities, identities, and ideologies that
support conflict rather than just describing it. Igwebuike (2021) investigated
how story and metaphor frame conflict-related speech in Nigeria, specifically
in Northern Nigerian counterterrorism communication. Even though these studies
offer valuable insights into conflict framing and persuasion, they frequently
stay text-based and ignore the in-person negotiation techniques used by local
religious and traditional leaders.
Traditional institutions, religious authorities, and local
elders rely on hybrid communicative practices that combine Arabic religious
expressions, Fulfulde or Hausa idioms, and culturally embedded politeness norms
in states like Yobe, where formal judicial systems coexist with indigenous
conflict management mechanisms. Though they are rarely studied using the
combined frameworks of speech act theory and pragmatics, these communication
forms serve pragmatic aims like authority assertion, persuasion, and reconciliation.
A significant gap in both theoretical and applied linguistic study is the
disregard for such linguistic reality.
All things considered, the studied literature offers
insightful information about how language functions in handling interpersonal
and social problems. While empirical studies in Nigeria show their
applicability in courtroom, political, and institutional contexts (Akinwotu,
2013; Ayodabo&Odebunmi, 2019), foundational theories (Austin, 1962; Searle,
1969; Brown & Levinson, 1987) provide crucial tools for analysing speech
acts and politeness strategies. However, studies that focus on culturally ingrained
communicative practices (Olateju, 2017; Akpan & Udoh, 2019) show how
language functions as a tool for promoting peace in African countries. However,
there is a significant research gap that this study aims to fill because
Northern Nigeria has received little scholarly attention, especially when it
comes to the linguistic and pragmatic aspects of conflict resolution in
languages like Fulfulde and Hausa.
3. Methodology and Research Framework
In order to examine how speech acts and pragmatic techniques
are deployed in dispute resolution within Yobe State, this study used a
mixed-methods design that combined quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
Measurable patterns and interpretive insights into language behaviour during
negotiation and mediation were made possible by this method.
While the qualitative data revealed contextual
interpretations of how these speech acts function pragmatically in resolving
conflict, the quantitative data provided statistical proof of the frequency and
use of important speech acts, such as requests, promises, apologies, and
reassurances. The findings' validity and depth were guaranteed by this
methodological triangulation.
A Google Form survey that was disseminated via WhatsApp
groups was used to gather data, guaranteeing widespread accessibility. There
were open-ended questions for qualitative answers and closed-ended questions
for statistical analysis. Participants included community leaders, students,
health professionals, and traders from Yobe State's linguistically diverse and
conflict-prone communities.
Under the guidance of Speech Act Theory (Austin, 1962;
Searle, 1969) and Pragmatic Theories of Politeness and Indirectness (Brown
& Levinson, 1987; Leech, 1983), data analysis integrated descriptive
statistics with thematic content analysis. A fuller comprehension of the
linguistic forms and their social functions in conflict communication was made
possible by this approach.
With informed consent and guarantees of anonymity and
confidentiality, participation was entirely optional. Overall, the methodology
offered a strong foundation for investigating how language functions as a tool
for peacebuilding and negotiation in Yobe State through actions including
making requests, expressing regret, and being courteous.
4. Data Presentation and Analysis
4.1 Participation in Conflict Resolution Processes
The majority of participants have directly participated in
both formal and informal conflict resolution procedures, according to the
responses. This indicates a solid practical grasp of mediation and bargaining
in social, academic, and professional settings. The most prevalent conflict
resolution contexts were found to be family and relationship settings,
indicating that communication techniques are frequently tried and tested in
close-knit or emotionally charged situations. These encounters offer a perfect
setting for investigating how pragmatic elements and speech acts function in
everyday interactions.
4.2 Speech Acts as Linguistic Tools for Conflict
Management
Speech acts like requests, promises, apologies, and
reassurances—all of which have distinct roles in handling conflict and
re-establishing understanding—were frequently mentioned by respondents.
Request-based speech acts, such as "Can we talk calmly
about this?" were frequently employed to promote cooperation and lessen
animosity. According to Austin's (1962) and Searle's (1969) speech act theory,
which sees language as action, these utterances are performative actions of
negotiation. Requests show the practical value of subtlety and timing in
reaching mutual understanding by shifting the relationship from conflict to
cooperation.
Another important factor was promises, which serve as
cooperative actions that restore confidence. Making promises, like "I
promise this won't happen again," frequently reduced anxiety, according to
participants. This is consistent with Searle's (1976) theory that promises turn
uncertainty into assurance by committing the speaker to a future action. The
African cultural belief that deeds speak louder than words was reinforced by
some participants' statements that promises must be supported by sincerity and consistent
behaviour.
The best speech act for settling disputes was found to be
apologising. Apologising, according to many participants, is a moral and
emotional act that admits fault and re-establishes social equilibrium. This
supports the claims made by Owen (1983) and Olateju (2017) that apologies serve
as expressive acts intended to mend strained interpersonal relationships.
Apologies also have communal value in Nigerian culture, as they restore
interpersonal relationships as well as the harmony of the larger community.
Another common speech act used to defuse tense situations
and regain confidence was reassurance. Words like "We'll sort this out
together" express emotional support and unity. According to Brown and
Levinson (1987), such statements have a positive politeness function in which
the speaker aims to eliminate psychological distance and confirm common goals.
Thus, reassurance serves as a bridge for communication and emotion, maintaining
conversation even under stressful circumstances.
4.3 Pragmatic Features in Conflict Resolution
The results also emphasise how important politeness,
indirectness, and empathy are as pragmatic traits that affect how disputes are
handled and resolved.
Most people believed that being polite was essential to
resolving disputes. Respectful language, according to participants, eases
tension, softens criticism, and promotes cooperation. This result is consistent
with Brown and Levinson's (1987) Politeness Theory, which holds that people
employ politeness techniques to keep their dignity and uphold social harmony.
In this study, politeness served as a practical tactic for controlling
emotions, mending relationships, and upholding moral principles. It went beyond
simple civility.
Additionally, indirectness became a pragmatic technique with
a cultural foundation. Saying "That might not work well" rather than
"You're wrong" helps maintain dignity and prevent escalation,
according to respondents. This result supports the claims made by Leech (1983)
and Spencer-Oatey (2008) that cultural norms that emphasise harmony and tact
are reflected in indirectness. Indirectness is frequently linked to age,
patience, and wisdom in the communicative setting of Northern Nigeria.
Nonetheless, other participants noted that excessive use of indirectness could
result in misunderstandings, emphasising that context, interpersonal dynamics,
and mutual understanding are necessary for pragmatic efficiency.
Crucial pragmatic traits included empathy and emotional
control. Many participants talked about making conscious decisions to affect
the emotional tone of a conversation, such as decreasing their tone, speaking
gently, and demonstrating understanding. These actions align with Blum-Kulka's
(1989) concept of face-restoring acts, which are tactics that put the hearer's
feelings first and restore interpersonal balance.
4.4 Integrating Speech Acts and Pragmatic Features in
Negotiation
Participants used a combination of pragmatic techniques and
speech acts to reach resolution in every situation. For example, requests like
"Can we sit down and talk?" were frequently followed by statements
like "I value our relationship" and "I'm sorry for what
happened." High pragmatic competence—the capacity to choose and combine
language resources based on situational and emotional cues—is demonstrated by
such speech act sequencing.
This all-encompassing application of communication
techniques illustrates how negotiation is a relational process rather than just
an argument. Participants believed that time, tone, and empathy were more
important for effective negotiations than logic alone. "It's not what you
say, but how you say it that matters," stated a number of responders. This
supports the idea that content is less important in shaping communicative
outcomes than pragmatic awareness, especially when it comes to indirectness and
politeness.
4.5 Cultural and Contextual Dimensions of Conflict
Management
The results also show that moral and cultural frameworks
influence communicative behaviour in conflict. When discussing successful
communication during conflict, participants frequently used moral phrases like
"Fear of God" and "Respect for others' opinions." These
statements reflect Watts' (2003) contention that pragmatic skill and civility
are socially and culturally created.
Indirectness and politeness are not only conversational
strategies but also moral standards that characterise excellent character in
Northern Nigerian society. As a result, pragmatic dispute resolution techniques
like apology, assurance, and indirectness are a reflection of greater societal
ideals like respect, humility, and harmony.
4.0 Findings and Discussion
Participants show a high degree of awareness and
participation in both formal and informal conflict resolution processes,
according to the study's qualitative findings. Numerous respondents described
instances in which they actively engaged in discussions, negotiations, or
mediations at home, at work, in the classroom, and in the community. These
accounts show that conflict management is seen as a highly interpersonal
activity ingrained in regular conversation rather than an external or
institutional task.
4.1 Communicative Practices in Conflict Resolution
Speech acts, such as requests, apologies, promises, and
reassurances, were often used by participants to manage tension and restore
understanding. When disagreements emerged, people frequently used requests
(such as "Can we revisit this calmly?") to defuse tense situations
and encourage group introspection. Speech Act Theory (Austin, 1962; Searle,
1969), which sees language as performative rather than merely descriptive, is
consistent with this. These suggestions were seen as attempts to turn
confrontational discussions into cooperative ones, encouraging self-control and
respect for one another.
In a same vein, offering an apology turned out to be one of
the most popular and frequently used methods of re-establishing peace.
Participants saw apologising as a necessary step in mending broken
relationships rather than as a sign of weakness. Apologies were frequently
accompanied by emotional acknowledgement, fulfilling both cognitive and
affective functions, in keeping with Searle's (1976) category of expressives.
In line with Olateju's (2017) finding that apology serves as a relational
strategy for re-establishing communal balance in African contexts, respondents
noted that sincere apologies tended to defuse tensions and reopen
communication.
During the negotiation process, guarantees and promises were
also quite important. Participants frequently discussed expressing assurances
like "We'll work this out together" or making promises like "I
promise this won't happen again." These statements helped to restore
confidence, especially in the wake of emotional transgressions. This is
consistent with Searle's (1969) concept of commissives, in which speakers make
a moral and emotional commitment to future actions that lead to reconciliation.
Such actions were seen as both linguistic and moral requirements in the
Northern Nigerian environment, reflecting a cultural emphasis on accountability
and honour.
4.2 The Role of Politeness and Indirectness
The need of being kind and using indirect language to
resolve conflicts was a recurring issue in all of the interviews. Participants
consistently reported that when one party opted for courteous, respectful, or
sympathetic comments rather than direct confrontation, the dispute was more
likely to defuse. It was said that phrases like "I understand your point,
but maybe we could try another way" work well to keep the conversation
going and prevent confrontational situations. Brown and Levinson's (1987)
Politeness Theory, which emphasises the employment of face-saving techniques to
maintain social harmony, is highly supported by this study.
Specifically, indirectness has become a culturally grounded
pragmatic competency. Instead than making direct rejections, many participants
decided to voice their dissatisfaction in more subdued ways, including
"That might not work well." In line with African communicative norms,
this communication style shows a preference for social cohesiveness and the
avoidance of direct disagreement (Akpan & Udoh, 2019). Indirect
communication was linked by respondents to maturity, wisdom, and emotional
control—qualities that are highly prized in social contexts. While tactfulness
is valued, clarity is still required in high-stakes negotiations, as some
pointed out that excessive indirectness might occasionally result in
misunderstandings.
4.3 Pragmatic Strategies and Emotional Intelligence
Beyond specific speaking acts, participants emphasised more
general pragmatic techniques like being respectful, respecting the opinions of
others, decreasing one's tone, and refraining from direct criticism. These
tactics are consistent with Blum-Kulka's (1989) theory of face-restoring acts,
which enable people to resolve conflicts while preserving dignity. In order to
turn tension into conversation, a number of participants stressed the
importance of empathy, speaking gently, making soothing movements, and
demonstrating understanding. This illustrates how emotional intelligence is
incorporated into language practice, implying that timing and tone are just as
important to successful conflict resolution as words.
According to the participants' reflections, indirectness,
reassurance, politeness, and apologies function as interconnected techniques
that maintain social equilibrium rather than as discrete speech acts. They
demonstrate how mutual recognition, tolerance, and trust are fostered by
pragmatic skill in language use. "When you speak with respect, even an
angry person begins to listen," stated one respondent. This story captures
the practical core of politeness as a tool for relational healing rather than
just as manners.
4.4 Negotiation and the Power of Empathetic Language
The idea that courteous and sympathetic communication can
change other people's behaviour was a recurrent theme in all of the participant
narratives. Many saw that showing empathy, apologising, or speaking in a
respectful manner frequently caused the other person to appear more relaxed.
This is consistent with the ideas of Spencer-Oatey (2008) and Leech (1983) that
effective pragmatic methods are context-dependent but always based on the human
need for respect and comprehension.
The language of certainty and empathy repeatedly emerged as
the most effective negotiating strategy in this study. Participants recalled
instances in which verbal reassurance and calm acknowledgement, rather than
reason or authority, were utilised to resolve disputes. These findings support
the notion that speech acts are social acts; rather than relying solely on
language form, their success depends on interpersonal sensitivity, timing, and
sincerity.
4.5 Cultural Grounding of Politeness and Negotiation
Lastly, the results highlight how morality and culture play
a major role in dispute resolution in this setting. Participants' conversation
regularly included phrases like "fear of God" and "respect for
others' views," indicating that practical tactics are ingrained in larger
moral frameworks. This bolsters Watts' (2003) claim that culture, ideology, and
beliefs shape politeness rather than it being a universal concept.
Therefore, in order to maintain communal harmony during
disagreement and negotiation, speakers rely on culturally acceptable types of
reassurance, apology, and indirectness. In addition to resolving conflicts,
these language practices uphold the common ideals of forgiveness, humility, and
respect that are the foundation of the community's social cohesion.
5. Conclusion
The results of this study
demonstrate how crucial language techniques are to Yobe State's complex dispute
settlement process. While pragmatic traits like politeness and indirect
language are essential for maintaining civility and facilitating productive discourse,
speech acts like requests and apologies are particularly useful in diffusing
conflicts. Participants' active participation in conflict resolution,
especially in familial and professional contexts, highlights the pervasive
necessity for efficient communication techniques. Promises and assurances are
nevertheless crucial speech acts for de-escalation, despite differences in
their frequency and perceived impact. Importantly, the study highlights the
societal underpinnings of these communication techniques, showing that
effective negotiation depends on both what is said and how it is communicated.
Thus, increasing knowledge of indirectness and pragmatic politeness along with
culturally sensitive conflict management training can greatly enhance peaceful
resolutions among Yobe State's different groups.
6.
Recommendations
1. Encourage communication training
in accordance with regional cultural norms.
2.
To improve peaceful conflict management, support the planning of programs for
educators, public workers, and community leaders that focus on culturally
sensitive conflict resolution.
3.
Encourage inclusive venues where many groups can practice and acquire useful
speech acts to help resolve disputes.
4.
Include Linguistic Techniques in Mediation Procedures
5. Encourage more research to examine the function of practical tactics in other conflict-prone areas.
References
Akpan, I. A.,
& Udoh, I. A. (2019). Pragmatics of peacebuilding: A study of indigenous
conflict resolution discourse in Ibibio land. Journal of African Languages and Discourse Studies, 8(2),
44–60.
Akinwotu, S. A.
(2013). A speech act analysis of the opening and closing remarks of some
Nigerian judges. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(17), 180–187.
Austin, J. L.
(1962). How to do things with words.
Oxford University Press.
Ayodabo, J. O.,
&Odebunmi, A. (2019). Pragmatic acts and contextual variables in the
discourses of conflict resolution in Nigerian courts. Journal of Pragmatics, 144,
67–78.
Brown, P., &
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness:
Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J.,
&Hymes, D. (1986). Directions
in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. Basil
Blackwell.
Hodges, A. (2011).
The “war on terror” narrative:
Discourse and intertextuality in the construction and contestation of
sociopolitical reality. Oxford University Press.
Igwebuike, J. O.
(2021). Metaphors and counter-terrorism discourse in Northern Nigeria. Discourse & Society, 32(4),
521–538.
Jajere, B. M.,
Saleh, U., & Garba, H. (2025). The
influence of Islamic leadership on community conflict management in Yobe
State.Jalingo Historical Review (JHR), 185–195. https://jhrhds.org.ng
Leech, G. N.
(1983). Principles of pragmatics.
Longman.
Mey, J. L. (2001).
Pragmatics: An introduction
(2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers.
Olateju, M. A.
(2017). Pragmatic strategies in Yoruba conflict resolution discourse. Language and Intercultural Communication, 17(1),
56–74.
Opeibi, T. (2009).
Discourse, politics and the 1993
presidential election campaigns in Nigeria. NOVUS Press.
Patton, M. Q.
(2002). Qualitative research and
evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Searle, J. R.
(1969). Speech acts: An essay in
the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R.
(1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.
Thomas, J. (1995).
Meaning in interaction: An
introduction to pragmatics. Longman.
Yusuf, Y. K.
(2013). Linguistic strategies in conflict resolution: The Yoruba example. In
Olateju, M., &Fakoya, A. (Eds.), Studies in pragmatics and discourse analysis in honour of Jacob L. Mey
(pp. 185–199). Obafemi Awolowo University Press.
0 Comments