Cite this article as: Adamu, S. (2026). Pragmatic analysis of selected courtroom discourse in Niger State of Nigeria. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 2(1), 185-193. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i01.016
By
ShuaibuAdamu
Department of English
Language and Linguistics
Sokoto State University,
Sokoto
Shuaibu4adamu@gmail.com
Abstract
This study investigates
the pragmatic features of selected courtroom discourse in Niger State with the
objective of exploring how language functions as a tool for managing legal
interactions and negotiating meaning within the courtroom. Despite the strategic
role of language in shaping legal outcomes, there is limited empirical
investigation into how pragmatic features operate in courtroom discourse in
Niger State. This gap limits our understanding of how language functions as
social action in courtroom discourse. Therefore, this study examines how
courtroom participants in both Magistrate and Sharia courts in Niger State
employ pragmatic strategies to achieve communicative goals during legal
interactions. Specifically, it seeks to identify the pragmatic acts that shape
meaning in courtroom discourse and to determine how these features influence
outcomes. The analysis was carried out within the framework of Mey’s (2001)
Pragmatic Acts Theory to account for how meaning is negotiated through
contextualized language use in courtroom discourse. The study interrogates how
courtroom participants deploy linguistic actions to pursue legal, relational
and socio-cultural goals. Data was collected from selected relevant case
transcripts across Magistrate and Sharia courts in Niger State. Through
qualitative pragmatic analysis, the paper reveals that pragmatic acts such as
stating, informing, probing and pleading are employed to achieve courtroom
communicative goals. The findings further show that the participants achieve pragmatic
goals of revealing, convincing, instructing and soliciting; with revealing
having the highest frequency of occurrence. Thus, the paper concludes that
language use in the courtroom is not merely a medium of communication, but
functional tool for achieving social, emotional and institutional purposes.
Keyword: Arguments; Litigants; Pragmeme; Transcripts; Discourse
1.0 Introduction
Language is a primary
tool through which institutional activities are carried out and nowhere is this
more evident than in the courtroom. Courtroom discourse is not just a
collection of spoken exchanges; it is a strategic, context-bound communicative
process through which legal actors and litigants perform actions such as
accusing, persuading, probing, defending, clarifying and delivery of judgments.
These actions are strongly shaped by context, intentions and social norms.
Hence, pragmatic analysis offers an appropriate lens for uncovering the
meanings and functions embedded in courtroom interactions. It is visible that
the role of context in the construction of meaning in any communicative event
is the core tenet of pragmatic act theory of Jacob Mey. According to Mey (2001,
p.217), “no conversational contribution can be understood properly unless it is
situated within the environment in which it was meant to be understood”. This
translates that an utterance is rooted in the context of use and the rules of a
language. Thus, what is said and meant are within the societal constraints in
particular contexts, in accordance with the rules of the language. Meaning
construction and comprehension are dependent on the context of language use and
any misinterpretation or misunderstanding arising from such communicative event
interrogates the pattern of language use by the participants. However, parties
in the courtroom proceedings, particularly Magistrate and Sharia courts in
Niger State deploy language use that creates arguments that can be drawn into
various interpretations. In many court cases, communication breakdowns,
misunderstandings and misinterpretations frequently occur due to linguistic and
socio-cultural diversity, unequal communicative competence and limited
awareness of pragmatic conventions among courtroom participants. Therefore,
this study aims to examine pragmatic acts in selected courtroom proceedings by
identifying the various forms they take, analysing the functions they perform
within legal interactions and discussing the key pragmatic tools that shape
communication in the courtroom. Although, several scholars have examined how
language functions within Nigeria courtroom interactions, indicating a
consistent pattern of power-focused communication, discourse strategies,
prosodic features and stylistic features of legal language. For instance,
Yokossi et al. (2022) examined pragmatic study of generalised
and partucularised implicatures in “The Arrangers of Marriage” from
Adichie’s the Thing Around your Neck,Aina and Anowu (2023)
highlighted some pragmatic points of description of conducive questioning in
courtroom interrogations and Fafiyebi et al. (2023)
investigated pragmatic acts in the language of alms begging in Southwest
Nigeria. Together, these studies suggest that courtroom discourse in Nigeria is
shaped by linguistic interaction which shows that language is not neutral but
functions as a mechanism for controlling courtroom outcomes. This synthesis
thus, demonstrates that previous studies focused mainly on discourse
strategies, leaving limited attention to how pragmatic acts specifically shape
meaning in courtroom proceedings, particularly in Niger State Magistrate and
Sharia courts. This study fills this gap by applying Mey’s (2001) Pragmatic
Acts Theory (PAT) to analyse how these acts operate in selected courtroom
discourse in Niger State of Nigeria.
2. Literature Review
Courtrooms are
institutional contexts where communication remains an indispensable tool.
Interaction resources are one of the contextual factors that determine the
success of communicative intents in the courtroom proceedings. According to Mey
(2001, p.223), “pragmatics studies language as it is used by people for their
own purposes and within their own respective limitations and affordances”.
Thus, affordances are one of the interaction resources with which communicative
intent can be successful. Communication in legal proceedings represents one of
the institutional encounters where legalese is a dominant form of language use.
Oates and Enquist (2009) observe that legalese is a term linked with a
traditional style of legal writing that is part of specialised discourse of
lawyers whose communication lay people cannot readily understand. Lawyers
sometimes engage in legalese in order to make easy understanding and
interpretation unavailable to the ordinary people. However, linguistic
pragmatics offers easy interpretation and understanding of legal proceedings.
Birner (2013) contends that pragmatic knowledge is part of our knowledge of how
to use language appropriately. This implies that the ability to use language
appropriately involves exploring other elements of pragmatics such as speech
act, implicature, politeness, presupposition, mutual contextual beliefs,
pragmatic acts and illocutionary force.
3. Methodology
The study adopts a
qualitative descriptive design to examine how participants in selected
courtroom discourse in Niger State perform pragmatic acts during interaction.
The analysis is guided by Mey’s Pragmatic Acts Theory, which emphasises that
meaning is not constructed only by linguistic forms, but also by situational,
cultural and institutional contexts. The data were collected primarily through
case transcripts of selected proceedings from Magistrate and Sharia Courts in
Niger State. The population of the study comprised all official case
transcripts preserved in the registries of Magistrate and Sharia courts. These
transcripts collectively represented the full range of pragmatic features
present in courtroom discourse; hence, the population was made up of all
accessible case transcripts.
4. Theoretical Framework
The study adopted Mey’s
(2001) Pragmatic Act Theory (PAT) as its theoretical orientation. The pragmatic
acts theory (PAT) focuses on how people use language to perform actions in real
life situations. It emphasizes that meaning does not only come from words, but
from what people actually do with those words in context. According to Mey
(2001, p.217), “no conversational contribution can be understood properly
unless it is situated within the environment in which it was meant to be
understood”. Therefore, what counts as pragmatic act is determined exclusively
by the understanding that the individual participants have of the situation.
The individuals are situated in a social context, which determines their
affordances.
5. Data Presentation and
Analysis
Excerpt 1.
Judge: You alleged that your son has been sick for some months now
and that these two suspects before the court are responsible…What evidence can
you give to prove that they are actually responsible?
Plaintiff: This is not the first time my lord. My daughter died last
year of the same circumstance…
Analysis
In above excerpt, the judge’s utterance “you alleged that your son has been sick for some months now and that these two suspects before the court are responsible…”reveals the intention of the plaintiff as it constitutes the main reason the case is before the court. The judge performs pract of stating to establish the intent of the plaintiff. The utterance “this is not the first time my lord…” also strengthens his claim through the pract of stating.
Excerpt 2.
Judge: And you believe they are the ones responsible for his
sickness? Have you taken him to the hospital?
Plaintiff:Yes my Lord, the doctors said they did not see anything wrong with
my son but if we return home, he will be terribly sick.
Judge: I am not saying that there is no witchcraft but there is no
physical evidence to prove it.
Analysis
Here, the plaintiff
utterance “yes my Lord, the doctors said they did not see anything wrong with
my son…” This response constitutes a defensive pract to further reaffirm the
plaintiff allegation of witchcraft. Judge’s question thus triggers plaintiff to
reveal doctor’s statement. Also, the judge uses SSK to clarify the position of
the law on allegation of witchcraft. “I am not saying that there is no
witchcraft, but there is no evidence to prove it”.
Excerpt 3.
Prosecutor: The suspect before the court has been reported to have the
carnal knowledge of one Amina aged 17 of …village through a forceful means at
about 18:00hrs. The girl is currently receiving medication at a health
facility.
Judge: Did you hear the allegation
brought against you? Do you have anything to say?
Analysis
In the above proceeding,
the prosecutor’s utterance “the suspect before the court has been reported to
have the carnal knowledge of one Amina aged 17 of …” reveals the purpose of
being before the court. Here, the prosecutor’s utterance performs pragmatic act
of stating, substantiating the allegation of rape. “The carnal knowledge…”
uttered by the prosecutor reflects avoiding being vulgar hence the use of
metaphor. He thus explores REF, MPH and REL to present the case in the
courtroom.
Excerpt 4.
Judge: Do you know the implications of your behaviour? When I was
young like you, to further my education was my target not into this bad
attitude…
Suspect: I…I…actually
had sex with her but only once…
Judge: You
will be taken to correctional home for eight weeks.
Analysis
Here, the judge’s
opening statement is inquisitive in order to signal the gravity of the offence
to defendant. The utterance “do you know the implications of your behaviour?is
a question that can make defendant to understand the seriousness of his crime.
Also, the utterance” …when i was young like you, to further my
education was my target…” by the judge represents pragmatic reference. The
judge performs pragmatic act of informing to realise this and also relies on
REF to convey the depth of the offence. Furthermore, “you will be taken to
correctional home for eight weeks” by the judge displays pragmeme of directive
through pract of stating. This utterance serves as a directive pragmatic act
stating the final verdict.
Excerpt 5.
Judge: You are alleged to have unlawfully trespassed on the
farmland of one Mal...and that your cows had battled every crop to the finish.
Why did you do that?
Suspect: I did not intentionally trespass my Lord. It was my children
who went for grazing and you know children. My Lord, I want to appeal to Mal…to
allow us settle out of the court…
Analysis
The utterance
“…unlawfully trespassed on the farmland of one Mal...” by the presiding judge
performs the pragmeme of revealing the intention of the plaintiff through pract
of stating. The judge reveals why the suspect is brought before the court. Also,
“…It was my children who went for grazing…” represents pract of stating which
offers why the farmland was trespassed. The suspect thus uses REF to admit to
the crime “…It was my children…” In addition, the utterance “…and that your
cows had battled every crop to the finish…” aims to convince the court about
the allegation through the pract of informing. The judge employs MPH to
communicate the level of damage done by the herder on the farm and demand the
reason for such an act.
Excerpt 6.
Judge: Your wife has alleged that you frequently beat her even
without serious provocation and on this basis seeks to quit the marriage. Why
do you always beat her?
Husband: She will not go home with my two children.
Analysis
The mentioning of the
case by the judge presents the intent of the plaintiff in above proceeding.
“Your wife has alleged that you frequently beat her even without serious
provocation…” by the judge expresses pragmeme of revealing the intention
realised through the pract of stating. The judge explores REF “your wife…” to
pass the information to defendant which clears any doubt about who might have
sued him. The Husband’s utterance “she will not go home with my two children”
also indicates his stance of the custody of the children which is realised
through the pract of stating.
Excerpt 7.
Judge: You have not answered my question. What offence does she
commit that warrants beating always?
Husband: I don’t just know what sometimes comes over me my Lord.I
want the court to appeal to her to give me another chance.
Analysis
In above excerpt, the
utterance “…what offence does she commit that warrants beating always? By the
judge aims to elicit detailed information in order to convince the court, using
pract of probing. The judge counts on SSK to inquire about the possible reasons
that might have prompted beating of his wife always. The utterance by the
husband “I want the court to appeal to her to give me another chance” captures
the frequent attempts defendants deploy to seek pardon in courtroom
proceedings. This act demonstrates pragmeme of pleading performed through pract
of stating.
Excerpt 8.
Judge: I gave you two weeks to go and reconcile on the allegation
that you are not a man again by your wife. Were you able to prove to her beyond
her expectations?
Husband: My Lord, she didn’t allow me have access to her body.
Analysis
The statement “I
gave you two weeks to go and reconcile on the allegation that you are not a man
again…” uttered by the judge is a revealing act that establishes the basis with
which the case is brought to the court. The phrase “…by your wife” reflects
pragmatic tool of Reference (REF) to validate the accusation. “My Lord, she
didn’t allow me have access to her body” expresses pragmeme of complaint to
reveal the attitude of the wife. The judge deploys MPH to convey the intent of
the plaintiff implicitly.
Excerpt 9.
Judge: How old is your marriage and for how long has he started
behaving in such manner?
Wife: The marriage is five years old and blessed with two children
a boy and a girl. This problem started five months ago. He can no longer make
love to me again …
Husband: I want the court to plead with her to give me more time so
that I can find solution to it.
Analysis
The utterance “. this
problem started five months ago. He can no longer make love to me again…”
reveals wife’s frustration about husband’s sexual inability. This is a
reflection of pragmeme of frustration realised through pract of stating. She
further uses pragmatic tool of VCE and psychological act to validate her
grounds. In addition, judge’s question “how old is your marriage and how long
has he started behaving in such manner?” reflects pragmeme of confirmation to
convince and determine whether it is not too early to seek divorce. The inquiry
is thus made through SSK.
The utterance “I gave you two weeks to go and
reconcile…” embodies pragmame of reconciliation performed through the pract of
directive. The judge uses Metaphor (MPH) “… you are not a man again” to
describe the basis that brought the matter to the court. Also, the statement “I
want the court to plead with her to give me more time…” represents pleading act
to pacify and appeal to his wife to allow him find solution to his problem.
. Excerpt 10.
Judge: Your wife has alleged that she personally caught you having
an affair with a married woman in your room while returning from a trip and
based on this, wants to quit the marriage.
Husband: It’s jealousy…
Judge: What do you mean? So, what she said is true?
Husband: The woman is my relation.
Wife: He is a liar my Lord. The woman is his concubine. I caught
them together inside his room…
Analysis
The utterance “Your wife
has alleged that she personally caught you having an affair with a married
woman…” represents pragmeme of revelation realised through pract of stating
thereby indicating the purpose of filing the case in the court by the plaintiff.
The conveyance of the information is also done through pragmatic tool of REF
“your wife…” “The woman is my relation” is a pragmeme of defence to convince
the court through REF.
Excerpt 11
Judge: Your husband alleged that you left his house and stayed with
a man for one week without his consent and wants to know your reason for such
an act.
Wife: I don’t have any reason.
Husband: The man dated her before our marriage and he seems not to
leave her alone.
Wife: My Lord, he sent me 5,000 naira last two weeks and since
then I have not been myself again…
Judge: Why have you allowed a man to abduct you while in your
husband’s house? Don’t you know that you are a married woman?
Isiaka: My Lord please forgive me it is a devil’s work. I am sorry…
Analysis
The utterance “your
husband alleged that you left his house and stayed with a man for one week
without his consent…” is a revealing pragmeme realised through pract of
stating. Also, the statement “the man dated her before our marriage…” captures
the pragmeme of validation through pract of informing to convince the judge.
Also, “my Lord, he sent me 5,000 naira last two weeks…” embodies pragmeme of
admission of guilt to validate husband’s claim. The judge uses REL “don’t you
know that you are a married woman? to describe her status as somebody with a
husband. In addition, the judge explores pragmatic tools of REF “your husband…”
to state who is responsible for accusation. And “the man…” by the husband also
represents pragmatic tool of REF to substantiate his accusation.
5.1 Table Summary of
Pragmatic Acts and their Goals in Selected Courtroom Proceedings
|
PRACTS |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENTAGE |
GOALS |
|
Stating |
32 |
61.5% |
To reveal intention |
|
Probing |
10 |
19.5% |
To convince the court |
|
Informing |
7 |
13.5% |
To give instruction |
|
Pleading |
3 |
5.8% |
To solicit/tender request |
|
Total |
52 |
100% |
|
5.2Table 2: Summary of
Pragmatic Tools Deployed by Courtroom Participants
|
PGs |
PT |
PT |
PT |
PT |
PT |
PT |
|
|
SSK |
REF |
INF |
REL |
MPH |
VCE |
|
To reveal intention |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
|
To convince the court |
2 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
To give instruction |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
To solicit for request |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Total |
3 |
7 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
6. Discussion of
Findings
From the analysis, the
result of the study showed that a total of 52 acts were realised from selected
courtroom proceedings covering criminal and divorce cases. These acts were
grouped into four (4) pragmatic acts of stating, probing, informing and pleading
respectively, with the stating accounting for the highest frequency in
courtroom discourse in Niger State. This thus, suggests its fundamental role in
courtroom discourse.
The study further
revealed that the participants performed the pragmatic acts to achieve four (4)
key goals of revealing the intention, particularly by the plaintiffs,
convincing the court by both plaintiffs and defendants, instructing by the
judges and soliciting by defendants or plaintiffs.
The study found out that
the participants further performed the pragmatic acts to achieve different
goals of revealing the intention, convincing the court, instructing and
soliciting through the pragmatic tools such as Shared Situation Knowledge
(SSK), Reference (REF.), Relevance (REL.), Voice (VCE) and Metaphor (MPH.).
7. Conclusion
This study examined
pragmatics of selected courtroom discourse, focusing on proceedings in
Magistrate and Sharia courts in Niger State Nigeria within the theoretical lens
of Mey’s (2001) Pragmatic Acts Theory in order to understand how courtroom
participants deploy pragmatic acts to achieve their communicative goals. The
analysis revealed that language in the courtroom is not merely a neutral tool
for conveying information, but a strategic resource used to establish
authority, seek clarification, negotiate meanings and defend claims. Thus, the
study concludes that the pragmatic acts performed in selected courtroom
discourse in Niger State are not merely a medium of communication, but
functional tool for achieving social, emotional and institutional purposes.
References
Aina, O. A., &
Anowu, A.E. (2023). Some pragmatic point of description of conducive
questioning in courtroom interrogation, Journal of Universal Language. (pp.1-30).
Doi10: 22425/jul.2023.24.21 elSSN 2508-5344
Birner, J. B.
(2013). Introduction to pragmatics.Wiley Blackwell.
Fafiyebi, D. O.,
Agbeleoba, S. O. & Bamigboye, O. (2024). Pragmatic acts in the language of
alms begging in Southwest of Nigeria.Journal of Literature, Language and
Linguistics.Vol. 6, Issue 3, 2023 (pp. 41-54).
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An
introduction. Blackwell Publishing.
Oates, L. &Enquist,
A. (2009). Just writing grammar, punctuation and style for legal
writers (Rev.ed.) Aspen Publishers.
Yokossi, O. T.,
Datondji, A. C. & Koutchade, I. S. (21022). A pragmatic study of
generalized and particularized implicatures in The Arrangers of
Marriage”from Adichie’s Around your Neck. International Journal of
English Language and Linguistics research.Vol. 10, No 4. (pp 1-18) ISSN:
2053-6313
0 Comments