Scholarlink

<p>This study examines the rhetorical presentation of arguments in dissents through markers of certainty and doubt in sixty-two Nigerian Supreme Court dissents using Hyland’s (Hedging in Scientific Research Articles, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1998b) and Zou and Hyland’s (IJAL 32:225–240, 2022) taxonomy of boosters and hedges. Findings on the frequency of the markers show that boosters are more predominant than hedges, indicating that assertive presentation of arguments is critical in the dissents. However, a discursive analysis of the specific functions of boosters and hedges in the corpus shows that most boosting features function as markers of solidarity, used to present dissenters’ claims as common knowledge and accepted truth. Hedges, on the other hand, are more reader-oriented, indicating the importance of presenting convincing argumentation with some deference to members of the community of practice. Boosters are commonly marked by epistemic and evidential adverbs and adjectives, used to strengthen the force of arguments advanced in the dissents. Hedges, on the other hand, are commonly realised by cognitive and communication verbs, adverbs and nouns, used to express judges’ sceptical attitude towards the arguments of the majority and appeal to legal reasoning from colleagues. These findings suggest that good argumentation in judicial dissent is a blend of certitude with deference in order to appeal to the brooding spirit of law in future adjudication or policy amendment.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Dissenting with Conviction and Deference: Boosters and Hedges in Nigerian Supreme Court Dissents

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月30日

查看全文
  • Florence Oluwaseyi Daniel

摘要

This study examines the rhetorical presentation of arguments in dissents through markers of certainty and doubt in sixty-two Nigerian Supreme Court dissents using Hyland’s (Hedging in Scientific Research Articles, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1998b) and Zou and Hyland’s (IJAL 32:225–240, 2022) taxonomy of boosters and hedges. Findings on the frequency of the markers show that boosters are more predominant than hedges, indicating that assertive presentation of arguments is critical in the dissents. However, a discursive analysis of the specific functions of boosters and hedges in the corpus shows that most boosting features function as markers of solidarity, used to present dissenters’ claims as common knowledge and accepted truth. Hedges, on the other hand, are more reader-oriented, indicating the importance of presenting convincing argumentation with some deference to members of the community of practice. Boosters are commonly marked by epistemic and evidential adverbs and adjectives, used to strengthen the force of arguments advanced in the dissents. Hedges, on the other hand, are commonly realised by cognitive and communication verbs, adverbs and nouns, used to express judges’ sceptical attitude towards the arguments of the majority and appeal to legal reasoning from colleagues. These findings suggest that good argumentation in judicial dissent is a blend of certitude with deference in order to appeal to the brooding spirit of law in future adjudication or policy amendment.