Pragmatic Acts and Functions in Selected Divorce Proceedings in Oyo Town

Abstract

In order to understand how litigants and attorneys strategically employ language to resolve marital disputes and sway court rulings, this study explores the pragmatic acts and communicative functions ingrained in divorce proceedings in Oyo Town. The study investigates how courtroom utterances function as socially situated actions shaped by institutional roles, procedural norms, and sociocultural expectations surrounding marriage and family responsibilities, drawing on Mey's Pragmatic Acts Theory (2001). Selected divorce proceeding excerpts from Oyo Town’s High court make up the data, which are qualitatively analysed to find recurrent pragmatic acts and the contextual elements that allow for their interpretation. The analysis reveals three practices, and these include questioning/responding, complaining/justifying, and accusing. Similarly, three functions are revealed, and they are: Fact-establishing, grievance articulation, and blame-attribution functions. The findings further show that the interpretation of these utterances is deeply influenced by shared cultural ideologies concerning gender roles, family duties, and moral expectations within the Yoruba socio-cultural context. By highlighting the pragmatic mechanisms through which meaning and persuasion are constructed in divorce proceedings, the study contributes to the growing body of research on courtroom discourse and expands the application of this theory to institutional legal interactions in African contexts.