# A closer look at the pragmatic marker sɛbè in Akan

Jemima Asabea Anderson, Rachel G. A. Thompson and Isaac Adjei Forson

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

OpenEdition
Journals

**Electronic version**

URL: https://journals.openedition.org/lla/14074

DOI: 10.4000/15e41

ISSN: 2822-7468

**Publisher**

Llacan UMR 8135 CNRS/Inalco

**Electronic reference**

Jemima Asabea Anderson, Rachel G. A. Thompson and Isaac Adjei Forson, "A closer look at the pragmatic marker sɛbè in Akan", *Linguistique et langues africaines* [Online], 11(1) | 2025, Online since 30 June 2025, connection on 19 December 2025. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/lla/14074; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/15e41

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-SA 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) may be subject to specific use terms.
# A closer look at the pragmatic marker sébè in Akan

Jemima Asabea Anderson
University of Ghana

Rachel G. A. Thompson
University of Ghana

Isaac Adjei Forson
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

## ABSTRACT

This study examines the use of the Akan expression sébè and the various contexts in which it occurs. Sébè is a pragmatic marker that prefaces utterances in Akan discourse to mitigate face-threatening acts (FTAs) and maintain social harmony. Its significance lies in its role as a politeness strategy and its connection to sociocultural norms and values of the Akan-speaking community in Ghana. This study contributes to the fields of pragmatics, discourse analysis, and Kwa language studies by highlighting how speakers manage face in daily interactions. Also, it offers insights into the concept of politeness in non-Western contexts and deepens understanding of pragmatic devices in Akan. Specifically, it demonstrates how sébè enhances interpersonal communication as it tones down the force of FTAs, serves as an alert to prepare interlocutors for potentially sensitive utterances, introduces strong criticisms tactfully, and redresses potentially offensive remarks. Its absence, when culturally expected, often signals communication failure. By examining sébè, this study provides broader insights into pragmatic strategies and the interplay between culture and communication. The data for this study were extracted from recorded news broadcasts and panel discussions on Akan-speaking media stations. Our analysis demonstrates that the use of sébè is a face-saving strategy that reinforces the sociocultural emphasis on cooperation and respect and positively affects both the speaker and the addressee/listener in Akan discourse.

## KEYWORDS

Akan, apologetic expression, face threat, formulaic expression, Kwa language, verbal taboo

## RÉSUMÉ

À partir de données extraites d'émissions d'information et de tables rondes diffusées sur des chaînes médiatiques en langue akan, cet article explore les emplois du morphème sébè au travers de ses différentes attestations. Marqueur pragmatique qui précède les énoncés, sébè s'emploie pour atténuer les atteintes à l'image des individus (FTA pour face-threatening acts) et maintenir l'harmonie sociale. Son importance réside dans son rôle dans la stratégie de politesse et son lien avec les normes et valeurs socioculturelles de la communauté akanophone du Ghana. Contribuant aux domaines de la pragmatique, de l'analyse du discours et des études linguistiques kwa, cette étude met en évidence la manière dont les locuteurs gèrent l'image de soi dans les interactions quotidiennes. Elle offre également un aperçu du concept de politesse dans un contexte non occidental et approfondit la compréhension des dispositifs pragmatiques en akan. Spécifiquement, elle démontre que sébè améliore la communication interpersonnelle en atténuant l'impact des FTA, en préparant les interlocuteurs à des énoncés potentiellement sensibles, en introduisant avec tact des critiques et en corrigeant le caractère éventuellement offensant du propos. Son absence, lorsqu'elle est culturellement attendue, signale souvent un échec de la communication. L'examen de sébè contribue plus largement aux travaux relatifs aux stratégies pragmatiques et à l'interaction entre culture et communication. Il démontre que l'utilisation de sébè relève d'une stratégie visant à sauver la face, tant du locuteur que de son interlocuteur, cette stratégie s'inscrivant pleinement dans l'importance socioculturelle de la coopération et du respect de chacun.

## MOTS-CLÉS

Akan, formules de politesse et d'atténuation, formules stéréotypées, image de l'interlocuteur, langues kwa, tabou verbal
# 1. INTRODUCTION

Pragmatic markers are linguistic elements that speakers use to manage interaction, structure discourse, clarify intentions, and navigate interpersonal relationships (Inbar & Maschler 2023; Crible & Kosmala 2025). They facilitate communication by organizing the flow of conversation, guiding listeners in interpreting utterances, mitigating misunderstandings, and expressing speaker stance or emotion (Schiffrin 1987; Fraser 1999; Ament et al. 2020; Unuabonah & Mtembu 2023). In English, for example, expressions such as *well, I think, you know, I mean*, and *actually* illustrate how pragmatic markers function to manage turn-taking, signal topic shifts, soften disagreement, and mitigate face-threatening acts (FTAs). While pragmatic markers are found across languages, their forms and functions are shaped by specific cultural and linguistic contexts (Schiffrin 1987; Fraser 1999). Therefore, studying pragmatic markers within individual languages is necessary for understanding culturally embedded norms of communication. In the broader literature, these elements appear under different labels, discourse markers, pragmatic particles, or discourse particles, with no universally agreed-upon term (Schiffrin 1987; Fraser 1999; Aijmer & Simon-Vandenbergen 2011).

Alongside this terminological variation, scholars differ in how they define and classify these markers. Some focus more narrowly on their role in ensuring textual cohesion, while others propose broader frameworks that include textual, subjective, and intersubjective functions (Fraser 1999; Traugott 2010). These distinctions often vary depending on context and analytic perspective. This study adopts a broader view, defining pragmatic markers as elements that contribute to both textual organization and interpersonal meaning. Although languages like English, German, and Japanese have received substantial scholarly attention (Aijmer 2013; Fischer 2006; Heine et al. 2021), African languages remain comparatively underexplored. While emerging work by African scholars is beginning to document indigenous pragmatic features (e.g. Unuabonah & Oladipupo 2018; Unuabonah & Mtembu 2023), much remains to be done. This study contributes to this growing body of work by analyzing one such underexamined pragmatic marker, *sébè* in Akan, a Kwa language of the Niger-Congo family spoken in Ghana.

Pragmatic markers used to signal politeness play an important role in social interaction, especially in managing requests, apologies, disagreements, interruptions, and other FTAs. As Aijmer (2009) notes, expressions like *please, sorry, or excuse me* in English are common in many other languages, though their use varies across cultures. Goffman viewed these expressions as “conventionalized and perfunctory doings” and referred to them as the “dust of social activity” (1971: 90), yet emphasized their significance in maintaining social norms and upholding public face.

Brown & Levinson (1987) introduced a model of politeness that conceptualizes face as a crucial component of communication. They distinguish between positive face (the desire to be liked and approved) and negative face (the desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition). They explained that FTAs occur whenever one's actions impinge on the face needs of another. Thus, speakers must employ strategies like politeness formulas to mitigate such threats. In many cultures, including Akan, maintaining face is integral to effective communication. However, politeness strategies in different cultures vary in the ways they address these face needs, as they are shaped by distinct sociocultural norms.

Among the Akans, guidelines for appropriate communicative norms and polite linguistic actions are well-established. Even though they may not be written because Akan is more of an oral culture, they form a crucial aspect of one's enculturation process. Failure to adhere to these norms often reflects poorly on the individual's family or community and may lead to embarrassment, communication breakdown, or even social conflict (Yankah 1995; Obeng 1999; Agyekum 2004). To avoid the repercussions of communicative failures, the older ones in many families take on the responsibility of enculturating the younger ones in the early stages of their lives. They teach those younger acceptable communicative norms such as the right use of proverbs, idioms, euphemisms, folktales, metaphors, innuendoes, honorifics, pronoun mismatches, and recognized politeness formulas (i.e., expressions that translate as 'excuse me', 'sorry', 'please', or 'I beg your pardon', etc.). Those who usually intersperse their speeches with such appropriate linguistic forms and formulas, especially in public, are viewed as expressing deference, maintaining cooperation and rapport, reinforcing relationships or
trying to avoid the loss of face (Spencer-Oatey 2000; Agyekum 2004; Spencer-Oatey & Kádár 2021). Among the Akan specifically, speakers who often adhere to the communicative norms are labeled as well bred, civil, verbally matured, or cultured, and speakers who do not are considered impolite or communicatively incompetent (Yankah 1995; Obeng 1999; 2003). Due to this, the use of polite formulaic expressions in day-to-day activities is pervasive.

Sekyi-Baidoo (2016) identifies a number of politeness markers in Akan and refers to them as apologetic signals. They include *w'anim* ‘before you/in your presence’, *mingyina wo/mo anim* ‘not standing before you/not standing in your presence’, *ɛnyɛ me anisa* ‘this is not to mean I am disrespecting you’, *mesre meka* ‘I beg to say’, and *sébè*. He indicates that these apologetic signals are very necessary in establishing whether or not a speaker is polite or communicatively competent. He further explains that these politeness markers are not mere linguistic conventions but are deeply embedded in the cultural framework of Akan society. They ensure appropriateness in speech in various sociocultural contexts in order to establish social harmony and reinforce hierarchical relationships, respect, and communal values.

Among the markers identified by Sekyi-Baidoo (2016), *sébè* holds particular significance due to its unique role in mitigating FTAs. It is opaque in meaning and has no direct equivalent in English. According to Kuleke, *sébè* can be used to preface a statement that is considered unacceptable or offensive, and it is deeper in meaning than ‘please’ and ‘excuse me’ (2014: 77). Sekyi-Baidoo (2016: 126) considers it as “the most common” apologetic signal among the Akans. However, its treatment in the existing literature remains superficial. These earlier studies often mention *sébè* in passing, describing it primarily as an apologetic expression, politeness marker, or mitigative signal, but they do not provide a comprehensive, empirical analysis of its nuanced role in Akan discourse (see also Yankah 1986; 1995; 2009; Dzobo 1992; Obeng 1997; Asante 2002; Agyekum 2004). The present study addresses this gap by providing a detailed, data-driven investigation of *sébè*, drawing on naturally occurring data. It examines its morphosyntactic behavior and positioning across utterances, how this positioning contributes to its pragmatic effects, and its pragmatic functions.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The theoretical framework of politeness and the concept of face in Akan are presented in Section 2. The data collection process is presented in Section 3. Section 4 presents a general overview of the use of *sébè* in Akan and further analyzes the data obtained. Section 5 discusses the contexts of use with a focus on the topics that come up in a conversation as well as the speech acts performed by the utterance containing *sébè*. Section 6 concludes the paper.

## 2. POLITENESS AND FACE CONCEPTS

This section establishes how *sébè* relates to the concept of politeness and face in daily interactions, with references to Goffman’s perspective and Brown & Levinson’s politeness theory.

### 2.1. Politeness theory

Brown & Levinson (1987) introduced the most influential and widely debated model of politeness, where they suggest that every individual has face. As outlined in the introduction, face, described as one’s public image, is divided into two types of desires: negative face, the desire to be unimpeaded in one’s actions, and positive face, the desire to be approved of by others. These concepts of face play a central role in all human communicative actions. Brown & Levinson (1987) suggest that the likelihood and impact of FTAs depend on three sociological factors: the social distance between the speaker and addressee, the relative power of the addressee over the speaker, and the degree of imposition involved. In their model, they present different strategies for managing FTAs, which include

*   Positive politeness strategies: These are “approach-based” strategies aim at fulfilling the hearer’s positive face by showing solidarity, approval, or shared interests (Brown & Levinson 1987: 101). These strategies are used to minimize the threat to the hearer’s face.
* Negative politeness strategies: These are “avoidance-based” strategies designed to avoid infringing on the hearer’s negative face. They include apologizing, hedging, and showing deference, which allow the speaker to avoid imposing on the hearer (Brown & Levinson 1987: 129).

* The greater the potential threat to face in a speech event, the more effort is made to use politeness strategies to minimize the impact (Obeng 1997). Brown & Levinson (1987) indicate that, as a politeness strategy, acts that threaten face may be expressed indirectly or with certain redressive strategies in accordance with the type and cost of the FTAs in a particular society. In Akan discourse, politeness is similarly managed through various linguistic strategies that aim to reduce the impact of FTAs. The expression *sébè* serves as a key politeness marker in Akan communication. It functions as a tool for mitigating the force of potentially FTAs. By using *sébè*, the speaker acknowledges the potential for social discomfort or offence while simultaneously striving to preserve both parties’ dignity and respect.

As discussed in the previous section, face in Akan culture is a relational and collective concept. This is reflected in the ways in which politeness is expressed. Politeness markers in Akan are not only tools for softening direct speech acts (such as requests, criticisms, or disagreements). However, they are also integral to the broader project of managing social relationships and maintaining group cohesion. These markers signal respect for the interlocutor’s status and social position, as well as for the wider community values that govern appropriate behavior. For instance, expressions like *w'anim* ‘before you’ or *enye me anisa* ‘this is not to mean I am disrespecting you’ function as polite prefatory phrases that indicate the speaker’s intention to show respect before making a potentially face-threatening statement.

Politeness in Akan communication is deeply embedded in the sociocultural values of the community, shaping the way people interact, express deference, and maintain social harmony. In line with Brown & Levinson's (1987) politeness theory, which categorizes politeness strategies into positive and negative politeness, the concept of politeness in Akan culture incorporates elements of both approaches but also emphasizes a distinct set of practices rooted in communalism, respect for elders, and the collective well-being of the community. Unlike Western models of politeness, which often focus on individualistic notions of face and autonomy, politeness in Akan culture places significant importance on maintaining the dignity and respect of both the speaker and the hearer, as well as their families and communities.

In the Akan context, politeness is not just the avoidance of direct confrontations or insults in a speech event. It is about navigating the complex social relationships that link individuals to their families, communities, and wider social networks. As Agyekum (2004) notes, respect in Akan communication is largely based on asymmetrical relationships, which require a speaker to carefully consider their interlocutors' social distance, age, relative power, and status before making an utterance. For example, the language used when addressing elders, authority figures, or persons of higher social status is markedly different from the language used when speaking with peers or younger individuals. The use of polite language in such contexts signals awareness of these power dynamics and reinforces the social order.

## 2.2. Concept of *anim* ‘face’ in Akan culture

Research has shown that although the concept of face (as described in Section 2.1) in speech events is a universal concept, it is often deployed in ways that are culture and language specific (Ervin-Tripp et al. 1996; Agyekum 2004; Sifianou 2016; Safa et al. 2019) (Ervin-Tripp et al., 1995; Agyekum, 2004; Sifianou, 2016; Safa et al., 2019). That is, a good understanding of the concept of face in a particular speech community is dependent on one's knowledge of the sociocultural values, beliefs, expectations, and practices of the members of that community (Shammas 2005). In the words of Safa et al. (2019: 1), face is “culture and language specific, relational, interactional, and location-specific, co-constructed, and negotiated by the participants in the ongoing discourse activities”. Many scholars
from diverse cultural backgrounds have drawn on Goffman's (1955) theory of face to discuss issues related to an interactant's public image, dignity, honor, respect, and social standing as well as (im) politeness and other linguistic behaviors of speech participants in various sociocultural and pragma- tic contexts, e.g. English, French, Chinese, Japanese and Korean (Ervin-Tripp et al. 1996), Persian (Koutlaki 2002), Thai (Ukosakul 2005), Greek (Sifianou 2016).

Among the Akans too, Agyekum (2004) observes that face, directly translated as *anim*, is very significant in daily interactions. He explains that in addition to the literal meaning of being a body part, *anim* is used metonymically to denote a person's personality and dignity. Thus, in Akan, the ex- pression (1) *n'anim ye duru* 'her/his face is heavy' implies that s/he is grave, dignified, or venerable, while (2) *n'anim ye hare* 'his/her face is light' implies that s/he is light-minded, fickle, or frivolous. Agyekum (2004) further notes that people who are described with expression (1) are held in high esteem. However, those described with expression (2) are treated with no respect. They are often degraded before others to the extent that both their positive and negative face wants are disregarded. Since speech participants among the Akans often want to be treated with respect and avoid bringing shame to their family, they demonstrate communicative competence and behave in every possible way that is worthy of honor.

There is no faceless speech event in the Akan community. Moreover, being a communal society, the Akans conceptualize face not just individually but collectively, emphasizing a communal ap- proach to face management. As already stated, a single person's flaw may cause their entire family or community to lose face (see also Ervin-Tripp et al. 1996). The consequences of face loss in Akan society go beyond mere loss of prestige or reputation; they may include social sanction, ridicule, public shaming, strained relationships, or exclusion from communal decision-making and events. These repercussions serve as a deterrent and reinforce the cultural expectation that interlocutors respect and maintain each other's face in every speech event. Therefore, the expectation is that in every speech event, interlocutors respect and maintain each other's face. The Akan concept of face shares similar features with the Chinese, Greek, Japanese, and Korean concepts of face in terms of shared social values such as deference, (dis)honor, and shame, among others (Bargiela-Chiappini 2009; Sifianou 2016; Sifianou & Tzanne 2021). As posited by Agyekum (2004: 74), "the existence of face in interaction may affect the diction, intonational patterns, style of speech, the choice of the appropriate register, and even the syntactic structure of the utterances in communication". That is to say that the concept of face in Akan communication is relational and situational; it is not fixed but rather negotiated when interlocutors engage with each other in specific sociocultural contexts and practices (Locher 2011). Even in an event where a potential face threat cannot be avoided, the speaker must try to mitigate the impact by depersonalising their statements or using apologetic expressions (see Brown & Levinson 1987; Andriuzzi & Michel 2021). *Sébè* is one such mitigator in Akan. As discussed in the next section, when used appropriately, *sébè* softens the 'blow' of the face-threatening act (FTA).

The communal dimension of face in Akan communication can also be linked to the broader concept of “facework” (Goffman 1955: 233) to describe the efforts made by individuals to maintain their desired social image. In Akan society, facework involves not just managing one’s own face but also maintaining the face of one’s interlocutor(s). In this sense, *sébè* functions as a mutual face-saving device, which both the speaker and the listener rely on to preserve the face of both parties and, by extension, the reputation of their respective families and communities. Thus, the concept of face in Akan culture is inherently connected to the sociocultural norms that govern communication. Maintai- ning face is not only about safeguarding personal reputation but also ensuring continued respect and social cohesion within the broader communal structure. The use of *sébè* as a mitigating expression is not merely a linguistic convention but a culturally ingrained practice that reflects politeness and the values of social harmony and honor. In the following subsection, we will discuss the role of politeness in Akan discourse in light of Brown & Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory and explore how expres- sions like *sébè* function as politeness markers that are deeply rooted in the face-saving practices of the Akan people.
## 3. METHODOLOGY

This study adopts a qualitative descriptive research design. The data for the study were drawn from 100 utterances containing the expression *sébè*, sourced from news broadcasts and talk shows on selected Akan-speaking media stations. The stations selected include Præmtoberë Kaseɛbɔ and Kokrokoo on Peace FM, Y'asem Nie on Adom TV, and Dawuro Maakye on RTV. These stations were chosen due to their extensive reach, both in Ghana and internationally via their online platforms, including YouTube and Facebook, where they upload and live-stream their content. These media stations not only have a broad listenership and viewership but also feature native Akan speakers who possess a high level of linguistic competence and an in-depth understanding of the sociocultural values, beliefs, attitudes, and communicative norms of the Akan community. A total of 24 speakers featured on these platforms at the time of data collection. Their ages ranged from 35 to 65 years, and they represented diverse professional backgrounds, including politics, media, education, and academia. Of the 24 speakers, 19 were men and 5 were women.<fnref n="1" />

The content of the programs spans a wide range of topics, including culture, education, politics, religion, sports, and entertainment. Frequent subjects of discussion include issues such as divorce, suicide, murder, bribery, corruption, assault, election malpractices, and child molestation, among others. In these contexts, *sébè* and other mitigation or apologetic expressions are frequently employed to address sensitive or potentially offensive topics. For example, *sébè* was extensively used in a report on an alleged case of sodomy between a teacher and a pupil, as well as in a panel discussion on corruption among members of parliament in Ghana.

To gather the data, two research assistants monitored the official YouTube channels of the aforementioned media stations, identifying and transcribing the first 100 instances in which *sébè* appeared. The transcription followed Akan orthography strictly, with careful attention to tone markings to guide readers. The Asante dialect was used consistently by the speakers in the data.

The data gathered provide a naturalistic representation of the use of *sébè* in everyday Akan discourse, as they were not solicited from speakers but were instead selected from regular, unscripted broadcast content. The analysis draws on the concept of face (Goffman 1955; Agyekum 2004) and politeness theory (Brown & Levinson 1987) to formulate some generalizations about the contexts and functions of *sébè* in Akan discourse. Additionally, the study examines how *sébè* functions as a mitigating or redressive action that helps speakers perform particular speech acts, such as criticizing and stereotyping, which could otherwise threaten the face of the interlocutors involved. Further, it analyzes how speakers use *sébè* to mitigate offence, reduce the impact of criticisms, and maintain respect in their discourse in a way that aligns with universal politeness strategies and culturally specific practices related to face and communication intent.

## 4. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF SÉBÈ IN AKAN

### 4.1. Morphosyntactic properties and classification

The Akan expression *sébè* is used when a speaker is aware that the utterance that follows it or comes before it will threaten either the speaker's or the hearer's face or both. It can be roughly interpreted as 'I apologize that I am about to say to you something you may not like to hear' or 'excuse me, I am about to say something you may find offensive'. *Sébè*, according to Yankah (2009: 5), is used "to step down unintended offence caused by bald reference". When *sébè* is used, it mitigates, cancels, or neutralizes the face-threatening force of an utterance, thereby maintaining rapport among interlocutors and preventing social conflicts.

Although a lexical item, *sébè* does not belong to any of Akan's major grammatical word classes. Morphologically, it is invariable as it does not undergo inflection, derivation, or phonological alterna-

<footnote n="1">1. This gender imbalance largely reflects current trends in Ghanaian broadcast media, where women are less frequently invited as panelists on public affairs and commentary programs. While women do appear more commonly as news anchors or show hosts, their representation in unscripted, opinion-driven segments remains limited (see Blaylock 2022).</footnote>
tion. Syntactically, *sébè* is optional and can occur outside the propositional content of the utterance, serving instead as a discourse-level element. *Sébè* cannot stand on its own but always has to be attached to a negative expression or a potentially face-threatening utterance. While it shares some surface features with interjections (Thompson 2019) and ritualized politeness formulas (Otoo 2018), *sébè* is best described as a pragmatic marker. Its function is not merely emotive or formulaic but centrally concerned with discourse organization, face management, and speaker stance. This aligns with definitions of pragmatic markers that emphasize their role in interpersonal negotiation, textual coherence, and the modulation of speaker intention (Fraser 1999; Aijmer & Simon-Vandenbergen 2011).

As already stated in Section 1, there is no direct equivalent of *sébè* in English. However, in a general sense, *sébè* has been labelled as an apologetic expression (Agyekum 2004; Yankah 1995; 2009; Obeng 1997). It may also mean ‘with your permission’ (Yankah 1986), ‘excuse my language’ (Dzobo 1992), ‘excuse me’ (Dako 2003), and ‘with due respect’ (Asante 2002). These labels reflect the fact that in Akan, *sébè* occurs in the face of potentially offensive content in various contexts and serves a number of different, though closely related, functions in a speech event.

## 4.2. Distribution and pragmatic use

In terms of distribution, *sébè* is typically a prefatory expression, placed at utterance-initial position to signal to addressees/listeners that the forthcoming message might be sensitive, unpleasant, or offensive. This serves as a preparatory device, alerting the addressees/listeners to brace themselves for what follows. Addressees/listeners who are communicatively competent in the Akan culture gain self-awareness that a potentially derogatory message is coming their way. When *sébè* appears at the beginning of an utterance, as in (1),<fnref n="2" /> it is usually followed by a brief pause, often marked orthographically by a comma to separate it from the rest of the sentence. This pause enhances its function as a redressive marker, foregrounding the sensitive nature of the upcoming statement.

(1) *Sébè*, mèyè MP o.

*sébè* mè-yè MP o

*sébè* 1SG-be MP o

*‘Sébè’, I am an MP [member of parliament].’* (Peace FM -Kokrokoo)

*Sébè* may also appear right before the word or part of the utterance that may sound unpleasant to the addressee. When *sébè* appears within an utterance, as seen in (2),<fnref n="3" /> it typically prefaces the offensive or sensitive part of the statement. In this case, the content preceding *sébè* is not critical, and the mitigating or redressive pragmatic marker transitions directly to the part of the message that might challenge the sensitivities of addressees/listeners. While its position may differ within the utterance, its function mirrors that of the initial position, signaling potential face-threatening content.

(2) *Mèfirì Kùmàwú, Kwámè firì sébè, Dénkyìrà.*

*mè-firì* Kùmàwú Kwámè firì sébè Dénkyìrà

*1SG-hail* Kùmàwú Kwámè hail sébè Dénkyìrà

*‘I hail from Kùmàwú, and Kwámè from sébè Denkyira.’* (Sekyi-Baidoo 2016: 129)

*Sébè* can sometimes be placed at the end of an utterance as a face-saving strategy. As shown in (3), this usage suggests that the speaker is deliberately delivering an insult or controversial remark while

<footnote n="2">2. In (1), the speaker's declaration *mèyè MP o* 'I am an MP' could be perceived by listeners as boastful or self-aggrandizing, mainly because humility and modesty are valued in public speech within the Ghanaian sociocultural context. Thus, the use of *sébè* helps to soften the statement and also show the speaker's awareness that such a declaration might offend or discomfort listeners.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. The use of *sébè* in (2) implies that Denkyira carries a negative or less reputable social perception compared to Kùmàwù. By invoking *sébè* before naming Denkyira, the speaker signals awareness that mentioning this origin could be offensive or embarrassing (Sekyi-Baidoo 2016).</footnote>
simultaneously crafting an escape route from potential repercussions. In speech events such as radio panel discussions, this may serve to shield the speaker from public condemnation or criticism by listeners. In such contexts, the positioning of *sébè* indicates a culturally learned strategy, whether consciously deployed or pragmatically embedded in habitual use, to balance offence with plausible deniability. In sentence-final position, *sébè* is generally preceded by a slight pause, which reinforces its function as a distancing device and signals the speaker's awareness of the face-threatening nature of the preceding statement as well as an effort to soften its impact. Unlike its utterance-initial use, which prepares the listener for potentially sensitive content, *sébè* at sentence-final position performs a retrospective softening function, allowing speakers to mitigate what has already been said.

(3) Ádwóá, tìkyání nó fáá àbɔ́frá nó tó? Òyé àbóá, sébè.

<table><tr><td>Ádwóá</td><td>tìkyání</td><td>nó</td><td>fá-á</td><td>àbɔ́frá</td><td>nó</td><td>tó</td></tr><tr><td>Ádwóá</td><td>teacher</td><td>DEF</td><td>take-PST</td><td>child</td><td>DEF</td><td>buttocks</td></tr><tr><td>ò-yé</td><td>àbóá</td><td>sébè</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1SG-be</td><td>animal</td><td>sébè</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

‘Adwoa, did the teacher sodomize the child? He is a beast, sébè.’

(Peace FM-Kokrokoo)

For the purpose of emphasis or to signal intense mitigation, sébè can be repeated, as in sébè sébè; used multiple times (typically five or seven times), as in sébè, sébè, sébè, sébè, sébè; or attached to the adjective *mpén àdùásà* ‘thirtyfold’, as in sébè *mpén àdùásà*. Consider (4)-(5).

(4) Nàná, mòànìm ó, mèhúnùú sé sébè, sébè, sébè, sébè, mènè mè yèré díí mpásò àgòrɔ́á èdí kán ...

<table><tr><td>Nàná</td><td>mò-ànìm</td><td>ó</td><td>mè-húnù-ú</td><td>sé</td></tr><tr><td>Nàná</td><td>3SG-face</td><td>ó</td><td>1SG-see-PST</td><td>that</td></tr><tr><td>sébè sébè sébè sébè</td><td>mè-nè</td><td></td><td>mè</td><td>yèré</td></tr><tr><td>sébè sébè sébè sébè</td><td>1SG-and</td><td></td><td>1SGPOSS</td><td>wife</td></tr><tr><td>dí-í</td><td>mpá-sò</td><td>àgòrɔ́-á</td><td>è-dí</td><td>kán</td></tr><tr><td>play-PST</td><td>bed-top</td><td>play-PART</td><td>3SG-eat</td><td>first</td></tr></table>

‘Nàná, this is unfortunately said in your presence; I discovered later that sébè, sébè, sébè, sébè, when I had the first sex with my wife ...’ (Sekyi-Baidoo 2016: 130)

(5) Sébè, *mpén àdùásà*, Nàná ná wàátó n'ábòá dín nníbɔ́néàkyí.

<table><tr><td>sébè</td><td>mpén</td><td>àdùásà</td><td>Nàná</td><td>ná</td><td>wà-á-tó</td><td>n-ábòá</td></tr><tr><td>sébè</td><td>times</td><td>thirty</td><td>Nàná</td><td>PART</td><td>3SG-PERF-name</td><td>POSS-pet</td></tr><tr><td>dín</td><td colspan="6">n-ní-bɔ́né-àkyí</td></tr><tr><td>name</td><td colspan="6">NEG-follow-evil-back</td></tr></table>

‘Sébè thirtyfold, it is Nàná who named his pet “Don’t pay-evil-with-evil”.’

(Obeng 1997: 32)

Sekyi-Baidoo (2016) notes that using these repeated or multiple forms of sébè to precede an utterance, as in (4) and (5), hints to the addressee that the face-threatening act that follows is heightened. Thus, the mitigating expression must be intensified.

Across the contexts shown in (1)-(5), sébè functions to either soften criticism, manage taboos, or signal recognition of the delicate nature of an utterance. The speaker's positioning of sébè in the utterance is not random, but it indexes a communicative sensitivity that is well understood by interlocutors who are culturally competent.
### 4.3. Contextual nuance and cultural boundaries

Using *sébè* appropriately is an indicator that the speaker is attentive to the sociolinguistic norms of communication that Akan traditional gatekeepers value. Not only does it compensate for the speaker's deviation from the norms of communication, but it also shows that the speaker conforms with conventional expectations (Thompson 2021a). Given the vulnerability of face in every speech event among Akan speakers, using *sébè* is essentially a tactful strategy to prevent a speaker's own face from being marred and at the same time, assure listeners that the speaker recognizes and respects the face wants of the addressee(s).

As demonstrated in Section 5, the expression *sébè* performs a wide range of face-saving acts in Akan discourse, and not using it when necessary, signals communication failure on the part of the speaker. Moreover, *sébè* operates within strict cultural boundaries. It cannot neutralize every kind of offence. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in certain contexts among the Akans, the use of *sébè* has no redressive effect. Therefore, it is expected that the speaker would rather not do the FTA (Brown & Levinson 1987). For instance, a speaker will not get away with insulting a chief (a traditional ruler) even if they preface the insult with *sébè*. Similarly, based on the reverence the Akan people have for the elderly, insulting one's parents or grandparents using the apologetic device *sébè* would not guarantee the culprit immunity from rebuke, punishment or both.

Another instance where the mitigating force of *sébè* becomes ineffective is verbally denigrating an ancestral spirit or a deity. This category of spiritual entities, according to the Akan belief system, plays a critical role in the life of the living; they can make and unmake an individual. Therefore, to hide behind the apologetic shield, *sébè* and abuse any of these spiritual entities would not shield the speaker from societal condemnation and the wrath of the gods or ancestral spirits. These limitations reflect the communal and hierarchical structure of the Akan society, where deference to elders, chiefs, and spiritual figures is non-negotiable.

In public discourse, especially media or political talk shows, *sébè* can sometimes be strategically exploited to mask aggression or veiled insults. Speakers may appear polite while delivering offensive and unpleasant content, leveraging *sébè* for plausible deniability, as demonstrated in (3). In such situations, the redressiveness of *sébè* may be perceived as insincere or manipulative, depending on the broader interactional context. While such usage may be pragmatically effective, it is often perceived as disingenuous or evasive by listeners familiar with the Akan sociocultural communicative norms. Nevertheless, in most interpersonal situations, *sébè* functions as a crucial tactful device that allows speakers to uphold both their own face and that of their interlocutor. Its use reflects the Akan values of respect, social harmony, and verbal propriety. The following section will capture various contexts and speech acts in which the use of *sébè* is appropriate and acceptable in Akan culture.

### 5. CONTEXTS OF USE

The examples presented in this section are sentences with *sébè* extracted from recorded news broadcasts or talk shows. Here, we identified the major contexts in which the news broadcasters and panelists of the various talk shows named in Section 3 used *sébè* to mitigate the impact of a forthcoming face-threatening utterance and minimize the potential for confrontation by the listeners and/or viewers. It is clear that *sébè* is used when a speaker is discussing taboo topics, such as disabilities, or where the speaker may be stereotyping or criticizing. These are FTAs, by which the speaker risks offending others. The use of *sébè* helps to mitigate these speech acts, softening the delivery of the criticism or stereotype. For instance, when discussing disabilities, *sébè* can help to communicate sympathy or understanding, without appearing overly critical or judgmental, thus maintaining social harmony. The study points out that the application of *sébè* is shaped not only by the content of the discussion but also by the speaker's speech act (communicative intentions), which include criticizing, generalizing, or offering sympathy. The following is a representation of the role that *sébè* plays in the discussion of various contexts and performances of speech acts or communicative intentions in Akan discourse, as demonstrated in this study.
<table><caption>Table 1 — The role of sébè in various contexts and performances of speech acts</caption><thead><tr><td></td><td>Context</td><td>Speech Act</td><td>Role of sébè</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>Discussing taboo topics</td><td>Asserting or warning</td><td>Softens the delivery; mitigates offence</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Talking about<br/>i. disability/diseases<br/>ii. undignified occupation</td><td>Asserting or making<br/>unavoidable references</td><td>Projects speaker's awareness<br/>that the topic is sensitive;<br/>mitigates negative reactions</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Criticizing a respected<br/>person</td><td>Expressing disapproval or<br/>criticism</td><td>Softens the criticism</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>Talking about misfortunes</td><td>Asserting uncomfortable<br/>facts or expressing sympathy</td><td>Softens the delivery; shows<br/>concern to the affected<br/>individual(s)</td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>Self-praise</td><td>Defending or promoting<br/>self-image</td><td>Mitigates boastfulness; makes<br/>self-praise more acceptable</td></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>Discussing ethnic/gender<br/>stereotypes</td><td>Generalizing, stereotyping,<br/>or criticizing</td><td>Softens the stereotype;<br/>mitigates offence</td></tr><tr><td>7.</td><td>Using offensive proverbs</td><td>Criticizing</td><td>Mitigates offence</td></tr></tbody></table>

The contexts and communicative intentions of utterances involving sébè are further discussed in the following subsections.

## 5.1. Taboo topics

Among the Akans, topics dealing with sex, sexual organs, incest, nudity, and bodily fluids or discharge, such as sperm, menstrual blood, urine, phlegm, etc., are generally considered sensitive to discuss explicitly in public discourse (Agyekum 2002). The social norms require that such subjects or topics be treated as taboo and not mentioned or discussed publicly. In instances where a speaker cannot employ indirect strategies to communicate such FTAs, they resort to the use of sébè to tone down the message.

(6) Sébè, wó húnú nè kótè á, wò yám bè hyé wò.

sébè wó-húnú nè kótè á wò yám bè-hyé wò
sébè 2SG-see POSS penis PART POSS stomach FUT-burn 2SG

‘Sébè, you will be shocked when you see the size of his penis.’
(RTV-Dawuro Maakye)

(7) Sébè, wà yé brá á mà mògyá nó ásèè nè hó.

sébè wà-yé brá á-mà mògyá nó á-sèè
sébè 3SG.PERF-do menses PERF-give blood DEF PERF-destroy
nè hó
dem self

‘Sébè, she has soiled herself with menstrual blood.’ (Peace FM-Prëmtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

(8) Sébè, yèkyìrì mògyàfrá.

sébè yè-kyìrì mògyàfrá
sébè 1PL-hate incest

‘Sébè, incest is an abominable act.’ (Adom FM-Y’asem Nie)
As shown in (6)-(8), the use of *sébè* is used to preface such messages involving the explicit mention of 'penis', 'menstrual blood', and 'incest' to make them tellable and render them less face-threatening. *Sébè* is placed at utterance-initial position to alert or warn the patrons of the media stations that the upcoming message is face-threatening to all speech participants, including the speaker. It thus serves as a downtoner or pre-FTA expression for taboo topics or words that are talked about openly. In these examples, the speakers may be performing a speech act of making assertions that can cause discomfort or serve as a warning to their addressees. The use of *sébè* softens the directness of these speech acts in the efforts to maintain social harmony.

## 5.2. Deformities, disabilities, diseases

Yankah (2009) notes that specific euphemisms and less offensive terms exist for certain types of deformities or disabilities among the Akans. Such deformities include cleft lips, amputated leg or arm, and disfigured face. Yankah (2009: 5) adds, for instance, *yare kokoo* 'red affliction' or *mekura me dua mu* 'I hold firmly on to a tree' for *kwata* 'leprosy', *ne safoa ayera* 'he has lost his key' for *edam* 'madness', and *Onyame komfoo* 'God's priest' for people with *etwire* 'epilepsy'. These euphemisms reflect the sensitivity with which these deformities or disabilities are considered (Issah et al. 2023). If one cannot help but has to explicitly mention any of the above-mentioned deformities or disabilities, one has to provide support for the referent or addressee(s) who may be actually or potentially affected by the violation, as in (9)-(11).

(9) *Sébè*, nè bà fófóró nó yé yàràfòó.

sébè nè bà fófóró nó yé yàràfòó
sébè POSS child new DEF be deformed

'Sébè', her newborn baby is deformed.' (Adom FM-Y'asem Nie)

(10) Mèrè hwéhwé sébè, krákyè nó á nè nán étwá nó.

mè-rè-hwéhwé sébè krákyè nó á nè nán é-twá nó
1SG-PROG-look sébè gentleman DEF FOC POSS leg PERF-cut DEF

'Sébè', 'I'm looking for the young man whose leg has been amputated.'
(Adom FM-Y'asem Nie)

(11) Sébè, ónìfrání nó tè fié há.

sébè ónìfrání nó tè fié há
sébè blind DEF live house here

'Sébè', the blind person lives here.' (RTV-Dawuro Maakye)

The use of *sébè* in (9)-(11) demonstrates the speaker's willingness to save the face of the referent and addressee(s). Since it is culturally unacceptable and unethical to mention or highlight a person's deformity/disability, interlacing (9)-(11) with *sébè* prepares the addressee(s) before the perceived offensive remark is uttered. The communicative intention behind the use of *sébè* involves a display of concern for the feelings of the affected individual. It softens the act of making references to these potentially stigmatizing conditions in a way that aligns with politeness and face-saving strategies in discourse.

Similarly, it is expected that the discourse around terminal, infectious or hereditary disease conditions must be treated with tact in order not to offend victims. Some of these conditions are AIDS, tuberculosis, epilepsy, hunchback, etc. As can be seen in (12), if it becomes necessary for direct references to be made to any of these conditions, they are usually preceded by *sébè* to avert or mitigate the face threat triggered by the bald reference. Employing *sébè* in such instances, especially during media interactions, indicates the speaker's sensitivity to the face wants and plights of people with such conditions.
(12) Mênim pàpá nó á sébè, òbó nsàmànwá.
mè-nìm pàpá nó á sébè ò-bó nsàmànwá
1SG-know man DEF FOC sébè 3SG-play tuberculosis
'I know the man, sébè, he has tuberculosis.' (RTV-Dawuro Maakye)

In (9)-(12), the use of sébè serves as a politeness strategy to respect the dignity of the referent. It helps the speaker navigate a potentially uncomfortable situation or perform the act of explicitly pointing out someone's disabilities/disease, and also balancing the need to inform listeners. Sébè thus turns a direct face-threatening statement into a more socially acceptable discourse.

### 5.3. Undignified occupations

Certain types of occupation within the Akan society, such as funeral undertaking, prostitution, robbery, sorcery, and drug trafficking, are considered dirty, unethical, or shameful for one to engage in. To be consistent with facework principles, directly mentioning any of these occupations in an interaction demands the use of sébè to mitigate the inherent FTA. It is therefore not surprising that in the examples that follow, sébè is used to preface the mention of prostitution (13), robbery (14), and a mortician (15). Here, sébè acts as a face-saving strategy as it mitigates the possible offence or discomfort listeners may feel upon hearing the direct reference. Just as seen in Section 5.2, the speakers, by the use of sébè, convey their sensitivity to the possible discomfort of mentioning such occupations. Thus, the speech act involves the assertions of uncomfortable facts with tact.

(13) Sébè, òbó báàsíbrá wò Nkràn.
sébè ò-bó báàsíbrá wò Nkràn
sébè 3SG-erect prostitution in Accra
'Sébè, she is engaged in prostitution in Accra.' (RTV-Dawuro Maakye)

(14) Sáá mmèré yí, sébè, àkòrómfó mpó ádèdá.
sáá m-mèré yí sébè à-kòrómfó mpó á-dèdá
this PL-time DEF sébè PL-thief even PL-sleep
'Sébè, even robbers would be asleep at this time.' (Peace FM-Prémtoberé Kaseɛbɔ)

(15) Mèkyèré, sébè, dèé òdèdá fúnú nó.
mè-kyèré sébè dèé ò-dè-dá fúnú nó
1SG-show sébè the.one 3SG-sleep-HAB corpse DEF
'Sébè, I mean the mortician.' (RTV-Dawuro Maakye)

### 5.4. Misfortunes of life

Some situations in life cause distress and evoke bad memories (pain, anger or anguish) in individuals or groups (see Agyekum 2020). Among the Akans, these situations include barrenness, job loss, death of a loved one, serial child mortality, failure of marriage, loss of property, and impotence. They are laden with heavy emotional weight. Therefore, discussing them without caution communicates insensitivity or lack of sympathy on the speaker's part. The use of sébè indicates that the speaker is trying to soften the delivery by offering the news with a high level of caution, signaling the speaker's awareness of the emotional sensitivity involved. Consider (16)-(18).
(16) *Sébè, ɔdí àwò mmà wùó.*

sébè ɔ-dí à-wò-m-mà-wùó

sébè 3SG-eat PERF-birth-PL-child-death

‘Sébè, she has been experiencing infant mortality’. (Peace FM-Prɛmtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

(17) *Wàhwéré sébè, n’àgyápàdéè nyìnáá.*

wà-hwéré sébè n-àgyápàdéè nyìnáá

3SG-lost sébè poss-property all

‘He has lost sébè, all his properties.’ (Peace FM-Prɛmtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

(18) *Sébè, mààmé nó ányá yàfúnú ánwò bá yì bí.*

sébè mààmé nó á-n-yá yàfúnú á-n-wò-bá

sébè woman DEF PERF-NEG-get stomach PERF-NEG-birth-child

yì bí

DEF some

‘Sébè, the woman is barren.’ (Adom FM-Y’asem Nie)

As exemplified, sébè is used to mitigate the negative impact of the recall of such issues, including infant mortality in (16), loss of property in (17), and barrenness in (18). Its use in these cases is a redressive action by the speaker. By placing sébè at the beginning of these utterances, the speaker not only prepares the audience for the sensitive content but also signals their awareness of the emotional risks involved in bringing up such topics. This proactive facework ensures that the speaker’s intentions are interpreted with empathy to reinforce cultural norms of politeness. Additionally, the speaker, by employing sébè, repairs the damage to the face of the referent and their associates/relatives. Without the use of sébè, the FTA potentially threatens the face of the speaker, referent, and addressee(s), as the speaker is seen as not showing any warmth or sympathy towards the referent.

## 5.5. Self-praise (Self-aggrandizement)

Studies have shown that the speech act of self-praise is an FTA in various cultures, including the Akans (e.g. Schütz 1998; Chen & Jing 2012; Sekyi-Baidoo 2016; Matley 2018). Akans appreciate and encourage modesty in self-presentation during a verbal interaction, so typically, any act of self-praise is interpreted as arrogance, pride or boastfulness (Sekyi-Baidoo 2016). To mitigate the potential for being perceived as self-centered or arrogant, speakers strategically employ sébè at the beginning of utterances to soften the effect of the self-praise, ensuring that the FTA is acknowledged and potentially defused. Here, the use of sébè can be seen as a pre-emptive politeness strategy that signals the speaker’s awareness of the sensitive nature of self-praise. Consider (19)-(21).

(19) *Sébè, mèyè krákyènì, mènìm mmàrá nó.*

sébè mè-yè krákyènì mè-nìm mmàrá nó

sébè 1SG-be educated 1SG-know law DEF

‘Sébè, I’m an educated person, I know the law.’ (Peace FM-Kokrokoo)

(20) *Sébè, mèyè ɔhéné, èné mè nkàsá sàá.*

sébè mè-yè ɔhéné èné mè n-kàsá sàá

sébè 1SG-be chief CONJ 1SG NEG-talk like.that

‘Sébè, I’m a chief, don’t talk to me like that.’ (Adom FM-Y’asem Nie)
(21) Sébè, yèyè àdéhyéè, bìrìbì nsò wò yén nsàm.

sébè yè-yè à-déhyéè bìrìbì nsò wò yén nsàm

sébè 1PL-be PL-royal something also there our hand

‘Sébè, we are royals and financially sound as well.’ (Peace FM-Kokrokoo)

By using sébè, each of the speakers in (19)-(21) acknowledges the imposition on their addressees and listeners and is indirectly telling them that, ‘I do not mean to project myself as more powerful or important’ or simply, ‘I do not wish to brag’. Accordingly, the speakers through sébè show respect to their addressees and listeners and are thus shielded from disapproval. In all the examples, sébè functions as a politeness strategy to give a disclaimer or preemptive face-saving act. It helps the speaker acknowledge the imposition that may come with self-praise while simultaneously expressing respect for the listeners' face needs. This suggests that the communicative intention is not to boast, but to convey a statement that is culturally considered important.

## 5.6. Criticism of persons of respected status/positions

Thompson observes that people in certain positions with high social demands and responsibilities are presumed to be significant to the family, community or society in general and are often regarded as “icons of dignity” (2021a: 39). Among the Akans, such people include traditional leaders, religious leaders, and family heads. Generally, the expectation is that the knowledge that a person occupies any of these positions must inform a speaker’s speech behavior towards the person. That is, a speaker is required to treat such people with deference and respect or risk facing negative consequences. The speaker must not say anything negative about them or against them (Thompson 2021a). If it becomes necessary to do so, the speaker must deploy specific linguistic forms that reinforce the message that the person is of a high social status and cannot be reproached because they deserve honor (Yankah 1995; Agyekum 2004; Salifu 2014).

As exemplified below, one of such linguistic forms that is usually employed is sébè. Sébè, as used in these utterances, remedies the FTA.

(22) Sébè, ɔhéné nkàsà sáá.

sébè ɔhéné n-kàsà sáá

sébè chief NEG-speak like.that

‘Sébè, a chief doesn’t speak in such a manner.’ (Peace FM-Kokrokoo)

(23) Sébè, sùbán sèì mfàtá ɔsɔfɔɔ kòráá.

sébè sùbán sèì m-fàtá ɔsɔfɔɔ kòráá

sébè behavior such NEG-fit pastor at.all

‘Sébè, such behavior is not befitting of a pastor at all.’ (Peace FM-Prɛmtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

(24) Sébè, yén àbúsúá-pànín á-tòntón àbùsúá nsààsé nò nyìnáá.

sébè yén àbúsúá-pànín á-tòntón àbùsúá nsààsé

sébè our family-elder PERF-DUP-sell family land

nò nyìnáá

DEF all

‘Sébè, our family head has sold all the family lands.’ (Adom FM-Y’asem Nie)

Here, the speakers preface their criticisms of a chief (22), a pastor (23), and a family head (24) with sébè. The use of sébè shows acknowledgment of the social status of the person being criticized and reduces the FTA that would otherwise arise from performing the speech act of criticizing someone in a respected position. It expresses face-attack apologies as a way of paying attention to the face needs of all participants involved in the discourse, and also serves as a remedy for the breach of a sociocul-
tural convention on the part of the speaker. The inclusion of *sébè* thus balances the illocutionary force of the criticism while maintaining politeness and deference.

## 5.7. Stereotypes in ethnic and gender remarks

Stereotypical remarks about ethnic groups and gender often intersect with specific speech acts (Popp et al. 2003). As evident in this study, these speech acts include assertions (as in generalizations about ethnicity) and criticism (as in gender-based remarks). The use of the mitigator *sébè* is crucial in these instances, as it serves as a face-saving strategy that helps mitigate the face threat posed by these ste- reotypical comments. Also, it ensures that the intent behind the remark is communicated in a way that minimizes potential social conflict.

### 5.7.1. Ethnic stereotypes

Generally, it is expected that Akans will precede utterances that are related to members of other ethnic/tribal groups with *sébè* or other mitigators to show that they are mindful of the delicate nature of discussing interethnic relations. In (25)-(26), the ethnic stereotypes involve generalizations, where speakers assert certain characteristics of a group. These generalizations are assertions that may not be intended to criticize but could still be perceived as offensive or disrespectful. Employing *sébè* is to mitigate the potentially negative interpretations or face threat that such an assertion could generate. It also signals that the speakers do not intend any harm to members of that ethnic group.

(25) *Sébè, yén nùá nòm á wɔ́ firí Séréèm màntifí nó wòwà.*

<table><tr><td>sébè</td><td>yén</td><td>nùá-nòm</td><td>á</td><td>wɔ́-firí</td><td>séréèm</td></tr><tr><td>sébè</td><td>our</td><td>sibling-PL</td><td>PART</td><td>3PL-from</td><td>northern</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">màntifí nó wòwà</td></tr><tr><td>region</td><td>DEF</td><td>tall</td></tr></table>

‘Sébè, our siblings from the Northern Region are very tall.’ (Peace FM-Prémtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

(26) *Sébè, yén nùánòm Mfàtèfòɔ yí nsènkwàà.*

<table><tr><td>sébè</td><td>yén</td><td>nùá-nòm</td><td>Mfàtèfòɔ</td><td>yí</td><td>nsènkwàà</td></tr><tr><td>sébè</td><td>our</td><td>sibling-PL</td><td>Fantes</td><td>remove</td><td>jokes</td></tr></table>

‘Sébè, our Fante siblings are jovial (Fantes have a great sense of humor).’ (RTV-Dawuro Maakye)

The speakers who are Ashantis employ the kinship term, *yɛn nua-nom* ‘our siblings’, to refer to Northerners in (25) and Fantes in (26). Adding the kinship term is to disclaim the face damage and further promote social harmony and maintain good relations (Salifu 2010; Holmes 2013; Gusnawaty et al. 2022). In the words of Obeng, the speaker builds for himself/herself “a strong communicational immunity and can legitimately disclaim any offensive intent” (1996: 532). Further, the use of *sébè* together with *yɛn nuanom* showcases the speakers’ knowledge of how delicate it is socioculturally to talk about other ethnic/tribal groups and their understanding of the importance of reinforcing or improving interethnic/intertribal relationships. Not only does using the kinship term together with the mitigator pre-empts the potential face threat of the utterance, but it also helps achieve cooperation.

### 5.7.2. Gender sensitive remarks

In the Akan culture, there are a number of gender-sensitive remarks that are somehow related to social perceptions placed on a particular gender. Often, gender stereotypes in Akan tend to highlight certain negative traits associated with that gender and involve criticism or negative evaluation. While such statements may be made by both male and female speakers, the inclusion of *sébè* is particularly significant when the speaker does not belong to the group being criticized, as is the case in (27) and (28). In both cases, *sébè* serves to soften the generalization and signals the speaker’s awareness of its
potentially offensive nature. Also, *sébè* functions as a mitigating device that helps the speaker distance themselves from the harshness or face-threatening nature of the claim and preserve interpersonal harmony. However, even when a male speaker criticizes men or a female speaker criticizes women, as demonstrated in (29), *sébè* is still often employed, not necessarily to signal group distance, but rather to maintain politeness and uphold norms of respectful communication in public settings. Thus, its use is less about speaker-group alignment and more about managing interpersonal sensitivity and cultural expectations around critical commentary.

(27) *Sébè*, mmàrímá nká nòkóré.

sébè m-màrímá n-ká nòkóré
sébè PL-man NEG-say truth
*Sébè*, men are liars.' (Peace FM-Kokrokoo)

(28) *Sébè*, mmáá pè nsékúó.

sébè m-máá pè nsékúó
sébè PL-woman like gossip
*Sébè*, women like gossiping.' (Adom FM-Y'asem Nie)

(29) *Sébè*, mmáà pè nkwàsèáfòó.

sébè m-máà pè n-kwàsèá-fòó
sébè PL-woman like NEG-fool-PL
*Sébè*, women like fools.'<fnref n="4" /> (Peace FM-Prèmtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

Examples (27)-(29) are not just simple negative remarks. Socioculturally, they are strong criticisms that result from a behavioral or attitudinal clash between the speaker and the target(s), especially when the target has failed to conform to certain expectations of the speaker. The criticisms are often considered as verbal abuse and thus face-threatening (Thompson 2021b). Similarly, (30) is also a form of criticism or disagreement that specifies the attitude of the speaker about the dressing style of married women. The use of *sébè* mitigates the face-threatening impact of the criticism, showing that the speaker recognizes the negative nature of the statement and wishes to soften its effect.

(30) Ĕnní sé sébè, òbáá wàréfòó yíyí nè hó sáá.

è-n-ní sé sébè òbáá-wàréfòó yíyí nè hó sáá
3SG-be-NEG that sébè woman-married remove DEM self like.that
*Sébè*, a married woman should not expose herself like that.' (Peace FM-Prèmtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

As can be seen in (25)-(30), the use of these ethnic and gender stereotypes involves the speech act of generalization. By this act, the speakers can always deny referring to a particular person, and the intended referent remains depersonalized (see Andriuzzi & Michel 2021). Thus, the face threat is mitigated, and the potential anger on the part of the addressee is diffused. Given that these remarks are gender specific, the use of *sébè* minimizes the speaker's responsibility and demonstrates consideration for the other party with the aim of establishing some form of mutual comfort and promoting rapport (see Kampf 2009; Jeon & Mauney 2014). In a broad sense, combining the use of *sébè* with generalization in instances of criticism is in compliance with the rules of face-work among the Akans. The speakers are able to maintain the face of both the speaker and the intended referent or target of the utterance. Thereby, reducing friction and preserving interpersonal relationships.

<footnote n="4">4. This statement is often used when the speaker believes that a woman's boyfriend/husband is not befitting of her social status.</footnote>
## 5.8. Offensive proverbs

Proverbs are used to establish or reaffirm a point in an interaction. According to Obeng (1996: 532), “proverbs are used extensively in Akan discourse [...] to mitigate upcoming potentially difficult, tense, or risky utterances”. That is, they indirectly encompass a face-threatening act. Although the functions of proverbs include mitigating or embellishing a (potential) face-threatening act, it is not uncommon for a proverb to be preceded by an expression that may be described as a mitigator (Obeng 1996).

Such expressions include ‘It is the elders who said ...’ and *sébè*. The speaker’s choice of *sébè* can be interpreted as s/he feels bad about the upcoming proverb and wishes to apologize or repair a (potential) face damage. Consider (31)-(32).

(31) *Béntòá nní sìká nànsó trùmú ákéséé nà òdí, sébè.*

<table><tr><td>béntòá</td><td>n-ní</td><td>sìká</td><td>nànsó</td><td>trùmú</td><td>á-késéé</td></tr><tr><td>enema.syringe</td><td>NEG-Has</td><td>money</td><td>but</td><td>anus</td><td>PL-big</td></tr><tr><td>nà</td><td>ò-dí</td><td>sébè</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>that</td><td>3SG-eat</td><td>sébè</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

‘The enema syringe has no money but feeds on a big anus, sébè.’ [Money has limitations, and some benefits come through relationships or social connections rather than wealth].
(RTV-Dawuro Maakye)

(32) *Sébè, dèé òwóò bà gyèmífòó mmèrć sé dèé òtétéé nó.*

<table><tr><td>sébè</td><td>dèé</td><td>ò-wó-ò</td><td>bà-gyèmífòó</td><td>m-mèrć</td><td>sé</td><td>dèé</td></tr><tr><td>sébè</td><td>person</td><td>3SG-birth-PST</td><td>child-fool</td><td>NEG-suffer</td><td>like</td><td>person</td></tr><tr><td>ò-tété-é</td><td>nó</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3SG-raise-PST</td><td>DEF</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

‘Sébè, bringing up a fool is much more difficult than giving birth to one.’
(Peace FM-Prɛmtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

The proverbs presented above are inherently face-threatening to both the speaker and the addressee. Example (31) involves an imposition, as it conveys advice to the addressee (Obeng 1996). The speaker's communicative intent is to argue that money has limitations and there are things it cannot buy. In this example, *sébè* is placed at the end of a proverb that concludes with *trùmú* ‘anus’, a taboo expression. In Akan culture, referencing bodily parts such as this in public discourse is generally considered inappropriate (Agyekum 2009). The placement of *sébè* at the end shows the speaker's intention to perform the FTA while simultaneously minimizing potential negative social consequences. It not only offers the speaker a degree of pragmatic protection but also enhances the redressive effect on the addressee/listeners.

Example (32) is a conventionalized insult often invoked when someone is perceived to have violated social expectations, and it is usually used by older speakers when addressing younger ones. Introducing this proverb with *sébè* aligns with broader cultural patterns in which elders take on the responsibility of upholding moral standards and addressing social deviance (see Thompson 2021a). This usage reinforces the role of older speakers as custodians of cultural norms and reflects an awareness of generational power dynamics. It also highlights the need to temper corrective speech with politeness. *Sébè* thus enables the speaker to issue a critique while maintaining interpersonal harmony and minimizing the risk of appearing overly harsh or disrespectful.

In both examples, the use of *sébè* indicates the speakers' recognition that the proverbs are face-threatening. The marker thus functions as both an imposition remover and a downtoner. It reflects the speaker's pragmatic competence and their sensitivity to the sociocultural norms surrounding politeness and face management in Akan discourse. The use of *sébè* thus serves a dual purpose. On one hand, it mitigates the offensive impact of the utterance by showing the speaker's awareness of its potentially harmful nature. On the other hand, it introduces a further layer of indirection to the
already indirect critique encoded in the proverb. By prefacing or following such a proverb with *sébè*,
the speaker signals extra caution while delivering a potentially offensive message.

6. CONCLUSION

This study offers a detailed descriptive analysis of the pragmatic marker *sébè* in everyday interactions among the Akan people. *Sébè* is frequently employed in contexts where facework is necessary to prevent imminent face loss for both the speaker and the addressee or referent. When used appropriately, *sébè* guarantees support and maintains the face of all participants involved in the interaction. Its use demonstrates the speaker’s recognition of the addressee’s understanding of acceptable and unacceptable verbal behavior within Akan society and reflects respect for the interlocutor. Moreover, it signals that the speaker shares the addressee’s or referent’s face wants and desires and wishes to avoid conflicts that could damage interpersonal relations or lead to social disharmony.

Morphosyntactically, *sébè* is invariable and does not undergo inflection, derivation, or phonolo-
gical alternation. It is syntactically optional, occurring outside the propositional content of the utte-
rance, and can be placed at utterance-initial, medial, or final positions, depending on the speaker's
strategic intent. In initial position, *sébè* preempts the FTA by alerting the hearer, and in final position,
it acts as a downtoner or an escape valve against negative social repercussions. Across all these posi-
tions, *sébè* mitigates offense while affirming the speaker's sociolinguistic sensitivity. Other functions
of *sébè* include softening the force of potentially offensive statements; signaling the introduction of
sensitive or controversial content; toning down strong criticisms to render them socially acceptable;
and serving as a redressive device for culturally loaded proverbs.

The use of *sébè* is generally consistent regardless of the speaker’s age, gender, formality of the setting, or social distance between interlocutors. Employing *sébè* appropriately signals a speaker’s attentiveness to the sociolinguistic norms that Akan traditional gatekeepers highly value. For example, in the dataset examined, the proverb ‘*Sébè*’, bringing up a fool is much more difficult than giving birth to one’ (31) is typically uttered by older speakers addressing younger ones. Even in such hierarchical interactions, *sébè* is used to soften potential offense, drawing attention to the cultural value placed on respectful and socially appropriate communication. Similarly, *sébè* is used to preface potentially offensive gender-based generalizations, as in ‘*sébè*’, men are liars’ (26) and ‘*sébè*’, women like fools’ (28). These expressions highlight how speakers, whether male or female, use the marker to preface stereotypical or face-threatening generalizations. That these were uttered across gender lines shows that *sébè* functions more to uphold politeness norms than to signal identity alignment. High-status speakers also make use of *sébè*, as seen in ‘*Sébè*’, I am a Member of Parliament’ (1), indicating that status does not exempt one from observing politeness conventions and showing sensitivity when addressing diverse audiences, especially in public discourse. Together, these examples confirm that *sébè* functions as a socially aware and culturally sanctioned resource across various speaker identities and interactional contexts.

Given the vulnerability of face in Akan speech events, *sébè* serves as a tactful strategy and a re-
source that aligns well with both negative politeness (avoiding imposition) and positive politeness
(reinforcing solidarity). In contexts where it is culturally expected, failing to use *sébè* can result in
breakdown in communication, social embarrassment, or strained relationships. The speaker may be
perceived as rude, uncultured, or insensitive to others’ face wants, an impression that can extend
beyond the individual to implicate their family or community. Such a speaker risks being judged as
verbally abusive or linguistically incompetent, thereby bringing shame upon themselves and their
relatives. Consequently, *sébè* operates not only as a linguistic tool but also as a marker of cultural
competence and a critical element in maintaining social harmony.

This study makes a significant contribution to pragmatics, discourse analysis, and cultural linguis-
tics by providing an in-depth examination of *sébè* across diverse communicative settings. It highlights
the pivotal role of this pragmatic marker in structuring communication, fostering cooperation, and
deepening understanding of culturally specific linguistic practices among the Akans of Ghana.
Importantly, this research draws attention to the value of studying pragmatic markers such as *sébè* to
enhance appreciation of how universal discourse principles align with localized cultural expressions. The use of *sébè* not only preserves the face of both speakers and listeners but also reinforces communal values. The cultural underpinnings of *sébè* illuminate Akan concepts of face and the critical necessity of politeness within their interactions.

By linking the use of *sébè* to broader concepts of face and politeness, this study emphasizes the need to examine culturally specific pragmatic markers within their linguistic and social contexts. It provides empirical data from an African language, addressing a gap in mainstream pragmatics, where African languages remain underexplored. Furthermore, it enriches our understanding of how face and politeness function in non-Western cultures, contributing to ongoing discussions on the cultural specificity of politeness and face-related behaviors (Agyekum 2004; Sifianou 2016). This work is consistent with research that advocates for the integration of sociocultural values into analyses of communicative strategies (Calsamiglia et al. 1995; Žegarac 2007; Thompson 2021a). In sum, this paper advances pragmatics, politeness theory, and African linguistics by highlighting *sébè* as a culturally grounded communicative and face-management strategy central to Akan interaction.

## ABBREVIATIONS

<table><tr><td>1SG</td><td>1st person singular</td></tr><tr><td>2SG</td><td>2nd person singular</td></tr><tr><td>3SG</td><td>3rd person singular</td></tr><tr><td>1PL</td><td>1st person plural</td></tr><tr><td>3PL</td><td>3rd person plural</td></tr><tr><td>NEG</td><td>negative marker</td></tr><tr><td>DEF</td><td>definite article</td></tr><tr><td>PST</td><td>past marker</td></tr><tr><td>PERF</td><td>perfect marker</td></tr><tr><td>POSS</td><td>possessive marker</td></tr><tr><td>PART</td><td>particle</td></tr><tr><td>CONJ</td><td>conjunction</td></tr><tr><td>HAB</td><td>habitual marker</td></tr><tr><td>FUT</td><td>future marker</td></tr><tr><td>PROG</td><td>progressive</td></tr><tr><td>DEM</td><td>demonstrative pronoun</td></tr><tr><td>PL</td><td>plural marker</td></tr><tr><td>DUP</td><td>reduplicated morpheme</td></tr></table>

## References

* Agyekum, Kofi. 2002. Menstruation as a verbal taboo among the Akan of Ghana. *Journal of Anthropological Research* 58(3). 367–387. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631182.

* Agyekum, Kofi. 2004. The sociocultural concept of face in Akan communication. *Journal of Pragmatics and Cognition* 12(1). 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.12.1.06agy.

* Agyekum, Kofi. 2009. Akan verbal taboos: Traditional and contemporary issues. *Research Review* NS 25(2). 1–19.

* Agyekum, Kofi. 2020. Akan cultural concepts and expressions for “stress”, “distress”, “sorrow”, and “depression.” *Nordic Journal of African Studies* 29(3). 21–31. https://doi.org/10.53228/njas.v29i3.546.
Aijmer, Karin. 2009. Please: A politeness formula viewed in a translation perspective. *Brno Studies in English* 35(2). 63–77. http://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/105136.

Aijmer, Karin. 2013. *Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach*. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2011. Pragmatic markers. In Jan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), *Discursive pragmatics*, 223–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8.13aij.

Ament, Jennifer, Júlia Barón Páres & Carmen Pérez-Vidal. 2020. A study on the functional uses of textual pragmatic markers by native speakers and English-medium instruction learners. *Journal of Pragmatics* 156. 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.009.

Andriuzzi, Andria & Géraldine Michel. 2021. Brand conversation: Linguistic practices on social media in the light of face-work theory. *Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition)* 36(1). 44–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051570720974511.

Asante, Molefi K. 2002. *Afrocentricity: The theory of social change*. Revised and expanded ed. Chicago, IL: African American Images.

Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca. 2009. Facing the future: Some reflections. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh (eds.), *Face, communication and social interaction*, 307–326. London: Equinox Publishing.

Blaylock, Jennifer. 2022. The mother, the mistress, and the cover girls: Ghana broadcasting corporation and the coloniality of gender. *Feminist Media Histories* 8(1). 102–133. https://doi.org/10.1525/fmh.2022.8.1.102.

Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. *Politeness: Some universals in language usage*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Calsamiglia, Helena, Joseph Maria Cots, Clara Ubaldina Lorda, Luci Nussbaum, Lluís Payrató & Amparo Tuson. 1995. Communicative strategies and socio-cultural identities in talk shows. *Pragmatics* 5(3). 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.5.3.01cal.

Chen, Fang Fang & Yiming Jing. 2012. The impact of individualistic and collectivistic orientation on the judgment of self-presentation. *European Journal of Social Psychology* 42(4). 470–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1872.

Crible, Ludivine & Loulou Kosmala. 2025. Multimodal pragmatic markers of feedback in dialogue. *Languages* 10(6). 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10060117.

Dako, Kari. 2003. *Ghanaianisms: A glossary*. Accra: Ghana University Press.

Dzobo, Noah K. 1992. Knowledge and truth: Ewe and Akan conceptions. In Kwasi Wiredu & Kwame Gyekye (eds.), *Person and community*, 73–84. Washington, DC: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy (CRVP).

Ervin-Tripp, Susan M., Kei Nakamura & Jiansheng Guo. 1996. Shifting face from Asia to Europe. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), *Essays in semantics and pragmatics*, 43–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.32.04erv.

Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. *Approaches to discourse particles*. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588.

Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? *Journal of Pragmatics* 31. 931–952.

Goffman, Erving. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. *Psychiatry* 18(3). 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008.

Goffman, Erving. 1971. *Relations in public*. New York: Basic Books.

Gusnawaty, Gusnawaty, Lukman Lukman, Andi Nurwati, Ahmad Adha, Nurhawara Nurhawara & Arieska Edy. 2022. Strategy of kinship terms as a politeness model in maintaining social interaction: local values towards global harmony. *Heliyon* 8(9). e10650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10650.
Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long. 2021. *The rise of discourse markers*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108982856.

Holmes, Janet. 2013. *An introduction to sociolinguistics*. Fourth. London: Routledge.

Inbar, Anna & Yael Maschler. 2023. Shared knowledge as an account for disaffiliative moves: Hebrew ki ‘because’-clauses accompanied by the palm-up open-hand gesture. *Research on Language and Social Interaction* 56(2). 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2023.2205302.

Issah, Samuel, Hasiyatu Abubakari, Samuel Atintono & Atibiri Sandow. 2023. Exploring euphemisms as taboo avoidance strategies in the Mabia languages. *Language Matters* 54(2). 42–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10228195.2023.2251714.

Jeon, Lisa & Samantha Mauney. 2014. As much as I love you, I’ll never get you to understand”: Political discourse and ‘face’work on Facebook. *Texas Linguistics Forum* 57. 67–75.

Kampf, Zohar. 2009. Public (non-)apologies: The discourse of minimizing responsibility. *Journal of Pragmatics* 41(11). 2257–2270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.11.007.

Koutlaki, Sofia A. 2002. Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: Tæ’arof in Persian. *Journal of Pragmatics* 34(12). 1733–1756. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00055-8.

Kuleke, John A. 2014. *The marriage of Princess Victoria Nukpeza: Drawing attention to the family as the sacred foundation of the human society*. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

Locher, Miriam. 2011. Situated impoliteness: The interface between relational work and identity construction. In Bethan Davies, Michael Haugh & Andrew John Merrison (eds.), *Situated politeness*, 187–208. London: Routledge.

Matley, David. 2018. This is NOT a #humblebrag, this is just a #brag”: The pragmatics of self-praise, hashtags and politeness in Instagram posts. *Discourse, Context & Media* 22. 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.07.007.

Obeng, Samuel Gyasi. 1996. The proverb as a mitigating and politeness strategy in Akan discourse. *Anthropological Linguistics* 38(3). 521–549.

Obeng, Samuel Gyasi. 1997. Communication strategies: Persuasion and politeness in Akan judicial discourse. *Text* 17(1). 25–51.

Obeng, Samuel Gyasi. 1999. Apologies in Akan discourse. *Journal of Pragmatics* 31(5). 709–734.

Obeng, Samuel Gyasi. 2003. *Language in African social interaction: Indirectness in Akan communication*. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Otoo, R. Appiah. 2018. Pragmatics of *oyiwaladɔŋŋ* (thank you): The case of Ga. *African Journal of Applied Research* 4(1). 40–51.

Popp, Danielle, Roxanne A. Donovan, Mary Crawford, Kerry L. Marsh & Melanie Peele. 2003. Gender, race, and speech style stereotypes. *Sex Roles* 48. 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022986429748.

Safa, Mohammed Ahmadi, Moslem Yousefi & Naser Ranjbar. 2019. Face in intercultural communication: A meta-synthesis. *Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies* 5(2). 1–18. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2019.10264.1274.

Salifu, N.A. 2014. Implications for gender relations of summons-response and address forms in Dagbanli. *Linguistik online* 63(1). 42–54.

Salifu, Nantogma Alhassan. 2010. Signaling politeness, power and solidarity through terms of address in Dagbanli. *Nordic Journal of African Studies* 19(4). 274–292. https://doi.org/10.5322/njas.v19i4.198.

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. *Discourse markers*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schütz, Astrid. 1998. Assertive, offensive, protective, and defensive styles of self-presentation: A taxonomy. *The Journal of Psychology* 132(6). 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989809599293.
Sekyi-Baidoo, Yaw. 2016. Akan pre-eventive apologies or apologetic signals. *International Journal of Culture and History* 2(3). 122–131. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijch.2016.2.3.050.

Shammas, Nafez A. 2005. Lingua-pragmatic politeness and translatability. *Damascus University Journal* 21(3–4). 23–56.

Sifianou, Maria & Angeliki Tzanne. 2021. Face, facework, and face-threatening acts. In Michael Haugh, Dániel Z. Kádár & M. Terkourafi (eds.), *The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics*, 249–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sifianou, Maria. 2016. On culture, face and politeness. Again. In Ewa Bogdanowska-Jakubowska (ed.), *New ways to face and (im)politeness*, 15–30. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), *Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures*, 11–46. London: Continuum.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen & Dániel Z. Kádár. 2021. *Intercultural politeness: Managing relations across cultures*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, Rachel G. A. 2019. Tweaa! – A Ghanaian interjection of “contempt” in online political comments. *Ampersand* 6. 100047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2019.100047.

Thompson, Rachel G. A. 2021a. Cultural scripts for asymmetrical interactions in Ghana. *Nordic Journal of African Studies* 30(1). 22–45. https://doi.org/10.53228/njas.v30i1.750.

Thompson, Rachel G. A. 2021b. Insults in political comments on GhanaWeb: Ethnopragmatic perspectives. *Pragmatics and Society* 12(1). 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.17040.tho.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), *Subjectification, inter-subjectification and grammaticalization*, 29–74. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29.

Ukosakul, Margaret. 2005. The significance of ‘face’ and politeness in social interaction as revealed through Thai ‘face’ idioms. In Robin T. Lakoff & Sachiko Ide (eds.), *Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness*, 117–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.139.11uko.

Unuabonah, Foluke & Noloyiso Mtembu. 2023. Multilingual pragmatic markers in South African English. *Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies* 41(3). 264–279.

Unuabonah, Foluke & Rotimi Oladipupo. 2018. “You’re not staying in Island sha o”: O, sha and abi as pragmatic markers in Nigerian English. *Journal of Pragmatics* 135. 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.07.007.

Yankah, Kwesi. 1986. Proverb rhetoric and African judicial processes: The untold story. *Journal of American Folklore* 99(393). 280–303. https://doi.org/10.2307/540806.

Yankah, Kwesi. 1995. *Speaking for the chief: Okyeame and the politics of Akan royal oratory*. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Yankah, Kwesi. 2009. The cultural foundations of disability: An ethno-communication approach. *CDD-Ghana Briefing Paper* 9(4). 1–6.

Žegarac, Vladimir. 2007. A cognitive pragmatic perspective on communication and culture. In David Matsumoto (ed.), *APA handbook of intercultural communication*, 3–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/j.ctv1chs0s5.5.