Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros11(1)A closer look at the pragmatic ma...

A closer look at the pragmatic marker sέbè in Akan

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

Résumés

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 sέbè au travers de ses différentes attestations. Marqueur pragmatique qui précède les énoncés, sέbè 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 sέbè 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 sέbè contribue plus largement aux travaux relatifs aux stratégies pragmatiques et à l'interaction entre culture et communication. Il démontre que l'utilisation de sέbè 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.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1. Introduction

1Pragmatic 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).

2Alongside 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, sέbè in Akan, a Kwa language of the Niger-Congo family spoken in Ghana.

3Pragmatic 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.

4Brown & 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.

5Among 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.

6Sekyi-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’, mesrɛ meka ‘I beg to say’, and sέbè. 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.

7Among the markers identified by Sekyi-Baidoo (2016), sέbè 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, sέbè 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 sέbè 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 sέbè, 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.

8The 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 sέbè 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 sέbè. Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. Politeness and face concepts

9This section establishes how sέbè 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

10Brown & 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 unimpeded 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).

11The 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 sέbè serves as a key politeness marker in Akan communication. It functions as a tool for mitigating the force of potentially FTAs. By using sέbè, the speaker acknowledges the potential for social discomfort or offence while simultaneously striving to preserve both parties’ dignity and respect.

12As 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 ɛnyɛ 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.

13Politeness 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.

14In 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

15Research 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 pragmatic contexts, e.g. English, French, Chinese, Japanese and Korean (Ervin-Tripp et al. 1996), Persian (Koutlaki 2002), Thai (Ukosakul 2005), Greek (Sifianou 2016).

16Among 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 expression (1) n’anim yɛ duru ‘her/his face is heavy’ implies that s/he is grave, dignified, or venerable, while (2) n’anim yɛ 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.

17There 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 approach 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). Sέbè is one such mitigator in Akan. As discussed in the next section, when used appropriately, sέbè softens the ‘blow’ of the face-threatening act (FTA).

18The 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, sέbè 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. Maintaining face is not only about safeguarding personal reputation but also ensuring continued respect and social cohesion within the broader communal structure. The use of sέbè 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 expressions like sέbè function as politeness markers that are deeply rooted in the face-saving practices of the Akan people.

3. Methodology

  • 1 This gender imbalance largely reflects current trends in Ghanaian broadcast media, where women are (...)

19This study adopts a qualitative descriptive research design. The data for the study were drawn from 100 utterances containing the expression sέbè, sourced from news broadcasts and talk shows on selected Akan-speaking media stations. The stations selected include Prɛmtoberɛ 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.1

20The 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, sέbè and other mitigation or apologetic expressions are frequently employed to address sensitive or potentially offensive topics. For example, sέbè 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.

21To 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 sέbè 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.

22The data gathered provide a naturalistic representation of the use of sέbè 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 sέbè in Akan discourse. Additionally, the study examines how sέbè 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 sέbè 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 sέbè in Akan

4.1. Morphosyntactic properties and classification

23The Akan expression sέbè 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’. Sέbè, according to Yankah (2009: 5), is used “to step down unintended offence caused by bald reference”. When sέbè is used, it mitigates, cancels, or neutralizes the face-threatening force of an utterance, thereby maintaining rapport among interlocutors and preventing social conflicts.

24Although a lexical item, sέbè 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 alternation. Syntactically, sέbè is optional and can occur outside the propositional content of the utterance, serving instead as a discourse-level element. Sέbè 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), sέbè 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).

25As already stated in Section 1, there is no direct equivalent of sέbè in English. However, in a general sense, sέbè 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, sέbè 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

  • 2 In (1), the speaker’s declaration mèyέ MP o ‘I am an MP’ could be perceived by listeners as boastfu (...)

26In terms of distribution, sέbè 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 sέbè appears at the beginning of an utterance, as in (1),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)

Sέbè, mèyέ MP o.

sέbè

mè-yέ

MP

o

sέbè

1sg-be

MP

o

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

  • 3 The use of sέbè in (2) implies that Denkyira carries a negative or less reputable social perception (...)

27Sέbè may also appear right before the word or part of the utterance that may sound unpleasant to the addressee. When sέbè appears within an utterance, as seen in (2),3 it typically prefaces the offensive or sensitive part of the statement. In this case, the content preceding sέbè 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)

Mèfìrì Kùmàwú, Kwámè fìrì sέbè, Dénkyìrà.

mè-fìrì

Kùmàwú

Kwámè

fìrì

sέbè

Dénkyìrà

1sg-hail

Kùmàwú

Kwámè

hail

sέbè

Dénkyìrà

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

28Sέbè 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 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 sέbè indicates a culturally learned strategy, whether consciously deployed or pragmatically embedded in habitual use, to balance offence with plausible deniability. In sentence-final position, sέbè 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, sέbè 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? Ɔ̀yέ àbóá, sέbè.

Ádwóá

tìkyání

fá-á

àbɔ́frá

Ádwóá

teacher

def

take-pst

child

def

buttocks

ɔ̀-yέ

àbóá

sέbè

1sg-be

animal

sέbè

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

(Peace FM-Kokrokoo)

29For the purpose of emphasis or to signal intense mitigation, sέbè can be repeated, as in sέbè sέbè; used multiple times (typically five or seven times), as in sέbè, sέbè, sέbè, sέbè, sέbè; or attached to the adjective mpέn àdùásà ‘thirtyfold’, as in sέbè mpέn àdùásà. Consider (4)-(5).

(4)

Nàná, mòànìm ó, mèhúnùú sέ sέbè, sέbè, sέbè, sέbè, sέbè, mènè mè yèré díí mpásò àgòrɔ̀á èdí kán

Nàná

mò-ànìm

ó

mè-húnù-ú

Nàná

3sg-face

ó

1sg-see-pst

that

sέbè sέbè sέbè sέbè sέbè

mè-nè

yèré

sέbè sέbè sέbè sέbè sέbè

1sg-and

1sgposs

wife

dí-í

mpá-sò

àgòrɔ̀-á

è-dí

kán

play-pst

bed-top

play-part

3sg-eat

first

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

(5)

Sέbè, mpέn àdùásà, Nàná ná wàátó n'ábòá dín nníbɔ̀néàkyí.

sέbè

mpέn

àdùásà

Nàná

wà-á-tó

n-ábòá

sέbè

times

thirty

Nàná

part

3sg-perf-name

poss-pet

dín

n-ní-bɔ̀né-àkyí

name

neg-follow-evil-back

Sέbè thirtyfold, it is Nàná who named his pet “Don’t pay-evil-with-evil”.’ (Obeng 1997: 32)

30Sekyi-Baidoo (2016) notes that using these repeated or multiple forms of sέbè 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.

31Across the contexts shown in (1)-(5), sέbè functions to either soften criticism, manage taboos, or signal recognition of the delicate nature of an utterance. The speaker’s positioning of sέbè 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

32Using sέbè 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 sέbè 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).

33As demonstrated in Section 5, the expression sέbè 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, sέbè 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 sέbè 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 sέbè. Similarly, based on the reverence the Akan people have for the elderly, insulting one’s parents or grandparents using the apologetic device sέbè would not guarantee the culprit immunity from rebuke, punishment or both.

34Another instance where the mitigating force of sέbè 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, sέbè 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.

35In public discourse, especially media or political talk shows, sέbè can sometimes be strategically exploited to mask aggression or veiled insults. Speakers may appear polite while delivering offensive and unpleasant content, leveraging sέbè for plausible deniability, as demonstrated in (3). In such situations, the redressiveness of sέbè 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, sέbè 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 sέbè is appropriate and acceptable in Akan culture.

5. Contexts of use

36The examples presented in this section are sentences with sέbè 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 sέbè 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 sέbè 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 sέbè helps to mitigate these speech acts, softening the delivery of the criticism or stereotype. For instance, when discussing disabilities, sέbè 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 sέbè 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 sέbè plays in the discussion of various contexts and performances of speech acts or communicative intentions in Akan discourse, as demonstrated in this study.

Table 1 — The role of sέbè in various contexts and performances of speech acts

Context

Speech Act

Role of sέbè

1.

Discussing taboo topics

Asserting or warning

Softens the delivery; mitigates offence

2.

Talking about

i. disability/diseases

ii. undignified occupation

Asserting or making unavoidable references

Projects speaker’s awareness that the topic is sensitive; mitigates negative reactions

3.

Criticizing a respected person

Expressing disapproval or criticism

Softens the criticism

4.

Talking about misfortunes

Asserting uncomfortable facts or expressing sympathy

Softens the delivery; shows concern to the affected individual(s)

5.

Self-praise

Defending or promoting self-image

Mitigates boastfulness; makes self-praise more acceptable

6.

Discussing ethnic/gender stereotypes

Generalizing, stereotyping, or criticizing

Softens the stereotype; mitigates offence

7.

Using offensive proverbs

Criticizing

Mitigates offence

37The contexts and communicative intentions of utterances involving sέbè are further discussed in the following subsections.

5.1. Taboo topics

38Among 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 sέbè to tone down the message.

(6)

Sέbè, wó húnú nè kɔ́tè á, wò yám bɛ̀ hyé wò.

sέbè

wó-húnú

kɔ́tè

á

yám

bɛ̀-hyé

sέbè

2sg-see

poss

penis

part

poss

stomach

fut-burn

2sg

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

(7)

Sέbè, wà yɛ́ brá á mà mògyá nó ásɛ̀é nè hó.

sέbè

wà-yɛ́

brá

á-mà

mògyá

á-sɛ̀é

sέbè

3sg.perf‑do

menses

perf-give

blood

def

perf-destroy

dem

self

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

(8)

Sέbè, yɛ̀kyìrì mògyàfrá.

sέbè

yɛ̀-kyìrì

mògyàfrá

sέbè

1pl-hate

incest

Sέbè, incest is an abominable act.’ (Adom FM-Y’asem Nie)

39As shown in (6)-(8), the use of sέbè 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. Sέbè 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 sέbè softens the directness of these speech acts in the efforts to maintain social harmony.

5.2. Deformities, disabilities, diseases

40Yankah (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)

Sέbè, nè bà fófórɔ́ nó yέ yàràfòɔ́.

sέbè

fófórɔ́

yàràfòɔ́

sέbè

poss

child

new

def

be

deformed

Sέbè, her newborn baby is deformed.’ (Adom FM-Y’asem Nie)

(10)

Mèrè hwéhwέ sέbè, krákyè nó á nè nán έtwá nó.

mè-rè-hwéhwέ

sέbè

krákyè

á

nán

έ-twá

1sg-prog-look

sέbè

gentleman

def

foc

poss

leg

perf-cut

def

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

(11)

Sέbè, ónìfrání nó tè fìé há.

sέbè

ónìfrání

fìé

sέbè

blind

def

live

house

here

Sέbè, the blind person lives here.’ (RTV-Dawuro Maakye)

41The use of sέbè 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 sέbè prepares the addressee(s) before the perceived offensive remark is uttered. The communicative intention behind the use of sέbè 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.

42Similarly, 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 sέbè to avert or mitigate the face threat triggered by the bald reference. Employing sέbè in such instances, especially during media interactions, indicates the speaker’s sensitivity to the face wants and plights of people with such conditions.

(12)

Mènìm pàpá nó á sέbè, ɔ̀bɔ́ nsàmànwá.

mè-nìm

pàpá

á

sέbè

ɔ̀-bɔ́

nsàmànwá

1sg-know

man

def

foc

sέbè

3sg-play

tuberculosis

‘I know the man, sέbè, he has tuberculosis.’ (RTV-Dawuro Maakye)

43In (9)-(12), the use of sέbè 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. Sέbè thus turns a direct face-threatening statement into a more socially acceptable discourse.

5.3. Undignified occupations

44Certain 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 sέbè to mitigate the inherent FTA. It is therefore not surprising that in the examples that follow, sέbè is used to preface the mention of prostitution (13), robbery (14), and a mortician (15). Here, sέbè 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 sέbè, convey their sensitivity to the possible discomfort of mentioning such occupations. Thus, the speech act involves the assertions of uncomfortable facts with tact.

(13)

Sέbè, ɔ̀bɔ́ báàsíbrá wɔ̀ Nkràn.

sέbè

ɔ̀-bɔ́

báàsíbrá

wɔ̀

Nkràn

sέbè

3sg-erect

prostitution

in

Accra

Sέbè, she is engaged in prostitution in Accra.’ (RTV-Dawuro Maakye)

(14)

Sáá mmèrέ yí, sέbè, àkòrómfó mpó ádèdá.

sáá

m-mèrέ

sέbè

à-kòrómfó

mpó

á-dèdá

this

pl-time

def

sέbè

pl-thief

even

pl-sleep

Sέbè, even robbers would be asleep at this time.’ (Peace FM-Prɛmtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

(15)

Mèkyèrέ, sέbè, dèέ ɔ̀dèdá fúnú nó.

mè-kyèrέ

sέbè

dèέ

ɔ̀-dè-dá

fúnú

1sg-show

sέbè

the.one

3sg-sleep-hab

corpse

def

Sέbè, I mean the mortician.’ (RTV-Dawuro Maakye)

5.4. Misfortunes of life

45Some 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 sέbè 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)

Sέbè, ɔ̀dí àwò mmà wùó.

sέbè

ɔ̀-dí

à-wò-m-mà-wùó

sέbè

3sg-eat

perf-birth-pl-child-death

Sέbè, she has been experiencing infant mortality’.

(Peace FM-Prɛmtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

(17)

Wàhwéré sέbè, n’àgyápàdéὲ nyìnáá.

wà-hwéré

sέbè

n-àgyápàdéὲ

nyìnáá

3sg-lost

sέbè

poss-property

all

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

(18)

Sέbè, mààmé nó ányá yàfúnú ánwò bá yì bí.

sέbè

mààmé

á-n-yá

yàfúnú

á-n-wò-bá

sέbè

woman

def

perf-neg-get

stomach

perf-neg-birth-child

def

some

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

46As exemplified, sέbè 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 sέbè 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 sέbè, repairs the damage to the face of the referent and their associates/relatives. Without the use of sέbè, 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)

47Studies 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 sέbè 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 sέbè 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)

Sέbè, mèyὲ krákyènì, mènìm mmàrá nó.

sέbè

mè-yὲ

krákyènì

mè-nìm

mmàrá

sέbè

1sg-be

educated

1sg-know

law

def

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

(20)

Sέbè, mèyὲ ɔhéné, ὲné mè nkàsá sàá.

sέbè

mè-yὲ

ɔhéné

ὲné

n-kàsá

sàá

sέbè

1sg-be

chief

conj

1sg

neg-talk

like.that

Sέbè, I’m a chief, don’t talk to me like that.’ (Adom FM-Y’asem Nie)

(21)

Sέbè, yὲyὲ àdéhyéὲ, bìríbì nsò wɔ̀ yέn nsàm.

sέbè

yὲ-yὲ

à-déhyéὲ

bìríbì

nsò

wɔ̀

yέn

nsàm

sέbè

1pl-be

pl-royal

something

also

there

our

hand

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

48By using sέbè, 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 sέbè show respect to their addressees and listeners and are thus shielded from disapproval. In all the examples, sέbè 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

49Thompson 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).

50As exemplified below, one of such linguistic forms that is usually employed is sέbè. Sέbè, as used in these utterances, remedies the FTA.

(22)

Sέbè, ɔ̀héné nkàsà sáá.

sέbè

ɔ̀héné

n-kàsà

sáá

sέbè

chief

neg-speak

like.that

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

(23)

Sέbè, sùbán sèí mfàtá ɔ̀sɔ́fòɔ́ kòráá.

sέbè

sùbán

sèí

m-fàtá

ɔ̀sɔ́fòɔ́

kòráá

sέbè

behavior

such

neg-fit

pastor

at.all

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

(24)

Sέbè, yέn àbúsúá-pànín á-tòntɔ́n àbùsúá nsààsé nò nyìnáá.

sέbè

yέn

àbúsúá-pànín

á-tòntɔ́n

àbùsúá

nsààsé

sέbè

our

family-elder

perf-dup-sell

family

land

nyìnáá

def

all

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

51Here, the speakers preface their criticisms of a chief (22), a pastor (23), and a family head (24) with sέbè. The use of sέbè 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 sociocultural convention on the part of the speaker. The inclusion of sέbè thus balances the illocutionary force of the criticism while maintaining politeness and deference.

5.7. Stereotypes in ethnic and gender remarks

52Stereotypical 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 sέbè is crucial in these instances, as it serves as a face-saving strategy that helps mitigate the face threat posed by these stereotypical 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

53Generally, it is expected that Akans will precede utterances that are related to members of other ethnic/tribal groups with sέbè 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 sέbè 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)

Sέbè, yέn nùá nòm á wɔ́ fírí Séréὲm màntífí nó wòwà.

sέbè

yέn

nùá-nòm

á

wɔ́-fírí

séréὲm

sέbè

our

sibling-pl

part

3pl-from

northern

màntífí

wòwà

region

def

tall

Sέbè, our siblings from the Northern Region are very tall.’ (Peace FM-Prɛmtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

(26)

Sέbè, yέn nùánòm Mfàtèfòɔ́ yí nsὲnkwàà.

sέbè

yέn

nùá-nòm

Mfàtèfòɔ́

nsὲnkwàà

sέbè

our

sibling-pl

Fantes

remove

jokes

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

54The 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 sέbè 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

55In 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 sέbè 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, sέbè serves to soften the generalization and signals the speaker’s awareness of its potentially offensive nature. Also, sέbè 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), sέbè 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)

Sέbè, mmàrímá nká nòkórέ.

sέbè

m-màrímá

n-ká

nòkórέ

sέbè

pl-man

neg-say

truth

Sέbè, men are liars.’ (Peace FM-Kokrokoo)

(28)

Sέbè, mmáá pὲ nsέkúó.

sέbè

m-máá

pὲ

nsέkúó

sέbè

pl-woman

like

gossip

Sέbè, women like gossiping.’ (Adom FM-Y’asem Nie)

  • 4 This statement is often used when the speaker believes that a woman’s boyfriend/husband is not befi (...)

(29)

Sέbè, mmáà pὲ nkwàsèáfòɔ́.

sέbè

m-máà

pὲ

n-kwàsèá-fòɔ́

sέbè

pl-woman

like

neg-fool-pl

Sέbè, women like fools.’4 (Peace FM-Prɛmtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

56Examples (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 sέbè 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)

Ɛ̀nní sέ sέbè, ɔ̀báá wàréfòɔ́ yíyí nè hó sáá.

ὲ-n-ní

sέ

sέbè

ɔ̀báá-wàréfòɔ́

yíyí

sáá

3sg-be-neg

that

sέbè

woman-married

remove

dem

self

like.that

Sέbè, a married woman should not expose herself like that.’ (Peace FM-Prɛmtoberɛ Kaseɛbɔ)

57As 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 sέbè 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 sέbè 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.

5.8. Offensive proverbs

58Proverbs 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).

59Such expressions include ‘It is the elders who said ...’ and sέbè. The speaker’s choice of sέbè 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 ákέséέ nà ɔ̀dí, sέbè.

béntòá

n-ní

sìká

nànsó

trùmú

á-kέséέ

enema.syringe

neg-has

money

but

anus

pl-big

ɔ̀-dí

sέbè

that

3sg-eat

sέbè

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

(32)

Sέbè, dèé ɔ̀wóò bà gyèmífòɔ́ mmèrέ sέ dèέ ɔ̀tétéé nó.

sέbè

dèé

ɔ̀-wó-ò

bà-gyèmífòɔ́

m-mèrέ

sέ

dèέ

sέbè

person

3sg-birth-pst

child-fool

neg-suffer

like

person

ɔ̀-tété-é

3sg-raise-pst

def

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

60The 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, sέbè 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 sέbè 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.

61Example (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 sέbè 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. Sέbè thus enables the speaker to issue a critique while maintaining interpersonal harmony and minimizing the risk of appearing overly harsh or disrespectful.

62In both examples, the use of sέbè 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 sέbè 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 sέbè, the speaker signals extra caution while delivering a potentially offensive message.

6. Conclusion

63This study offers a detailed descriptive analysis of the pragmatic marker sέbè in everyday interactions among the Akan people. Sέbè 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, sέbè 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.

64Morphosyntactically, sέbè is invariable and does not undergo inflection, derivation, or phonological alternation. It is syntactically optional, occurring outside the propositional content of the utterance, and can be placed at utterance-initial, medial, or final positions, depending on the speaker's strategic intent. In initial position, sέbè 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 positions, sέbè mitigates offense while affirming the speaker's sociolinguistic sensitivity. Other functions of sέbè 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.

65The use of sέbè is generally consistent regardless of the speaker’s age, gender, formality of the setting, or social distance between interlocutors. Employing sέbè appropriately signals a speaker’s attentiveness to the sociolinguistic norms that Akan traditional gatekeepers highly value. For example, in the dataset examined, the proverb ‘Sέbè, 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, sέbè is used to soften potential offense, drawing attention to the cultural value placed on respectful and socially appropriate communication. Similarly, sέbè is used to preface potentially offensive gender-based generalizations, as in ‘sέbè, men are liars’ (26) and ‘sέbè, 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 sέbè functions more to uphold politeness norms than to signal identity alignment. High-status speakers also make use of sέbè, as seen in ‘Sέbè, 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 sέbè functions as a socially aware and culturally sanctioned resource across various speaker identities and interactional contexts.

66Given the vulnerability of face in Akan speech events, sέbè serves as a tactful strategy and a resource that aligns well with both negative politeness (avoiding imposition) and positive politeness (reinforcing solidarity). In contexts where it is culturally expected, failing to use sέbè 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, sέbè operates not only as a linguistic tool but also as a marker of cultural competence and a critical element in maintaining social harmony.

67This study makes a significant contribution to pragmatics, discourse analysis, and cultural linguistics by providing an in-depth examination of sέbè 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 sέbè to enhance appreciation of how universal discourse principles align with localized cultural expressions. The use of sέbè not only preserves the face of both speakers and listeners but also reinforces communal values. The cultural underpinnings of sέbè illuminate Akan concepts of face and the critical necessity of politeness within their interactions.

68By linking the use of sέbè 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 sέbè as a culturally grounded communicative and face-management strategy central to Akan interaction.

Abbreviations

1sg

1st person singular

2sg

2nd person singular

3sg

3rd person singular

1pl

1st person plural

3pl

3rd person plural

neg

negative marker

def

definite article

pst

past marker

perf

perfect marker

poss

possessive marker

part

particle

conj

conjunction

hab

habitual marker

fut

future marker

prog

progressive

dem

demonstrative pronoun

pl

plural marker

dup

reduplicated morpheme

Haut de page

Bibliographie

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 oyiwaladↄŋŋ (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/10.53228/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, intersubjectification 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.

Haut de page

Notes

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).

2 In (1), the speaker’s declaration mèyέ 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 sέbè helps to soften the statement and also show the speaker’s awareness that such a declaration might offend or discomfort listeners.

3 The use of sέbè in (2) implies that Denkyira carries a negative or less reputable social perception compared to Kùmàwù. By invoking sέbè before naming Denkyira, the speaker signals awareness that mentioning this origin could be offensive or embarrassing (Sekyi-Baidoo 2016).

4 This statement is often used when the speaker believes that a woman’s boyfriend/husband is not befitting of her social status.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Jemima Asabea Anderson, Rachel G. A. Thompson et Isaac Adjei Forson, « A closer look at the pragmatic marker sέbè in Akan »Linguistique et langues africaines [En ligne], 11(1) | 2025, mis en ligne le 30 juin 2025, consulté le 08 février 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/lla/14074 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/15e41

Haut de page

Auteurs

Jemima Asabea Anderson

University of Ghana

Rachel G. A. Thompson

University of Ghana

Isaac Adjei Forson



Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search