A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF NEGATION IN THE INAUGURAL SPEECHES OF TWO NIGERIAN PRESIDENT
BY
KATSINA STATE
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD
OF THE DEGREE OF THE BACHELOR OF ARTS (B.A HONS.) IN ENGLISH
AUGUST, 2016
Declaration
_________________ _______________
Approval Page
__________________________ _______________________
(Head of Department)
Dedication
This project is dedicated to Almighty God, the creator of heaven and earth, the owner of my life, the one who taught me what I knew, for his endless love, guidance and protection throughout my stay in FUDMA and to my lovely parents; late ASP. Samuel, Okolo and Mrs. Grace Samuel Okolo for making my dreams a reality.
Acknowledgements
I am immensely grateful to Almighty God who made it possible for me to start and finished this work, and who also has been there for me all through my stay in FUDMA. I am captivated by his steadfast love and care which he showered upon me. My appreciation also goes to my supervisor Dr. Solomon, Oreoluwa Abraham, for spending his time out of his tight schedules to read this project and make necessary corrections. You made this project a successful one. May Almighty God continue to bless you and grant you your heart desires.
I really appreciate my lovely parents Late ASP. Samuel Okolo and my model Mrs. Samuel Okolo Grace. Thank you for your guidance, support, prayers, advice,love and all that you have impacted in me. From the bottom of my heart I say Thank you for making my dreams a reality and God will grant you long life to eat the fruit of your labour (Amen). I am also grateful to my lovely brothers and Sisters, who have been central to my success as the last born of the house. My uncle, Dr. Goodwill Adejo, who has been assisting, I thank him so much.
More so, I will be ungrateful if I fail to acknowledge all the Lecturers in the Department for their work thus far. I pray that God will reward their sincere labour in bring up tomorrow’s leader.
Furthermore, I want to appreciate the NIFES Campus fellowship and Chapel of Reconciliation Federal University, Dutsinma for their immense love and care towards me all through my stay in FUDMA, for their prayers, care, advice, and for their financial support, they made FUDMA comfortable for me. They are my new family and you all are the best.
I am immensely grateful to all my course mates and my friends, kassem, Bunmwakat, Damilola, Taofiqat, Winifred, special, my honourable class rep. Ahmed Solarin and numerous others that I cannot mention. Thank you all for your friendship and support and I hope that the wind of time will not blow away the dreams we shared. See you at the top. I will not forget to thank my wonderful room-mates Nimotalahi, Na’ima, Abiola and the rest for their cooperation. You all are appreciated.
I am also grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Saratu Babatunde, Mr. Jack Ebe, Mr.and Mrs. Eje, Monday, Dr. and Mrs. GodwillUduh, Rev. and Mrs. Emmanuel Joseph for their financial supports, prayers and their words of encouragement. May Almighty God bless and enrich you all.
Table of Content
Title page………...………………………………………………………….……………….i
1.2 Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................…...4
1.3 Purpose of the Study……………………………...………………...………………..5
1.4 Objectives of the Study ………………………………………..……………….……6
1.5 Significance of the Study ……………………………………………………………6
1.6 Scope of the Study……………………………………………………………...……7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………...…………..8
2.1 A Brief History and the Development of Critical Discourse Analysis……..………...8
2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis …………………………………....…………………..10
2.3 A Critical Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Political Speeches………….......14
2.4 Negation as a Linguistic Concept…………………………………………………..16
2.4.1 Different Forms of Negation…………………………………………………………16
2.4.2 The Scope of Negation ………………………………………………….…………18
2.4.3 The Study of Negation in the Sphere of Political Discourse ………………..………19
2.5 Political Discourse …………………………………………………………..……..20
2.7 The Relationship between Language and Politics ………………………………….22
2.7.1 Presidential Speeches as a Form of Political Discourse….………………………....24
2.8 Theoretical Frame Work …………………………………………………………...25
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction……………….…………………………..……………………………27
3.2 Method of Data Collection………………………………………………..……..…28
3.3 Method of Data Analysis ……………………………………………………..……28
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………..……….30
4.1 Different Forms of Negation Used in the Speeches………….……………….……30
4.2 Functions and Roles of Negation in the Inaugural Speeches………………….……33
4.2.1 Negation as a Means of Establishing a Common Ground…………………………..33
4.2.2 Negation as a Form of Antithesis……………………………………………….…..35
4.2.3 Negation as a Form of False Dilemma……………………………………………...36
4.2.4 Negation as a Form of Additive…………………………………………………….37
4.2.5 Negation as a Form of Emphasis…………………………………………………...38
4.2.6 Negation as a Form of Quantifier…………………………………………………..39
4.2.7 Negation as a Form of Mitigation……………………………………………….….40
4.3 Differences and Similarities between Jonathan’s and Yar’Adua’sUse of Negation……………………………………………………………………………41
4.3.1 Differences and Similarities in the Use of Negation by Jonathan and
Yar’Adua…………….………………………..…………………………………………...42
5.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………...………44
5.1 Findings………………………………………………………...………………….44
5.2 Summary………………………………………………………………….………..45
5.3 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………..……...…..46
Works Cited ………………………………………………………………………..47
Abstract
This study is a critical discourse analysis of negation in the inaugural speeches of two Nigerian Presidents. The study aims at finding out if negation performs certain statement. The data used for the analysis are from the speeches of the two Presidents, Goodluck Jonathan and Musa Yar’Adua. The speeches were adopted from different websites. The analysis employed the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) frame work. Specifically the Fairclough’s model of analysis was used. Fairclough’s model of CDA consist of three (3) components which are; description, interpretation and explanation. These three components where the analytical procedure employed to bring out the different functions negation performs in the speeches .The study found out that negation performed different functions aside negating the truth-value of an affirmative statement. These functions include the ability to establish a common ground, as a form of false dilemma, as a form of additive, quantifier, as a form of mitigation and as other functions. It is used by politicians to exercise power over their audience and to show power struggle. It is political when the use of negation aims at persuading, deceiving the populace and gaining the support of the audience.
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
This study focuses on the use of negation in presidential speeches. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and other methodologies are used in other to explain the different forms of negation and their function in the inaugural speeches of two Nigerian Presidents, GoodLuckEbeleJonahan and Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. The chapter will give an insight into the background to the study; statement of the problem, purpose of the study; objectives of the study, significance of the study and lastly, the scope of the study. The knowledge to be derived from this study will enable one to analyse political speeches such as campaigns and formal speeches delivered by political figures and also the functions of negation in such speeches.
1.1 Background to the Study
Language is used as a means of communication, which helps people to interact with one another socially and emotionally in our society. Human beings understand each other by the process of speaking. Philips etalcited in Ahmed, views speaking as the comment that holds friendships, families, communities, societies and government together (1). Thus, for any significant development to occur in a society, people have to engage in communication. One of the ways of studying language use in the society is discourse analysis. Discourse is a means of communication seen as transaction between a speaker and a hearer and as inter-personal activities whose form is determined by its social purpose. Discourse Analysis on the other hand focuses on the structures of natural occurring spoken Languages found in ‘discourse’ as in conversations and speeches. Critical Discourse Analysis is a branch of Discourse Analysis that perceives Language use as a social practice. The users of Language do not function in isolation, but in a set of cultural, social and psychological frameworks. CDA accepts this social context and studies the connections between textual structures by taking this social context into account and explores the link between textual structures and their function within the society.
Fairclough in his definition perceives CDA as; discourse analysis which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practice, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony (135). “Critical’ implies showing connections and causes which are hidden; it also implies intervention, for example, providing resources for those who may be disadvantaged through change” (Fairclough). CDA studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced and restricted by text and talk in the social and political context. Language is used in discourse and every language has the ability to express negation. Negation modifies information which is present in the common ground of discourse. It is a general feature of language. The forms and meaning of negation in English is not straight forward as what most linguists would like us to believe. An affirmative form expresses the validity or truth of a basic assertion. A negative form expresses the falsity of basic assertion. In English Language, sentences can be negated with the adverbs not and never, the determinant no, and the indefinite pronouns no one, nobody, and none as well as other negative words.
The analysis of negation in the selected inaugural speeches will not only be on Werth’s (1999) notion of negation. He sees negation as a sub-world that modifies information which is present in the common ground of discourse rather than how it has been used by politicians to cover up realities in order to achieve their political aims. However, Negation is logically complex and diverse in its meaning and forms (Horn and Kato in Ahmed, 23). Thus, the more we analyze discourse with negation, the more we understand that it is not what it means literally that matters in conversation, but how they reveal the intention of the speakers. A speech is a preplanned oration that is delivered to an audience at formal, professional, and political events. It is presented without visual aids to mainly inform, to persuade, or to entertain. Speeches are undeniably part of the political state of affairs. Once an individual has become a political figure, there will always be a time when the individual will be confronted with making a speech. An inaugural speech is a formal speech mainly presented by Presidents to mark the beginning of their term of office. It also expresses the intention of the Presidents as the head to the general public who vote them as leaders into office.
Therefore, Speeches are part of the political state of affairs and the use of negation in political speeches occurs in various ways to achieve different communicative functions which bring up the desire to find out the different strategies and roles negation played in presidential speeches. The major aim of political speeches is to persuade the audience on the validity of their political claims through the use of negation. For Presidents, the task of making a speech begins during their acceptance and inauguration speeches. Schaffnerin Ahmed supports the arguments that Language is an important factor in political speeches when he opines that any political action is prepared, accompanied, controlled and influenced by language (1).It means that Language is paramount to political speeches knowing the fact that all political activities are carried out through language.
Therefore, this work focuses strictly on doing a Critical Discuss Analysis of negation in the inaugural speeches of two Nigerian Presidents to unravel and identify the different ways negation is used in presidential speeches to manifest unequal power and inequality in discourse.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Negation is generally seen as a form of Language use. Its meaning in English is not as straightforward as many linguists will want us to believe. For example ‘I have no book to study’. The linguists view is from the negative point of view of the affirmative sentence ‘I have books at all to read’ and many other examples with a deeper analytical level of the above sentence ‘I have no books at all to read’. The lack of straightforwardness in the forms and interpretation of negation has become an instrument in the hands of our political leaders to cover up the realities in order to achieve their political aims. The use of negation in political speeches is meant to achieve political action which is driven by the need to maintain power through a skillful use of language. For this reason, this study will unveil and identify the different ways negation is used in the selected inaugural speeches to portray lack of straightforwardness in their speeches.
After a thorough research carried out on the internet, text books and other printed materials from the libraries of other institutions, it is obvious that works in Critical Discuss Analysis (CDA) of negation is rarely done. In fact, the researcher is not aware of any previous work done on the topic A Critical Discuss Analysis of negation in the Inaugural Speeches of two civilian Nigerian Presidents. It is this paucity of research in this area that the current study hopes to address.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
This study aims at doing a critical discourse analysis of negation in the inaugural speeches of two civilian Nigerian Presidents. As a result of the problem stated above, this project will look at the language use in the social and political contexts in analyzing the negations in the inaugural speeches of former Presidents Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and GoodluckEbele Jonathan to fill a gap, which will move the academic frontiers forward.
1.4 Objectives of the Study
This study focuses on doing a Critical Discourse Analysis of negation in the inaugural speeches of two Nigerian Presidents. Thus the objectives of this study include:
i. To reveal the various functions negation performs in the inaugural speeches asides the true-value of a positive negation in sentences.
ii. To identify the various techniques employed by the politicians to bring about negation.
iii. To reveal how power is used through the different choice of negation by the Presidents in their inaugural speeches.
iv. To uncover the similarities and differences in the use of negation by the two Presidents of Nigeria.
1.5 Significance of the Study
Several works have been carried out on CDA such as Fairclough and Van Dijk respectively. The studies did not lay emphasis on the use of negation in presidential speeches. This research will be carried out to fill the gap left by earlier studies by adding a new notion to the studies of presidential discourse. It will also present a new area of concentration to linguist in identifying the different forms and roles of negation in sentences and utterances rather than the normal function of unveiling the truth-value of a sentence. This study is important because hitherto, a CDA of negation is not known to have been investigated. Its findings will enrich CDA as well as the analysis of presidential speeches or political discourse.
1.6 Scope of the Study
This study will analyse the inaugural speeches of former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and GoodluckEbele Jonathan. For a detailed analysis, the study will be limited to only two speeches. The linguistic element that will be analysed is negation. The analysis will focus on the three parameters of Fairclough for a Critical Discourse Analysis of political discourse.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
A research cannot be successful without reviewing other scholarly works related to the study. This chapter is mainly concerned with a review of the literature on Critical Discourse Analysis, negation, the relationship between Language and politics, political discourse and the theoretical framework.
2.1 A Brief History and the Development of Critical DiscourseAnalysis
Critical discourse analysis emerged from ‘critical linguistics’ developed at the University of East Anglia in the 1970’s. A network of scholars emerged in the early 1990s, following a small symposium in Amsterdam, in January 1991. Through the support of the University of Amsterdam, Teun, A.VanDijk, Norman, Fairclough, Gunther, Kress, Theo van Leeuwen and Ruth Wodak spent two days together, and had the greatest opportunity to discuss theories and methods of Discourse Analysis, preciselyCDA.The outcome of the meeting made it possible for them to confront each other with different approaches, which have changed significantly since 1991 but remain relevant in certain aspects. In this process of group formation, the differences and similarity were laid out. The differenceregard to other theories, and methodologies in discourse analysis and similarity in a pragmatics way, both of which frame the range of theoretical approaches.
In general, CDA as a school or paradigm is characterized by a number of principles: for example, all approaches are problem-oriented and thus necessarily interdisciplinary and varied.Moreover, CDA is characterized by the common interests in identifying ideologies and power through the systematic and productive investigation of semiotic data (written, spoken or visual). CDA researchers also attempt to make their own positions and interests explicit while retaining their respective scientific methodologies and while remaining self-reflective of their own research process. The start of the CDA network was marked by the launch of Van Dijk’s journal Discourse and Society written in1990, as well as by several books which were coincidentally published simultaneously and led by similar research goals.TheAmsterdam meeting determined an institutional start, an attempt both to constitute an exchange programme, as well as joint projects and collaborations between scholars of different countries, and a special issue of Discourse and Society in1993, which presented the above-mentioned approaches. Since then, new journals have been created ,multiple overviews have been written, and nowadays CDA is an established field in Linguistics; currently, we encounter Critical Discourse Studies,The Journal of Language and Politics,Discourse and Communication and Visual Semiotics, among many other journals; we also find several e-journals which publish critical research, such as CADAAD. Book series have been launched (such as DiscourseApproaches to Politics, Culture andSociety), regular CDA meetings and conferences take place, and handbooks are under way. Therefore, CDA has become an established discipline, institutionalized across the globe in many departments and curricula. (Wodak 3)
2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis
CriticalDiscourse Analysis as a new dimension of discourse analysis developed simultaneously with other critical studies in the social sciences. Van Dijkas cited in sheyholislami views Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as “a field that is concerned with studying and analyzing written and spoken texts to reveal the discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality and bias. It examines how these discursive sources are maintained and reproduced within specific social, political and historical contexts” (1). This definition views CDA as a branch of discourse analysis that is interested in the ways in which linguistic forms are used in various expressions and manipulations of power.
In the same vein, Janet Holmes says CDA by contrast is explicitly concern with investigating how language is use to construct and maintain power relationships in society. She further stated that, the aim is to show up connection between language and power and between Language and ideology (389). Janet Holmes definition views CDA as a way of maintaining power relationship in the society through the use of language.
Breeze as cited in Emmanuel C. Sharndamaopines that “Critical Discourse Analysis has now firmly established itself as a field within the humanities and social sciences, to the extent that the abbreviation “CDA” is widely used to denote a recognizable approach to language study manifested across a range of different groups” (13). What differentiates CDA from other forms of discourse analysis is its critical nature. Critical implies going beyond analysis of the formal discourse features to show connections and causes underlying a discourse.
On the emergence of CDA, Gilbert Weiss and Wodakin Sharndamaalso stated that the emergence of Critical Discourse Analysis has occurred at a time that coincides with the growth of other critical paradigms/theories/disciplines in the social sciences, such as ‘critical psychology’, ‘critical social policy’ and ‘critical anthropology’(13). They further point out that Critical Discourse Analysis initially had alternative labels such as ‘critical language awareness’ ‘critical language studies or ‘critical linguistics’ which came to be used interchangeably with critical discourse analysis (13).
Wodak and Michael Meyer are of the view that the terms ‘Critical Linguistics’ (CL) and ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ (CDA) are often used interchangeably but in recent times it seems that the term CDA is preferred and is used to denote the theory formerly identified as CL. Theyalso point out that a defining feature of CDA is its concern with power as a central condition in social life, and its efforts to develop a theory of Language which incorporates this as a major premise. Not only the notion of struggles for power and control, but also the intertextuality and contextualization of competing discourses are closely attended to (13). These scholars believe in the fact that CDA takes an interest in the ways in which linguistic forms are used in various expressions and manipulations of power. Power is signaled not only by grammatical forms within a text, but also by a person's control of a social occasion by means of the genre of a text. It is often exactly within the genres associated with given social occasions that power is exercised or challenged. CDA is either seen as a method or approach to discourse analysis.
In critical discourse analysis, language is central to the processes. Fairclough and Wodak see ‘language as social practice’.And the ‘context of language use’ as crucial. It means that the socio-cultural environment in which a text is produced and consumed form aspects of CDA. One of the often cited definitions of CDA below is quoted by Wodak and Meyer from Fairclough and Wodak as cited in Sharndama, CDA sees discourse as ‘language use in speech and writing as a form of ‘social practice’ (14). Describing discourse as social practice implies a dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s) and social structure(s), which frame it. The discursive event is shaped by them, but it also shapes them. That is, discourse is socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned – it constitutes situations, objects of knowledge, and the social identities of and relationships between people and groups of people. It is constitutive both in the sense that it helps to sustain and reproduce the social status quo, and in the sense that it contributes to transforming it. Since discourse is so socially consequential, it gives rise to important issues of power. Discursive practices may have a major ideological effect that is, they can help produce and reproduce unequal power relations between (for instance) social classes, women and men, and ethnic/cultural majorities and minorities through the ways in which they represent things and position people.
Faircloughin his definition as cited in Sharndama, perceives CDA as discourse analysis which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations, and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony(14). It should be well-known that relationship is bi-directional. And not only the language use is affected by its roundedness within certain frame of cultural or social practice, but also the use of language influences and shapes the social and cultural context it finds itself in. it can be concluded that discursive practices are constitutive of social structures, the same way as the social structures determines discursive practices.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is obviously not a homogeneous model, nor a school or a paradigm, but at most a shared perspective on doing linguistics, semiotics or discourse analysis. (Van Dijk, 17)
Critical discourse analysis is found on the insight that text and talk play a key role in maintaining and legitimizing inequality, injustice and oppression in society (van Leeuwen in Ahmed, 27). It employs discourse analysis toshow how inequality, injustice and oppression are exercised in discourse, and seeks to spread awareness of this aspect of language use in society. It also argues for change on the basis of its findings.
According to Van Dijk CDA is a paradigm which is characterized in deciphering the ideologies and power through organized analysis of language. (qtd in Nazish et al, 81) The task of CDA is to systematically investigate the relation between the structures of the discourse and the structures of ideologies. CDA also focuses on how socio-political discourse manipulates, propagates, persuades and presents the power relation in a society through political discourses. Hence, closing the discourse-power circle, finally this means in present study to know how those groups who control most influential discourse, also have more chances to control the minds and actions of others.
2.3 Critical Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of PoliticalSpeech
Central to critical discourse analysis is a clear consciousness of the connection between language, power and ideology. Critical discourse analyst focuses on revealing the ideological and power-driven use of language. Fairclough has cited in Ahmed, opines that the exercise of power in modern society is increasingly achieved through ideology, and more particular through the ideological workings of language (28). This definition elucidates the fact that power can be implemented and achieved through the use of language by political figures.
According to Wodak, Language is not powerful on its own; “it gains power by the use powerful people make of it”. (qtd in Ahmed, 28) This definitionmeans that language is powerless on its but becomes powerful when it is used by those in power.In relation to the emphasis used in analyzing the language use of that in power, this research analyses presidential speeches delivered by the two Nigerian Presidents.
Furthermore, CDA have an interest in the ways in which language is used in various expressions in the manipulations of power. It believes that lexical choices, such as syntactic patterns, subtly convey different ideological positions and different political sympathisers (Wodak in Ahmed 28). Hence, this study focuses onidentifying ways in which listeners are manipulated through the choices of words and constructions, particularly how negation is used in showing power differences, inequality and oppression as used by political figures.
CDA’s proponents are often criticized for putting their own ideological agenda upfront as they claim to be committed to uncover operations by those in power (Moreno, 2008). They are accused of being activist instead of simple analysts. Critics wonder to which extent those two roles can be reconciled (Widdowson cited in Ahmed, 29). In addition, CDA is criticized for always assuming that there are hidden ideologies and power dimensions behind discourse. Critics wonder why language can never be considered a neutral object in CDA (Blommert, cited in Ahmed, 29).However, despite criticisms, CDA has established itself as a strong discipline in the study of political discourse. In certain analysis, where there is little ambiguity about a political nature of a corpus, such as in the analysis of political speeches, CDA tends to provide an appropriate and systematic theoretical frame work.
2.4 Negation as a Linguistic Concept
Negation in a layman’s language is seen as negative operators “no” and “not” to reverse the true value of an affirmative statement. It is important to know that the concept of negation is notnarrow to a simple grammatical function, but rather hasbeenusedin diverse ways as it will be explained.
According to Lawler negation is a “linguistic, cognitive and intellectual phenomenon. Ubiquitous and richly diverse in its manifestation and in a fundamental important to all human thought” (qtd in Ahmed, 23).This definition views negation as a linguistic concept that everywhere and it is important in out thought and our use of language.
Horn and Katocited in Ahmed in the same vein,further emphasizes the importance of negation to be “core of human communication and of no system of animal communication. Negation and its correlates truth value, false messages contradiction, and irony, can thus be seen as the defining characteristics of the human species” (23). From these definitions above, it is crystal clear that negation as linguistic concept is many-side and it analysis should be from a cross-linguistic approach.
2.4.1 Different Forms of Negation
Several scholars have presenteddiverse forms of negation, nevertheless, this study focusesits analysis within the model and forms of negation proposed by one of the numerous scholars Jerspersen. His study of negation constitutes various aspects of negation from morphology, logic and typology to what would now fall under the rubrics of pragmatics (cited in Ahmed, 24). Below is the brief outline of the different forms of negation proposed by Jerspersen.
i. Overt negatives: these are linguistic element generally considered as negatives operators in English with the sole purpose of signaling negation in different utterances. There, are two: ‘no’ and ‘not’. ‘No’ is used as a prefix to three words: thing - nothing, body - nobody, where - nowhere. While the adverbs ‘never’ and ‘none’ have over the years acquired negative value and are usually used with such value in many utterances. In colloquial usage, the negation ‘not’ occurs in a contracted form mostly with auxiliary and modal verbs. For example,
‘has not – ‘hasn’t’,
‘do – not’ – ‘don’t’,
‘cannot’ – ‘can’t’, etc.
ii. Incomplete negatives – they are incomplete because they do not express absolute negatives. They are rather approximate negatives.
Seldom and rarely – adverbs meaning ‘not often’.
Scarcely and hardly – adverbs meaning ‘almost not/no’
Little and few – determiners or adverbs meaning ‘not much and not many’ in contrast with ‘a little and ‘a few’ which are the positives.
Only – meaning ‘no more/other than’.
iii. Negative connectives – they usually serve as a means of joining phrases or clauses. They are: either … or, neither … nor.
iv. Indirect negation – these are achieved through different strategies, as follows:
a. Question: ‘Am I the guardian of my brother?’ – I am not.
‘Who knows?’ – No one knows or I do not know.
‘Where shall I go?’ – I have nowhere to go.
b. Condition clause: if I understand, I am a villain – I do not understand. Hang me, if I can tell- I do not know.
c. Statement: let me see you play! – a threat, Don’t play or I punish you.
d. Catch me doing it phrase: catch him at that, hang him – you can’t catch him doing that.
e. Ironical phrase: good men have to missionary – there are no good men here.Much I care – I don’t care.
f. Hypothetical clause: if I were rich – I am not rich.
g. Expressions with too: she is too poor to give anything.
2.4.2 The Scope of Negation
One of the important aspects of negation is the scope. Larsen-Freeman in Ahmed underscores the important of the scope of negation in the interpretation of negative statements. She says that, “When we are concerned with the meaning of the negative, we must also be concerned with it scope” (25). In her definition, she put it that the meaning of negative work hand in hand with the scope.
Quirk et al defines scope as “the general term used to describe the semantic influence which certain words have on neighboring parts of a sentence” (qtd in Ahmed, 25). The scope of negation is a complex linguistic phenomenon that cannot be easily perceived, and lack of proper and clear understanding of the scope of negation can lead to misunderstanding and ambiguity. For example, ‘I have no food to eat’ could mean “I do not have what so ever food to eat” or “I have food but it is not edible”. This ambiguity can be resolved by looking at the scope of negation to start from the negative word itself to the end of the clause (Quirk, et al in Ahmed, 26). This definition and interpretation applies to a large number of negations.It is the four categories of negative elements and devices identifies by Jerspersen that this study focuses on as the main components to be analysed.
2.4.3 The Study of Negation in theSphere of PoliticalDiscourse
The Studies of negation in political sphere are restricted. The available ones that talks about the use of negation in political discourse are Faircloughand love as cited in Ahmed. Fairclough believes that the use of negation in political speeches may not be necessary since the assertions made in the negative could be pointed out with positive statements. However, he point out the motivation behind the use of negative by politicians to be “a way of implicitly taking issues with the corresponding positive assertion” (26). It is based on this that Fairclough conclude that, apart from the sincere use of negatives, it could be “manipulative and ideological,”
Love, in his own point of view, says that the general use of negative statements is a particularly important strategy for challenging and hence denaturalizing the claims made by others.Love concludes by presuming negation of statement as a claim by others. There is thus an implicit inter-textual tension between the claim and its negation (26). It is the Fairclough “manipulative and ideological” that will be usedin this study.
2.5 Political Discourse
Political discourse isa term used for various political talks made at different political gatherings such as political campaign rallies, party manifestoes, inaugural speeches, bills, among others. Van Dijk defines political discourse as discourse “identified by it actors or authors, viz politicians” (qtd in Ahmed, 11). This definition sees political discourse as the view of identifying political discourse by politicians such as president, prime ministers and members of parliament speeches.
Schaffner as cited in Sharndama sees political discourse, as a sub-category of discourse in general, which can be based on two criteria: functional and thematic. Political discourse is the outcome of politics and it is historically and culturally determined (12). It brings about different functions due to different political activities. It is thematic because its topics are primarily related to politics such as political activities, political ideas and political relations. Indeed, the vast bulk of studies of political discourse is about the text and talk of professional politicians or political institutions, such as presidents and prime ministers and other members of government, parliament or political parties, both at the local, national and international levels.
2.6 Political Discourse and the Language of Politics
Different scholars have made several attempts in analyzing political discourse and the relationship between language and politics. Ayeomoni in Ahmed worked on the linguistics-stylistics investigation of the language of the Nigerian political elite. He opines that their language is excessively figurative and metaphorical (7). This definition means that the langue used by political figures is not straightforward.Thus, they use these features of language to achieve the acquisition and the consolation of power, and also their political intentions and goals.
Akodu on the other hand, analyses ambiguity in political discourse in selected Nigerian newspapers. Her work was on the ambition of pragmatics. She argues that ambiguity is a key feature of the language of politics, as it is mostly used as a strategy by politicians to create confusion and misinterpreting meaning in the interpretation of political discourse (Ctd in Ahmed, 7).
This study is different from the ones reviewed above on political discourse analysis in some ways. This study is mainly for analysing the use of negation in the presidential speeches of GoodluckEbele Jonathan and Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, appears to be the first of its kind. Moreover, the analysis falls within the field of critical discourse analysis (CDA) which is differentfrom the pragmatic and stylistic approach by the scholars reviewed
2.7 The Relationship between Language and Political
Language is used by human as a means of communication, socialization and interaction with one another.It does not anchor a single definition that tells what Language actually is. There are definitions of Languageby some scholars that give us a clue of the true nature of what a language is. We shall consider few definitions, including our preferred one.
The most often quoted definitions of language is that of Edward Sapir. Sapir one of the well-known American linguist who defines language as “purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires by means of voluntarily produced symbols” (qtd in Ahmed, 9). This definition means that language is strictly used by human in communicating with each other by produced symbols.
Lyonsobserves that Sapir’s definition suffers from several defects. For example, a lot more is communicated than just ideas, emotions and desires (cited in Ahmed, 9). Lyons did not agree fully with Sapir’s definition in the sense that language is not just to communicate ideas but goes beyond that.
Another widely known definition of language is that of Bloch and Tragercited in Ahmed who define language as “a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which a social group cooperation” (9). This definition did not refer to the communicative functions of language but rather puts all the emphasis upon its social functions, which is a smaller view of the role Language, plays in the society.
Another definition to consider is that of Essien who defines Language as “a system of structural arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which human being make meaning and communicate” (qtd in Ahmed, 9). This definition has made explicit that language is a system, that is, a system of rules and principles in which sound, structure and meaning are integrated for communication. More so, language is a system, because the components are ordered and not haphazard. It is primarily vocal in which the sounds correspond to meaning otherwise we will be making just noises. This implies that language in all it ramification is meant for meaningful communication. We use it positively to teach, inform, explain, direct, inspire or negative deceive, mislead, lie, or insult. Thus, language creates power and becomes an area where power can be applied, as evident in the role it plays in politics.
A broad consensus from political discourse analysis is that politics cannot exist without the strategic use of language. Schaffnerasserts that “politics cannot be conducted without language” (qtd in Ademilokun, 4). Chilton captures the centrality of language to politics in the following words: “the doing of politics is predominantly constituted in language” (qtd in Ademilokun, 5). Chilton’s definition means that politics is only politics through the use of Language. It is because of this awareness of the close relationship between language and politics that the researcher was convinced that negation as an element of language cannot be objectively used by politicians just for its grammatical function. There would be many factors that accompany its usage, which could be as a result of power or politics .
2.7.1 Presidential Speeches as a Form of Political Discourse
Presidential speech is one of the genres of political discourse and forms the focus of the study. Adetunjiis of the view that presidential speeches represent institutional voices because Presidents are considered the “most eligible representatives of their countries, whose words therefore bear a semantic load of their nations’ ethos and soul” (qtd in Ahmed, 12). Because of this vital function presidential speeches perform, there are many archives of the presidential speeches.
Akmalas cited in Ahmed sees a presidential speech as part of the political state of affairs. Once someone has become a president, there will always be a time when he or she will be confronted with the task of making a speech. Political speech in general mostly reflects the philosophy, values, and beliefs of a particular party, organization, community and society (12).The analysis of negation we attempt to do in this study focuses on the inaugural speeches of the selected Presidents. These have three functions: first, they serve as a “public ritual where the newly elected typically celebrates the democratic processes that empower them” (Strachan qtd in Ahmed, 13). Secondly, this particular political speech functions to celebrate the country’s shared values in a process that explicitly describes the relationship between the executive and the people. Thirdly, unlike other speeches of Presidents, the inaugural speeches are included in official public papers, which mean they are actually available from state archives and historical documents. Inaugural speeches are therefore a valuable source of both historical and comparative data about the country’s presidents
2.8 Theoretical Framework
Critical Discourse Analysis is adopted as a theoretical frame work for this study. The Fairclough’s Discourse as a Social Practice model of CDA is employed in the analysis. The model gives the general picture of the place of language in society. The general picture is elaborated on the relationship between language and power and the relationship between language and ideology.Fairclough believe that language is centrally involved in power struggles and struggles for power and that it is so involved through its ideological properties. Hence, analyzing language/discourse as a social practice “one commits oneself not just in analyzing text, nor just to analyzing processes of production and interpretation, but to analyzing the relationship between text, processes and their social conditions”. These social conditions involved both the immediate conditions of situational context and the more remote condition of institutional and social structures. This includes the relationship between texts, interaction and the context corresponding to three dimensions or the stages of Fairclough Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): description, interpretation and explanation.
The choice of Fairclough’s model of CDA as a framework for the analysis in this study is accepted due to the following reasons: first, political speeches do not take place in a vacuum, they are entrenched in certain context. This point is significant in Fairclough’s Discourse as social practice model. Faircloughargues that utterances are meaningful only in their situational, cultural, ideological and historical context. It is based on this reasoning that this research allocates the analysis of context a central place. Second, one important feature of Fairclough’s model of CDA is the conceptualization of discourse as action. Discourse is not merely a form of language use, but does have a behavioural dimension as a form of social practice. In speech presentations, politicians act because what they do has consequences: they create situations that are based on verbal and non-verbal actions. Third, meaning is not a monolithic construct; it is a multidimensional and slippery concept with amazing complexity. Understanding the silent meaning of a text is a highly needed skill. For this study, the different shades of meaning attached to the use of negation in political speeches are explored thoroughly. Finally, the model is drawn up based on Hallidayan functional linguistics, which has been the main framework for analysing speeches.
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the method in which the research work was carried out. Sources of data, the method of data gathering, the method of data analysis and the systematic process brings about the main focus of this chapter.
3.1 Sources of Data
The data for this study are gathered and adopted from the original text of the inaugural speeches of the selected Presidents by finding them in the internet from the following websites: www.vanguardngr.com/2011/05/over-40-heads-of-state-witness-jonathans-inauguration-amid-tight security/,http://www.nigeriansinamerica.com/articles/18 11/1/The-Challenge-is-Great-The-Goal-is-Clear-Umaru-Musa-YarAduas-Inaugural Speech/Page1.html .A total number of two (2) speeches are used for the analysis. They are theinaugural speeches of the selected Presidents. The main body of the text will be an extract taken from the relevant sections of the presidential speeches. In other words, an extract of a political speech is used whenever a particular feature of negation is spotted and the usage is a good example of our discussion. The appendix is labeled AandB. Appendix A is GoodluckEbele Jonathan’s inaugural speech and Appendix B is Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s inaugural speech.
3.2 Method of Data Collection
The data for this study were gathered from the internet. The inaugural speeches of the selected Presidents were downloaded from different websites and later printed. The printed copies are the Appendix of the study.
3.3 Method of Data Analysis
The method ofdata analysis of this study is textual analysis, which considers three aspect of the data name: the analysis of the rhetorical context, the analysis of the textual features and the contextual analysis of the text. Norman Fairclough, in his work Language and power, wishes to “examine the ways in which communication are constrained by the structures and forces of those social institutions within which we live and function” (vi). In the same publication, the possible procedures for text analysis are suggested. Fairclough gives his opinions on the actual nature of discourse and text analysis. In his view, there are three levels of discourse; firstly, social conditions of production and interpretation, i.e. the social factors, which contributed or lead to the origination of a text, and at the same time, how the same factors affect interpretation. Secondly, the process of production and interpretation, i.e. in what way the text was produced and how this affect interpretation. Finally, the text, being the product of the first two stages, commented on above(24-26). Fairclough subsequently gives three stages of CDA, which are in accord with the three above mentioned levels of discourse. The three components of the analytical procedures are:
i. Description: this is the stage which is concerned with the formal properties of the text.
ii. Interpretation: is concerned with the relationship between text and interaction by seeing the text as a product of the process of production, and as a resource in the process of interpretation.
iii. Explanation: is concerned with the relationship between interaction and social context, with the social determination of the process of production and interpretation, and their social effects.
Considering all these stages, the concern is with the analysis, but the nature of it is different in each stage. Analysis in the first stage limits its boundaries to labeling the formal properties of the text and regards text as an object.Hence, in this stage, we focused on the identification and labeling of the different types and forms of negation used in the selected presidential speeches. The second stage is the cognitive process of the participants and their interactions. This has to do with the ideological mindsets that control the different choice from one type of negation to another. Finally, in the third stage, the aim is to explain the relationship between the social events and the social structures that affect these events and also are affected by them. This stage focuses mainly on the connection between the choices of negation and social structures and how these choices affect one another in the general communicative events.
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 Introduction
This chapter is the presentation and analysis of data based on Faircough’s three stages of text analysis for a critical discourse of text that is, description, interpretation and explanation. The first stage of analysis deals with the identification of different forms of negation used in the speeches. Next, is the interpretation stage, the different functions of negation in the speeches are pointed out. The final stage deals with the general relationship between the functions of negation and the social and political contexts of the speeches. The chapter also compares and contrasts the speeches of President Jonathan and President Yar’Adua.
4.1 Different Forms of Negation Used in the Speeches
This stage deals with the formal properties of the text by restricting itself to labeling the formal properties. Furthermore, this stage focuses on identifying and labeling the different types and forms of negation used in the selected presidential speeches. The tables below are the summary of the different forms of negation used in the speeches of Presidents Goodluck Jonathan and late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.
TABLE 1
Different Forms of Negation Used in Former President Good luck Jonathans Speech
Forms of negation
3
4
3
3
TABLE 2
Different Forms of Negation Used in late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’ Inaugural Speech
Forms of negation
3
27.2
Total
11
The above tables present the forms of negation used by Goodluck Jonathan and Musa Yar’adua. The first table shows that Jonathan uses 18 different forms of negation with ‘not’ as the most frequently used form, representing 22.2% of the total usage. The second table shows that Yar’adua uses 11 different forms with ‘not’, ‘or’, and ‘if’ as the highest number, representing 27.2% each of the total usage.
The tables above shows that Jonathan uses more forms of negation than Yar’adua such as: overt negation, ‘never’ and ‘cannot’. Incomplete negation, ‘only’. However, both Presidents use negations in their inaugural speeches for various functions.
4.2 Functions and Roles of Negation in the Inaugural Speeches
These are the stage of interpretation and explanation that is, the second and third stage of text analysis. These are the second and third stages of text analysis, that is, the stage of interpretation and explanation. The interpretation stage deals with the relationship between text and interaction by seeing the text as the product of the process of production and as recourse in the process of interpretations. This deals with the cognitive processes of the participants and their interactions. The second stage basically is concern with the ideological mindsets that prompt and control the speakers to choose different forms of negation from the others. This section outline different function negation performs in the speeches of Goodluck Jonathan and Musa Yar’adua beside the traditional functions of negating the affirmatives sentence or the true-value of an assertion. The third stage on the other hand, analysed the relationship between the negation, power and politics and how this relationship reflect the overall communicative event.
4.2.1 Negation as a Means of Establishing a Common Ground
Different forms of negation have been used to create a common ground by President Jonathan. In his presentation, he uses negation as a means of creating a common ground between him and the audience. This technique is a way of exercising power to persuade and make the audience to be receptive to their ultimate proposal. The establishment of the common ground in negation helps build a connection between the Presidents and the audiences by identifying the common experiences that exist between the audiences and the Presidents, which because of power differences do not exist. The common ground also helps the presidents to gradually introduce controversial issues without the audience’s immediate attention. The following extracts indicate the different forms of negation used in Jonathan’s speech to establish a common ground:
Extract 1: Appendix A: “we will not allow anyone exploit differences in creed or tongue, to set us one against another”.
Jonathan’s use of the pronoun ‘we’ indicate the relationship between him and the audience. This is achieved through the use of the negation ‘not’ to show that despite the differences in creed (religion) and tongue (language), Nigeria should be united and no one will be permitted to use those differences to destroy the peace of the nation. Through this, he was able to show not just his relationship with the audience, but he was able to identify himself as one of them.
Power is exercised in the above extract to control discourse in the sense that the President is made to be on a common ground with the audience. This is a strategy used by politicians to persuade their listener. In this case, the listeners are persuaded to see the President as an ordinary citizen like every one of them.
4.2.2 Negation as a Form of Antithesis
Politicians are fond of using parallel structures that is, placing an idea side by side for contrast or comparison. The Presidents are not exempted from this usage. This could be based on the attractive touching it gives a speech. Political messages conveyed with the use of antithesis carries a natural emphasis because, in effect, the core assertion is normally made twice- in a ‘positive’ and a ‘negative’ form. Similarly, the completion point of the contrast can be anticipated through a process in which the audience merges the unfolding second half of a contrast against the first half. Antitheses are formed with the use of negation as shown in the extract below.
Extract 2: Appendix A and B.
Appendix A: “The Nigeria of our dreams must be built on hard work and no on shortcuts”.
Appendix B: “These fundamental values determine societies that succeed or fail”
Jonathan obviously shows the uniqueness of the words ‘hard work’ and ‘shortcut’ and emphasises more on the former using the negation ‘not’ for comparison. The use of antithesis is to generate applause because the messages conveyed with the use of antithesis are emphasized. Yar’adua present antithesis in Appendix B, through the use of the negation ‘or’ in other to make it obvious that one is necessary for the other to occur. His use of negation ‘or’ here is not just for applause but also to create a connection between the two terms ‘succeed’ and ‘fail’.
We could see how Jonathan and Yar’Adua use negation to juxtapose words that striking oppose one another. This has helped them in emphasising and attaching attention to the significance of the words. They use comparison such as ‘hard work’ and ‘shortcut’, ‘succeed’ and ‘fail’. The words outlined above could not have received the prominence they received if not for the use of negation in juxtaposing them. The words above could not have been important on their own but are important through the use of antithesis in order to convince the audience into believing what they are saying. The use of negation by Jonathan and Yar’Adua as an antithesis is to control the actions of the audience by carrying them along to participate with them through clapping.
4.2.3 Negation as a Form of False Dilemma
False Dilemma is a logical fallacy used by politicians in presenting usually two points of views as the only alternatives, forcing the choice between the two, when in fact there are additional options. There are some cases where negation has been the linguistic element in which false dilemma are achieved. This can be deduced from the extract of the speeches below:
Extract 3: Appendix A: “we will not allow anyone exploit differences in creed or tongue, to set us one against another”.
In the above extract, Jonathan use ‘not’ to make his audience believe that the only differences that exist in the Nigerian society are that of religion and language. Despite these differences, he urges his audience to be united as one. And he wants his audience to believe that nothing will make them go against each other.
Power is exercised when various choices have been reduced and controlled to force a choice on the audience out of the choices presented. This is seen in the case of Jonathan where we can see religious and language differences coming to play. Jonathan believes that the only situation where Nigerians can come against each other is in ‘creed’ and in ‘tongue’ that is tribalism and religious differences. Politician chose to impose a choice on their audience among many other options and this is achieved through the fallacy of false dilemma.
4.2.4 Negation as a Form of Additive
Politicians are fond of using additives to denote an expansion or enlargement of significant information. Unlike antithesis, where the second point is introduced to show a sharp distinction with the first, additives add more points to the first one mentioned. Additive is an instrument used by the politicians to underscore crucial points. This is seen in the extract below:
Extract 4: Appendix A: “My fellow countrymen and women, Nigeria is not just a land of promise; it shall be a nation where positive change will continue to take place, for the good of our people”.
In the above extract, Jonathan uses negation ‘not’ to emphases more on the ideals held by Nigerians as an additional factor to the earlier stated purposes in fostering positive change in which people of Nigeria will benefit from. This shows a transition from the first motive to the subsequent ones that is, from a promise land to a land to a land where positive change takes place.
Therefore, politicians use negation as a form of additive to divert the attention of the public from the well-known issues to a different issue based on their feelings. This is seen in Jonathan’s speech. He believes that Nigeria is a promise land which is well-known to the public and it will not he added that, not just be a promise land but a land where positive change will continue to occur. He has succeeded in diverting the attention of the public from the well-known issues to a different one through the use of the negation ‘not’ as a form of additive.
4.2.5 Negation as a Form of Emphasis
This is an instance where words or phrases are repeated in a paragraph by speakers. They employ this form of repetition to emphasize or clarify certain issues. This is usually in a bid to bring to the fore the points they want their audience to concentrate more on. In the speeches, different forms of negation are analysed for the purposes of repetition typified in the following extract:
Extract 5: Appendix A: “You have trusted me with your mandate, and I will never, never let you down”
President Jonathan in the above extract emphasis that despite the fact that he is not from the majority group in Nigeria, Nigerian’s still chose him as their leader. He uses the negation ‘never, never’ to show that it is because of their support that he was able to achieve his present status as President of Nigeria therefore, he promise his populace ‘never’ to let them down.Power is exercised here to impose some lies as the truth through emphasising on the concepts until they are accepted to be true.
4.2.6 Negation as a Form of Quantifier
Quantifiers are words or expressions which gives a relative or indefinite indication of quantity, for example ‘many’ and ‘few’ in ‘many boys’ and ‘few boys’. This aspect of grammar is used by politicians as strategies for allowing generalisations over ranges or set of individuals. This is seen in the extract below:
Extract 6: Appendix A and B:
Appendix A: “We live in an age where no country can survive on its own; countries depend on each other for economic well-being”.
Appendix B: “Equally important, we must devote our best efforts to overcome the energy challenge. Over the next four years we will see dramatic improvements in power generation, transmission and distribution. These plans will mean little if we do not respect the rule of law”.
The negation ‘No’ is not only used for the purpose of indicating quantifier, but also makes a broad generalisation. For instance, Jonathan uses ‘no’ to make a broad generalization that Nigerian depends on other nations to survive. Similarly, Yar’adua’s use of ‘little’ also shows a generalization that if Nigerians do not obey the law, they will not really see the improvement in power supply. The use of negation as a quantifier by Jonathan and Yar’Adua is a logic for allowing generalisations over set of individuals.
4.2.7 Negation as a Form of Mitigation
Several politicians demonstrate lack of commitment in their speeches to the prepositional content of the messages expressed. This occurs when the predictable effects of the speech act, especially the act of promising, seems to be unattainable or will have negative outcome. In this case, negation is used as a form of mitigation. Based on our investigation; it eases the illocutionary force of an utterance, as can be seen from the following extract:
Extract 7: Appendix B: “No matter what obstacles confront us, I have confidence and faith in our ability to overcome them”
Yar’Adua’s use of the negation ‘no’ reduces the force of his promise to the audience. He promised the audience during his inaugural speech that Nigeria’s have a lot of obstacles confronting them but will be overcome at all cost by confidence and faith he has in Nigerian’s. The use of negation as form of mitigation by Yar’Adua, is not just showing lack of commitment to those promises, but also shows that he did not really go through campaign stress to become a President.
Power is used here to make promises and when those promise are made; their fulfillment are left to time and circumstances. Time and circumstances are the tools used in knowing if the promises made are fulfilled or not. Yar’Adua does not want to be held responsible for his inability to achieve certain promises made that is why he uses the negation ‘no’ coupled with the pronoun ‘us’ and ‘our’. The major idea behind mitigation is transferring responsibility circumstances or situations, so that when they cannot meet to a promise made they will transfer it to circumstances. Yar’Adua was shifting his ability to fulfill if Nigerian’s support him.
4.3 Differences and Similarities between Jonathan’s and Yar’Adua Use of Negation
There are differences and similarities found in Jonathan’s and Yar’Adua’s inaugural speeches. The differences arise on the fact that they are from different part of Nigeria. They have different experiences because Jonathan is from the south-south and belongs to the minority group while Yar’Adua is from the north and belongs to the majority group. Yar’Adua was elected and sworn in as a President in May, 29th 2007 while Jonathan was elected and sworn in May, 29th 2011. The similarities are found on the basis that both are Nigerians. The speeches are presented in the same geographical location and to the same audience. They are both politicians and former Presidents of Nigeria.
There are some differences in their choice of forms of negation and the frequency in use. Jonathan uses more negation than Yar’Adua. In Jonathan’s inaugural speech, eighteen (18) different forms of negations were used while Yar’Adua used eleven (11) forms. Jonathan made use of other forms of negation that were not found in Yar’Adua’s. the forms of negations are: Overt negationsuchas, ‘never’ and ‘cannot’, Incomplete negation such as, ‘only’. Furthermore, Jonathan uses the negation ‘not’ more than other forms of negation in his inaugural speech. However, both Presidents made use of different forms of negation at different place in their speeches.
4.3.1 Differences and Similarities in the Use of Negation by Jonathan and Yar’Adua
Negation performs different functions in the two speeches in some ways. Jonathan used negation as a means of establishing common ground, false dilemma, additive, and as a form of emphasis. Yar’Adua did not use it for such purpose. This could be because Jonathan is from the minority group and he really campaigned to become a President. Another reason could due to the fact that he has been there before, so he understands the roles of negation in politics than Yar’Adua. Despite all the differences, both Presidents used negation as a form of antithesis and quantifier.
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 Introduction
This is the final chapter of this study. It gives the findings, the summary of the work and the conclusion.
5.1 Findings
This work examined the different forms of negation used by Jonathan and Yar’Adua in their speeches. It identifies different functions negation performs other than negating the truth-value of statement, as well as the relationship between the use of negation and power. In relation to the above, the following findings were made:
i. The study glaringly shows that Jonathan used more forms of negations than Yar’Adua. Jonathan used a total number of 18 negations while Yar’Adua only used 11.
ii. The study also find out that out of the different forms of negation used by Jonathan, he made used of ‘not’ more than any other type of negation, while Yar’Adua used ‘not’, ‘or’, and ‘if’ more than the other forms. This demonstrates that Jonathan knows the importance and functions of negation in speech presentation than Yar’Adua who are both L2 speakers of English language.
iii. Yar’Adua has used negation to function as a mitigation device to perform the act of promise, while Jonathan did not.
iv. Both Presidents used negation to perform different functions as opposed to the traditional function of negating the true value of statement, such as using negation as an antithesis and quantifier.
v. The use of negation has helped both Presidents politically to persuade and garner support from the populace and put themselves on the side of their listeners.
vi. The use of negation by the two Presidents is ideologically based. They both show the ideology used by political elite to deceive the masses that they are one.
5.2 Summary
This study is on “A Critical Discourse Analysis of Negation in the Inaugural Speeches of Two Nigerian Presidents”. The study has five chapters. Chapter one is titled general introduction which deals with the background to the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, objectives of the study, significance of the study and the scope of the study. Chapter two reviews related concept to the study such as critical discourse analysis, negation, political discourse and the theoretical frame work. Chapter three, deals with the methodology. Chapter four covers data presentation and analysis. In this chapter, the data on negation was presented along with its functions and findings. Chapter five is the summary of the work and conclusion.
5.3 Conclusion
The study is on a Critical Discourse Analysis of negation in the inaugural speech of two Nigerian Presidents. Based on the findings and conclusion, it is obvious that negation perform other functions aside negating the true-value of declarative statement. Negations are also used to for different functions such as: establishing a common ground, as a false dilemma, as an additive and many more. The functions of negation help in exercising power by controlling the content of discourse. It is a tool used by the politicians to persuade, gain the support of the populace, to lie and to deceive the mercies.
Works Cited
Janet, Holmes. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics 3rded. Essex: Pearson Education limited 2008. Print.
Memon, Nazish, Bughio, Ali Faraz and Gopang, IllehiBux. “Critical Analysis of Political Discourse: A Study of Benazir Bhutto’s Speech”. Balochistan Journal of Linguistics. 2 (2014): 79-95. Web. 29th Feb. 2016.
Mohammed, Ademilokun (PHD). “A multimodal Discourse Analysis of Some Newspaper Political Campaign Advertisement for Nigeria’s 2015 Elections” A conference paper:Department of English, ObafemiAwalawo University Ile-Ife. Mohmilokun@yahoo.com 1-29. Web. 4th May. 2016.
Sharndama, Emmanuel C. “Political Discourse: A Critical Discourse Analysis of President MuhammaduBuhari’s Inaugural Speech”. European Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research. 3.3 (2015): 9-21. Web. 13th May. 2016.
Sheyholislami, Jaffer.Critical Discourse Analysis. jsheyhol@connectmail.carleton.ca . 1- 15. Web. 29th May. 2016.
Teun, A. Van Dijk. “Aims of Critical Discourse Analysis”. Japanese Discourse. 1 (1995): 17-27. Web. 5th June. 2016.
Wodak, Ruth and Meyer, Michael. “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology” (2008): 1-33. Web. 14th June. 2016.
Unpublished Works
Ahmed, Yunana. “A critical Discourse Analysis of Negation in Selected Nigeria and
United States of America Presidential Speeches”. A Thesis of Masters of Arts English Degree Submitted in Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, 2012.
Appendix A
Below is President Goodluck Jonathan's inauguration address on the occasion of his swearing-in as President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria on May 29, 2011.
PROTOCOL
1. My Dear Compatriots, I stand in humble gratitude to you, this day, having just sworn to the oath of office as President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of our great nation.
2. I thank you all, fellow citizens, for the trust and confidence, which you have demonstrated through the power of your vote. I want to assure you, that I will do my utmost at all times, to continue to deserve your trust.
3. I would like to specially acknowledge the presence in our midst today, of Brother Heads of State and Government, who have come to share this joyous moment with us. Your Excellencies, I thank you for your solidarity. I also wish to express my gratitude, to the Representatives of Heads of State and Government who are here with us. My appreciation also goes to the chairperson of the African Union and other world leaders, our development partners, and all our distinguished guests.
4. I want to specially thank all Nigerians for staying the course in our collective commitment to build a democratic nation. To members of the PDP family and members of other political parties, who have demonstrated faith in our democratic enterprise, I salute you.
5. At this juncture, let me acknowledge and salute my friend and brother, Vice-President NamadiSambo; and my dear wife, Patience, who has been a strong pillar of support.
6. I thank her for galvanizing and mobilizing Nigerian women for the cause of democracy. In the same vein, I owe a debt of gratitude to my mother and late father. I cannot thank them enough.
7. I cannot but paytribute to our late President, AlhajiUmaru Musa Yar’Adua, with whom we won the Presidential election four years ago, when I contested as his running mate. May God bless his soul.
8. I also wish to pay tribute to our founding fathers, whose enduring sacrifices and abiding faith in the unity and greatness of our country, laid the foundation for the nation. We take enormous pride in their contributions. The pivotal task of this generation is to lift our fatherland to the summit of greatness.
President Jonathan taking his oath of office.
9. Your Excellencies, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, earlier this year, over seventy-three million eligible Nigerians endured all manner of inconvenience just to secure their voters cards,in order to exercise the right to choose those that will govern them.
10. At the polls, we saw the most dramatic expressions of the hunger for democracy. Stories of courage and patriotism were repeated in many ways, including how fellow citizens helped physically challenged voters into polling stations to enable them exercise their franchise. The inspiring story of the one hundred and three year-old man, and many like him across the country, who struggled against the physical limitations of age to cast their vote, is noteworthy.
11. Such determination derives from the typical Nigerian spirit of resilience in the face of the greatest of odds. That spirit has, over the years, stirred our hopes, doused our fears, and encouraged us to gather ourselves to build a strong nation even when others doubted our capacity.
12. Today, our unity is firm, and our purpose is strong. Our determination unshakable. Together, we will unite our nation and improve the living standards of all our peoples whether in the North or in the South; in the East or in the West. Our decade of development has begun. The march is on. The day of transformation begins today.We will not allow anyone exploit differences in creed or tongue, to set us one against another. Let me at this point congratulate the elected Governors, Senators, members of the House of Representatives and those of the States Houses of Assembly for their victories at the polls.
13. I am mindful that I represent the shared aspiration of all our people to forge a united Nigeria: a land of justice, opportunity and plenty. Confident that a people that are truly committed to a noble ideal, cannot be denied the realization of their vision, I assure you that this dream of Nigeria, that is so deeply felt by millions, will indeed come to reality.
14. A decade ago, it would have been a mere daydream to think that a citizen from a minority ethnic group could galvanize national support, on an unprecedented scale, to discard ancient prejudices, and win the people’s mandate as President of our beloved country. That result emanated from the toil and sacrifice of innumerable individuals and institutions, many of whom may never get to receive public appreciation for their effort.
15. Only a couple of days ago, I received an entry on my Facebook page. It was sent by Mr. BabajideOrevba. He wrote to inform me that I had lost a great fan. That fan was his father, Mr. Emmanuel BamideleOrevba. The deceased, the son told me, was no politician, but had campaigned enthusiastically for my ticket. Tragically, overwhelmed by the joy of our victory, he collapsed, and passed on three days later. I pray God Almighty to grant his soul eternal rest.
16. The success of the 2011 elections and the widespread acclaim which the exercise received was due to the uncommon patriotism and diligence exhibited by many Nigerians, including members of the Armed Forces, National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) and others. Unfortunately, despite the free, fair and transparent manner the elections were conducted, a senseless wave of violence in some parts of the country led to the death of ten members of the NYSC and others. These brave men and women paid the supreme sacrifice in the service of our fatherland. They are heroes of our democracy. We offer our heartfelt prayers and condolences in respect of all those who lost their lives.
17. In the days ahead, those of us that you have elected to serve must show that we are men and women with the patriotism and passion, to match the hopes and aspirations of you, the great people of this country. We must demonstrate the leadership, statesmanship, vision, capacity, and sacrifice, to transform our nation. We must strengthen common grounds, develop new areas of understanding and collaboration, and seek fresh ideas that will enrich our national consensus.
18. It is the supreme task of this generation to give hope to the hopeless, strength to the weak and protection to the defenceless.
19. Fellow citizens, the leadership we have pledged is decidedly transformative. The transformation will be achieved in all the critical sectors, by harnessing the creative energies of our people.
20. We must grow the economy, create jobs, and generate enduring happiness for our people. I have great confidence in the ability of Nigerians to transform this country. The urgent task of my administration is to provide a suitable environment, for productive activities to flourish. I therefore call on the good people of Nigeria, to enlist as agents of this great transformation.
21. My dear countrymen and women, being a Nigerian is a blessing. It is also a great responsibility. We must make a vow that, together, we will make the Nigerian Enterprise thrive.
22. The leadership and the followership must strive to convert our vast human and natural resources into the force that leads to a greater Nigeria. The Nigeria of our dreams must be built on hard work and not on short cuts. Let me salute the Nigerian workers who build our communities, cities and country. They deserve fair rewards, and so do the women that raise our children, and the rural dwellers that grow our food.
23. The moment is right. The signs are heart-warming. We are ready to take off on the path of sustained growth and economic development. In our economic strategy, there will be appropriate policy support to the real sector of the economy, so that Small and Medium Enterprises may thrive. Nigeria is blessed with enormous natural wealth, and my Administration will continue to encourage locally owned enterprises to take advantage of our resources in growing the domestic economy. A robust private sector is vital to providing jobs for our rapidly expanding population. But this must be a collaborative effort.
24. We must form technical and financial partnerships with global businesses and organizations. We live in an age where no country can survive on its own; countries depend on each other for economic well-being. Nigeria is no different. Returns on investment in Nigeria remain among the highest in the world. We will continue to welcome sustainable investment in our economy.
25. We will push programs and policies that will benefit both local and foreign businesses, but we must emphasize mutual benefits and win-win relationships. The overall ongoing reforms in the banking and financial sectors are therefore designed to support the real sector of the economy.
26. To drive our overall economic vision, the power sector reform is at the heart of our industrialization strategy. I call on all stakeholders, to cooperate with my administration, to ensure the success of the reforms.
27. Over the next four years, attention will be focused on rebuilding our infrastructure. We will create greater access to quality education and improved health care delivery. We will pay special attention to the agricultural sector, to enable it play its role of ensuring food security and massive job creation for our people.
28. The creation of the Nigerian Sovereign Investment Authority will immensely contribute to strengthening our fiscal framework, by institutionalizing savings of our commodity-related revenues. With this mechanism in place, we will avoid the boom and bust cycles,and mitigate our exposure to oil price volatility.
29. The lesson we have learnt is that the resolution ofthe Niger Delta issue is crucial for the health of the nation’s economy. In the interest of justice, equity and national unity, we shall actively promote the development of the region. I believe that peace is a necessary