Citation: Oke, I.A. (2025). The language of solidarity in an imagined community: Analysing Tafawa Balewa's independence speech. Tasambo Journal of Language, Literature, and Culture, 4(2), 110-121. www.doi.org/10.36349/tjllc.2025.v04i02.013.
THE
LANGUAGE OF SOLIDARITY IN AN IMAGINED COMMUNITY: ANALYSING TAFAWA
BALEWA'S INDEPENDENCE SPEECH
Idris Ayomo Oke[1]
Kunle Gbade & Co, Lagos, Nigeria
idrisoke.linguist@gmail.com
Abstract
Nigeria's struggle for independence witnessed a relentless intellectual battle between British colonial rulers and Nigerian activists and writers who ardently expressed their nationalist convictions through writings and public speeches. While existing studies, such as Balarabe (2018) and Fowobaje et al. (2022), examined Balewa’s speech on power dynamics and sentiment, this study uniquely explores a divergent perspective by examining Tafawa Balewa's independence speech, revealing his paradoxical representation of solidarity with the colonial masters. Drawing upon the concept of "an imagined community," and grounded in the theoretical frameworks of politeness strategies and deixis, the analysis adopts a qualitative research approach to explore how Balewa effectively communicates solidarity within his speech. Through direct statements, indirectness, and expressions of respect and agreement, Balewa constructs a discourse that fosters solidarity and respect among Nigerians and non-Nigerians. By strategically employing pronouns as dietic markers, the study shows how he projects inclusivity and a shared sense of identity within the imagined community he constructs. The findings of the study highlight Balewa's ability to navigate face-threatening acts, alleviate pressure on his addressees, and avoid aggressive authoritativeness, effectively conveying a sense of solidarity. The study concludes by extolling Balewa's inclusive and purposeful political persona and emphasising the profound impact of his solidarity projection on Nigeria's post-independence relationship with her colonial master. It suggests that further research compare Balewa’s speech with other independence leaders (e.g., Nkrumah, Kenyatta) to assess whether solidarity rhetoric was a regional trend or unique to Nigeria.
Keywords: Solidarity, Imagined Community, Independence, Tafawa Balewa, Discourse, Deixis, Politeness
Introduction
Even
though its realisation was without armed conflict (Cf. the independence of
Kenya, Algeria, South Africa, etc.), Nigeria's attainment of independence
marked an unmistakable culmination of a relentless intellectual battle waged
between the British colonial rulers and Nigerians, particularly political
activists and socially conscious literary writers. The latter, driven by an
ardent desire for nationalism, fervently expressed their convictions through
impassioned public speeches and written works. Consequently, it logically
follows that the oppressive ruling system entrenched within Nigerian society
should be combated both at the spot and after the establishment of a new
independent state. However, examining Tafawa Balewa's independence speech in this paper, a divergent perspective emerges
in that his solidarity rhetoric sharply contrasts with the anti-colonial
discourse of contemporaries like Nnamdi Azikiwe and Obafemi Awolowo. This therefore,
raises questions about its strategic and ideological motivations and the
linguistic patterns of constructing them. As the major political figure who
assumed what could perhaps be put as a state of a monologist’s position at the
event, Balewa paradoxically constructs a relatively robust representation of
solidarity with the colonial masters, which is later argued in subsequent
sections as a figment of an imagined community.
The
concept of "an imagined community," as argued in this paper, pertains
to the construction of a collective body of individuals who are conceptually
brought together within a psychological framework, despite lacking present
or foreseeable future interactions, based
on the shared notions of values, norms, and/or beliefs. In Anderson's
(2006) exploration of the complexities involved in defining the concept of a
nation and, more broadly, nationalism, he posits that a nation is
"imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow
members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each
lives the image of their communion" (Anderson, 2006:6). Building upon this notion,
Anderson proceeds to underscore the reasons behind
the designation of a community
such as Nigeria,
and by extension other communities, notably the United Kingdom, which
Balewa portrays as sharing the attributes of a unified nation, as an imagined
community. According to Anderson, a nation is:
Imagined as a community, because,
regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in
each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship.
Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two
centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly
to die for such limited
imaginings” (Anderson, 2006:7).
This
paper predominantly draws upon the aforementioned orientation for the data under analysis, positing an argument
that highlights Balewa's
role in constructing both
the Nigerian community and non-Nigerian communities, particularly the United Kingdom,
as entities of an imagined community, despite the newfound recognition that
Nigeria, within the immediate context of the discourse, assumes a sui generis
position as a newly established sovereign government. It is worth noting a
pivotal aspect that African scholarly works on colonialism have predominantly
inclined toward negative criticisms of European imperialism (refer, for
instance, to Achebe, 1959; Ngugi, 1986, 1967; Rodney,[2]
1972). While certain investigations have also put forth contentions regarding
the global social and economic advantages of colonialism for Africa (see, for example,
Idejiora-Kalu, 2019; Manning[3], 1974;
Settles, 1996), these suppositions are unable to sever the prevailing negative
perception of colonialism on the continent, which has been argued to be the root cause of underdevelopment in many of these nations
(Idejiora-Kalu, 2019). Thus, it logically follows that political speeches, such
as independence speeches, exhibit elements of power affirmation against the
colonial masters. However, as this study posits, the independence speech
delivered by Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the first Prime Minister of Nigeria,
deviates from this logical trajectory, as it communicates a more positive
response to colonial rule by forging and expressing a sense of solidarity with
both Nigerians and the colonial masters. This is not to imply that there exists
no scholarship on the communication of solidarity within political speeches of
this nature. Nur's (2015) analysis of the interpersonal meta-function in Nelson
Mandela's inaugural speech, for
instance, concludes that Mandela effectively conveys a sense of shared identity in his
discourse, notwithstanding his personal experiences of combating apartheid and
enduring years of imprisonment in South Africa.
However, linguistic research on Tafawa Balewa's independence speech has thus far failed to explore the complex ways in which the actor effectively conveys a sense of solidarity through his speeches, particularly by constructing an imagined community that perceives other nations as equal to Nigeria. Even Balarabe's (2018) critical discourse analysis (CDA) study, which delved into the speeches of selected Nigerian civilian and military heads of state, merely focused on Balewa's speech patterns, emotional expressions, manifestations of power, and ideological stances when compared to other analysed political discourses, neglecting to take into account the aspects of solidarity communication. A recent investigation conducted by Fowobaje et al. (2022), encompassing the inaugural addresses of Nigerian presidents and heads of state, including Balewa's speech, predominantly centred on sentiment analysis, text mining, and topic modelling across diverse speeches, without affording due attention to the explicit transmission of solidarity. Consequently, this paper fills this gap with a comprehensive examination of how Tafawa Balewa effectively communicates a sense of solidarity within his independence speech, delivered on the momentous date of October 1, 1960, directed towards his compatriots and extending to various other nations, most notably the colonial power, the United Kingdom, to present all as an imagined community tied with a common goal.
Overview of Nigerian Independence
In
the late nineteenth century, the ratification to expand the hegemonic scope of
Europe was formalised by an incursion into Africa at the Berlin
Conference of 1884-1885. Nigeria thus became a British colony, while some
others, such as Côte d'Ivoire and Cameroon, fell under French colonial rule,
with the former referred to as Anglophone and the latter Francophone
(Idejiora-Kalu, 2019). In pre-colonial Nigeria,
people shared a common value
system and ruled their regions in a monarchical system:
emirs in the North, kings,
chiefs and Báálẹ̀ [4] in the eastern and western parts (Falola, 2009).
Despite the diversity in religion, language and culture, the Nigeria of the time was territorially ordered as an imagined community, “conceived as a deep,
horizontal comradeship” (Anderson, 2006:7), before the enforced invasion of the
British. According to Falola (2019),
“colonization was achieved
in Nigeria either
by the use of war or by surrender because of the threat of war” (2009:1). Notably, many monarchs
and kings were either
killed or dethroned by British officials
because of their resistance and commitment
to protecting their territories:
“King Jaja of Opobo,
for opposing the British advance
into the interior
market, was crushed and exiled in 1887; the Ijebu were attacked and defeated in 1892;
Ologboshere, who wanted to regain Benin’s independence, was defeated and
executed in 1899; King Ibanichuka of Okrika was removed from power and exiled
in 1898; and the Nupe and Ilorin were attacked and defeated in 1897” (Falola,
2009:1).
With
the establishment of colonial rules at the beginning of the twentieth century,
the main aim of the colonial masters to exploit Nigeria's mineral resources
began. Palm oil and palm kernels, cocoa and groundnuts were the main cash crops
transported from Nigeria for commercialisation in Europe, which was achieved by
forcing young men and adults to work. Enforcement of law in the form of taxes and low wages for indigenous people
was done through the appointment of indigenous regional and local leaders. Conflict
resolution and expression of opinions were only done through oral discussions with the
British regional heads through the indigenous chiefs. This master-slave
relationship continued until the early 1940s, when many Nigerians became
educated and put their political thoughts in writing (Falola, 2009).
This
period, according to Falola (2009), was crucial to the realisation of Nigeria’s
independence, as political actors such as Nnamdi Azikwe,
Sardauna of Sokoto,
Tafawa Balewa, and Obafemi
Awolowo, advanced to disengage the British from power, and instigated a
considerable number of youths to
challenge the British laws in public. This politically led activism resulted in political consciousness and a fight for power among
young men and women, such that public discourse during this time was centred on nationalism. Notably,
political writers like Nduka Eze, Chinua Achebe (1930-2013) and Christopher Okigbo
(1932-1967), who are today called post-colonial Nigerian literary writers,
published several works of art to challenge the British government and seek
independence (Falola, 2009). As
Falola (2009) further notes, much of the activism was peaceful: elites mainly
expressed their need for reforms, political agitations, and change of power
through writings and public discussions, even though they were radically
aggressive in their styles.
Later in May 1957 at the London Conference, the motion for independence was raised, where Chief Obafemi Awolowo, leader of the Action Group (AG) of the Western Region, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, leader of National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) of the Eastern Region, and Sir Ahmadu Bello, leader of Northern Peoples’ Congress (NPC) of the Northern region, centred their discussions on having an autonomous state and sought the Queen’s approval to have it in 1959 (Ezera, 1959). Due to Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd, the Colonial Secretary’s refusal for the claim that there still existed some local power consolidation needed to be fixed across regions of Nigeria, the proposal for independence was moved to April 1960, after which October 1st, 1960 was chosen and celebrated as the Independence Day of Nigeria (Falola, 2009). These sequential occurrences really shape the Nigerian post-independence rhetoric as the violent imposition of colonial rule and subsequent intellectual resistance contextualise the reason for Balewa’s conciliatory stance in his demonstration.
Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
This
study employs a qualitative method to describe the linguistic mechanisms
through which Balewa creates and expresses solidarity with two groups—Nigerians and non-Nigerians—and has been successfully used to
investigate studies on the analysis of political speeches (e.g., De Cock and
Van Oudheusden, 2015; Filindra, et al., 2020).
The data analysed in this study is the Independence Speech of Nigeria’s First Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, on October 1st,
1960, and it is publicly available data,
thereby not requiring any ethical
consideration for collection and use. Specifically, the study uses “Politeness
Strategies” developed by Brown and Levinson (1987) and “Deixis” identified in
earlier works such as Bar-Hillel (1954), Jakobson (1957), Fillmore (1975),
Silverstein (1976), Lyons (1977) and Levinson (1983) to examine the creation
and expression of solidarity in the speech under analysis. Complementarily, it
builds on Fairclough's (1995) CDA framework to show power dynamics in the speech.
On
the first hand, politeness strategies are employed with the underlying premise
that individuals engage in interactive behaviours that acknowledge and
anticipate mutual recognition (Oke, 2021). These strategies serve as analytical
tools to investigate how Tafawa Balewa's language use profoundly manifests a high degree
of social inclusivity towards his two distinct sets of addressees: Nigerians and non-Nigerians. Drawing inspiration from Goffman's (1967) concept of
"face" as the positive social
value individuals claim for themselves through the perceived stance adopted during a given interaction (Goffman,
1967, as cited in Oke, 2021), Brown and Levison (1987) delineate
five distinct strategies individuals employ to navigate face-threatening acts
(FTAs), which are defined as “any action or utterance, however mild, which
might conceivably upset the delicate balance of face maintenance” (Bloor and
Bloor, 2007:102). These strategies include Bald-on Record, Off-record, Positive Politeness, Negative Politeness, and Do
Not Do the Act. For
the analysis, it is important to
note that all these strategies are considered, except for the Do Not Do the Act[5] strategy, as it lacks any discernible
manifestation within the analysed speech.
The employment
of the Bald-on-Record strategy is primarily observed among individuals who
share a close affinity, as it entails the explicit and unambiguous expression
of ideas and points (Oke, 2021). This strategy is utilised by Balewa to convey a sense of urgency in delivering his points
to his addressees, thereby presenting them as coalescing around a shared goal. Lexically, the utilisation
of modals and transitive verbs facilitates the creation of direct statements,
thereby minimising ambiguity and asserting certainty. Additionally, this strategy serves to underscore Balewa's
profound phraseological awareness as an authority figure and activist in the
struggle for independence, necessitating the use of direct and unambiguous
sentences due to his extensive
involvement in the process. Conversely, the Off-record strategy adopts a relatively indirect
approach to address one's addressee. In the analysis of Balewa's phraseology,
this strategy serves to alleviate pressure on his addressees (Olorunsogo,
2020), employing tactics such as irony, indirectness, ambiguity, vagueness, and
hinting (Brown and Levinson, 1978).
The Positive
Politeness strategy is employed to examine how Balewa fosters
a sense of respect and solidarity towards Nigerians, particularly those who contributed to the struggle
for sovereignty, as well as colonial
masters who facilitated its smooth and expeditious realisation. In the language of Oke
(2021:40), “expressions that show solidarity and agreement are manifestations
of positive politeness strategy.” Lastly, the Negative Politeness strategy is
employed to explore how Balewa, despite his authoritative position as the Prime
Minister, avoids expressions that may impose or convey aggressive
authoritativeness, to preserve the face of his addressees. While Brown and
Levinson (1987) outline mechanisms such as admitting the impingement and seeking forgiveness, incurring debt, and conventional
indirectness as means for this strategy, the speech specifically realises it
through hedging, which engenders solidarity
within his "imagined community." Hedging, as defined by Bloor and
Bloor (2007), involves
linguistic devices that purposefully evade complete commitment or precision. Such devices include approximators and modals,
with the former encompassing terms such as "roughly, approximately, sort of, more or less,
about," and the latter incorporating words such as "may,
might, could, should, possibly, probably" (Bloor and Bloor, 2007:104).
Overall, the analysis delves into how the utilisation of these politeness
strategies illuminates the multifaceted nature of Balewa's language usage,
ultimately revealing the profound social inclusivity embedded within his
discourse as he engages with both Nigerians and non-Nigerians.
On
the contrary, deixis is strategically employed to scrutinise the projection of
inclusivity through Balewa's adept utilisation of pronouns. Deixis, in its
prototypical sense, refers to the linguistic encoding of spatial and temporal
relations between objects and entities (Jeffries and McIntyre, 2010).
Notably, pronouns, as Mulderrig (2012)
cogently argues, belong to a closed class of deictic
expressions, rendering their meaning context-dependent rather than
intrinsically encoded (Mulderrig, 2012). Consequently, the analysis of the data
presented in this study meticulously examines the subjective and objective
cases of a plural personal pronoun employed within the speech (we, our, us),
unravelling the profound mechanisms through which they engender a sense of
solidarity between the speaker and their addressees. Mulderrig (2012:708) convincingly posits
that "the speaker
or writer is located at [the] deictic centre,
and meanings are interpreted concerning
that reference point." Therefore, situated as the speaker at the deictic centre of the
discourse, Balewa deftly utilises these pronouns as powerful conduits for
projecting an in-group dynamic. Remarkably, they traverse a dynamic continuum, seamlessly transitioning from addressing Nigerians to non-Nigerians, all the while forging and reinforcing in-group
relations. The nuanced interpretation of this fluid pronoun movement,
intricately intertwined with the contextual fabric in which it occurs, emerges
as a pivotal factor in discerning its profound significance within the speech.
Lastly, Fairclough’s (1995) CDA framework is complementary used to identify how Balewa’s solidarity serves ideological functions, naturalising postcolonial hierarchies. Focusing particularly at the level of social practice, the study foregrounds how his strategic use of certain pronouns (e.g., we) does more than mark courtesy but embeds his speech within the very power structures he ostensibly negotiates. By aligning himself linguistically with colonial authorities, this framework helps the study to show Balewa’s discourse as participating in a larger socio-historical process whereby elite collaboration becomes coded as national progress, thereby effectively legitimating asymmetrical governance (Fairclough, 1995; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). This discursive allegiance works to reproduce a hegemonic consensus that positions colonial masters as rightful arbiters of development, thereby perpetuating subordinate status for indigenous actors.
Analysis
The
analysis of the data presented here answers two primary questions raised by
this study, namely, how Balewa
creates and expresses
solidarity with fellow
Nigerians and how he creates and expresses it with
non-Nigerians, especially the colonial masters. As noted earlier, while this
study relies heavily on two theoretical
foundations discussed in Section 3, namely
“politeness strategies” and “deixis”, it complementarily builds on Fairclough’s
CDA framework. For the sake of differentiation, exact quotes from the
speech under analysis are put in italics in this section.
Balewa’s Creation and
Expression of Solidarity with Fellow Nigerians
Balewa begins his creation
and expression of solidarity with fellow Nigerian
through an expression of a
common goal (independence), a unilateral social issue where he, as a social actor, swiftly recounts what Scollon
(2001:140) puts as the production of “the histories and habitus of their daily lives which is the ground in which
society [Nigeria][6]
is produced and reproduced.” Employing
a bald-on-record politeness strategy,
he directly, as a matter of
urgency, sets the floor for the main focus of the day by saying:
Today is Independence Day. The first
of October 1960 is a date to which for two years every Nigerian has been
eagerly looking forward.
Through this,
he forthwith intelligently connects it to an inclusive expectation by placing himself along with other Nigerians at a deictic
centre through the use of an objective
case plural pronoun “our”,
all of them being the experiencer of the action performed by an implicitly
represented agent. We are made to see how Balewa also tightly forms a more
imagined community-based solidarity with his use of positive politeness,
representing people of the community with the umbrella term “Nigeria” which
rightly forms particularity of the people and their universality of thoughts as
“indeed an independent sovereign nation”.
He
further moves to his expression of joy and, more importantly, he expresses the
primacy of his readiness to ensure a socially connected new nation with the
statement:
Words cannot adequately express my joy and pride at
being the Nigerian citizen privileged to accept from Her Royal Highness these
Constitutional Instruments which are the symbols of Nigeria’s Independence
This is linguistically realised
through an incorporation of an off-record strategy
whereby he refers to himself as a product of a common
nation “Nigerian citizen” (to avoid claim of authority
and (because of that) threatening the face of fellow
Nigerians whose instincts
may present Balewa as being authoritative) and bald-on
record strategy to also express his commitment to the service of others whom he rightly
codes as “Nigeria”. This commitment to service, as he further expresses, is achieved via
hedging as he represents such a position of authority as “a unique privilege which I shall remember forever”, thereby
creating the awareness of their existence and his desire to work towards
connecting that to his psyche in governance, hence solidarity. With his further deployment of the person
deixis “our” and not “my” as he might solitarily do,
we are made to see Balewa’s clever formation of an in-group with other
Nigerians via his tight dedication of himself to what he describes as “the service of our country”.
Moving
forward, instead of using a legitimation strategy like a singular personal
pronoun “I” for the projection of authority being a key activist in the
agitation for independence, Balewa forms solidarity via the pronoun
“we” and presents
collective activism in the fight for independence which he joyfully
describes as “is all the more wonderful because we have awaited it…”.
However, as he further puts it, it is partly surprising to see Balewa’s
expression of out-group in the speech with his use of the pronoun “another” [one], which is very uncommon in
his focus on in-groupness throughout the speech. And partly, it is not
surprising as this usage brings into play the unwantedness of colonialism for any individual or nation for which its mental
legacy may be difficult, not to say impossible, to expunge from the
victim’s cognition. However, this creation of out-groupness is swiftly replaced
with the expression of solidarity with fellow compatriots through a series of
subjective and objective plural pronouns “us”,
“we” and “our” respectively. He tightly connects their achievement of
independence to collectivism with these deictic markers in his statement:
This is a wonderful day, and it is all the more
wonderful because we have awaited it with increasing impatience, compelled to watch
one country after another one overtook us on the road
when we had so nearly reached our goal.
He moves on to, with the use of a positive politeness strategy, forming inclusivity and recognition of being the
same, according to the success of gaining freedom through their collective
efforts, saying that “but now we have
acquired our rightful status”. He thenceforth creates another level of
solidarity by presenting Nigerians as manoeuvre nation builders who, at that point, were not after
elephantiasis of their
new nation, but rather wanted
a government of their
individual and, at the same collective control. This is achieved via a bald-on-record
strategy of expressions of certainty
and confidence through
“sure”, being direct and confident,
and the pronoun “our” [nation] to
form collectivism, in his statement that:
I feel
sure that history will show that
the building of our nation
proceeded at the wisest
pace: it has been thorough, and Nigeria now stands well-
built upon firm foundations
Further
expression of solidarity is projected in Balewa’s attribution of the success of
the Day to every Nigerian through the deictic marker pronouns “we” and “our” and with the deployment of a negative politeness strategy to reduce negative
thought of any aggressive, if not
completely negative, action that emanated during the agitation. He projects
that:
It is with justifiable pride that we claim the achievement of our Independence o be unparalleled in the
annals of history.
He thus
presents such movement as “our
constitutional advance” which, according to him, “has been purposefully and peacefully planned with full and open consultation”. Balewa, lastly, in this
part, creates solidarity specifically with fellow political actors
whom he refers to as “we, elected representatives”, itself
forming solidarity with broader passively represented Nigerians who elected
them, thus a depiction of them being democratic and unionistic. This is linguistically realised via a bald-on-record
strategy, particularly with the past transitive “concentrated” and the continuous transitive “proving”, creating a sense of seriousness and unambiguousness, and in a broader sense,
the use of pronouns “we”, “our”, altogether forming in-group recognition of their efforts. These are
described in his statement:
At the time when our constitutional development entered upon its final phase, the emphasis was largely upon
self-government. We, the elected representatives of the people
of Nigeria concentrated on proving that we were fully capable of managing our own
affairs both internally and as a nation.
These linguistic mechanisms, altogether, project Balewa’s creation and expression of solidarity with fellow compatriots, including ordinary citizens and fellow political activists, arguing for his high level of support and collectivism towards the realisation of the new nation. More specifically, Balewa’s use of plural first-person pronouns “we”, “our”, and “us” as deictic markers above not only fosters inclusivity/solidarity but also constructs a nationalist ideology where unity transcends regional and ethnic divisions
Balewa’s Creation and Expression of Solidarity with Non-Nigerians
Per
contra to forming with Nigerians, Balewa moves his creation and expression of
solidarity to non-Nigerians. This is first seen in his formation of a globally
inclusive new nation as he describes the kind of orientation expected of
Nigerians to have towards other nations of the world in his statement: “However, we were not to be allowed the selfish luxury of focusing our interest on our own homes.” This is complemented by a further
projection of his implicit
claim of regarding other non-Nigerian nations as “an imagined community” which he believes to be the same as them
(Nigerians), especially due to advancements in communication. In his words: “In these days of rapid communications, we cannot live in isolation, apart from the rest
of the world, even if we wish to do so.” His synthesisation of both
positive and negative politeness strategies
in this respect is so apt
that he makes them aware of their importance and value while he avoids their feeling
of excommunication. He lastly expresses solidarity through his and, of course,
Nigeria’s readiness to collaborate with the global community via the bold-on-record strategy,
which shows directness, certainty, and unambiguousness through his statement:
“This
great country, which has now emerged without bitterness or bloodshed, finds
that she must at once be ready to deal with grave international issues.”
Balewa
continues with a brief narration of the processes of deliberation on
independence made with the colonial masters,
underscoring, with assurances and reassurances, the magnitude
of the task and their extreme readiness to beat the expectation. He creates, in the
end, an explicit recognition of their British masters’ systematic transfer of power to them:
Recent events have changed the scene beyond
recognition, so that we find ourselves today being tested to the utmost. We are
called upon immediately to show that our claims to responsible government are
well-founded, and having been accepted
as an independent state we must at once play an active part in maintaining the peace of
the world and in preserving civilisation. I promise you; we shall not fail for want of determination. And we come to this task better equipped than many. For this, I pay tribute
to the manner in which successive British Governments have
gradually transferred the burden of responsibility to our shoulders.
This
negative politeness strategy is deployed at the end, which reduces the threat
of accusing the recipient of transferring “the
burden.” It also references the dilemmatic state of Balewa, presenting
independence or, more broadly, power as a burden, but always wanted by people. This strategy thus neatly removes
the threat that may occur
to the face of the addressees.
This is later supported by his use of the bald-on-record strategy to further
express his recognition of the specific supports of the secretaries of state,
stating that:
The assistance and unfailing encouragement which we
have received from each Secretary of State for the Colonies
and their intense
personal interest in our development has immeasurably
lightened that burden.
Balewa
then forms an explicit in-group identity with colonial masters through his use
of a positive politeness strategy, forming
commonness by saying
“our friend” and that “they have
helped to lay the foundations of a lasting friendship between our two nations.”
This use of “our” rightly puts
Nigeria and the UK at the deictic centre with the formation of an expected
perpetual solidarity. Balewa
further incorporates the bald-on-record
and the positive politeness
strategy to express certainty and directness while unambiguously connecting
Nigeria with the United
Kingdom into a more institutionalised form of solidarity: “Commonwealth” by claiming that both would have an
increased cordiality as a result of the achievement of the former’s new nation.
I have indeed every confidence that, based on the
happy experience of a successful partnership, our future relations with the United
Kingdom will be more cordial
than ever, bound together, as we shall be in the Commonwealth.
He
finally makes this creation of solidarity between him and “we”, referring to Nigerians, more explicit
through his use of bald-on-record strategy, where he confidently and unambiguously refers to Queen Elizabeth as “Queen of Nigeria and Head of the
Commonwealth.” This, without
doubt, projects Balewa’s
high-level expression of solidarity as it is relatively uncommon for a
sovereign state like the Nigeria of that moment to refer to the leader of
another state as its leader, as represented in the address term “Queen.” It can
be argued, however, that this is a clever expression of diplomacy needed at
such a moment.
Lastly,
Balewa maintains another more intense level of solidarity by attributing the
building of the new nation to British officials, as opposed to the logical
attribution of it to himself as a leading independence agitator or fellow Nigerians, even though
he expresses this quite well,
as previously argued
above. We are nonetheless made to see that while Balewa may show
gratitude to British officials, this gratitude reflects diplomatic necessity
rather than genuine endorsement of colonialism, given Nigeria’s previous
violent subjugation. Still, this use of
the positive politeness strategy to form in-group relations and collectivism with the UK shows his and Nigeria’s recognition of the British
support, thereby presenting themselves as grateful with his statement:
We have with us representatives of those who have made Nigeria
[…] Thank you for your devoted
service which helped build up Nigeria into a nation. Today we are reaping the
harvest which you sowed, and the quality of the harvest is equalled only by our
gratitude to you.
This statement explicitly and aptly demonstrates the completeness of the sincerity in Balewa’s formation of solidarity with the United Kingdom and the necessity of diplomatic formation. Thus, these linguistic mechanisms, like those used in the formation of solidarity with Nigerians, are also deployed largely for the creation and expression of solidarity with non-Nigerians, especially the United Kingdom.
Findings
The
analysis above revealed that in his independence speech, Tafawa Balewa
demonstrated remarkable proficiency in creating and expressing solidarity with
both fellow Nigerians and non-Nigerians. He skillfully employed various
linguistic strategies to foster a sense of unity and collective identity among
Nigerians. By emphasising the shared goal of independence and utilising
inclusive pronouns and positive politeness strategies, Balewa effectively established
a strong in-group solidarity. His eloquent use of language highlighted the
collective efforts of the Nigerian people and underscored their shared
responsibility in achieving independence. It was argued that Balewa extended
his solidarity beyond national boundaries, recognising the interconnectedness of nations in the modern
world. He emphasised the importance of
collaboration and conveyed Nigeria's willingness to engage with the global
community. Through his speech, Balewa conveyed a sense of inclusivity and
stressed the mutual interests and common humanity
that bind different
nations together. By acknowledging
the significance of international relations and emphasising Nigeria's readiness to address
global issues, he effectively conveyed a sense of solidarity with
non-Nigerians.
Very interestingly, the analysis also revealed that he displayed a sense of gratitude towards the colonial masters for their role in the transfer of power and nation-building. By recognising the contributions of the British officials and expressing gratitude for their devoted service, Balewa solidified the bond between the two nations with language patterns showing a sense of appreciation. By implication, this analysis revealed the tension between solidarity and sovereignty as Balewa’s rhetoric balances gratitude with subtle assertions of autonomy as reflected in his framing of independence as a “burden”, thereby transferring agency to Nigerians.
Conclusion
Examining the use of politeness strategies at one extreme to the analysis of pronoun as a deictic marker at another, this paper contends that while political actors often exercise authoritative power in speeches like independence speech, Balewa's address transcends mere projection of power, embodying a profound expression of solidarity and diplomacy not only towards his fellow Nigerians but also towards other communities, with particular emphasis on the United Kingdom. By employing a range of politeness strategies, including bald-on-record, off-record, positive politeness, and negative politeness, Balewa adeptly establishes and expresses solidarity with both Nigerians and non-Nigerians, exemplifying his inclusive and goal-oriented approach as a political figure. Furthermore, this paper has shown the use of plural personal pronouns such as "we," "us," and "our" as person deictic markers, strategically positioning Balewa, his fellow Nigerians, other communities, and ultimately the British colonial masters at the deictic centre. This deliberate formation of an "imagined community" tied to notions of solidarity and diplomacy reinforces the interconnectedness and shared sense of identity among diverse groups. By examining Balewa's astute linguistic choices, this paper sheds light on his ability to forge a collective consciousness and foster unity on multiple levels across national boundaries. Consequently, this paper concludes by emphasising the inclusive and goal-oriented nature of Balewa's political persona and underscores the impact of his solidarity projection in shaping Nigeria's relationship with its colonial master since attaining independence. As a result, it is suggested that further research compare Balewa’s speech with other independence leaders (e.g., Nkrumah, Kenyatta) to assess whether solidarity rhetoric was a regional trend or unique to Nigeria.
Bibliography
Achebe,
C. (1959). Things fall apart.
Anchor Books.
Anderson,
B. R. O. (2006). Imagined
communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism [E‑book].
Verso. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb01609.0001.001
Balarabe,
S. (2018). Critical
discourse analysis of selected inaugural speeches of Nigerian civilian and
military heads of state (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ahmadu
Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
Bar‑Hillel,
Y. (1954). Indexical expressions. Mind,
63(249), 359–379.
Bloor,
M., & Bloor, T. (2007). The
practice of critical discourse analysis: An introduction. Hodder
Education.
Brown,
P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness:
Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
De Cock,
B., & Van Oudheusden, K. (2015). The mediation of political speeches:
A critical discourse analysis of Nelson Mandela’s auto/biography. Journal of Language and Politics, 14(4),
476–498.
Ezera,
K. (1959). Nigeria’s constitutional road to independence. Retrieved April 5,
2023, from https://disa.ukzn.ac.za/sites/default/files/pdf_files/asjan59.15.pdf
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical
discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
Fairclough,
N. (2017). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. In R.
Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 251–265).
Routledge.
Falola,
T. (2009). Colonialism and
violence in Nigeria. Indiana University Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gla/detail.action?docID=474474
Fillmore,
C. J. (1975). Santa
Cruz lectures on deixis. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Filindra,
A., et al. (2020). Discourses of immigrant integration: A critical analysis of
E Pluribus Unum versus multiculturalism in the United States. Journal of Language and Politics, 19(2),
244–269.
Fowobaje,
K. R., Mashood, L. O., Ekholuenetale, M., & Ibidoja, O. J.
(2022). Qualitative content analysis of Nigeria heads-of-state and presidents’
inaugural addresses: Text mining, topic modelling and sentiment analysis. Nature Public Health Emergency
Collection. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36536856/
Goffman,
E. (1967). Interaction
ritual: Essays in face-to‑face behavior. Aldine Publishing Company.
Idejiora‑Kalu,
N. (2019). Understanding the effects of the resolutions of the 1884–85 Berlin
Conference to Africa’s development and Euro‑Africa relations. Prague Papers on the History of
International Relations, 2, 99–108. https://praguepapers.ff.cuni.cz/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2020/12/Ndubuisi_Idejiora-Kalu_99-108.pdf
Jakobson,
R. (1957). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In R. Jakobson
(Ed.), Selected writings:
Word and language (pp. 130–147). Mouton de Gruyter.
Jeffries,
L., & McIntyre, D. (2010). Stylistics.
Cambridge University Press.
Johns,
E. (1979). African
Literature Today, No. 10. Heinemann.
Levinson,
S. C. (1983). Pragmatics.
Cambridge University Press.
Legit.ng.
(2021, June 25). Independence Day: Read Tafawa Balewa’s speech on
October 1st, 1960. Legit.ng.
https://www.legit.ng/nigeria/1495353-independence-day-read-tafawa-balewas-speech-october-1st-1960/
Lyons,
J. (1977). Semantics.
Cambridge University Press.
Manning,
P. (1974). Analyzing the costs and benefits of colonialism. African Economic History Review, 1(2),
15–22.
Mulderrig,
J. (2012). The hegemony of inclusion: A corpus-based critical discourse
analysis of deixis in education policy. Discourse
& Society, 23(6), 701–728.
Ngũgĩ,
W. T. (1967). A grain of
wheat. Heinemann.
Ngũgĩ,
W. T. (1986). Decolonizing
the mind: The politics of language in African literature. James
Currey.
Nur,
S. (2019). Analysis of interpersonal metafunction in public speeches: A case
study of Nelson Mandela’s presidential inauguration speech. The International Journal of Social
Science, 30(1), 52–63.
Oke,
I. A. (2021). Politeness
in language use: A socio-pragmatic study of characters’ discourse in Soji
Cole’s Embers and Ola Rotimi’s The Gods Are Not Blamed (Unpublished
BA project). Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria.
Olorunsogo,
D. (2020). Pilot study: Politeness strategies in selected doctor–patient
interactions in Ibadan private hospitals. International
Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 4(8),
489–495. www.rsisinternational.org
Rodney,
W. (1973). How Europe
underdeveloped Africa. Bogle‑L’Ouverture Publications. https://abahlali.org/files/3295358-walter-rodney.pdf
Scollon,
R. (2001). Action and text: Towards an integrated understanding of the place of
text in social (inter)action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of
social action. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis
(pp. 139–183). Sage Publications Ltd.
Settles,
J. D. (1996). The impact of colonialism on African economic development
(Chancellor’s Honors Program Project). University of Tennessee. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/182
Silverstein,
M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In
K. H. Basso & H. A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology (pp. 11–55).
University of New Mexico Press.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.).
(2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
[1] BA Linguistics (BUK) MSc Applied
Linguistics (Glasgow), is a forensic analyst at Kunle Gbade & Co, Lagos,
Nigeria, where he works on linguistic analysis of legal documents and evidence.
His research interest is in the broad field of applied linguistics.
[2] Walter Rodney’s work, How Europe underdeveloped Africa offers
a comprehensive argument on how Europe exploited Africa, leading to their own
development while they underdeveloped Africa.
[3] Manning’s work offers a discussion of
the cost and benefits of colonialism in the African continent.
[4] Báálẹ̀ is the Yoruba address term for the head of a village or
town. Even with adoption of western civilisation, the term is still used in
many parts of the southwest Nigeria till date.
[5] This is regarded as the politest of
the five strategies which is often realised by keeping quiet and not talking
with the perception that the addressee’s face maybe threatened through any form
of talking.
0 Comments