Discursive Structures and Strategies in Yemi Osinbajo’s Opening Remarks at the National Security Summit

Cite this article as: Allagbe A. A., Amoussou F. & Hassane E. K. (2024). Discursive Structures and Strategies in Yemi Osinbajo’s Opening Remarks at the National Security Summit. Proceedings of International Conference on Rethinking Security through the lens of Humanities for Sustainable National Development Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Pp. 281-297.

Discursive Structures and Strategies in Yemi Osinbajo’s Opening Remarks at the National Security Summit

By

Ayodele Adebayo Allagbe
Département d’Anglais, Université André Salifou (UAS)
République du Niger

And

Franck Amoussou
Département d’Anglais, Université André Salifou (UAS)
République du Niger

And

Elisée Koma Hassane
Department of English and Literary Studies
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria

Abstract: This paper examines the discursive structures and strategies that Nigeria’s Former Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo (henceforth, the speaker) deploys in his speech delivered on February 8th, 2018 at the National Security Summit held in Abuja. Drawing its theoretical underpinnings from van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach and the descriptive mixed methods research design, the study specifically investigates how the speaker employs discursive structures and strategies in his speech to encode ideological meanings. It takes the view that the discursive structures and strategies the speaker employs are ontologically controlled by underlying personal and social cognitions. The findings reveal that the speaker uses, in varying proportions, such discursive structures as speech acts, sentence syntactic structures and propositional structures. They also indicate that he uses discursive strategies like Actor Description, Examples and Illustrations, Authority, Number Game and Rhetorical Figures. The study concludes that the speaker deploys the aforementioned discursive structures and strategies to construct and represent his perception of or/and worldviews about the security challenges (e.g. Boko Haram insurgency, kidnapping, murdering, killing, etc.) bedevilling his beloved country, Nigeria, on the one hand, and the efforts his government has made over time to curb these challenges, on the other. However, in his discursive construction and representation, as observed, the speaker emphasises his group’s properties, while he de-emphasises those of Others.

Keywords: Discursive structures and strategies, ideological meanings, opening remarks, sociocognitive approach, worldviews.

1.      Introduction

Extant scholarly studies on media discourse have examined how discursive and linguistic features (structures or/and strategies) are deployed to realise digital deception or perform interpersonal, attitudinal and ideological functions (Taiwo, 2017, Onanuga and Taiwo, 2020), self-legitimate or justify self, delegitimate others or a given action, point of view and encode ideologies or hidden meanings, power abuse and dominance (Sadeghi, Hassani and Jalali, 2014; Igwebuike, 2018; Purwanto, 2017; Mayoyo, Khaemba and Simiyu, 2020; Raj and Ahembe, 2021; Osisanwo, 2024a, b and c). In the same token, existing scholarly works on political discourse have investigated how discursive resources are employed to manipulate addressees or victims, or influence public minds and convey sociopolitical ideologies or ideological power relations (Sharndama, 2016; Amoussou and Aguessy, 2020; Osisanwo, 2016a, 2020; Fawunmi and Taiwo, 2021; Addae, Alhassan and Kyeremeh, 2022, Obasi, Amoniyan and Obetta, 2024, Allagbé, 2024a and b, etc.).

It is crystal clear in the foregoing that critical discourse analysts or critical linguists have amply explored the media and political discursive constructions and representations of sociopolitical realities in Nigeria and elsewhere. However, they have paid no attention to the political discursive constructions and representations of security challenges, say, in Nigeria. That is, the political speeches on security issues or challenges in the Nigerian context have not been systematically and critically explored to unveil how Nigerian politicians use language (discursive features, to be precise) to represent hidden or intended meanings. This is the vacuum that the ongoing research seeks to fill in. Stated clearly, this paper examines the discursive structures and strategies that Nigeria’s Former Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo (henceforth, the speaker) deploys in his speech delivered on February 8th, 2018 at the National Security Summit held in Abuja. Drawing its theoretical underpinnings from Teun Adrianus van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth, CDA) and the descriptive mixed methods research design, the study specifically investigates how the speaker employs discursive structures and strategies in his speech to encode ideological meanings. In line with the foregoing research objective, it seeks to answer the following questions:

1.      What discursive structures and strategies does the speaker deploy in his speech to encode ideological meanings?

2.      To what extent do these discursive structures and strategies express ideological meanings in the speech?

Before answering the above questions, let us revisit the literature on security challenges in Nigeria. This is meant to contexualise the subsequent analysis and interpretation of (the ideological meaning(s) encoded in) the speaker’s speech.

2.      Security Challenges in Nigeria and their Implications

Security issues in Nigeria have recently attracted the attention of researchers from different disciplines (Okonkwo, Ndubuisi- Okolo and Anagbogu, 2015, Oghuvbu and Chidozie, 2018, Akinsowon, 2021, Nwankwo, Elem, Onwe, Orji-Egwu and Ojo, 2023 to name but a few). However, these scholars seemingly do not agree on an exact number of security challenges and their implications in the country. Okonkwo, Ndubuisi- Okolo and Anagbogu (2015), for example, identify the root causes of insecurity in Nigeria and examine how they affect the country. The root causes of insecurity, these researchers identify, include ethno-religious conflict, weak security system, systemic and political corruption, unemployment, among others. They further point out that the aforementioned security challenges constitute a true menace to both human lives and properties, hinder business activities and deter foreign investors.

Oghuvbu and Chidozie (2018), on the contrary, ascribe the source of the security challenges bedevilling Nigeria to Boko Haram insurgency, and assert that this has severe effects on national development, especially in the North East as it reduces the inflow of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). These scholars advocate too that Boko Haram insurgency can be curbed by fighting corruption and providing employment to eradicate poverty and enhancing security. Akinsowon (2021) seems to concur with the foregoing when he submits that the root causes of security challenges in Nigeria include Boko Haram, Fulani herdsmen, armed banditry and kidnapping. He further points out that Nigeria is facing security crisis because of inadequate, misplaced and misguided security agenda. Nwankwo et al. (2023), on their part, observe that insecurity in Nigeria is caused by insurgent groups and bandits including the unknown gunmen that operate in broad day light unhindered. In addition, they note that the aforementioned security issues have resulted in a massive loss of lives and properties in the country. In order to curb insecurity in Nigeria, these scholars suggest that the government should adopt a dialogue or communication-based approach. Unlike the military-centered perspective which relies solely on force and stiff measures to fight agents of insecurity, the communication-based approach emphasises the role of communication as it serves to prevent enmity and promote peace and tranquility in the society. In point of fact, the media play in a vital role in communication in that they serve to inform the citizens on security issues and make the security agents be proactive instead of being reactive in protecting the nation from the threats posed by the insurgents operating within the country. In a bid to inform the public, political speeches on security challenges have been increasingly diffused in Nigeria, via the media. This is the case of the speech we have chosen for this study.

3.      Theoretical Framework

As mentioned earlier, this paper draws its theoretical underpinnings from Teun Adrianus van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth, CDA). This approach is a multidisciplinary theory of ideology (van Dijk, 2000a) which is articulated by the fundamental triangulation of discourse, cognition and society (van Dijk, 2006a). This is to say, it draws its insights from a range of disciplines including philosophy, sociology, political science, cognitive and social psychology, socio-linguistics, conversation analysis, discourse analysis, etc., to systemically account for how ideologies are expressed in social practices or how ideologies are expressed and reproduced by discourse. According to van Dijk (2000b, p. 7), ideologies can be simply glossed as the fundamental beliefs of a group and its members. Elsewhere, he considers ideologies as systems of principles which organise social cognitions and (are assumed to) control, through the minds of the members of a group, the social reproduction of the group (van Dijk, 1995b, p. 18).

In a bid to explain how ideologies are expressed and reproduced through language and communication, van Dijk increasingly emphasises their sociocognitive nature and structure. In fact, he cogently believes that ideologies are both social and cognitive. That is, “They essentially function as the interface between the cognitive representations and processes underlying discourse and action, on the one hand, and the societal position and interests of social groups, on the other hand” (van Dijk, 1995b, p. 18). He further highlights the social and cognitive functions of ideologies in these terms:

First of all, […] they [ideologies] organize and ground the social representations shared by the members of (ideological) groups. Secondly, they are the ultimate basis of the discourses and other social practices of the members of social groups as group members. Thirdly, they allow members to organize and coordinate their (joint) actions and interactions in view of the goals and interests of the group as a whole. Finally, they function as the part of the sociocognitive interface between social structures (conditions, etc.) of groups on the one hand, and their discourses and other social practices on the other hand (van Dijk, 2006a, p. 117).

As it appears, no use of language is neutral. This is to say, when people use language, they use it to encode their perception of social reality or worldviews about a given topic. To achieve their goals, they often make a deliberate choice of discursive and linguistic features (structures or/and strategies). For instance, if their goal is to talk about self, they will naturally say only positive things. On the contrary, when they describe others, they will do so in negative terms.

From a sociocognitive perspective, an ideological discourse analysis of any instance of language use, social practice or discourse is expected to unveil the discursive structures or/and strategies deployed therein and prove how these structures or/and strategies express ideologies or ideological meanings. Concurring with the foregoing, van Dijk (1995a, p. 143) submits that “The point of ideological discourse analysis is not merely to discover underlying ideologies, but to systematically link structures of discourse with structures of ideologies.” In this sense, this study analyses the discursive structures (speech acts, sentence syntax and propositional structures) and strategies (Actor Description, Examples and Illustrations, Authority, Number Game and Rhetorical Figures) that Nigeria’s Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo deploys in his speech delivered on February 8th, 2018 at the National Security Summit held in Abuja with a view to unveiling how these discourse resources encode ideological meanings. It takes the view that the discursive structures and strategies the speaker employs in the speech are ontologically controlled by underlying personal and social cognitions. Having sketched the theoretical framework of this study, let us now outline the methodology it employs.

4.      Methodology

As stated earlier, this paper examines the discursive structures and strategies that Nigeria’s Former Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo deploys in his speech delivered on February 8th, 2018 at the National Security Summit held in Abuja. It draws its theoretical underpinnings from van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach to CDA. It combines these theoretical underpinnings with the descriptive mixed methods research design. With this, it specifically investigates how the speaker employs discursive structures and strategies in his speech to encode ideological meanings. To achieve this goal, the analysis begins with the parsing of the speech into utterances or clause complexes. And the clause complexes are further split into clause simplexes. Then, the speech acts, sentence syntactic structures and propositional structures in the speech are identified, classified and quantified before the findings thereof are discussed qualitatively. However, the discursive strategies employed in the speech are only identified and discussed qualitatively. Due to space limitations, the full speech is not provided here.

Yemi Osinbajo’s speech under scrutiny was downloaded on September 17th, 2024 from The State House, Abuja (https://statehouse.gov.ng). The speech was chosen for this study mainly because of two reasons. First of all, the speech was chosen because of its content. In this speech, as observed, the speaker topically talks about the security challenges, his beloved country, Nigeria is facing and repeatedly articulates the efforts his government has made over time to curb these challenges. Secondly, the speech was chosen in that it is obviously marked by an overall strategy. This is to say, in an attempt to construct and represent the security challenges in Nigeria, especially the actors involved, the speaker adopts, in his speech, the overall strategy of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation (van Dijk, 1995a). The subsequent analysis is going to prove this.

5.      Analysis and Discussion of the Findings

The analysis first identifies the discursive structures and strategies the speaker deploys in his speech. Next it demonstrates how these structures and strategies encode ideological meanings therein.

 Analysis of Discursive Structures in the Speech

The analysis of discursive structures considers speech act, sentence syntax and propositional structures. Let us begin the analysis with speech acts.

5.1.1.      Speech Acts

The speech acts identified in the speech are presented in the table below.

Speech acts	Representatives	Directives	Commissives	Expressives	Declarative
Utterances	4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43; 46; 47; 48; 49; 50; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56; 57; 58; 59; 60; 61; 62; 63; 64; 65; 66; 67; 68; 69; 70; 71; 72; 73; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 79; 80 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; 86; 87; 88; 89; 90; 92; 93; 94; 95; 96; 97; 98; 99; 100; 101; 102; 103; 104; 105; 106; 107; 108; 109; 110; 111; 112; 113; 114; 117; 118; 120; 121; 122; 123; 124; 125; 126 and 129.	27; 28; 44; 45; 51; 115; 116; 119; 127 and 128.	38 and 91.	1; 2; 3; 12 and 130.	131.
Total and percentage	113 (86.26%)	10 (07.63%)	02 (01.53%)	05 (03.82%)	01 (00.76%)

Table 1: Distribution of speech acts in the speech.

As Table 1 clearly indicates, the speaker employs 131 utterances in his speech. Surprisingly, the table shows that he deploys all the five types of speech act. However, as the analysis suggests, he selects these speech acts in varying proportions: 113 representatives (i.e. 86.26%), 10 directives (i.e. 07.63%), 02 commissives (i.e. 01.53%), 05 expressives (i.e. 03.82%) and 01 declarative (i.e. 00.76%). As it appears, representatives rank first. They are followed by directives. Expressives come third. They are followed by commissives. And finally, declarative takes the rear. In point of fact, the speaker employs the aforementioned representatives to describe, represent and make claims about the security challenges in Nigeria. For instance, his use of utterances (4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10 and 11) describes the importance of prior security summits (whose goals, plan and engagements are in line with the ongoing summit he was about to launch) organised in the country:

4i. Hosting this summit underscores your recognition, 4ii. that the primary business of government is law and order (Rep). 5. And by government, I mean the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary (Rep). 6i. I am sure 6ii. that distinguished members will recall, 6iii. that the National Economic Council, comprising the Federal and State governments, had held a similar security summit in August last year, 6iv. at which we had the eminent company of the leadership of the National Assembly, the Chief Justice of Nigeria and all Service Chiefs and several other stakeholders (Rep). 7i. That Summit was important 7ii. because it took into account the several security challenges 7iii. our country have faced over the years 7iv. and currently still facing (Rep). 8. Also in September 2017 the month after, the federal government, after a year-long consultation with stakeholders, hosted a Stakeholders’ Conference on a 10 – year plan themed “Search of Sustainable Livestock Development and Peaceful Co-existence” (Rep). 9. That plan was launched at that conference in September. 10i. I am going to talk a bit about some of the issues 10ii. that were raised at that conference (Rep). 11. This very important security summit is an important part of the on-going engagements with stakeholders on the security concerns of our nation (Rep).

In addition, the speaker’s deployment of utterances (13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25 and 26) encodes his perception of or/and worldviews about the security challenges in the country. His representation actually unveils that Boko Haram existed quite well before the advent of his government, in 2015. It also reveals that this terrorist group is not the only security challenge his government inherited then. Other security challenges the country is facing, the speaker observes, include cattle rustling in the Northwest, clashes between farmers and herdsmen in the North Central region, militant activity in the South-south and kidnapping across the entire country. To this list, he adds the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) in the Northwest:

13i. Your Excellency, distinguished members of the National Assembly, Nigeria entered the New Year on a tragic and bloody note; 13ii. 73 persons were murdered in Benue State by persons 13iii. who were suspected to be herdsmen (Rep). 14. To the North, in southern Kaduna, Kaduna State, a traditional ruler and his pregnant wife were murdered in their home (Rep). 15i. Down south, in Rivers, a cult murdered more than 20 innocent persons 15ii. returning from a church vigil (Rep). 16i. On the 3rd of January, 16ii. 14 worshippers were killed in a mosque at Gamboru, 16iii. and on the 17th of January, a suicide bombing attack in Maiduguri claimed 10 lives (Rep). 17i. These incidents immediately served as a reminder 17ii. that there is no room for complacency in the task of securing Nigeria, 17iii. even against the backdrop of the remarkable progress we’ve recorded in the most critical of our security challenges at a time: the fight against Boko Haram (Rep). 18i. Indeed, Boko Haram is a good starting point for a conversation about security in Nigeria 18ii. as we go on to the more current and contemporary concerns 18iii. we have (Rep). .. 23i. Boko Haram was by no means the only security challenge 23ii. we inherited 23iii. when we took office in 2015 (Rep). 24i. Cattle rustling, pronounced in the Northwest; 24ii. clashes between farmers and herdsmen in the North Central region in particular and spreading out to other regions of Nigeria, 24iii. militant activity in the South-south and parts of the Southwest, simmering ethnic agitation in the Southeast, 24iv. and kidnapping across the entire country (Rep). 25i. There was also the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) in the Northwest, 25ii. increasingly emboldened to challenge the authority of the State (Rep).

Again, the speaker employs Utterances (30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36 and 37) to describe the efforts his government has made (through the security agencies) to curb security challenges in the country and the results these efforts have produced:

30. Understandably, as Boko Haram has receded in the public consciousness – in the 2017 Global Terrorism Index reported that deaths from terrorism dropped 80 percent in Nigeria in 2016; the biggest decrease worldwide – other security challenges have shuffled forward to take the place of Boko Haram threats (Rep). 31i. This does not mean 31ii. that these challenges are newly-emergent (Rep). 32i. What is new, is our approach and determination 32ii. to contain these threats 32iii. and protect the lives and property of all Nigerians (Rep). 33i. This determination can mostly be seen 33ii. in the way our security agents in particular have dealt with Boko Haram and several of the threats in parts of the country (Rep). …34i. Over the last three years, some of Nigeria’s deadliest criminal kingpins have been arrested 34ii. or killed (Rep). 35i. I think 35ii. credit must go to the security agencies for this (Rep). 36i. Khalid al-Barnawi, head of the al-Qaeda linked Ansaru terror group, and one of the most wanted terrorists in the world, [was] arrested in Kogi State in April 2016; 36ii. kidnap kingpin Evans ([was] arrested in Lagos State), 36iii. Dracula ([was] arrested in Delta), 36iv. Vampire ([was] arrested in Imo last year) (Rep). 37i. One of the more recent ones is Don Waney, cultist and mastermind of the New Year’s Day attack in Rivers State, 37ii. [who was] killed during a joint operation by the Military and the DSS at the end of 2017 (Rep).

Apart from representatives, the speaker uses 10 directives in his speech. He deploys nine utterances (27; 28; 44; 45; 115; 116; 119; 127 and 128) to make suggestions, indirect requests or entreaties and one utterance (51) to make a query. As it appears, the speaker recursively draws on these directives to get his addressees to act in a desired way.

·         suggestions or indirect requests or entreaties

27i. I want to say that because of the spread and diversity of these threats, 27ii. the nation’s security architecture was stretched, 27iii. engaging in several parts of the country and with the numbers 27iv. that we have, 27v. that in itself posed a problem for tackling as robustly as possible, 27vi. many of the challenges that we faced (Dir).

·         query

51. What then is being done about security? (Dir)

The speaker further deploys commissives to make promises related to his government’s engagement in fighting crimes and criminality and assisting State Governments’ peacebuilding efforts.

·         promises

38i. We will not relent in our efforts 38ii. to bring all of these criminals and others to justice (Com).

91i. The Federal Government fully endorses these peacebuilding efforts, 91ii. and will continue to give our support and assistance to State Governments in this regard (Com).

Again, the speaker uses expressives to express gratefulness, praise and pleasure. In fact, three of the commissives encode gratefulness (1; 3 and 130). The remaining two commissives (2 and 12) respectively express praise and pleasure.

·          gratefulness

1i. I am deeply grateful to the distinguished and honorable members of the National Assembly for this very kind invitation, 1ii. to speak at this crucial National Security Summit (Exp).

·          praise

2i. And I especially commend the distinguished majority leader of the Senate, Senator Ahmed Lawan 2ii. who leads the ad-hoc committee on Security Infrastructure (Exp).

·         pleasure

12i. I am extremely pleased 12ii. and support fully the Senate President 12iii. when he said 12iv. the challenges of our security infrastructure are the concern of all of us and not just those of us in government 12v. but all of who are concerned about the peace and harmony of our nation (Exp).

Finally, the speaker employs the only declarative speech act (131) in his speech to launch the summit:

131i. It is now my special privilege 131ii. to declare this very important summit open (Dec).

5.1.2.      Sentence Syntax

Table 2 exhibits the sentence syntactic structures identified in the speech.

Type	Frequency
Clause complex	131
Clause simplex	308
Sentence containing a process	43
Passive structure	47

Table 2: Distribution of sentence structures in the speech.

The table above plainly shows that the speaker deploys a total number of 131 sentences or clause complexes, and these sentences include a total number of 308 clause simplexes. Surprisingly, 43 out of these sentences contain only one process or verb (5; 8; 9; 11; 14; 26; 29; 30; 39; 42; 44; 46; 47; 48; 49; 51; 54; 57; 62; 64; 65; 66; 67; 71; 72; 78; 79; 80; 83; 86; 90; 103; 104; 106; 107; 108; 116; 122; 123; 125; 128; 129 and 130). This exudes a written mode. In other words, the speaker employs more clause simplexes than clause complexes in his speech. This suggests a spoken mode. The table indicates too that the speech comprises 47 passive structures (9; 10ii; 12i; 12v; 13ii; 13iii; 14; 16i; 22ii; 24i; 25ii; 27iii; 33i; 34i; 34ii; 36i; 36ii; 36iii; 37i; 37ii; 40v; 40vi; 40vii; 41iv; 42; 45iii; 51; 53ii; 55iv; 55v; 57; 58i; 58ii; 63iv; 63v; 72; 73iii; 73iv; 93iii; 100ii; 105i; 106; 111iv; 114i; 115ii; 116 and 117ii). The speaker uses the aforementioned passive structures to either suppress or conceal agency or background or de-emphasise it simply. On the contrary, the speaker deploys more active structures than passive ones. This implies that he clearly encodes the agency responsible for the actions depicted.

In effect, we notice in the two above-stated cases (activisation and passivisation), a certain varying description and attribution of actions to agents. For instance, when the speaker talks about self (himself, government or group), he only emphasises their good deeds. But when he talks about others (Boko Haram terrorists, criminals, herdsmen, etc.), he ascribes only negative properties to them. This unmistakably denotes the ideologically biased US and THEM polarisation. To prove all that has been said thus far, consider the clause complex below. It contains three clause simplexes (13i; 13ii and 13iii). While the first clause simplex (13i) is active, the remaining two are passive. In the first passive clause (13ii), we note that the agent is backgrounded but the agent is suppressed in the second one (13iii).

13i. Your Excellency, distinguished members of the National Assembly, Nigeria entered the New Year on a tragic and bloody note; 13ii. 73 persons were murdered in Benue State by persons 13iii. who were suspected to be herdsmen (Rep).

5.1.3.      Propositional Structures

The analysis of propositional structures is displayed in the table below.

Type	Clauses	Frequency
One-place predicate	1i; 1ii; 6i; 7i; 11; 12i; 12iv; 17ii; 18i; 18ii; 19i; 20ii; 22i; 23i; 24i; 24ii; 24iii; 24iv; 25i; 28ii; 30; 31i; 31ii; 32i; 35i; 35ii; 37i; 38i; 40ii; 40iv; 41iii; 43i; 44; 45iv; 50i; 52i; 60i; 60ii; 60iii; 61i; 61ii; 61iii; 62; 63i; 64; 65; 68i; 70i; 75ii; 75iii; 81i; 82i; 82ii; 83; 84ii; 84iii; 85i; 87i; 88i; 88ii; 89i; 92vi; 93ii; 94v; 95i; 96ii; 99ii; 100i; 101i; 102ii; 104; 105ii; 107; 109i; 109ii; 110i; 111i; 111ii; 111v; 111vi; 111viii; 114ii; 114iv; 118i; 120i; 120ii; 123; 126i; 126ii; 127iv; 129 and 131i.	92
Two-place predicate	2i; 2ii; 4i; 4ii; 5; 6ii; 6iii; 6iv; 7ii; 7iii; 7iv; 8; 9; 10i; 10ii; 12ii; 12iii; 12v; 13i; 13ii; 13iii; 14; 15i; 16i; 16ii; 17i; 17iii; 18iii; 19ii; 19iii; 20i; 21i; 21ii; 21iii; 21iv; 22ii; 23ii; 23iii; 25ii; 26; 27i; 27ii; 27iii; 27iv; 27v; 27vi; 27vii; 28i; 29; 32ii; 32iii; 33i; 33ii; 34i; 34ii; 36i; 36ii; 36iii; 36iv; 37ii; 38ii; 39; 40i; 40iii; 40v; 40vi; 40vii; 41i; 41ii; 41iv; 41v; 41vi; 41vii; 41viii; 41ix; 42; 43ii; 43iii; 45i; 45ii; 45iii; 45v; 46; 47; 48; 50ii; 50iii; 50iv; 51; 52ii; 52iii; 53i; 54; 55i; 55ii; 55iii; 55iv; 55v; 55vi; 56i; 56ii; 57; 58i; 58ii; 59i; 59ii; 61iv; 61v; 63ii; 63iii; 63iv; 63v; 63vi; 66; 67; 68ii; 69i; 69iii; 70ii; 71; 72; 73i; 73ii; 73iii; 73iv; 74i; 74ii; 74iii; 74iv; 75i; 76i; 76ii; 77i; 77ii; 78; 79; 80; 81ii; 82iii; 84i; 85ii; 86; 87ii; 88iii; 89ii; 90; 91i; 91ii; 92i; 92ii; 92iii; 92iv; 92v; 92vii; 93i; 93iii; 94i; 94ii; 94iii; 94iv; 95ii; 96i; 97i; 97ii; 98i; 98ii; 99i; 100ii; 101ii; 102i; 103; 105i; 106; 108; 110ii; 111iii; 111iv; 111vii; 112i; 112ii; 112iii; 113i; 113ii; 113iv; 113v; 113vi; 114i; 114iii; 115i; 115ii; 115iii; 115iv; 116; 117ii; 118ii; 119i; 119ii; 119iii; 119iv; 121i; 121ii; 122; 124i; 124ii; 125; 127i; 127ii; 127iii; 128; 130 and 131ii.	211
Three-place predicate	3; 53iii; 69ii; 100iii and 117i	05
Clause with a preposed adjunct	8; 14; 15i; 16i; 16ii; 17iii; 20i; 21i; 22i; 29; 30; 33ii; 34i; 39; 40i; 41i; 49; 59i; 60iii; 67; 72; 76i; 78; 79; 84i; 86; 89i; 90; 93i; 96ii; 99ii; 103; 104; 111iii; 115ii and 115iii.	36

Table 3: Distribution of propositional structures in the speech.

As Table 3 exudes, the speaker deploys 308 clauses. A cursory look at the table further reveals that he selects the three types of propositional structure: 92 one-place predicates (i.e. 29.87%), 211 two-place predicates (i.e. 68.51%) and 05 third-place predicates (i.e. 01.62%). As it appears, the speaker deploys two-place predicates more than the other types. The predominance of two-place predicates suggests that a great number of the clauses in the speech comprise two arguments, and that the verbs therein are transitive. The propositional analysis of these two-place predicates also unveils the following structures:

SVO: 2i. And I especially commend the distinguished majority leader of the Senate, Senator Ahmed Lawan ...

OVAA: 9. That plan was launched at that conference in September (Rep).

OVA: 10ii. that were raised at that conference (Rep)

OVAS: 13ii. 73 persons were murdered in Benue State by [persons 13iii. who were suspected to be herdsmen] (Rep).

As it appears above, the speaker manipulates the above-mentioned structures to encode positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation. For instance, Clause (2i) describes an event involving “commending” and two individuals: “I” (the speaker) and “the distinguished majority leader of the Senate, Senator Ahmed Lawan” (his group member). The pronoun “I” is the subject responsible for the act of commending (and since the speaker is acting on behalf of the government, the act of commending ideologically suggests display of power here) while the noun phrase “the distinguished majority leader of the Senate, Senator Ahmed Lawan” is the object that receives the act of commending. Like Clause (2i), Clause (13ii) represents an event involving two arguments: “73 persons” and “persons who were suspected to be herdsmen”. Unlike (2i) wherein the subject is the responsible agent, here it is the object “73 persons” which is deployed in the subject slot. In addition to the two arguments, this clause contains an adjunct: “in Benue State”, it indicates a place. As the preceding analysis plainly shows, in the first case, the speaker ascribes good properties to himself and his group member. But in the second case, he assigns a negative action (the act of murdering) to herdsmen.

Like the deployment of two-place predicates, the use of three-place predicates indicates that some clauses in the speech contain transitive verbs. Unlike in two-place predicates, these transitive verbs comprise three arguments. Again, the table showcases that 36 out of the 308 clauses are fronted by an adjunct. These adjuncts encode experiential meanings in the text (Eggins, 2004). Consider the clauses below. While the underlined adjuncts in (8; 16i and 16ii) express meanings about time, those in (14 and 15i) express meanings about place or location.

8. Also in September 2017 the month after, the federal government, after a year-long consultation with stakeholders, hosted a Stakeholders’ Conference on a 10 – year plan themed “Search of Sustainable Livestock Development and Peaceful Co-existence” (Rep). … 14. To the North, in southern Kaduna, Kaduna State, a traditional ruler and his pregnant wife were murdered in their home (Rep). 15i. Down south, in Rivers, a cult murdered more than 20 innocent persons 15ii. returning from a church vigil (Rep). 16i. On the 3rd of January, 14 worshippers were killed in a mosque at Gamboru, 16ii. and on the 17th of January, a suicide bombing attack in Maiduguri claimed 10 lives (Rep).

5.2.Analysis of Discursive Strategies in the Speech

The analysis of discursive structures deals with Actor Description, Examples and Illustrations, Authority and Rhetorical Figures. Let us start with Actor Description.

5.2.1.      Actor Description

In the previous sections, we furtively mentioned that the speaker’s discursive construction and representation of the security challenges in his country is marked by the overall strategy of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation. Let us illustrate this better here. We shall start with negative other-presentation. For instance, in utterances (13; 14; 15 and 16), the speaker describes some acts of terrorism (murdering and killing). While in utterance (13), he overtly ascribes the act of murdering to the de-emphasised agent “persons who were suspected to be herdsmen”, in utterance (15), he assigns it to the agent “a cult” placed in the subject slot. Like in utterance (15), he ascribes the act of killing in utterance (16) to the agent “a suicide bombing attack” placed in the subject slot. On the contrary, the speaker refrains from mentioning the agents responsible for the act of murdering in utterance (14) and the act of killing in utterance (16). This denotes concealment. It also suggests discursive manipulation (van Dijk, 2006b) or cognitive manipulation (Amoussou and Aguessy, 2020). This is to say, while the speaker conceals from his addressees the agents responsible for the acts of terrorism he describes, he diligently controls their minds or mental models. By so doing, he expects them to figure out, by making recourse to their personal cognitions or biographical experiences, the (identity of the) concealed agents.

13ii. 73 persons were murdered in Benue State by persons 13iii. who were suspected to be herdsmen (Rep). 14. To the North, in southern Kaduna, Kaduna State, a traditional ruler and his pregnant wife were murdered in their home (Rep). 15i. Down south, in Rivers, a cult murdered more than 20 innocent persons 15ii. returning from a church vigil (Rep). 16i. On the 3rd of January, 14 worshippers were killed in a mosque at Gamboru, 16ii. and on the 17th of January, a suicide bombing attack in Maiduguri claimed 10 lives (Rep).

In utterance (17), the speaker further ascribes all the aforementioned acts of terrorism to Boko Haram, which he admits is not the only security challenge the country is facing. Other security challenges the country is facing include cattle rustling in the Northwest, clashes between farmers and herdsmen in the North Central region, militant activity in the South-south, kidnapping across the entire country and the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) in the Northwest. Now let us turn to self-presentation. For example in utterances (20; 21 and 22), the speaker first recalls the security situation in Nigeria when his government came to power in 2015 before citing what they have done to change it. He deploys terms like “has done a remarkable job”, “reclaiming Nigerian territory”, “rescuing tens of thousands of civilians” and “routing Boko Haram” in utterance (21) alone. Surprisingly, he assigns all these good deeds to self; i.e. “our military”.

17i. These incidents immediately served as a reminder 17ii. that there is no room for complacency in the task of securing Nigeria, 17iii. even against the backdrop of the remarkable progress we’ve recorded in the most critical of our security challenges at a time: the fight against Boko Haram (Rep)…. 20i. In 2015, when the Buhari administration took office, 20ii. much of Northern Eastern Nigeria lay beneath the palpable shadow of the terrorist group (Rep). 21i. In the two and half years since then, our military has done a remarkable job, 21ii. reclaiming Nigerian territory, 21iii. rescuing tens of thousands of civilians, 21iv. and routing Boko Haram (Rep). 22i. Today the group is a shadow of itself, 22ii. forced to resort to cowardly suicide bombings and other attacks on soft targets in a desperate bid at attention-seeking (Rep).

5.2.2.      Examples and Illustrations

In a bid to convince his audience that his government has made some progress in less than three years, in office and their fight against Boko Haram, the speaker increasingly makes recourse to the discursive strategy of examples and illustrations. Consider how he does so in the text below. In utterance (30), after asserting that Boko Haram has receded, he mentions the 2017 Global Terrorism Index report which states that deaths from terrorism dropped 80 percent in Nigeria in 2016; the biggest decrease worldwide. In the same utterance still, while he asserts that his government’s military intervention has made Boko Haram threats recede in the country, he does admit that other new security challenges (including criminality, terrorism, kidnapping and cultism) have shuffled forward. To prove the effectiveness of his government’s security approach, the speaker subsequently cites, in utterances (34; 35; 36 and 37), the names of some Nigeria’s deadliest criminal kingpins that “our security agents” have arrested or killed.

30. Understandably, as Boko Haram has receded in the public consciousness – in the 2017 Global Terrorism Index reported that deaths from terrorism dropped 80 percent in Nigeria in 2016; the biggest decrease worldwide – other security challenges have shuffled forward to take the place of Boko Haram threats (Rep). 31i. This does not mean 31ii. that these challenges are newly-emergent (Rep). 32i. What is new, is our approach and determination 32ii. to contain these threats 32iii. and protect the lives and property of all Nigerians (Rep). 33i. This determination can mostly be seen 33ii. in the way our security agents in particular have dealt with Boko Haram and several of the threats in parts of the country (Rep). …34i. Over the last three years, some of Nigeria’s deadliest criminal kingpins have been arrested 34ii. or killed (Rep). 35i. I think 35ii. credit must go to the security agencies for this (Rep). 36i. Khalid al-Barnawi, head of the al-Qaeda linked Ansaru terror group, and one of the most wanted terrorists in the world, [was] arrested in Kogi State in April 2016; 36ii. kidnap kingpin Evans ([was] arrested in Lagos State), 36iii. Dracula ([was] arrested in Delta), 36iv. Vampire ([was] arrested in Imo last year) (Rep). 37i. One of the more recent ones is Don Waney, cultist and mastermind of the New Year’s Day attack in Rivers State, 37ii. [who was] killed during a joint operation by the Military and the DSS at the end of 2017 (Rep).

5.2.3.      Authority

Like in the case of examples and illustrations, the speaker deploys the ideological discursive strategy of authority to influence or persuade his addressees. He also employs it to legitimise his opinions. In point of fact, he uses this strategy three times (30; 40 and 41) in his speech. Note that while in utterance (30) he mentions or paraphrases the 2017 Global Terrorism Index report, he directly quotes President Muhammadu Buhari in utterances (40 and 41). In utterance (30), he mentions or paraphrases the 2017 Global Terrorism Index report with a view to legitimating his claim that terrorism has significantly receded in Nigeria. Likewise, in utterance (40), he quotes President Buhari to legitimate his view that terrorist acts are criminal and evil, on the one hand, and confirm his government’s promise (made in utterance 39) to fight against and get rid of these criminal acts in Nigeria, on the other. On the contrary, he quotes President Buhari in utterance (41) to make claims about his engagement in the fight against terrorism (especially terrorists irrespective of their ethnic affiliation) and delegitimise the popular opinion “48. …. that because President Buhari is Fulani he has ignored the killings by herdsmen […] (Rep)”.

30. Understandably, as Boko Haram has receded in the public consciousness – in the 2017 Global Terrorism Index reported that deaths from terrorism dropped 80 percent in Nigeria in 2016; the biggest decrease worldwide – other security challenges have shuffled forward to take the place of Boko Haram threats (Rep)… 40i. And rightly so, as Mr. President himself said, 40ii. “I am a soldier, 40iii. I have seen death in warfare 40iv. but the callous killing of innocent people especially women and children is cowardly and despicable in the extreme 40v. and it must [be] prevented 40vi. or stopped 40vii. and the perpetrators must be punished” (Rep). 41i. In his statement of commiseration to the Governor of Benue State Mr. President said 41ii. and I quote 41iii. “This is one attack too many, 41iv. and everything must be done 41v. to provide security for the people in our rural communities, 41vi. I have ordered the security agencies 41vii. to find 41viii. and capture the perpetrators, 41ix. they must face justice.” (Rep)

5.2.4.      Number Game

In addition, the speaker employs the ideological discursive strategy of numbers and figures to either substantiate his claims or convey facts with a view to manipulating his audience. For instance, in utterances (13; 14; 15 and 16), the speaker respectively deploys “73 persons”; “a man and his pregnant wife (i.e. two persons); “more than 20 innocent persons” and “10 lives”. All these figures are meant to sustain the claim that Boko Haram is a criminal organisation. In contrast, in utterance (21), he employs the numbers “two and half years” and “tens of thousands of civilians” to prove that his government has made some progress in terms of terrorism reduction. Likewise, in utterance (30), he uses the number “80 percent” to sustain the decrease of terrorist attacks in the country since 2016 (just a year after they took office). In the same token, he uses the numbers “72 Special Forces Battalion” and “troops of 93 Battalion” in utterances (52) and (56) in that order to encode the government’s commitment to maintaining a constant military presence in troubled areas in order to deter terrorists. Moreover, he deploys the figures “0.5 Kg per day” and “2.5 Kg per day” in utterance (98), “1 litre per day” and “15-20 litres per day” in utterance (99) to express scientific facts about livestock production and dairy production in Nigeria and elsewhere. The speaker actually presents these facts in a way that compares Nigeria with elsewhere.

5.2.5.      Rhetorical Figures

Finally, the speaker uses in his speech such rhetorical figures as anastrophe; repetition; ellipsis; rhetorical question. Let us look at anastrophe first.

Anastrophe

As indicated earlier, in the speech, 36 clauses are fronted by an adjunct (8; 14; 15i; 16i; 16ii; 17iii; 20i; 21i; 22i; 29; 30; 33ii; 34i; 39; 40i; 41i; 49; 59i; 60iii; 67; 72; 76i; 78; 79; 84i; 86; 89i; 90; 93i; 96ii; 99ii; 103; 104; 111iii; 115ii and 115iii.). These clauses are instances of anastrophe. The speaker employs them in his speech to produce stylistic and ideological effects. Consider how he does so in the examples below.

8. Also in September 2017 the month after, the federal government, after a year-long consultation with stakeholders, hosted a Stakeholders’ Conference on a 10 – year plan themed “Search of Sustainable Livestock Development and Peaceful Co-existence” (Rep). (ASVO)

14. To the North, in southern Kaduna, Kaduna State, a traditional ruler and his pregnant wife were murdered in their home (Rep). (AOVA)

Repetition

The speaker also deploys (lexical and grammatical) repetition in his speech for stylistic purposes. For instance, he repeats such lexical items as “security”, “government”, “summit”; “people”; “challenges”; “Boko Haram”, “violence”; “force”, “deaths”, “threats”, “herdsmen”, “farmers”, “Nigeria(n)”, “army”, “national assembly”, “police”, “terrorism”, “murdered”, “killed”, “President”, “I”, “we”, etc. more than once in the speech. Again, he repeats more than one time structural features like SVO (e.g. 2i. and 2ii); SVC (e.g. 6i and 12i), OVA (e.g. 10ii; 36ii and 36iii); OVAA (e.g. 9; 36i; and 36iv); ASVO (e.g. 16ii and 39), AOVA (e.g. 14 and 16i); AOV (e.g. 34i and 34ii), etc.

Ellipsis

In addition to anastrophe and repetition, the speaker uses ellipsis to produce stylistic effects in his speech. For example, in clause (34ii): “or killed”, he deliberately omits “Over the last three years, some of Nigeria’s deadliest criminal kingpins have been”. Likewise, in clauses (36i; 36ii; 36iii and 36iv), “was” is elided. As it appears, to understand the elliptical constructions in the speech, the audience will have to draw on the context of use or on their mental models.

Rhetorical Question

The speaker also employs the unique rhetorical question (51) in his speech to create rhetorical effects.

51. What then is being done about security? (Dir)

6.      Conclusion

This paper has examined the discursive structures and strategies that Nigeria’s Former Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo deploys in his speech delivered on February 8th, 2018 at the National Security Summit held in Abuja. It has drawn its theoretical underpinnings from van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach to CDA and the descriptive mixed methods research design. With this, it has specifically investigated how the speaker employs discursive structures and strategies in his speech to encode ideological meanings. It has argued that the discursive structures and strategies the speaker employs are ontologically controlled by underlying personal and social cognitions. The analysis has yielded some very important findings.

            For instance, the study of discursive structures shows that the speaker deploys such discursive structures as speech acts, sentence syntactic structures and propositional structures. It also exudes that each structure of discourse selected subsumes some types. For example, the speaker selects the five types of speech act, in varying proportions, and the predominant type used is representative. By drawing extensively on representatives, the speaker intends to offer his view of the world as he understands it (Black, 2006). Again, he deploys more clause simplexes than clause complexes. This indicates a spoken mode. He also employs two-place predicates more than the other types. This suggests that the speech is predominantly marked by clauses comprising two arguments, and that the verbs therein are transitive. It follows from this to note that the various speech acts, sentence syntactic structures and propositional structures the speaker selects are exploited to encode the ideologically biased US-THEM polarisation. This apprehension is further sustained by the analysis of discursive strategies.

The investigation reveals that the speaker uses discursive strategies like Actor Description, Examples and Illustrations, Authority, Number Game and Rhetorical Figures in his speech. For instance, in his description of the security challenges (Boko Haram, cattle rustling in the Northwest, clashes between farmers and herdsmen in the North Central region, militant activity in the South-south, kidnapping across the entire country and the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) in the Northwest) Nigeria is facing and the efforts his government has made over time to curb them, the speaker polarises the social actors involved. In point of fact, in his discursive construction and representation, we notice that he amply emphasises the good deeds and properties of his group (or government) and amply de-emphasises those of out-group members (Boko Haram terrorists, kidnappers, criminals, etc.). From his construction and representation, we infer that the speaker’s use of language is ontologically controlled by underlying personal and social cognitions. For example, as the analysis evinces, he provides a detailed description of the events he presents in his speech. This is to say, he presents the events in their order of occurrence, places and dates of occurrence and in a factual manner. In fact, there is, in his description, evidence of his mastery of Nigeria (i.e. her geography, demography, history, politics, polity and especially security challenges) on the one hand, and international law, international relations and geopolitical issues, on the other. Here is an example from the speech:

64. One thread running through all of the security challenges in Nigeria is the proliferation of light arms and small weapons (Rep). 65. This age-old problem appears to have intensified in recent years on account of the fall of the Libyan Government under Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 (Rep). 66. These events unleashed large numbers of well-trained fighters, as well as the contents of Gaddafi’s armories (Rep). 67. Today, all across West Africa security and intelligence agencies are seeing the devastating impact of these mercenaries, and their arms and ammunition (Rep). 68i. Complicating our situation in Nigeria, is the porous nature of our more than 4,000km of borders, 68ii. which allows the easy flow of illegal weapons (Rep). 69i. To combat this, 69ii. we are devoting increased resources to our Customs and Immigration agencies, 69iii. as well as upgrading the Presidential Committee on Small Arms and Light Weapons into a well-resourced Commission for all of the movement of arms going back and forth through our borders (Rep).70i. Another issue worth taking into account is the ECOWAS Transhumance Protocol 70ii. which Nigeria signed in 1998 (Rep). 71. This guarantees free movement to pastoralists, herders across the sub-region (Rep). 72. As signatories to that Protocol, we are obliged not to restrict the movement of herders and their cattle from other ECOWAS countries (Rep).

References

Akinsowon, F. I. (2021). Root Causes of Security Challenges in Nigeria and Solutions. International Journal of Innovative Social Sciences & Humanities Research, 9(4):174-180. ISSN: 2354-2926.

Allagbé, A. A. (2024b). Linguistic Features and Discursive Strategies in Liberia's President Dr. George Manneh Weah's Closing Presidential Campaign Speech. European Journal of Science, Innovation and Technology (EJSIT), 4(5), 261-281. ISSN 2786-4936. www.ejsit-journal.com.

Allagbé, A. A. (2024a). Discourse Structures and Ideologies in Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Inaugural Speech. Journal of the English Scholars’ Association of Nigeria (JESAN), 26(3), 100-115. ISSN: 0029-0009.

Addae, A., Alhassan, H. and Kyeremeh, Y. S. (2022). Discursive Strategies of Ideological Representations in Political Speeches: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Selected Speeches of Kwame Nkrumah. European Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics Studies, 6(2), 141-162. DOI:10.46827/ejlll.v6i2.396.

Amoussou, F. and Aguessy, N. J. A. (2020). Decoding Manipulative Strategies and Ideological Features in Trump’s Speech on the Coronavirus Pandemic: A Critical Political Discourse Analysis. Studies in English Language Teaching, 8(4), 14-24. ISSN 2372-9740 (Print) ISSN 2329-311X (Online).

Black, E. (2006). Pragmatic Stylistics. Great Britain: Edinburgh University Press.

Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Second Edition. London: Pinter Publishers.

Fawunmi, M. and Taiwo, R. (2021). “I am Concerned as a Democrat”: Rhetoric, Ideology and Power in Olusegun Obasanjo’s Open Letters. Language. Text. Society, 8 (1), 1-17. https://ltsj.online/ 2021-08-1-fawunmi-taiwo. ISSN 2687-0487.

Igwebuike, E. E. (2018). Discursive Strategies and Ideologies in Selected Newspaper Reports on the Nigerian-Cameroonian Bakassi Peninsula Border Conflict. Communication and Public, 3(2), 151-168. DOI: 10.1177/2057047317748500.

Mayoyo, E., Khaemba, J., and Simiyu, F. (2020). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Linguistic and Discursive Strategies Used in Kenya’s Citizen Television Advertisements to Display Gender Ideologies. East African Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 2(1), 154-170. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajass.2.1.223.

Nwankwo, S. U., Elem, S. N., Onwe E. C., Orji-Egwu A. O. and Ojo L. I. (2023). Media, Security Challenges and the Future of Nigeria: A Theoretical Overview. African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies (AJPAS), 16(2): 313-341. p-ISSN: 2787-0367; e-ISSN: 2787-0359. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ajpas.v16i2.17.

Obasi, J. C., Amoniyan, O. M. and Obetta, C. (2024). Manipulative Strategies in Scam Messages Among Selected Nigerian University Undergraduates. Howard Journal of Communications, pp. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2024.2396591.

Oghuvbu, E. A. and Chidozie, F. (2018). Security Challenges and National Development in Nigeria: A Study of Boko Haram. Abraka Humanities Review, 8(1): 292-307.

Okonkwo, R. I., Ndubuisi-Okolo, P. and Anagbogu, T. (2015). Security Challenges and the Implications for Business Activities in Nigeria: A Ctritical Review. Journal of Policy and Development Studies, 9(2): 157-168. ISSN: 157-9385.

Onanuga, P. and Taiwo, R. (2020). Discursive Features of Nigerian Online Ponzi Schemes’ Narratives. ELOPE, 17(2), 61-82.

Osisanwo, A. (2024c). Self-legitimation in selected speeches of Abubakar Shekau, the Boko Haram terrorists leader. Critical Discourse Studies, pp. 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2024.2412556.

Osisanwo, A. (2024b). Manipulative and Recruitment Strategies in Boko Haram Statements. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 59(2): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096241228795.

Osisanwo, A. (2024a). Delegitimating the Nigerian State and other anti-Boko Haram in Selected messages of Abubakar Shekau. Critical Studies on Terrorism, pp. 1-19. https: doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2024.2397150.

Osisanwo, A. (2020). Discursive Strategies in Selected Political Campaign Songs in Southwestern Nigeria. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 6(4): 73-81. Doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20200604.12. ISSN: 2469-7850 (Print); ISSN: 2380-2529 (Online).

Osisanwo, A. (2016a). Vote for Us, Not for Them: Discursive Strategies and Ideological Structures in the 2015 Campaign SMS Messages for the Next Faculty Head. Ibadan Journal of Humanistic Studies, 26(1), 135-157.

Purwanto, Y. (2017). Discursive Strategies on Ridwan Kamil’s Status Update: A Critical Discourse Analysis. HUMANIORA, 8(2), 153-164.

Raj, M. S. and Ahembe, T. I. (2021). Discourse Issues and Discursive Strategies in Selected Online Newspapers Articles on Farmer-Herders’ Conflict in Nigeria. Veritas Journal of Humanities, 3(1), 18-32.

Sadeghi, B., Hassani, M. T. and Jalali, V. (2014). Towards (De)legitimation Discursive Strategies in News Coverage of Egyptian Protest: VOA & Fars News in Focus. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98: 1580-1589.

Sharndama, E. C. (2016). Discursive Strategies in Political Speech: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Selected Inaugural Speeches of the 2015 Nigeria’s Gubernatorial Inaugurals. European Journal of English Language, Linguistics and Literature, 3(2), 15-28. ISSN 2059-2027.

Taiwo, R. (2017). Discursive Forms and Functions of Digital Deceptive Communication in Nigerian Online Discourse. In Innocent Chiluwa (Ed.) Deception and Deceptive Communication, pp. 245-273. ISBN: 978-1-53612-849-9.

van Dijk, T. A. (2006b). Discourse and Manipulation. Discourse and Society, 17(3): 359–383. DOI: 10.1177/0957926506060250.

van Dijk, T. A. (2006a). Ideology and Discourse Analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.

van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin & H. Hamilton (Eds.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 352-371). Oxford: Blackwell.

van Dijk, T. A. (2000b). Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Retrieved July 13th, 2023, from Discourse Cognition Society www.discourses.org.

van Dijk, T. A. (2000a). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Second Edition. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

van Dijk, T. A. (1995b). Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis. In C. Schaffer & A. Wenden (Eds.). Language and Pace (pp. 17-33). Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.

van Dijk, T. A. (1995a). Ideological Discourse Analysis. In Eija Ventola and Anna Solin. Special Issue Interdisciplinary Approaches to Discourse Analysis (pp. 135-161).