Citation: Y. M. JAMEEL, Z. A. KABARA & N. A. MUHAMMAD (2021). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Ideological Polarisation in Presidential Inaugural Speeches of Olusegun Obasanjo (2003) and Muhammadu Buhari (2019). Yobe Journal of Language, Literature and Culture (YOJOLLAC), Vol. 9, Issue 1. Department of African Languages and Linguistics, Yobe State University, Damaturu, Nigeria. ISSN 2449-0660
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF IDEOLOGICAL
POLARISATION IN PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL SPEECHES OF OLUSEGUN OBASANJO (2003) AND
MUHAMMADU BUHARI (2019)
Y. M. JAMEEL
Z. A. KABARA
N. A. MUHAMMAD
Abstract
The study is a Critical Discourse Analysis of
Presidential Inaugural Speeches (Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu
Buhari). The study aims at finding the kinds of expressions which the
presidents used to covertly express the polarisation of the in-group and the
out-group. The study uses Van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach to CDA for the
analysis. The study is a qualitative research whereby identification,
interpretation and explanation take centre stage. The data for the study were
sourced from the inaugural speeches of Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo (2003) and
Muhammadu Buhari (2019). The study finds that the president used the category
of euphemism to de-emphasise the negative things about Us (in-group). They also
used the category of polarisation to ideologically show the contrast between
the in-group (Us) and the out-group (Them). Finally, they used the category of
positive Self-presentation to emphasise the good things about themselves, their
country and their respective political parties.
Keywords: CDA, political discourse, ideology,
polarisation.
1.0 Introduction
Language use (discourse) is indispensably full
of ideologies. In discursive practices (language use), especially in political
discourse which is the most ideological, people carefully choose the linguistic
items which covertly reflect ideologies. They ideologically categorised people
into in-group and out-group through special lexical items. When they are
talking about positive meaning, they will associate it with the in-group and
all the positive lexical properties will be brought upon to emphasise such meaning.
And negative meaning is associated with the out-group members and all the
negative lexical properties will be brought upon to emphasise such meanings.
The former is called positive Self-presentation while the latter is referred to
as negative Other-presentation. In view of the above, the study made a Critical
Discourse Analysis of the Inaugural Speeches of Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo
(2003) and Muhammadu Buhari (2019). That is to say, the tools of CDA especially
that of sociocognitive approach, are applied on the expressions that carry
ideological polarisation in the two said inaugural speeches in order to
identify and analyse those categories which the presidents used to emphasise
the good things about the in-group and the bad ones against the out-group.
Finally, a comparison was made on the two speeches.
2.0 Objective of the Study
The objective of the study is to identify and
examine the covertly expressed ideologies especially those that are expressed
in polarised terms in the two speeches. This means that those expressions that
are used by the presidents to emphasise the good things about the in-group and
the bad ones about the out-group would be identified and analysed.
3.0 Literature Review
According
to Wodak (2001, p. 2), “the term CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis) nowadays
refers more specifically to the critical linguistic approach of scholars who
find the larger discursive unit of text to be the basic unit of communication”.
This denotes that Critical Discourse Analysis is currently being referred to as
critical linguistics because its proponents such as Fairclough, Van Dijk,
Wodak, and Van Leeuwen among others find the unit of text as a discursive
practice to be the basic unit of communication. It also focuses on the ways
people are talking and thinking which are manifested in the ideological and
cultural meaning in written and spoken discourse. In view of this, Rashidi and
Souzandefar (2010, p. 55) argue that Critical Discourse Analysis, an important
branch of discourse analysis, tries to focus on relations between ways of
talking and ways of thinking, and highlights the traces of cultural and
ideological meaning in spoken and written texts. Furthermore, scholars such as
Fairclough and Wodak (1997) view Critical Discourse Analysis as analysis of
discourse as a social practice which tries to imply dialectical relationship
between a particular discursive practice or event and the situation as well as
social structures. In their words, they argue that:
Critical Discourse Analysis sees
discourse (language use in speech and writing) as a form of ‘social practice’.
Describing discourse as social practice implies dialectical relationship
between a particular discursive event and the situation(s) and social
structure(s), which frame it. The discursive event is shaped by them, but it
also shapes them. That is, discursive practice is socially constitutive as well
as socially conditioned- it constitutes situations, objects of knowledge, and
the social identities of and relationships between people and groups
(Fairclough and Wodak 1997, p. 258).
The above
assertion by Fairclough and Wodak (1997, p. 258) illustrates that Critical
Discourse Analysis views discourse as a social practice which shows a
dialectical relationship between the events in which the discursive practice is
used, the circumstances in which it is used as well as the structures which
frame it. The discursive practice is socially constitutive and conditioned as
it constitutes the situations of the discursive events, objects of knowledge
and the social identities between individuals and groups. In addition to this,
some other scholars such as Young and Harrison (2004) and Van Djik (2001)
perceive Critical Discourse Analysis as a social abuse, dominance and the
inter-relationship between language and power.
Van Djik
(2001, p. 352), on his part, observes that Critical Discourse Analysis is “a
type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social
power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted by
text and talk in the social and political context”. On their part, Young and
Harrison (2004, p. 2) argue that Critical Discourse Analysis is an analysis of
different public discursive events (such as political discourse) that explores
the relation between language and power and the ways in which language is being
used to produce, maintain and reproduce positions of power through discursive
means”. The above definitions show that CDA is seen as an approach to the study
of language use in text and talk which focuses on the critical analysis of
power, dominance and inequality that are covertly embedded in language. It also
studies the way social power abuse; dominance and inequality are enacted,
reproduced and resisted through the use of language in social and political contexts.
It draws its resources from other fields such as systemic functional
linguistics. But its theory, methods and the type of research issues differ
from other fields. In view of this, Fairclough and Wodak (1997, p. 256)
maintain that “Critical Discourse Analysis subsumes a variety of approaches
towards the social analysis of discourse which differs in theory, methodology
and the type of research issues to which they tend to give prominence”. This
means that CDA encapsulates other approaches, such as Systemic Functional
Linguistics and Critical linguistics that study the social analysis of language
in different contexts. They differ in their theory, method of linguistic
analysis and the issue which they give priority in their analysis.
3,2 Empirical Review
Bayram (2010) examines the use of ideology in
the speech of President Erdogan Davos’ speech from the perspective of
Fairclough’s sociocultural approach to CDA. The study reveals that despite
heavy criticisms of the President, he retained his political stand throughout
his political time in government, especially in the Davos debate where he used
language as a powerful social tool to present his personality and
characteristics.
Wang (2010), through the use of Fairclough’s CDA
and Halliday’s Systematic Functional Grammar, explores the use of language in
some of the speeches of President Barrack Obama. The study demonstrates how the
President used simple and straightforward language to shorten the distance
between him and his audience. It also reveals that by using transitivity
process, the President arouse the confidence of the American people towards him
and his government.
Ike-Nwafor (2015) critically analyses some
political campaigns speeches of gubernatorial candidates in South-Western
Nigeria from 2007 to 2014. Her study reveals that most of the gubernatorial
candidates in the South-Western states used language as a strategy of
domination and supremacy by exploring lexical items and strong imperative
sentences which allowed them to impose their views on their respective
audiences. According to her, the candidates formed asymmetrical power relation
between US and THEM. The study also reveals
that the gubernatorial aspirants also used discourse structures that contain
hidden ideology as weapons of persuasion and pleading, positive
Self-representation of US and negative Other-representation
of Them.
Ezeifeka (2012) analysed the use of polarisation
of Self-glorification and the derogation of Others in some selected inaugural
speeches of President Shehu Shagari and President Olusegun Obasanjo. The study
finds that the lexical items used by the Presidents were deliberately chosen to
exaggerate the negative meanings of Others in derogatory terms
while the positive meanings of Us were exaggerated using
positive terms to glorify the Self. The choice of the generic structure and
mood system portrayed the notion of Self-presentation of Our good
things and Other-presentation of Their bad things. It also
reveals that the bad aspects of the in-group were euphemised just as the good
aspects of the out-group were de-emphasised.
4.0 Political
Discourse
Political
discourse, as one of the genres of discursive practices, is identified by its
actors or authors: politicians. The politicians, argues Van Dijk (1998, p. 13),
are a group of people who are being paid for their political activities and who
are being elected or appointed or self-designated as the central players or
stakeholders in the political arena. This means that the large number of
studies in the field about the text and talk is on the professional politicians
such as presidents, vice-presidents, prime ministers, party leaders, senators
and other key players in the political arena. It may also be on political
institutions such as political parties and party convention among others. In
his description of political discourse, Schaffner, cited in Bayram (2010, p.
27) and Sharndama (2015, p. 15), asserts:
[P]olitical discourse as a sub-category of
discourse in general, can be based on two criteria: Functional and Thematic.
Political discourse is a result of politics and it is historically and
culturally determined. It fulfills different functions due to different
political activities. It is thematic because its topics are primarily related
to political activities, political ideas and political relation (1996).
This illustrates that political discourse is
being looked at from two different but related perspectives: functional and
thematic. It is functional because it results from the political activities of
some categories of people and it is shaped by their history and culture. It is
thematic in the sense that its topics are all related to political activities.
The field
of politics (political discourse) is ideological in nature. In other words, “if
there is one social field that is ideological, it is that of politics because
it is eminently here that different and opposed groups, power, struggles and
interests area at stake (Van Dijk 2006, p. 732)” and “if there is one domain of
society where ideologies are rife is it of cause (that of) politics” (Van Dijk,
ND:, p. 22)..He further describes the field of politics as the most
ideological. Van Dijk argues: that “the social organisation of the field of
politics hence of politicians and political group; is largely based on
ideological differences, alliances and similarities. (2006a, p. 732)”. This
illustrates that the political discourse, as a field of social organization
that has its stakeholders or social actors as politicians, is largely based on
ideological differences, alliances and similarities especially among the
different political parties.
5.0 Ideology
The
concept of ideology’s everyday usage is largely negative (Van Dijk, 2006, p.
728) and no one has yet come up with a single adequate definition of the term
because it has a whole range of useful meanings and not all of which are
compatible with each other (Eagleton, 1991, p. 1). In view of this, Eagleton
listed not fewer than sixteen definitions of the term. He further argues that
the word “ideology”, one might say, is a text, woven of a
whole tissue of different conceptual strands; it is traced through by divergent
histories, and it is probably more important to assess what is valuable or can
be discarded in each of these lineages than merge them forcibly into some Grand
Global Theory (Eagleton, 1991, p. 2).
Language use (discourse) is indispensably full
of ideologies and “the ideological aspect of language does not lie in the
linguistic system, which is not autonomous but in the use of language which is
not” (Fiorin 1988 cited in Brognolli, 1991, p. 83). This aptly illustrates that
the part of language as an entity that is ideological in nature does not lie in
linguistic system (microstructures) which is autonomous but in the use of
language which is not. In other words, the context or situation, like the
occasion of an inaugural speech of a political leader, in which the discourse
is made is very crucial to the determination of the ideological aspect of
language use. The speaker’s or writer’s use of certain linguistic items
indicates their hidden intention because “language production involves
selection amongst innumerous possibilities provided by the linguistic systems”
(Brognolli, 1991, p. 84).
Apart from the structures, according to Van Dijk
(2000, p. 61 and 2006, p. 735), there are some categories of ideological
analysis which help a researcher to make their critical analysis of ideologies
in the texts and talks of people as participants in discourse especially in
political discourse which is the most ideological. The ideological
categories of discourse operate under the discourse structures such as
argumentation, semantic macrostrategy, rhetorical structures, and structures of
style amongst others (Van Dijk, 2000 and 2006). For instance, “the ideological
categories (or techniques) of meaning (semantic macrostrategies) could be
expressed by the way in which social actors are represented in discourse
(Dragonir, 2017, p. 400)”. Van Dijk (2000, p. 61-85) gave out forty-two (42) of
these categories of ideological discourse categories though, according to him,
they are in hundreds. They are Actor description, authority, burden,
categorisation, comparison, consensus, counterfactual, disclaimer, distancing,
dramatisation, empathy; euphemisn, evidentiality, example/illustration,
explanation, fallacies and generalization. Others are history
as lesson, humanitarianism, hyperbole, interaction and
content, illegality, irony, legality; lexicalization,
metaphor, national self-glorification, negative other-presentation, norm
expression and number game. The remaining ones are openness,
polarisation, positive self-presentation, populism, presupposition, pseudo
ignorance, reasonableness, repetition, situation description, vagueness and
victimisation.
6.0 Theoretical Framework
The study chose Van Dijk’s (2000 and 2006a)
version of the sociocognitive approach to critical discourse analysis. When
looking at the covertly expressed ideologies, especially in political discourse
as a genre of discourse, according to this framework, there are systematic ways
of examining discourse. For instance, whenever a meaning is linked to good or
positive things, it will be associated with the group to which the speaker or
the addresser belongs (in-group) and all the positive structural properties of
the discourse may be brought to emphasise such meanings. But if meaning is
associated with bad or negative things, it will be associated with the
out-group members and all the negative structural properties will be brought to
emphasise such meanings. (Van Dijk 2006, p. 734). The above, according to him,
refers to the polarisation of positive Self-presentation of the in-group and
negative Other-presentation of the out-group. In view of this, Van Dijk (2000,
p. 44 and 2006b, p. 734) identifies the strategies of ideological discourse
which he calls “the ideological square”. Thus:
(i) Emphasise
Our good things
(ii) Emphasise
Their bad things
(iii) De-emphasise
Our bad things
(iv) De-emphasise
Their good things
7.0 Methodology
The study is a qualitative research whereby
interpretation takes centre stage. This means the study is an in depth analysis
on the expressions that carry ideological effect especially those that covertly
express polarisation, that is general strategy of positive self-presentation
and negative other-presentation. Amongst the numerous expressions that carry
such ideological polarisation in the speeches, only five were selected from
each of the speeches for the study and the findings are generalized. This means
ten (10) expressions took part in the analysis.
8.0 Analysis and Discussion
TEXT ONE: President Olusegun Obasanjo’s
Inaugural Speech of May 29, 2003
|
Expression One |
….we will draw on the lesson learnt so far…. |
|
Ideological Discourse Category |
HISTORY AS LESSON |
|
Discourse Structure |
TOPOS |
|
Interpretation/Explanation |
The ideological discourse category contained in the above
expression is that of history as lesson which is under the
domain of topos. It is very important and useful in a discourse, especially
in an argument, to show that the present situation can be relatively compared
with a past similar situation in history. In the above expression, President
Olusegun Obasanjo, having been re-elected in the general election, compares
his first tenure (1999-2003) with the second one positively hence they “will
draw on the lesson learnt…” of the first administration. This means that the
President avoids mentioning the negative things about his earlier
administration (1999-2003). That is to say he de-emphasised them. This is in
accordance with Van Dijk (2000, p. 43) argument that in talking about the
in-group, “do not say negative things about Us” hence a
positive Self-presentation of his previous administration. In other words,
the expression suggests comparison is made between the present (2003-2007)
and the previous tenure (1999-2003) and the President promises that the
second one would be better because he would build on the “achievements in the
last four years” and correct the mistakes he made in the first tenure |
|
Expression Two |
“….we will carefully advance towards our vision of
a united Nigeria, a strong Nigeria, a prosperous Nigeria, a peaceful Nigeria,
a just Nigeria, indeed a great Nigeria”. |
|
Ideological Discourse Category |
REPETITION |
|
Discourse Structure |
RHETORIC |
|
Interpretation/Explanation |
In the above expression, President Olusegun Obasanjo uses
a rhetorical figure or device of repetition to enact his
covertly expressed ideology. The device plays a pivotal role in the overall
strategy of emphasising Our good things and Their bad ones. The word
“Nigeria” is repeated many times though with different adjectives, “united”,
“strong”, “prosperous”, “peaceful”, “just” and “great” respectively, to
emphasise the good things about his administration. That is, his
administration has the country at heart hence he will make it more “united”,
“strong”, “prosperous”, “peaceful”, “just” and “great” so that he would earn
the country more respect from the international communities. |
|
Expression Three |
“….there have been numerous bumps in the process,
but we have taken them in our strides”. |
|
Ideological Discourse Category |
EUPHEMISM |
|
Discourse Structure |
RHETORIC/MEANING |
|
Interpretation/Explanation |
The category of ideological discourse category used in
the above expression by the President is that of rhetorical figure of euphemism.
The figure is a semantic move of mitigation in a discourse. It is under the
general strategy of positive Self-presentation. It plays a pivotal role in
discourse in order to avoid negative impression of the in-group so as to
mitigate the bad things of the in-group. In the expression, President
Obasanjo used the device to mitigate the shortcomings of his first
administration. Instead of clearly mentioning the problems of his first
tenure, he mitigated them by saying there were “numerous bumps in the process
“of running the affairs of this country but “we have taken them in our
strides”. He mitigated the bad things of the in-group in order to
de-emphasise the negative or bad things earlier encountered by the in-group
in the first regime (1999 – 2003). |
|
Expression Four |
This is why I see my initial assignment as
president in trying to heal the wounds from the election. As clearly
expressed and implied in my oath of office. |
|
Ideological Discourse Category |
POSITIVE SELF-PRESENTATION |
|
Discourse Structure |
SEMANTIC MACROSTRATEGY |
|
Interpretation/Explanation |
The expression above contains the ideological discourse
structure of positive Self-presentation which is under the
domain of semantic macrostrategy. In the expression, the president portrayed
the positive characteristics of himself and the in-group to the entire
citizens of the country. That is to say, according to him, he is like a
“savior” who is destined to heal the emotional and even physical wounds that
the people sustained during the general elections of 2003. By using this
structure in this context, the president did what Van Dijk (2000, p. 81 calls
“impression management” so as to have the audience by his side. |
|
Expression Five |
We can all recall how the entire nation breathed a
sigh of relief when we greeted the new dawn with a collective cry of “never
again. |
|
Ideological Discourse Category |
POLARISATION (US-THEM CATEGORISATION) |
|
Discourse Structure |
MEANING |
|
Interpretation/Explanation |
The expression above contains the ideological discourse
category of polarisation (Us-Them Categorisation). The
structure is under the domain of meaning. The category in the above
expression is used by the president to show the categorical division between
the military administration (out-group) which is expressed in derogatory
terms (“never again”) and the civilian administration which he was going to
lead and expressed in hyperbolic terms (“breathe a sigh of relief”). This is
highly essential because the president used the structure in order to
rhetorically enhance ideological contrast between Us (democratic
rule) and Them (military rule). |
TEXT TWO: President Muhammadu Buhari’s
Inaugural Speech of May 29, 2019
|
Expression One |
I respected the independence of INEC. |
|
Ideological Discourse Category |
POSITIVE SELF-PRESENTATION |
|
Discourse Structure |
SEMANTIC MACROSTRATEGY |
|
Interpretation/ Explanation |
The above expression contains the ideological discourse
category of positive Self-presentation which is under the
domain of semantic macrostrategy. President Buhari used the
category in this context to emphasise the good things about him i.e in-group.
This category is essentially important in this context because the president
wants to portray himself as well as his administration, which is the in-group,
positively. That is to say he wants to say the good things about the APC-led
administration hence “I respect the independence of INEC”. |
|
Expression Two |
I thank all people who worked for our party, who
campaigned and who voted for us. I thank my fellow Nigerians, who since 2003
have consistently voted for me. |
|
Ideological Discourse Category |
POLARISATION (US-THEM CATEGORISATION) |
|
Discourse Structure |
MEANING |
|
Interpretation/Explanation |
The expression above contains the structure of polarisation which
is under the domain of meaning. The president ideologically categorised the
people (Nigerians) into those who campaigned and voted for him since 2003 and
those who did the opposite. The former are part of Us while
the latter belongs to Them because they have been
campaigning and voting against him since 2003 when he started contesting for
the seat of the president of Nigeria. |
|
Expression Three |
Terrorism and insecurity are worldwide phenomena
and even the best politced countries are experiencing incidents of unrest and
finding things hard to cope. |
|
Ideological Discourse Category |
EUPHEMISM |
|
Discourse Structure |
RHETORIC/MEANING |
|
Interpretation/Explanation |
The above expression contains the ideological discourse
category of euphemism which is under the domain of rhetoric
and it is a semantic move of mitigation in discourse. In the expression,
instead of the president to say the activities of insecurity such as
banditry, kidnapping, and cattle rustling have increased during his first tenure,
he avoided the negative impression that his administration is known as far as
the issue of insecurity is concerned. This means that he mitigated the issue
by saying “terrorism and insecurity are worldwide phenomenon” and according
to him, even the best policed countries are experiencing increasing incidents
of unrest”. |
|
Expression Four |
The principal threat of this new administration is
to consolidate on the achievements of the last four years, correct the lapses
inevitable in all human endeavours |
|
Ideological Discourse Category |
EUPHEMISM |
|
Discourse Structure |
RHETORIC/MEANING |
|
Interpretation/ Explanation |
In the expression above, the president used the
ideological discourse category of euphemism to de-emphasise
the bad things of the in-group. The structure is under the rhetorical
device that is used to mitigate the short comings or bad things of
the in-group. In the expression, the president admittedly says
that his first tenure has so many shortcomings which he mitigated by saying
in his second tenure, his administration will do everything possible to
“correct the lapses (of the first tenure which are) inevitable in all human
endevours”. The category is essentially important as it helps the president
to avoid mentioning the negative opinions about his first administration as a
democratically elected president in 2015. |
|
Expression Five |
When I took the oath of Office on 29 May, 2015,
insecurity reigned… Admittedly, some of the challenges still remain in
kidnapping and banditry in some rural areas. The great difference between
2015 and today is that…we are meeting these challenges with superior
strategy, firepower and resolve. |
|
Ideological Discourse Category |
SITUATION DESCRIPTION/POLARISATION |
|
Discourse Structure |
MEANING |
|
Interpretation/ Explanation |
The above expression contains the ideological discourse
structure of situation Description and polarisation which are
both under the domain of meaning. In the expression,
President Buhari described the security situation during the PDP-led
administration in derogatory terms so as to ideologically and covertly
portray their administration negatively to the teeming audience. That is to
say, according to him, during the out-group (PDP) administration, the dreaded
Boko Haram could attack any institution without any resistance. He cited
examples with the attack of United Nations building and Police Headquarters
in Abuja. This is crucially important because, in political discourse, “the
way they are described may suggest implications about causes, reasons,
consequences and evaluation” (Van Dijk, 2000, p. 83) of the country under
their administration. Additionally, as if that is not enough, the President
uses that structure of polarisation (Uu-Them Categorisation) to
show the difference between the out-group (PDP-Led administration) and
in-group. (APC-led administration). That is to say, according to him, “the
great difference between 2015 (Them) and today (Us) is that we are meeting
these challenges with superior strategy, firepower, and resolve”. The use of
this category at this juncture is very important in political discourse as it
helps the president to emphasise the attributes of the in-group and the
out-group which are semantically each other’s opposite. The structure also
helps him to portray his administration (in-group positively and paints their
(out-group) negatively. |
9.0 Conclusion
Based on the Critical Discourse Analysis of the
expressions that carry ideological polarisation in the two speeches, the study
established that the two presidents used that category of euphemism, which
is a rhetorical device of mitigation, to de-emphasise the bad things about
their earlier administrations and their political parties which are both part
of the in-group. The category is within the broader framework of positive
Self-presentation and it is used by the presidents in order to avoid the
negative impressions about their respective administrations. The presidents
also used the structure of polarisation (Us-Them categorisation) to
covertly express the categorical division or differences between the in-group
and the out-group. They used the category in order to rhetorically enhance the
contrast between Us and Them. Finally, the
presidents also used the category of Positive Self-presentation to
respectively portray themselves, their administration as well as their
political parties positively. This is very crucial in the speech because it
help them to do what Van Dijk (2000, p. 81) called “in-group favoritism”. That
is to emphasise the positive or good things about the in-group.
Reference
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). What is political
discourse? In Dins Blommeart, J. & Bulcaen, C. (eds) Political
Linguistics. Benjamin Publishes. 11-52.
Bayram, F. (2010). Ideology and political
discourse: A critical discourse analysis of Erdogan’s political speech. ARECLS, 7,
25-40.
Brognolli, A. (1991). Language and ideology: A
study of Sessame Street. Language and Ideology, 83-96,
Dragonir, I. A. (2017). A theoretical framework
of ideologically driven discourse. BDD-A26490: 393-402
Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An
introduction, Verso.
Ezeifeka, C.R. ((2012). Critical Discourse
analysis of self-glorification and derogation of others in selected inaugural
speeches in Nigeria. International Journal of Research in Arts and Social
Sciences, 4: 233-246
Fairclough, I. and Fairclough, N. (2012). Political
discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and
power. Longman,
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and texts:
linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse
and Society, 3(2): 193-217
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical discourse
analysis: The critical study of language. Longman Group Limited.
Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997). Critical
discourse analysis. In Van Dijk (ed) Discourse As Social Interaction,
Sage, 258-284.
Ike-Nwafor, N. G. (2015). A critical discourse
analysis of selected political campaign speeches of gubernatorial candidates in
South-Western Nigeria 2007-2014. [PhD Thesis], University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
McGregor, S. (2003). Critical discourse
analysis::A primer http://kon.org/archivs/forum/15-1/megregorcda.html.
Rashidi, N. and Souzandehfar, M. (2010). A
critical discourse analysis of the debates between republicans and democrats
over the continuation of war in Iraq, JoLIE 3: 55-82.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1985). (ed.) Discourse
and literature. John Benjamin Publishing.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical
discourse analysis. Language and Society. Sage, 4 (2):249-283.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). (ed), Discourse
and lliterature. John Benjamin Publishing.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and discourse:
A multidisciplinary introduction, An internet course book for the Universitat
Oberta (Open University) Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, ideology and
discourse. In Encyclopeadia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam:
Elsevier. 728-740.
Van Dijk, T. A. (ND). Political discourse and
ideology.
Wang, J. (2010). A critical discourse analysis
of Barack Obama’s speeches. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
1(3): 254-261.
Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about: and summary
of its history, important concepts and its developments. Wodak, R. and Meyer,
M. (eds) Methods of critical discourse analysis,
Wodak, R. (2007). Language and ideology:
Language in ideology. Journal of Language and Politics. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263528392,
Pp. 1-5.
Young, L. and Harrison, C. (2004). (eds.), Systematic
functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis: studies in social
change. Continum.
0 Comments