The Use of Evaluative Adjectives in Political Campaigns On Nigerian Print Medium: A Case Study of Some Selected Speeches in Daily Trust

Citation: Shehu NASIRU & Dr Hassan Dauda KWALAM (2021). The Use of Evaluative Adjectives in Political Campaigns On Nigerian Print Medium: A Case Study of Some Selected Speeches in Daily Trust. 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

THE USE OF EVALUATIVE ADJECTIVES IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS ON NIGERIAN PRINT MEDIUM: A CASE STUDY OF SOME SELECTED SPEECHES IN DAILY TRUST

By

Shehu NASIRU

Dr Hassan Dauda KWALAM

Abstract

The use of evaluative adjectives in political campaigns has become paramount by politicians. This study aims at studying some evaluative adjectives used in political campaigns on Nigerian print medium – Daily Trust. The study seeks to investigate the effect of using the adjectives and kinds of adjectives used by the politicians. Martin and White (2005) appraisal theory was adopted in order to evaluate the speeches selected. The study found that the use of adjectives is very significant in determining the success or otherwise of a politician, that is why politicians use positive evaluative adjectives for themselves and negative evaluative adjective for their opponents.

Key words: political speech, adjectives, evaluation, campaigns, convince

1.0 Introduction

Language and politics are inter-related. The ability to persuade and convince the audience is very paramount in politics. So, words which are mostly adjectives are used in order to persuade and convince the listeners. Leech (1989) points out that after nouns and verbs, adjectives are the largest word class in English. To make a speech more effective and persuasive includes many factors according to Mazlum and Afshin (2016) who states that the factors include the ability of the speaker to apply an appropriate language which can lead to establishment of unseen and inter-personal relation between the orator and the intended audience(s). Political ideas are transmitted through words to the community (Harris, 1984). The words that are used can create positive or negative feelings to the audience which make them to go for or against a politician. So, possibly the language used by the politician in his/her speech determine their success or otherwise. Through the use of adjectives, the character, rationale, attitude, feelings, emotions, etc of the speaker can be understood. The focus of this paper is on the evaluative adjectives used in political campaigns in Nigerian print medium – Daily Trust. Marza 2011 stated that evaluative adjectives are mostly used in order to evaluate a given text. Weibe et al (2001) state that knowledge of evaluative adjective is beneficial for text categorisation and summarisation. Hunston and Thompson (2000) state that evaluation is a means of expressing the speaker or writer’s feelings and attitude on the speech they produce.

1.2 Research Questions

By the end of the research, the following questions are going to be answered:

i. What is the effect of using adjectives in political campaigns?

ii. What kinds of adjectives are mostly used by politicians?

1.3. Significance of the Study

Politicians usually use persuasive words in order to convince the audience.This makes them (audience) very much affected by the speech of the politicianthus making words to be the politicians’ weapons in addressing the audience. In speech, adjectives are frequently used to convince the audience therefore serving as the swords of the speaker. This paper shows how words especially adjectives are carefully chosen by the political speakers in order to address their audience. The research is significant in the field of pragmatics and semantics as it shows how politicians use language in order to persuade and convince their audience and achieve their target objectives.

2.0 Literature Review

2.1. Conceptual Review

2.1.1. Language and Politics

Linguists and political scientists study both the political speeches but each group have their peculiar concern and approaches. Schaffner (1997) states that while linguists are interested in the linguistic features employed by politicians to convey their messages to the audience, political scientists are primarily concerned with the consequences that follow political decisions and actions. Rozina and Karapetjana (2009) in Mazlum & Afshin (2016) state that political discourse are made to convince and persuade audience whether ordinary people or politicians. To achieve that easily and successfully, political speech makers rely on and take advantage of the intricate potentials of language. They manipulate language in complicated ways, e.g. Application of influential rhetorical devices, phrasal allusions, the connotative meanings of words, a combination of language and visual imagery, adjectives, adverbs, nominalisation, to name but a few.

According to Schaffner (1997), political language, political discourse, and political text are vague terms. Political language might refer to the political jargons and words used by the politicians or it might refer to the specific politically-motivated language (Dieckmann, 1981). Cedroni (2010) argues that political language is multifaceted and multifunctional. He continues to argue that when a politician makes a speech, not only he/she does a linguistic action – illocutionary as well as performative – but also a political action since both public and systemic spheres are affected. Therefore, it is described as a ‘symbolic ritual’ and a specific type of ‘social practice’ that has constitutive and interpretive functions.

Austin (1962) states that the constitutive feature of political language is of paramount significance since it deals with how political language might exert effects on behaviours. The study of the potential effects of political language on behaviours is a field of study in its own right nowadays and is called politolinguistics (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001). It is an interdisciplinary field which covers pragmatics, critical discourse analysis, textual linguistics, semantics, critical theory and political science. Political speeches help with the fulfilment of several functions. To label a speech political is generally based on thematic and functional criteria. Schaffner (1997), states that political speeches are often made to a wider public while Fairclough (1995) maintains that it is determined historically and culturally. The study of political speech involves a close analysis on how linguistic behaviour relate to each other, which is done in two ways: micro-level analysis which involves the investigation of linguistic features (e.g. Lexical and syntactic properties) first; and macro-level analysis in which the overall communicative function is set as the first step followed by determining its linguistic constituents (Schaffner 1997).

2.1.2. Evaluative Adjectives

Hunston and Thompson (2000) state that evaluation is a difficult concept to define: it is called ‘appraisal’ (Martin & White, 2005) or ‘Stance’ (Conrad &Biber 2000; Hyland 2005). The different terminologies are as a result of the ample parameters used to conduct evaluation. According to Hunston & Thompson (2000), evaluation refers to judgements, feelings, or viewpoints about something. They also delineate three functions of evaluation: expressing an opinion, maintaining relationships, and organising discourse. Expressing an opinion is a way to understand the value system of the speaker. Secondly, evaluation acts as a bridge between writer and reader. This relationship can be used for manipulation, hedging, and politeness. Lastly, evaluation acts as a discourse organiser. In other words, evaluation not only builds relationships, but also helps coherence as Hyland (1998) believes, evaluation is important for interpersonal meta-discourse. The use of evaluation plays a significant role in the effectiveness of a text. Evaluative adjectives are also important in discourse (Samson, 2006). Hunston & Sinclair (2000) found a positive relationship between evaluation and adjective behaviour. Weibe (2000) states that the use of gradable adjectives plays a crucial role while determining subjectivity.

2.2. Empirical Review

Some scholars have evaluated or analysed the political speeches of some prominent politicians in the world which make them to come out with some issues regarding their feelings and emotions towards their audience using language (i.e. verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and nominalisation).

Mazlum & Afshin (2016) evaluated the political speeches of Iranian and American presidents at a comparative level. The result indicated that both speakers were aware of the fact that an appropriate and accurate use of language is a key factor in convincing their audience, hence, the application of creative and trustful linguistic resources was a crucial element in their speeches.

Jalilifar & Savaedi (2012) examined the evaluative strategies used by presidential candidates in Iran and America during national polls of these two countries. They employed Martin and Rose’s (2003) ‘appraisal framework’. The researchers investigated preferences of attitudes made by the candidates in their speeches and the frequency of explicit attitudinal meanings and graduation resources to detect the possible differences between Iranian and American speeches. Affect and judgement were employed by the speakers which show significant differences.

3.0 Methodology

 This research is focused on how adjectives are used in political campaigns. Some speeches were selected from the Daily Trust, Nigeria in order to analyse and speculate the effects in using them (adjectives). An appraisal theory of Martin & White (2005) was adopted to suit the study. Appraisal is a term that covers all evaluative uses of language. That is how the speakers uses the language in order to express their feelings towards their audience and try to achieve what they intend to achieve.

4.0 Data Analysis

The following are the examples extracted from the Daily Trust Newspaper on the use of adjectives in political campaigns:

1. Yes! Kwara people are truly ready for positive change. (Daily Trust –DT, Dec., 21, 2018 p12).

2. … Buhari needs honest lieutenants. (DT Dec., 21, 2018 p13.)

3. … Muhammadu Buhari deservesgood elected lieutenants to continue the development of the country(ibid).

4. Buhari to supporters: Hard work will be rewarded this time. (DT Dec., 14,2018 p14).

5. Speaking during the lunch of ‘Together Nigeria’. (ibid).

6. This has once again given me further encouragement, hope and optimism in our political journey. (ibid)

7. Osinbajo’s pleas for Yoruba a clarion call for Ndigbo. (DT Dec., 25,2018, p13).

8. Buhari to Nigerians: Vote only credible candidates. (DT Dec., 24,2018, p13).

9. Buhari explained that the electorate had a crucial role to play in the fight against corruption and badgovernance by electing credible candidates at all levels. DT Dec., 24,2018, p13)

10. Nigeria needs Buhari more than ever in 2019. (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p13).

11. … Nigeria needs president Muhammadu Buhari to continue beyond 2019 more than ever going by the solid foundation laid in his first term in office. (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p13).

12. …these people (opposition) will bury themselves in shame. (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p13).

13. We are blessed with many men but few leaders and among the few leaders, president Buhari is a leader. (ibid).

14. PRP has better blueprint to develop Bauchi. (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p13).

15. … say the party has a better plan to develop the state… (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p13).

16. … had failed to provide the needed development to the people. (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p13).

17. … the two parties failed to also provide a clear development direction through effective utilisation of abundant human and natural resources to lift its people out of poverty, tackle unemployment and provide basic necessities in health… (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p13).

18. PRP has offered the people of Bauchi a different vision and a different direction. (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p13).

19. … a successful election in 2019. (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p13).

20. Securedenvironment key to election success. (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p14).

21. … says a secureenvironment is a major factor to free, fair, and credible election. (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p14).

22. … without adequate security, you won’t have a peaceful environment for people… (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p14).

23. … the APC campaign rallies for next year’s general elections christened, ‘The Next Level.’ (DT Dec., 28, 2018, p14).

5.0 Findings and Discussion

From the analysis of the data so far made, it has revealed that adjectives are very significant in determining the success or otherwise in a political campaigns. This is the reason why the politicians use positive evaluative adjectives in most of their speeches and use negative words in relation to the positive evaluative adjectives for their opponents. For example, words like positive change, honest lieutenants, good elected, hard work, together Nigeria, our political journey, clarion call, credible candidates, better blueprint, next level, etc, are all positive and subjective which can arouse the interest of the audience and on the other hand, they condemn their opponents ironically – these people (opposition) will bury themselves in shame. They also use negative words (e.g. verbs) with the positive adjectives to condemned their opponents…the two parties failed to also provide a clear development direction through effective utilisation of abundant human and natural resources to lift its people out of poverty, tackle unemployment and provide basic necessities in health…. This can be related to the position of Rozina & Karapetjana (2009) which provides that political discourse is made to convince and persuade audience whether ordinary people or politicians. Austin (1962) asserts that political speech is made in order to have effect on behavours. Most of the examples quoted were subjective which make a clear evidence to the opinion of Weibe (2000) which states that the use of gradable adjectives is crucial in determining subjectivity.

6.0 Conclusion

 Use of adjectives has become imperative when a speaker intends to persuade or convince his/her audience. Nouns and verbs can be said to have more power than adjectives because without them the speech is meaningless. That is why after them, adjectives become the largest word class in English.

Therefore, open class words tend to be more useful and common in political speeches. We in normal day today speech, adjectives are the commodity that can be used when persuading a listener vis-a-vis the politicians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.

Cedroni, L. (2010). Politolinguistics: Towards a new analysis of political discourse. In Poggi, I., D’Errico, F., Vincze, L., & Vinciarelli, A. (Eds.), Multimodal Communication in Political Speech: shaping minds and social action (pp 220-232). Springer.

Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, S., Thompson, G. (Eds), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp 56-73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dieckmann, W. (1981). Politische sprache. Politische kommunikation. Carl Winter Universitatsverlag.

Fairclough, N. L. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: papers in the critical study of language. Longman.

Harris, S. (1984). Questions as a mode of control in a magistrate’s court. International journal of the sociology of language, 49, 5-27.

Hunston, S., and Sinclair, J. (2000). A local grammar of evaluation. In S. Hunston and Thompson (eds.). Evaluation in text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp74-101). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). (eds.) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K., (1998). Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 30, 437-455.

Hyland, K., (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies. 7, 173-92.

Jalilifar, A., & Savaedi, Y. (2012). They want to eradicate the nation: A cross-linguistic study of the attitudinal language of presidential campaign speeches in the USA and Iran.Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 4(2), 59-96.

Kartal, G., (2017). A corpus-based Analysis of the most frequent adjectives in academic text. In Journal of Teaching English with Technology. 3, 3-18.

Leech, G., (1989). An A-Z of English grammar & usage. Nelson.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English.Palgrave MacMillan.

Marza, L. E., (2011). A Comprehensive corpus-based study of the use of evaluative adjectives in promotional hotel websites. Odisea, 12, 97-123.

Mazlum, F., & Afshin, S., (2016). Evaluative Language in Political Speeches: A Case Study of Iranian and American Presidents’ Speeches. In International Journal of Linguistics. Volume 8, No 4, pp 166-183.

Resigl, M., & R. Wodak (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and anti-Semitism. Routledge.

Rozina, G., & Karapetjana, I. (2009). The use of language in political rhetoric: Lingistic manipulation. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19, 111-122. http://www.sablon.sdu.edu.tr/dergi/sosbilder/dosyalar/19-9pdf

Samson, C., (2006). … is different from… A corpus-based study of evaluative adjectives in economic discourse. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(3). 236-245.

Schaffner, Ch. (1997). Analysing political speeches. Clevedon: Multi-lingual Matters.

Weibe, J., (2000). Learning subjective adjectives from copora. Proceedings of 17^th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000). Austin, Texas.

Weibe, J., Bruce, R., Bell, M., Martin, M., & Wilson, T. (2001). A corpus study of evaluative and speculative language. Proceedings of the Second S/Gdial workshop on Discourse and Dialogue.Aalborg, Denmark, 16, 1-10. doi>10.3115/1118078.1118104.

The Daily Trust, Nigeria, December, 14,21,24,25 and 28.