Cite this article as: Jaiyeoba, O. O., & Adesanmi, M. A. (2026). Silence, power, and implicature: Linguistic strategies of survival in contexts of political insecurity in Wole Soyinka's The Man Died. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 2(1), 477-487. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i01.039
By
Jaiyeoba, Olubunmi Olutoyin1
Olubunmi.olutoyin@federalpolyilaro.edu.ng
+ 2347068676403
&
Adesanmi, Moses Ademola2
1&2General Studies Department,
Federal University of Technology,
Ilaro, Nigeria
moses.adesanmi@federalpolyilaro.edu.ng
Abstract
This
paper explores the linguistic strategies of survival in the context of
political insecurity used by Wole Soyinka in The Man Died using the tools of
implicature, presupposition, deixis and strategic silence. To unravel how
Soyinka superimposes meanings over the literal level to commit covert political
criticism, self-preservation and moral resistance, the study has analysed eight
purposefully selected passages in the text under the guiding principles of the
Grice's Theory of Conversational Implicature and Culpeper's Impoliteness
Theory. The findings show that conversational implicatures can be used by the
narrator to indirectly express disagreement and reveal political unjustness
while minimising the risks of overt disagreement. In contrast to presuppositions
that sensitise the reader to social and political limitations, deictic
expressions immerse the reader in the geographical, temporal and social setting
of political repression, keeping plausible deniability alive. The paper argues
that strategic silence is a form of communication and not a way of expressing
resistance, restraint and/or ethical rejection. The results also show that
impoliteness strategies exist to challenge power relations and to challenge the
authority. Thus, the linguistic resources utilized in this study reveal the
function of language in the negotiation of power, survival and resistance in a
political threat situation. The study contributes to both the study of literary
pragmatics and the study of African political discourse and shows that the
subtle and intricate pragmatics strategies are strategies of resilience,
critique and moral engagement in times of authoritarianism.
Keywords: Authority, Covert Critique, Negotiation, Subtext, Survival
1. Introduction
Language
serves more than merely a communicative purpose. It is a tool for asserting
power, building identity, challenging and resisting, and asserting agency in
complex social and political situations. Political insecurity, authoritarian
rule, surveillance, censorship or repression can make a difference to the
significance of linguistic choices because direct expression can create several
types of risk for speakers or writers in these contexts as a result, there are
many indirect, strategic, and context-specific communication styles that people
use to express meaning that can't be explicitly stated. These communicative
strategies allow the speakers to negotiate power dynamics, avoid possible
consequences, and keep their moral or ideological stances without being in an
unfree environment (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Culpeper, 2011).
Studies
have shown that meaning is not necessarily explicit, but can be implicit and
understood from the context in which the message is presented and the shared
understanding of the people communicating. The speaker or writer may convey
complex information that goes beyond the literal content of their utterances by
using strategies like implicature, presupposition, deixis and silence (Grice,
1975; Levinson, 1983).Conversational implicatures are assumptions made with a
message that are not stated outright, presuppositions are assumptions that are
made and left unexpressed in a message. Deictic expressions anchor the
discourse in specific temporal, spatial and social contexts, which guide the
audience in understanding the relationships, perspectives, and power dynamics.
Though sometimes considered "no words," silence can be a powerful
vehicle for saying 'no,’ resisting, restraining, or committing or taking an
ethical stand in communication. These pragmatic resources, combined, offer
significant means by which people "manage" meanings and power in
politically charged contexts.
In this
context, the work of Wole Soyinka, in his prison memoir The Man Died,
is informative. The text is written from the perspective of imprisonment during
the Nigerian civil war, and records the psychological, political and ethical
problems with state repression. The memoir is not only historically and
literary important, but it also provides insight into the ways that a language
can serve as a tool for survival, resistance and political involvement. Soyinka
often speaks criticism of oppressive structures indirectly, so that readers
need to actively interpret the message. By employing the strategic use of
implicatures and presuppositions, he can reveal injustice, challenge authority
and critique political figures without necessarily making a direct accusation.
Likewise, deictic expressions place the reader in specific political, temporal
and social realities and increase the “here-and-now” nature of the experiences
being described. Another important communicative resource that emerges from
strategic silence is resistance, moral integrity and ethical refusal, as the
resistance is not evident in the words, but rather in the way they are being
used (Jeyifo, 2004; Gibbs, 2006).
Soyinka's
works have received a great deal of scholarly interest. In his literary and
autobiographical works, themes explored include political resistance,
nationalism, imprisonment, identity, ideology, human rights and postcolonial
critique (Adegoju, 2017; Jeyifo, 2004). Other scholars have delved into other
dimensions of language use and discourse in Soyinka's works from stylistic,
rhetorical, and pragmatic points of view. The current scholarship, however, has
largely concentrated on theme and ideology, and not on the interplay of
particular pragmatic resources as tools for living and acting in situations of
political crisis. Although some discussions of language, power, and discourse
are present in earlier work, a greater focus could be given to a detailed
analysis of a complicated relationship between implicature, presupposition,
deixis, and strategic silence that is able to create covert political criticism
and enable communicative survival within The Man Died. This study, therefore,
examines how implicature, presupposition, deixis and strategic silence are used
as strategies of power and survival in the context of political insecurity
in The Man Died, using theory of Impoliteness and Theory of
Conversational Implicature form Grice and Culpeper to unravel how the pragmatic
tools help Soyinka to communicate resistance to oppressive authority, challenge
oppressive authority, maintain personal safety and involve readers in the
process of politicizing meaning. The study makes a contribution to the field of
literary pragmatics, discourse studies and African literary scholarship by
showing how fine nuances of language can serve as potent tools of resilience, critique,
and ethical action amidst political peril.
1.1 Objectives of the Study
Determine the cases of
presuppositions, deixis, and strategic silence in the chosen passages of
Soyinka stories.
Examine the role of these linguistic
strategies to mediate power relations and hidden criticism in the context of
political threat.
Explore how the strategies make the readers
active interpreters, moral thinkers and ideologically conscious.
2. Literature Review
There
has been a considerable interest in the language/power/resistance connection in
pragmatics, discourse studies and postcolonial literary research. The consensus
among scholars is that language is not merely a tool for conveying information;
it also serves as a social and political tool that helps people negotiate
aspects of authority, identity, and survival in situations of repression (Mey,
2001; Verschueren, 1999). In politically volatile contexts, the speakers or
writers may use indirect communicative strategies to express their disagreement
without taking any risk to themselves. As a result, notions like
presupposition, deixis, implicature and silence have become important analytic
tools for the study of the encoding and interpretation of meaning in
politically sensitive discourse. The topic of presupposition has been
extensively discussed in pragmatic literature because it can express
presuppositions indirectly.
Early
scholars like Stalnaker (1974) and Karttunen (1974) hold the view that
presuppositions are background assumptions that speakers take for granted for
the interlocutors. Levinson (1983) also shows how presuppositions enable
speakers to state an ideology without stating it explicitly. Although these
basic studies lay the groundwork for the understanding of the importance of
presupposition, they tend to be primarily concerned with the speech of everyday
interaction and not the speech of literary genres. Recent literary-pragmatic
studies propose that presupposition is a rhetorical tool that assists the
reader to interpret the text in a certain way without being explicitly told
(Chapman & Clark, 2014).In politically charged narratives, presuppositions
allow the writer to be indirect in his or her criticism of social realities,
which is completely appropriate in contexts where the writer is likely to be
censured or persecuted for the explicit nature of his or her criticism. Deixis
is another important pragmatic resource because it involves linguistic
expressions that require context to understand them, such as time, place, and
social relationships (Levinson, 1983).
Fillmore
(1997) and Hanks (1992) stress the function of deictic expressions in creating
social views and relations between the participants in the events described.
The extension of this perspective comes from literary scholars, who have
theorised that deixis can produce experiential proximity (Stockwell, 2002) in
the reader, thereby drawing him or her into fictional and autobiographical
worlds. But much of the past research has been on deixis in terms of style, not
political positioning. The restriction is clearly felt in the analyses of
African political writing as far as its use of deictic devices in the
development of resistance, solidarity and morality are concerned. Similarly,
the idea of the use of silence as a communicative action has received significant
academic attention. Theories of the pragmatic approach tend to value verbal
communication, but later research shows that silence can serve as a
communicative means (Jaworski, 1993).
According
to the politeness theory (Brown and Levinson 1987), silence can be a
face-saving tactic, whereas other more critical perspectives see silence as a
means of resistance, protest, or moral positioning. For Adegoju (2017), in
African political conversations, silence often says more than words in
opposition to the authority of the state. However, previous research has
focused on silence in political communication and not literary narratives. As a
result, there is still a lack of awareness on the part of readers of the ways
in which narrative silences serve as political critiques in literary works. The
analysis of language and power adds further impetus to the applicability of
pragmatic analysis to politically sensitive literature. According to some critical
discourse scholars like Fairclough (1995) and van Dijk (2008), the linguistic
choices reflect and reproduce the power relationships. While these analyses
have yielded important conceptual understandings of ideology and domination,
they tend to be more macro-level, in terms of the pragmatic mechanisms, and
more practical. Literary-pragmatic approaches, on the contrary, focus on how
readers infer meaning based on the context, shared knowledge, and interpretive
participation (Mey, 2001). This is especially helpful when reading texts
written in a context of political repression where meaning is often hidden in
indirect forms of expression.
The
research on Wole Soyinka has been mainly political, satirical and ideological
resistance (Jeyifo, 2004; Gibbs, 2006). These studies effectively attest to
Soyinka's struggle against authoritarianism and social injustice. However,
their focus is mostly thematic and ideological with a limited focus on specific
linguistic mechanisms of communication of resistance. Despite a recognition of
the use of irony, symbolism, and indirect discourse, researchers have so far
not really examined in any systematic manner the role of pragmatic devices like
presupposition, deixis, and strategic silence in working together to become a
survival strategy in politically unfriendly contexts. This is a conspicuous gap
that only few have researched the linguistic processes by which political
criticism is conveyed indirectly, while involving the reader as an active
interpreter. Thus, this study adds to the previous researches on presupposition
and deixis in Soyinka's stories, and the study of strategic silence is done
pragmatically. The study explores the interconnections between these strategies
in politically charged discourse, transcending thematic interpretations and
provides a micro-level analysis of the role of language as a survival tool and
means to resistance.
3. Methodology
The
study adopts a qualitative descriptive-analytical research design in studying
the implicature, presupposition, deixis and strategic silence as the linguistic
devices Soyinka uses to survive and resist in environments of political
insecurity. The qualitative approach is used because the study aims to
interpret meaning of the discourse in the text and it does not require
measuring the linguistic features quantitatively. This enables the study of
pragmatic and stylistic decisions and how these decisions contribute to the
formation of political criticism, resistance and self-preservation (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018).The descriptive-analytical design also helps to provide
close textual analysis as it connects the linguistic forms with their
contextual and ideological functions in the selected texts, as described by
Silverman (2016).
The
major corpus of the study is The Man Died plus selected
political reflections and commentaries by Soyinka on topics like
authoritarianism, political repression, corruption, and civic resistance. The
study used purposive sampling because the passages of study are the ones that
are relevant to the study goals. In total, there were eight extracts of text
that were chosen for analysis. The selected passages fulfilled the following
criteria: (i) they were found in contexts of political insecurity or state
repression; (ii) the passages included evidence of implicit or indirect
communication; and (iii) the passages included one or more of the pragmatic
features of a passage examined, implicature, presupposition, deixis, or
strategic silence. Purposive sampling is a popular method in qualitative
research to select information-rich cases that are most relevant to the
phenomenon under investigation (Palinkas et al., 2015).The data collection
process included several close readings of the selected texts to find the
linguistic features used in the texts related to the study. The excerpts were
taken during the reading and categorised by four analysis types: implicature,
presupposition, deixis and strategic silence.
The
analysis was conducted in three stages. The first step was to mark up and
classify the relevant parts of the texts to the four categories of analysis.
The second stage was pragmatic analysis wherein the text is analysed by
applying Grice's Theory of Conversational Implicature to determine how the
implicit meaning was produced and understood in the text. Special attention was
given to cases where the reader had to draw an inference of criticism,
resistance, or political judgement beyond the literal meaning of the text. The
third phase was based on the Impoliteness Theory by Culpeper and focused on the
ways in which these meanings challenged authority, threatened institutional
face, or acted as resistance towards oppressive political structures. Strategic
silence was examined in connection with both frameworks, with regard to
meanings created or inferred by the absence of expression and to the meanings
communicated by the use of a limited repertoire of expression. Silence and
omission of expression and the communication of meanings of ideological
opposition were analysed in relation to both frameworks. Finally, the results
from the various analytical categories were combined to interpret the role and
working of the linguistic choices collectively as survival and resistance
strategies in Soyinka's writings. Each extract was examined in the context of
the broader historical, political and narrative context to maintain
interpretive credibility. In relation to the interpretation, the process of
contextualization was used to ensure that the interpretations were grounded in
the contexts of the texts and were in line with the theoretical framework of
the study.
4. Theoretical Framework
This study adopts a
pragmatic-stylistic framework that integrates Grice’s Theory of Conversational
Implicature (1975) and Culpeper’s Impoliteness Theory (2011). The combination
of these theories provides a comprehensive framework for examining how linguistic
meaning is constructed and how such meaning functions within unequal power
relations.
4.1 Grice’s Theory of
Conversational Implicature
Grice (1975) argues that
communication involves more than the literal meanings of words. Speakers
frequently generate additional meanings, known as implicatures, which listeners
infer through contextual knowledge and the Cooperative Principle. These implicatures
often arise when conversational maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and
Manner are deliberately exploited or flouted. The theory is especially useful
for analysing discourse produced under politically sensitive conditions, where
explicit criticism may be dangerous.
In The Man Died,
implicature provides a framework for understanding how meanings of resistance,
dissent, and political criticism are communicated indirectly. Presuppositions
often invite readers to accept certain political realities as already
established, thereby encouraging critical interpretation without overt
assertion. Likewise, deictic expressions position readers within specific
social, temporal, and political contexts from which power relations can be
inferred. Strategic silence also operates within an inferential framework
because meaning is generated not only through what is said but also through
what is deliberately left unsaid. In such instances, readers are required to
draw conclusions from textual gaps, omissions, and narrative restraint. Grice’s
theory therefore explains how Soyinka communicates sensitive political meanings
while avoiding direct confrontation.
4.2 Culpeper’s Impoliteness
Theory
Culpeper’s (2011) Impoliteness
Theory examines communicative behaviour that damages, challenges, or threatens
face. Unlike politeness theories that focus on maintaining social harmony,
impoliteness theory highlights how language can be used to contest authority,
express hostility, or disrupt established relationships. The theory is
particularly valuable in contexts where power relations are central to
communication.
In the context of Soyinka’s prison
memoir, impoliteness does not necessarily appear as overt verbal aggression.
Rather, resistance may be realised through indirect forms of communicative
challenge. Criticism conveyed through implicature, presupposition, selective
deictic positioning, or strategic silence can function as a challenge to the
legitimacy of oppressive institutions and political actors. Strategic silence
is especially significant in this regard. Although silence is not inherently
impolite, its deliberate use in contexts of political domination may
communicate refusal, non-compliance, moral judgement, or withdrawal of
recognition. Such meanings can be interpreted as face-threatening because they
symbolically reject the authority or legitimacy of those in power.
Consequently, silence functions not merely as the absence of speech but as a
communicative act with potential interpersonal and political implications.
The integration of Grice’s and
Culpeper’s theories enables a multidimensional analysis of the selected texts.
Grice’s framework explains how implicit meanings are generated and interpreted,
while Culpeper’s framework explains how those meanings operate as forms of
resistance within contested power relations. Together, they illuminate how
presupposition, deixis, and strategic silence function as linguistic strategies
through which Soyinka negotiates survival, critiques oppression, and engages
readers in the interpretation of political meaning.
5. Data Analysis and Discussion
This part analyses eight chosen
passages of The Man Died by Wole Soyinka and his political
commentaries and how presupposition, deixis, and strategic silence serve as
survival, moral, and political resistance linguistic strategies. The analysis
uses the Theory of Conversational Implicature (1975) by Grice in the context of
understanding the use of indirect meaning and the Impoliteness Theory (2011) by
Culpeper in the context of understanding subtle hostile or face-threatening
aspects of discourse.
5.1 Excerpts from The
Man Died
Excerpt 1 – Presupposition and
Moral Responsibility
“The man dies in all who keep silent in the
face of tyranny.” (Soyinka, 1972, p. 21)
The quote assumes the existence of
tyranny and moral complicity that silence is. Through presupposition, Soyinka
expresses the moral judgment in an indirect manner, making it safe and yet
educating the readers. The maxim of Relation of Grice is violated, and the
readers have to guess the moral responsibility, which is implied. Considering
it as impoliteness, this is an indirect face-attack, which indirectly
criticizes people who do not take action. This is a representation of the role
of presupposition in both ethical and political criticism, when there is
repression. The viewer is placed as a decoder of action and inaction, which
increases ideology.
Excerpt 2 – Deixis and Contextual
Orientation
“Here, the walls have ears; what we say
travels beyond our sight.” (Soyinka,
1972, p. 45)
The deictic words here and beyond
our sight put the reader in the physical and political space in the
way of stressing surveillance. This deixis emphasises the limitations of the
prison and the positioning of the speaker in relationship with the authority.
Deictic anchoring enables the readers to feel the immediacy of the political
insecurity, to demonstrate the way in which the spatial and temporal markings
can be used as the survival strategies, to inform the audience to interpret the
risk and resistance.
Excerpt 3 – Strategic Silence and
Implicature
“I refrained from speaking; some truths are
heavier than words.” (Soyinka, 1972, p.
67)
The strategic silence, in this
case, is an effective action: the silence means moral restraint and political
survival. There is the element of Gricean implicature, where the audience gets
to know about the muted criticism. According to Culpeper, this is decoded in
the model as covert impoliteness, since it argues the position of authority
indirectly and does not place the safety of the speaker at risk.
Excerpt 4 – Combined Presupposition
and Deixis
“Those who watch us now will live to tell of
the fear they saw.” (Soyinka, 1972, p.
89)
Presupposition claims surveillance,
whereas, deixis (now) puts the audience in the here and now. The
implicit nature of the critique conveyed by the sentence compels the audience
to do ethical interpretation. This shows that there are several linguistic
strategies that occur together to mediate power and moral consciousness that
connects the language at the micro-level to the language at the macro-level.
5.2 Excerpts from Soyinka’s
Political Reflections
Excerpt 5 - Presupposition in
Political Critique
“Corruption thrives where honesty is merely
tolerated.” (Gibbs, 2006, p. 112)
The assumption is that there is an
honesty that is poorly implemented. The implicature is the systemic critique
that does not address particular actors. This is an indirect face-threatening
action towards corrupt authorities, a covert example of criticism, in a
Culpeperian view, as a survival and communicative maneuver.
Excerpt 6 - Deixis and Positioning
the Audience
“In these halls of power, one is never truly
alone.” (Gibbs,
2006, p. 118)
Such deictic markers as these and never
truly alone place the readers in a relational and political arena and
underline the observation, surveillance, and positioning. It shows that
language puts audiences into place to identify the dangers of political
involvement by emphasizing the pragmatic application of deictic anchoring by
Soyinka.
Chapter 7 - Strategic Silence as
Strategy of Ethical Resistance
“I did not reply to their questions; silence
can be louder than speech.” (Gibbs,
2006, p. 125)
The silence is a rhetorical device.
Gricean implicature can be interpreted by the viewer to mean the implication of
criticism; Culpeperian analysis suggests that it is a disguised act of hostile
intention, the opposite of confrontation expressed indirectly. So as per the
objective, it is important to demonstrate that silence is an effective mediator
of resistance, a way of maintaining safety and expressing ideological position.
Excerpt 8 – Integrated
Presupposition, Deixis, and Silence
“When they came for the innocents, no one
spoke; yet everyone knew the cost.” (Gibbs, 2006, p. 130)
The assumption is the oppression,
deixis (when they came) makes the event time-related, and silence
expresses the mutual awareness of moral hazard. The implicature is evident: it
is inevitable to be complicit in case of speech failure. This passage combines
all the three strategies of language, demonstrating how the stories of Soyinka
make the reader an ethical decoder and puts the criticism under the threat of
violence.
6. Integrated Discussion
These are the main patterns that
were identified in the analysis of these eight excerpts. First is that presupposition
is applied as subvert criticism. Soyinka incorporates presumptions regarding
oppression, complicity and corruption and hence the audience has to build an
ethical and political interpretation. On the same note, deixis is also
contextual anchoring. Spatial, temporal and relational cues place readers into
immediate or relational contexts of political insecurity that provide a better
understanding of power relationships. Strategic silence is also used as
resistance. To Soyinka, silence is a communicative act and can be used to
denote rejection, moral restraint or ethically denying an issue without
necessarily using words to express it. In many cases, presupposition, deixis,
and silence work together and create a stratified meaning that both conveys criticism
and guarantees survival and makes the audience the meaning makers. The results
indicate that the language techniques that Soyinka is applying are intentional,
performative, and ideologically powerful, which enables him to travel in
politically insecure spaces, as well as teach and entertain the audience.
Although these strategies are not the focal point, humor, irony and some sense
of sub-hostility definitely interact with them and accentuate the resistance
purposes of the texts under discussion as well.
7. Conclusion
This paper has demonstrated that
Wole Soyinka uses presupposition, deixis and strategic silence as conscious
linguistic devices to negotiate the political insecurity, establish agency and
convey resistance. Using the criticism of eight important passages of The
Man Died along with his political commentaries, the paper will show
that the narratives of Soyinka function both at the micro-linguistic and
macro-political scales: unobtrusively, exposing the authoritarianism, and
leaving the reader as the active interpreter of the ethical and political
realities. Presupposition allows embedding of critique and moral comment unto
the explicit confrontation and thus leave the readers to draw socio-political
implications. Deictic phrases place narratives in time, space and relation with
each other, which emphasise the immediacy of oppression and the play of power.
Strategic silence is a performative dissent or dissent strategy, which allows
legitimising under surveillance or authoritarian restriction, and moral
negotiation, covert critique. The combination of such strategies co-occurs to
create meanings that are stratified, pass across ideological messages, and
protect the speaker.
Finally highlighted, too, is the
proactive status of the audience where some interpretation of omissions must be
taken thus the audience participate in the moral and political speech inherent
in the stories of Soyinka. This is an indication of the performative and
interpretive force of language that shows how quietness, indirectness and
selective linguistic packaging can be used as effective survival and resistance
tools. Overall, this paper adds to the body of scholarship on literature
pragmatics and postcolonial political literature, highlighting the fact that
micro-level linguistic strategies, such as presupposition, deixis, and
strategic silence, are not merely stylistic devices but also work to indirectly
critique, engage in morality, and negotiate politics. Soyinka has presented in
his works how literature may turn language into a ground of moral thinking,
survival and unspoken political criticism.
References
Adegoju, T. (2017). Language,
power, and satire in African literature. African Research Review, 11(4),
45–61. https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v11i4.4
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
(1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge
University Press.
Chapman, S., & Clark, J.
(2014). Pragmatics in literary discourse: Theory and application.
Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J.
D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness:
Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2015). Language
and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Fillmore, C. J. (1997). Lectures
on deixis. CSLI Publications.
Gibbs, J. (2006). Wole
Soyinka and the art of satire. Palgrave Macmillan.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and
conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
Hanks, W. F. (1992). The indexical
ground of deictic reference. Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.2.1.01han
Jeyifo, B. (2004). Wole
Soyinka: Politics, poetics, and postcolonialism. Cambridge University
Press.
Karttunen, L. (1974).
Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1,
181–194.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics.
Cambridge University Press.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M.,
Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful
sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method
implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health
and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
Silverman, D. (2016). Qualitative
research (4th ed.). Sage.
Simpson, P. (2004). Stylistics:
A resource book for students. Routledge.
Soyinka, W. (1972). The
Man Died. Rex Collings.
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic
presuppositions. In M. Munitz& P. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and
philosophy (pp. 197–214). New York University Press.
Toolan, M. (2012). Language
in literature: An introduction to stylistics (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Tsakona, V., & Popa, D.
(2011). Humour in political discourse. John Benjamins.
van Dijk, T. A. (2016). Discourse
and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
0 Comments