Analyzing Oby Ezekwesili and Abike Dabiri Speeches from a Critical Discourse Analysis Perspective

Analyzing Oby Ezekwesili and Abike Dabiri Speeches from a Critical Discourse Analysis Perspective

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

The major thrust of this dissertation is to analyze the speeches of two of Nigeria’s frontline women, Oby Ezekwesili and Abike Dabiri from a Critical Discourse Analysis perspective. The study is motivated by the fact that ‘language, as simple as the term seems, is not only a means of describing reality but plays significant roles in determining and shaping reality and the world around us’ (Reponen 4). This reality has been observed in the speeches of these women through their language use; hence, there is need to study them. And, the best linguistic tool that suits such a study, in this researcher’s own opinion, is critical discourse analysis because of the relationship between language and discourse. Fairclough (18-19) defines ‘language use’ as “socially determined”, and ‘Discourse’ as “language as a form of social practice”. According to him, language does not exist outside of society but is a part of it. When people use language, they follow certain norms and rules that have been socially determined, and language use affects, for example, people’s world views and reality Fairclough (19). He adds that ‘language’ is a social process, in which both the production and interpretation are included. He continues in explaining that language is a social practice that is conditioned by the context, which includes not only the immediate situation of language use but also society. (19-20)

Fairclough (21) further explains that discourse can then be seen to consist of three dimensions: the text itself (written or spoken), the processes of its production and interpretation and the social conditions relating to its production and interpretations. He also says that when we produce and interpret language, we draw upon the knowledge which is already in our heads, for example, about language, values and beliefs. According to him, this knowledge is socially constructed, dependent on our social relations and it is socially transmitted. Because of this social nature, language is closely related to power and ideologies, making it possible to dominate other people and shape societies (Fairclough in Reponen 5). In line with the above assertion by Fairclough, Obi Ezekwesili and Abike Dabiri, as a result of their statuses have voiced their knowledge and opinion of the Nigerian society in many issues especially as they affect the women and children.

In addition, Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth CDA), like a coroner’s office where a dead body, unable to speak, is dissected for the purpose of discovering the cause of death, is the right place to perform an autopsy on the discourse, spoken or written, in order to unveil the underlying ideologies in it. CDA, as a method of analysis in Discourse, 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” (O’Halloran1, 946). The ideologies behind the speeches by Obi Ezekwesili and Abike Dabiri are, therefore, relevant for this study.

Oby Ezekwesili

Dr. Obiageli ‘Oby’ Ezekwesili is a Senior Economic Advisor at Open Society Foundations (OSF), a group founded by investor and philanthropist, George Soros. She also jointly serves as Senior Economic Advisor for Africa Economic Development Policy Initiative (AEDPI), a program of the Open Society Foundations. In these roles, she advises nine reform-committed African heads of state including Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia. Before joining OSF, she was Vice President of the World Bank (Africa Region) in Washington, D.C., responsible for operations in 48 countries and a lending portfolio of nearly $40 billion. From 2002 to 2007, Ezekwesili worked for the federal government of Nigeria as Minister of Education, Minister of Solid Minerals, head of the Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit as well as Chairperson of the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) where she led the first ever national implementation of the global standards and principles of transparency in the oil, gas and mining sectors. She was a key member of President Olusegun Obasanjo’s Economic Team. Ezekwesili is a founding Director of Transparency International, representing Africa at the global anti-corruption body based in Berlin.

Abike Dabiri

Hon. Abike Kafayat Oluwatoyin Dabiri Erewa (Nee Erogbogbo) was Born On 10th October 1962 at Ikorodu Lagos state, Nigeria. She is also an alumnus of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ife, University of Lagos and Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA. She is a three term member of Nigeria’s lower chamber (House of Representatives) from Lagos state. During her period in the house, she chaired the Diaspora committee. She is the current Senior Special Adviser on Foreign affairs and Diaspora to President Muhammadu Buhari.

Statement of Problem

This study is a critical discourse analysis of speeches by Oby Ezekwesili and Abike Dabiri. It is a study that dove tailed into feminism and other social issues as observed from their various speeches at various social functions. Since CDA is interested in the WHO of the speaker and WHAT of the discourse (message), the study has attributed some importance to these speeches because of the personality of the speakers and the significance of their messages for societal development. Thus, the Power and Ideology embedded in these speeches as a result of the psychological disposition of the speakers are to be unveiled.

Aim and Objectives of the Study

This research, aims at unveiling the embedded ideologies in the speeches of two prominent Nigerian women (Ezekwesili and Dabiri). This will be achieved through the objectives below:

i. By uncovering the linguistic devices or expressions used to cover their psychological input in these utterances.

ii. By establishing reasons why they have spoken the way they did at every point in time.

iii. By establishing the nexus between their social status at the time of making the utterances and the significance of the events where the speeches were delivered; since, they both served in different capacities as stakeholders in nation building.

Research Questions

i. What are the linguistic devices or expressions used to cover the psychological input in the speakers’ utterances?

ii. What is or are the reason (s) why they have spoken the way they did at every point in time?

iii. What is the relationship between their office at the time of these speeches and the significance of the events that shaped their speeches?

Scope and Limitation of the Study

The work covers solely the speeches of two out of many Nigerian women who have contributed immensely to the social, political and economic development of the country. The women so selected are Oby Ezekwesili and Abike Dabiri. Ezekwesili’s speeches that were selected for the study cover education, economy and feminism. For Dabiri, the study has selected her speeches in relation to Nigerians in the diaspora, political liberation for women and education.


No effort crowned with success is without challenge (s). The unavailability of the target women (Oby Ezekwesili and Abike Dabiri) as a result of their daily official commitment hindered the designed interview structured for this research; therefore, the study relies solely on their written speeches as delivered in different fora for want of time.

Methodology

Research Design

The study is content analysis relying on secondary data. The data for analysis were Oby Ezekwesili’s and Abike Dabiri’s written speeches delivered at different events. The data for review of literature were scholar’s opinions, positions, assertions, arguments, explanations etcetera as reflected and contained in text books, handbooks, unpublished projects and articles in journals.

Sample and Sampling Procedure

The data samples were randomly selected out of many speeches made by the two women. The choice of selecting Oby Ezekwesili’s and Abike Dabiri’s speeches was not because they are the most out spoken women in Nigeria or Africa but for their experience in private and public services respectively and their political involvement over time. Also, their incessant comments about trending issues, in order to make their own contributions in nation building as stakeholders necessitated this choice. Out of the many speeches delivered at various fora by both women, sampled speeches that relate to education, feminism, economy, diaspora and politics became relevant for this study. The speeches were partly collected from the internet and Women Development Centre, central area, Abuja. For the literature review, some materials were from the library and others from the internet.

Significance of the Study

Future researchers (especially women) will find this study informative, resourceful and encouraging. The work will also be resourceful for students and language teachers especially in gender discourse and critical discourse analysis.

References

Adjei, D. “Ten things wrong with ‘effects model’”. In: Approaches to Audiences: A Reader, R. Harindranath and O. Linne (eds.), London: Arnold, 1998.

Allport, Mitscherlich & Mitscherlich, A. “Critical Discourse Analysis: A Letter to Expatriates from the Rt. Hon. Sir Norman Fowler M.P.” University of Birmingham, University of Birmingham, 2002, www.birmingham.ac.uk/…/college…/writtendiscourse/AndrewAtkinsAssignment5.pdf

Baxter, M. “The Power of Discourse and the Discourse of Power: Pursuing Peace Through Discourse Intervention.” International Journal of Peace Studies, vol.10, no. 1, Spring/Summer 2005, pp.1-23.

Boyd, M. S. “De-constructing Race and Identity in US Presidential Discourse: Barack Obama’s Speech on Race”. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 2009.

Brockeriede, W. “Dimensions of the Concept of Rhetoric”. Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings, edited by R.L. Johannesen, Harper and Row, 1971, pp.311-26.

Castells, M. Communication Power. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Campbell, N. & Kean, A. American Cultural Studies: An Introduction to American Culture. Routledge, 1997.

Clark, Herbert H. “Arenas of language use”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Download Full Material-N5000

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

DISCOURSE AND COMMUNICATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

DISCOURSE AND COMMUNICATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

ABSTRACT

Discourse and communication are two interrelated concepts, intricately interwoven and grossly assumed as overtly synonymous. This study therefore, attempts to demystify these concepts and also aim to unearth the intricate relationship that exists between them .In this regard, the study discussed in detail the theoretical frameworks of discourse and communication and consequently established the fact that they are absolutely synonymous in every respect. To this end, the methodology is Content Analysis using discourse analytic tools of cohesion and coherence.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Language, it could be said, is as old as man but the central function of language is and remains communication. In other words, the whole essence of language boils down to communication and communication is or entails discourse. The centrality and significance of language in relation to mankind has made it the concern of linguists. Prior to modern trends in linguistics analysis, scholars were chiefly concerned with describing the structures and frameworks of languages, in this case, the traditional grammarians. However, the development of new approaches in language study shifted emphasis to functionalism, marking a quantum leap from linguistic prescriptivism to linguistic descriptivism. This brought about attempts to explain the roles or functions of language in different context, thus leading to new disciplines like discourse analysis and communication studies that view language as discourse and as a means to exchange ideas or knowledge.

Discourse can be regarded as communication because they are invariably linked such that the manifestation of one presupposes the occurrence of the other. This scenario could be likened to two sides of a coin; intricate parts of a whole. According to Wodak ‘discourse is a social performance, a relative social phenomenon that depends on a wide range of discipline…’ (49). Simply put, it refers to conversations or utterances in a social context. On the other hand, communication is an umbrella term for processes that involve the exchange of information and this includes conversations or utterances (discourse). Keyton (52) states that ‘communication presupposes discourse and all discourse forms’. In this regard, the concepts of discourse and communication will be examined in detail to further understand there interrelatedness and minor differences.

2.0 DISCOURSE AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

The term Discourse is broad with many definitions. It ‘integrates a whole palette of meanings’ (Horvath, npn). The Wikipedia states that the word discourse is derived from the Latin word discursus which means to and from’ (npn). Literally, discourse refers to communication of thought by words or a formal discussion of a subject in speech or writing. A plausible definition of discourse is offered by Stubbs as ‘language above the sentence or above the clause’ (2). In the same vein, Tenorio (4) states that discourse ‘is the highest unit of linguistic description; phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences and text are below’. This definition offers a syntactic description or explanation of discourse. Adopting a different view, Van Dijk asserts that discourse is ‘text in context’ (3). Dijk’s position offers a sociolinguistics outlook on the notion of discourse by taking cognizance of the situation it occurs. The context is very significant because discourse does not take place in a vacuum and must be by definite participants or interactants.

Despite the various definitions offered by linguists, Schiffrin conceives that ‘discourse can be interpreted in wider range than any other term in linguistic areas, yet it has been least accurately defined’ (40). This is relatively in consonance with Richardson’s view which implies that discourse is a term that is used fashionably in various disciplines and becomes ‘one of the most well used words in academics today’ (21). In other words, the term is frequently used and adopted in other academic fields, thus leading to its diverse definitions. Paltridge (2) offers that Zellig Harris; a well known linguist was the first to use the term ‘discourse’ in 1952 during a paper he presented on Discourse Analysis. However, Discourse as a field only gained much interest during the 1970s when it eventually developed as a critique of cognitive process in communication. It is based on the notion that language needs a context for it to function properly. In this regard, Ahmad (1) stressed that it is ‘difficult to understand the linguistic items used in discourse without a context’.

The context is so relevant in discourse such that it is part of the three perspectives outlined by Van Dijk to define or critically understand discourse. They are: linguistic, cognitive and socio-cultural. First, he argues that discourse is described at the syntactic, semantic and stylistic levels (linguistics perspective). Secondly, he adds that it needs to be understood from the interlocutors’ processes of production, reception and understanding (cognitive) and finally he points to the social dimension of discourse which he sees as a sequence of contextualized, controlled and purposeful acts that occur in the society: context (socio-cultural). In sum, discourse is multidisciplinary. It is a social performance, an interpersonal activity whose form is determined by its social purpose.

Discourse Analysis is a cover term for the many traditions by which discourse may be analysed. Osisanwo (8) notes thus, ‘popular as discourse analysis is among modern linguists, coming up with a comprehensive and acceptable definition of the term has been a herculean task’. To solve this linguistics conundrum, Brown and Yule in Osisanwo provided an apt definition as ‘the analysis of discourse is necessarily the analysis of language in use’ (8). This definition implied that discourse overtly presupposes communication; therefore discourse analysis is the method of studying discourse. Stubbs in Osisanwo offered a syntax-oriented view of discourse analysis as an attempt to study ‘the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts’ (8).

Schriffin explains that ‘it is a critique of cognitivism (objective, observable/knowable reality) that developed from the 1970s onwards, although it has its roots in the turn to language in the 1950s’ (34). Crystal in Mills asserted that ‘discourse analysis focuses on the structure of naturally occurring spoken language, as found in such discourses as conversations, interviews, commentaries and speeches’ (3). This corroborates Van Dijk’s view on Discourse analysis as a modality for construction of theories in clarifying the existing relations between language use, thoughts or beliefs and social interactions. He goes further to correct the general misconception that discourse analysis can only be done on spoken language since there is an evident interaction between speakers. On the contrary, written materials can also be analysed because readers assimilate what they are reading in spite of what may seem as passive interaction between a reader and the text.

In a nutshell, Mills (135) agreed that ‘discourse analysis could be seen as a reaction to a more traditional form of linguistics (formal, structural linguistics) which focused on the constituent units and structure of the sentence and which does not concern itself with an analysis of language in use’. It is concerned with translating the notion of structure from the level of the sentence to the level of longer text.

2.1 DISCOURSE STRATEGIES

A strategy ordinarily refers to a modality, procedure or method in achieving a set goal or aim. Van Dijk conceived strategy as ‘cognitive representations of action sequences and their goals’ (79). This means that one’s desires or wants are compared to what one knows about one’s abilities, the action, context, the possibilities and probabilities of outcomes and so on. In this regard, he viewed discourse strategies as ‘intuitive notions that underlie semantic relations between sentences and in terms of rules relating sentences with semantic macrostructures’ (80). These intuitive notions bring about proper linking of ideas or semantic relations in discourse. Therefore, the basic discourse strategies are cohesion and coherence.

2.1.1 Cohesion: This refers to the grammatical or lexical linking within a text or sentence that holds a text together and gives it meaning. There are two main types of cohesion: lexical and grammatical cohesion.

Lexical cohesion involves making use of the features of words as well as the group relationship between them. There are two main types of lexical cohesion which are: reiteration and collocation. Reiteration occurs in form of repetition, synonymy or hyponymy. On the other hand, collocation deals with words that co-occur in discourse.

Grammatical cohesion centres on the logical and structural form of words used in discourse. There are four main types of grammatical devices: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction. Reference deals with definiteness and can be divided into two: anaphoric and cataphoric reference. Substitution entails replacement of linguistic element(s) while ellipsis involves outright deletion of these elements (words).

2.1.2 Coherence: This covers the semantic aspects of discourse. Simply put, discourse is said to be coherent when it makes sense. Coherence in discourse is achieved through syntactical features, cognitive processes and semantic relations such as the use of deictic, anaphoric and cataphoric elements, implications and presuppositions.

Download Full Material-N5000

Pragmatic analysis of silence in communication among Nigerians

Pragmatic analysis of silence in communication

According to Jensen (1973, as cited in Jaworski, 1993, pp. 66-67), when we view silence as a means of communication, then it (silence) serves two functions: positive and negative. Jensen states that silence can link or separate people, heal or wound, expose or hide information, indicate favour or disfavour, signal activity or inactivity. From the foregoing, Jensen classifies functions of silence into five categories:

  • Linkage
  • Affecting
  • Revelation
  • Judgemental

Download Full Material-N5000

the misuse of English prepositions among primary school pupils

PURCHASE -N6500

Chapter One/Introduction

Background to the Student

All over the world, people learn English language for different reasons: some learn English for their jobs; some learn English because it is an international language; and some learn English because it is the language of science. In their journey of learning, they should bear in mind that, like any other languages, English language consists of processes the learner needs to follow in order to learn it. One of the processes is part of the speech. When one looks into the English language from the top to the bottom, one will find what is called parts of speech: nouns, verbs, adjectives… among them are prepositions.

Prepositions cannot give meaning on themselves; they link with other words or groups of words such as nouns, verbs, or adjectives to give the meanings. However, there will be a problem if there are no clear rules for how to use them.

To add more, the reason that makes prepositions confusing is recognizing prepositions that are attached to verb, adjective and nouns. A noun or pronoun always follows a preposition. A prepositional phrase is a preposition and its object. Prepositional phrase can be two or three words. However, prepositional phrases can also be longer, depending on the lengths of the preposition and the number of words that describe the object of the preposition.

Despite the above-mentioned classifications, still there are some difficulties that may face student of third year secondary. Many secondary students of the third year, they misuse prepositions both in their spoken and written language. Furthermore, some students whether they are students of the third year or else, they have common mistakes of using prepositions; even some English native speakers may say they use preposition without perfect interpretations.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate misuse of English prepositions by primary school students to come out with findings and suggest possible ways of learning and using prepositions correctly

PURCHASE -N6500Download Full Material-N5000