A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF PRESIDENT GOODLUCK
JONATHAN’S INAUGURAL SPEECH, NIGERIA: OUR
NATION IN MOURNING
Adekunle, Abolaji Sarafa
07/15CD013
An Essay Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for
the Award of the Degree of the Bachelor of Arts (Hons.) in English
To
The Department of English, Faculty of Arts, University of Ilorin,
Ilorin, Nigeria.
May, 2011.
1
CERTIFICATION
This essay has been read and approved as meeting part of the requirements for
the award of a Bachelor of Arts Degree (Hons.) in the Department of English of the
Faculty of Arts, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.
_______________
Supervisor
Dr. T. A. Alabi
_____________
Date
_______________
Head of Department
Dr. S. T. Babatunde
_____________
Date
_______________
External Supervisor
______________
Date
2
DEDICATION
To Him, who taught me what I knew not,
He guides me when all paths seem dark,
My Lord, My Robb, Allah.
And to them this day and all days:
She did rock me and hold me closely to her breast,
Looking into my pupils with great zest,
And he who toils everyday in sweat,
Doing everything to give me the best.
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Al-hamdulilahi Rabbi-l-’alamin. All praises belong to the Almighty Allah for
the completion of my first degree. May He continue to shower His blessings upon the
soul of the noble Prophet Muhammad (S. A. W.), his household, companions, and to
the Muslim ummah till the day of recompense. I acknowledge the effort of my
supervisor, Dr. T. A. Alabi, for his support and guidance towards the completion of
this work.
My parents, Alhaji and Alhaja Adekunle, deserve great acknowledgement. All I could
say is “Robbi irhauma kama Robayani sogeera” as Allah taught me. I also appreciate my
brothers and sisters, Abu AbdulWaarith, Umm Hammed, Umm AbdulFawaz, Abu Islamiyah,
Adekunle Ibrahim Kola, Umm AbdulAfeez. They have been pivotal to my success as the
lastborn of the house. Ajao Odunola Risqot, Abdullah Adesokan, Alfa Nurudeen, Bro Ashim,
Abu Rodya are all worthy of my appreciation.
My gratitude to my room-mate, Onakunle Olayemi. I hope the wind of time
will not blow away the dreams we shared, the moments we studied together, our
“E5s”, “B halfs”, our “coloured rice”. They form a story that make us smile. I will not
forget my “younger brothers”, Abdullah Babatunde and Rosheed Kolapo.
My course-mates and friends, my imam and well-wishers at Sanrab Mosque,
Imam Abu AbdRahman, Alfa Ismail, Alfa Musa, Alfa Sheriffdeen, Alfa Taofeek and
others who are numerous to mention are all appreciated. Jazakumlah khaeran.
Companions at the Ogidi Villa, Falode Wole (Proff.), Mr Taiwo, Toheebat, Pa
Ajayi, Dr. Tolu. I say with awe “thank you”.
4
ABSTRACT
Given the fact that communication is chiefly achieved through language, it is
therefore important to study and account for how speakers encode their utterances and
how meanings are decoded from the utterances during communication. This has made
us to attempt a pragmatic analysis of President Goodluck Jonathan’s inaugural speech,
Nigeria: Our Nation in Mourning, because of its socio-political importance with a
view to accounting for how the president has encoded his utterances and how
meanings are generated from the utterances in the speech. All the eight utterances in
the transcribed text were analysed using pragmatic tools, which are speech acts,
context, indexicals, implicature and relevance. This study has revealed to us the
effects of cognition, social principles and context on the president’s utterances and
showed the president as a careful user of words and a performer of many actions with
few utterances. Therefore to succeed as a communicator, and indeed a politician, rests
greatly on the way one is able to choose and arrange his words as well as considering
other non-linguistic factors.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
i
Certification
ii
Dedication
iii
Acknowledgements
iv
Abstract
v
Table of Contents
vi
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background to the Study and Statement of the Research Problem
1
1.1 Research Questions
2
1.2 Aims and Objectives of the Study
2
1.3 Scope of the Study
3
1.4 Justification of the Study
3
1.5 Research Method
4
1.6 Data Description
4
1.7 Conclusion
5
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
6
2.1 History of Pragmatics
6
6
2.2 Definitions of Pragmatics
7
2.3 Theories of Pragmatics
8
2.3.1 Speech Acts Theory
8
2.3.1.1 J.L. Austin’s Contributions
9
2.3.1.2 Searle’s Contributions
11
2.3.2 Relevance Theory
13
2.4 Elements of Pragmatics
15
2.4.1 Implicature
15
2.4.2 Indexicals
18
2.4.3 Context
20
2.5 Conclusion
24
CHAPTER THREE
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
3.0 Introduction
25
3.1 Data Analysis
25
3.2 Data Discussion
39
3.3 Conclusion
43
CHAPTER FOUR
SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
4.0 Summary
44
4.1 Summary of Findings
45
7
4.2 Conclusion
46
Bibliography
48
APPENDICES
Appendix I
51
Appendix II
54
8
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.0
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY AND STATEMENT OF THE
RESEARCH PROBLEM
There is no gainsaying the fact that the essence of language is communication.
Many attempts have been made to describe what an effective communication is. One
issue that runs through all the attempts is the area of meaning generation as a pivotal
factor for an effective communication. Over the years, meaning generation has
remained problematic because most of the approaches developed to explain how
meaning is generated rely on the linguistic knowledge of the language users without
looking at the extralinguistic factors, therefore making those approaches to be
inadequate. It was against this backdrop that pragmatics emerged in order to account
for how meaning is generated in a communicative act by considering both the
linguistic and the non-linguistic factors.
The role of communication in governance cannot be overemphasised. This
assertion supports the importance of delivering an inaugural speech on assumption of
duty as an administrator. A presidential inaugural speech gives the president the first
chance to use the official voice, which should indicate the direction of the new
administration. Every utterance in such a speech communicates meaning.
It is therefore important to embark on a pragmatic analysis of
PresidentGoodluck Jonathan’s inaugural speech, titled, Nigeria: Our Nation in
9
Mourning, looking at the tokens of utterances in the speech with a view to accounting
for how meaning is generated from the speech.
1.1
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In order to account for how meaning is generated from PresidentGoodluck
Jonathan’s inaugural speech, some questions have emerged and they are:
1. In what waycan context contribute to generating meanings from this
speech?
2. What is the role of cognition in the way the president encoded
hisutterances?
3. Does cognition play any role in decoding meanings from the president’s
inaugural speech?
4. Howdo social principles affect the utterances made by the president?
5. Howdoes the president performs actionswith his utterances?
1.2
AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This
studyaimsto
account
for
how
meanings
are
generated
from
PresidentGoodluck Jonathan’s inaugural speech, Nigeria: Our Nation in Mourning,
and study the ways he has encoded his utterances. The objectives of the study are to:
1. Examine the impactsof context in the speech.
2. Evaluate the effects of social principles on howthe president has
communicated.
3. Examine the role of cognition in the way utterances are interpreted.
10
4.Assess how people calculate what is not linguistically expressed from what
is expressed linguistically.
5. Examine the way the president performs actions with the utterances in the
speech.
1.3
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This research report, a pragmatic analysis of PresidentGoodluck Jonathan’s
inaugural speech, will be studied using some selectedtheories of pragmatics which are
speech acts theory, relevance theory; and pragmatic elements which are implicature,
indexicals and context. The theories and elements chosen are from the socialpsychological and cognitive-psychological approaches to pragmatics.
These theories and elements will be deployed in the analysis of President
Goodluck Jonathan’s inaugural speech, titled, Nigeria: Our Nation in Mourning.
1.4
JUSTIFICATION
Generating meanings from utterances requires more than just the linguistic
knowledge. Non-linguistic factors are also needed to be considered so that a good
account of how communications take place can be achieved, especially in a speech
like this.
A lot of researches have been done on speeches, using pragmatic tools.For
instance, Pragma-Rhetorical Strategies in Selected Speeches of Nigerian President
OlusegunObasanjo by Babatunde and Odepidan(2009). The researcher notes that
most of the works are products of only the social-psychological approach to
pragmatics without employing the cognitive-psychological approach.
11
This work is distinct because the researcher draws eclectically,theories from
the social-psychological approach(speech acts theory, implicature, indexicalsand
context) and the cognitive-psychological approach(relevance theory) to analyse the
inaugural speech. Also, the socio-political importance of the speech as one made at
the ascension of the vice president after the death of ademocratic president in office
makes this research worthwhile.
This work will be of help to upcoming researchers, linguists and Nigerians
who are politically conscious.
1.5
RESEARCH METHOD
This study applies the case study research design by applying some selected
pragmatic theories and elements on President Goodluck Jonathan’s inaugural speech,
titled, Nigeria: Our Nation in Mourning.
The transcribed text is divided into eight utterances based on paragraphs (each
paragraph discusses a subject matter).All the utterances in the speech will be analysed
with pragmatic theories and elements, which are speech acts theory, relevance
theory,implicature, indexicals and context. This is because the researcher intends to
achieve a fairly high level of investigation on each utterance.
1.6
DATA DESCRIPTION
Nigeria: Our Nation in Mourningis the title of the President’s inaugural
speechdelivered by President Goodluck Jonathan on his assumption of office on May
6, 2010 as the 14thPresident of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. His ascension to the
12
office of the president was as a result of the death of President Umar Musa Yar’adua,
who died after a protracted illness at the Presidential Villa in Abuja on May 5, 2010.
Following the Nigerian constitution, the vice president became the president.
This necessitates that President Goodluck Jonathan delivers an inaugural speech as
the new president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The speech was delivered after
he was sworn in on May 6, 2010 at the Presidential Palace, Abuja and it was
broadcast to the whole nation through the media.
As an inaugural speech, he discussed different issues like the death of the
president, electoral reform, the Niger-Delta crisis and some other pertinent issues.
The utterances that make up the speech are numbered and presented at the
appendix section. This is done so that we can realize a good presentation and clear
analysis.
1.7
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have presented a general introduction to the study by
looking at the background to the study as well as the statement of the research
problem, the research questions have been raised, the aims and objectives of the study
have been made known. Also, the scope of the study, justification, the research
method and the data description haveall been presented.
We will therefore proceed to the next chapter where we shall trace the history
of pragmatics, review some of its definitions, and finally review our selected theories
and elements(as expressed in our scope of the study).
13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0
INTRODUCTION
This chapter shall trace the history of pragmatics, look at its different
definitions, review some selected theories and elements in the field as well as their
contributors.
2.1
HISTORY OF PRAGMATICS
“A diplomat who says ‘yes’ means ‘maybe’; a diplomat who says ‘maybe’
means ‘no’;and a diplomat who says ‘no’ is no diplomat” (Korta& Perry, 2006).This
quotation which is credited to Charles M. de Talleyrand(1754-1838) vividly shows
that communication involves more than what we literally say. This shows that
adequate meaning cannot be found in the plain sense of a word.
Efforts at establishing a pragmatic approach is said to be dated back to the
1960s and the late 1970s when several attempts were made to fill the vacuum created
by syntax and semantics in meaning generation(Mey 2001, p.4). At this period,
philosophers who were also interested in language discovered that linguistic factors
only cannot guarantee good interpretation and so, non-linguistic factors shouldalso be
considered in meaning generation. They believe that the aim of pragmatics is to
construct explicit rules which take semantic representation, description of context and
background assumptions as input and yield pragmatic interpretations as output
(Wilson 1985, p. 639).Ayodabo(1997, p.134) quotes Lawal(1995) that “pragmatics
14
evolved as a result of the limitations of structural semantics to capture satisfactorily
the sociological and other non-linguistic dimensions of verbal communication”.
The acclaimed father of pragmatics is Charles Morris(1938) who defines
pragmatics in terms of three correlates: signs, the objects to which the signs are
applicable and sign users or interpreters. He says “pragmatics studies whatever
relations there are between signs and the sign users or interpreters” (cited from
Verschueren 2003, p.6). Since then, there have been a lot of developments in the field
of pragmatics traceable to Austin, Searle, Grice etc. who have developed theories for
doing pragmatics.
2.2
DEFINITIONS OF PRAGMATICS
There are many views on what pragmatics is. Crystal (1985, p. 240) says:
Pragmatics is the study of language from the point of view
of users, especially of the choices they make, constraints
they encounter in using language in social interaction and
the effects their use of the language has on other participants
in the act of communication.
This definition emphasises the study of participants’ personalities in
utterances, the factors that govern their choices and the effects of their utterances
after they have been made. This definition is in line with Watson and Hill’s (1993, p.
46) view (cited from Osisanwo 2008, p. 54-55) that “pragmatics is the study of
language from the view point of the user, especially the choices, the constraints he
15
meets with in employing then use of the language and the effects the use has on the
communication situation”.
For Yule (2003, p.3), “pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as
communicated by the speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader)”.
Spencer-Oatey and Zegarac (2002, p. 74) describes pragmatics as concerned “with
the interrelationship between language form, (communicated) messages and
language users”. These two definitions concentrate on utterances meanings as
affected by the users.
From all the views presented above, we can deduce that pragmatics studies
and gives account of meaning in context, the factors that affect the making of
utterances by users and the effects of the utterances.
2.3
THEORIES OF PRAGMATICS
Theories of pragmatics are principles which are laid down for doing
pragmatics. The theories which will be reviewed are the speech acts theory and
relevance theory.
2.3.1
SPEECH ACTS THEORY
Linguists observe that humans use their utterances to perform actions. In a
view to study the actions performed with utterances, speech acts theory was
introduced. Austin, the exponent of speech acts theory, used this term to refer to an
utterance and the total situation in which the utterance is issued (Thomas 1995, p.51).
Mey (2001, p.95) says that “speech acts are verbal actions happening in the
world”. He further added that “by uttering a speech act, one does something with his
16
words” (p.95).Yule (2002) corroborates this by describing speech acts as actions that
are performed with utterances (p.47).
With these, we can say that speech acts are communicative acts performed
with the use of oral or written language in order to bring about a change of affairs in
the world. The contributions of those that worked on speech acts theory are reviewed
below:
2.3.1.1 J.L. AUSTIN’S CONTRIBUTION
The exponent of speech acts theory is J.L. Austin, a British philosopher who
was intrigued by the way we use words to do different things. His posthumous
publication, How to do Things with Words (1962), had an enormous impact on
linguistics. In this publication, he made a distinction between constantives and
performatives. He classifies constantives as utterances that can be evaluated along a
dimension of truth;performatives as utterances which cannot be said to be true or false
but can be evaluated by a dimension of felicity.
Korta and Perry (2006) assert that Austin realised some problems with his
distinction which makes him therefore to replace the constantive-performative
elements with a threefold distinction which are locutions, illocutions and perlocutions.
i.
Locutionary act: It is the “actual words uttered” (Thomas 1995, p.49). Yule
(2002, p.48) says that to produce a meaningful linguistic expression is to
perform a locutionaryact.
ii.
Illocutionary act: This is the purpose behind making an utterance. It is the
function we want our utterances to perform.
17
iii.
Perlocutionary act: The effect that performing the locutionary act has on the
hearer is referred to as perlocutionary act.
In addition to these, Austin proposes the felicity conditions that a speech act
must meet before being considered appropriate and successful. They are:
A1. There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having a conventional
effect, that procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in
certain circumstances.
A2. The particular person and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for
the invocation of the particular procedure invoked.
B. The procedure must be executed by all participants both i. correctly and
ii.completely.
C. i. Where, as often, the procedure is designed for use by persons having certain
thoughts or feelings, or for the inauguration of certain consequential conduct on the
part of any participant, then a person participating in and so invoking the procedure
must in fact have those thoughts or feelings, and the participants must intend so to
conduct themselves and further;
ii. Must actually so conduct themselves subsequently.
(Austin 1962, p.14-15)
Also, Austin categorised illocutionary acts into five according to the functions
they perform. They are:
i.
Verdictives: They give a finding or verdict.
ii.
Exercitives: They exercise power or influence.
18
iii.
Commissives: They promise or announce intentions.
iv.
Behabitives: They express attitude and social behaviour.
v.
Expositives: They fit utterances into arguments or conversations.
Despite all these contributions, his work has faced criticisms, especially by
Searle. The criticisms are that his work is incomplete, that his illocutionary acts
classification overlaps and have incompatible elements. Let us therefore look at
Searle’s contributions.
2.3.1.2 SEARLE’S CONTRIBUTIONS
Searle’s contribution made speech acts to adopt a social view of linguistic
meaning by making it a theory of constitutive rules for performing illocutionary acts
(Korta& Perry, 2006). He established himself as an authority in this field with several
publications (1969, 1975,etc.). While he adopts the threefold distinction of speech
acts by Austin (1962), he focused more on the illocutionary acts classification. His
classifications of illocutionary acts are:
i.
Assertives: These are used to express beliefs. They are statements of facts,
conclusions, etc.
ii.
Directives: These are used by speakers to get someone else to do something.
They are commands, orders, requests, etc.
iii.
Commissives: They are used to commit the speaker to some future actions.
They are promises, pledges, threats, etc.
19
iv.
Expressives: Feelings of speakers are stated with expressives i.e. the
psychological states of speakers. They can be statements of displeasure, joy,
sadness, etc.
v.
Declaratives: They reflect the institutional role of a speaker. They change the
world via their utterances.
Apart from these, he proposes new felicity conditions which are:
i.
Propositional Content Condition: Specification of a future state of affairs.
ii.
Preparatory Condition: The speaker has adequate information to form a valid
opinion about the future state of affairs.
iii.
Sincerity Condition: The speaker believes that the future state of affairs will
indeed be as described.
iv.
Essential condition: The utterance counts as an act committing the speaker to
the likelihood of the future state of affairs to be as described.
(Verschueren 2003, p.23).
Searle also contributes what is known as “indirect speech act”. Quoting from
Thomas (1995, p. 93), Searle (1969) says that an indirect speech act is one performed
by a “means of another speech act”. Searle views indirect speech act as a combination
of two acts, “a primary illocutionary act and a secondary one, where the primary act
operates through and in force the secondary one”(Mey 2001, p.113).
The study of these “conventional conditions for illocutionary acts”, together
with “the study of their correct taxonomy constitute the core of speech acts theory”
(korta& Perry, 2006).
20
Going through all the contributions, this research report shall make do of only
the illocutionary acts classification by Searle in our analysis because of its simplicity
and succinctness.
2.3.2
RELEVANCE THEORY
The relevance theory was developed by Sperber and Wilson(1986). This
development was as a result of Grice’s (1975) implicature. Sperber and Wilson
represent the cognitive-psychological school of pragmatics (Wilson 1985, p.639;
Spencer-Oatey&Zegarac 2002, p.83). In their major publication, Relevance:
Communication
and
Cognition,
they
show
their
dissatisfaction
with
Griceanimplicature because it is based on social principles in human communication
(i.e. the co-operative principle). Grundy(2001, p. 101) says that Sperber and Wilson
“want a theory which goes beyond the probabilistic and enables addresses to be sure
that they have recovered the most relevant of a potentially infinite set of inferences”.
Korta and Perry (2006) also added that “the principle of relevance is much
more explicit than Grice’s co-operative principle and maxims”. This is because
Sperber and Wilson’s theory creates an empirical platform for working out inferences
from available contextual knowledge and cognitions recognition.
Sperber and Wilson believe that what people say is relevant and they
recognise the mind in drawing inferences.Also, they assert thatan input is relevant to
an individual when it connects with available contextual assumptions to yield positive
cognitive effects. This is captured in their theory that:
i.
Human cognition is geared towards the maximisation of relevance
21
ii.
Every act of ostensive communication (i.e. an utterance) communicates a
presumption of its own optimal relevance.
(Cited from Korta and Perry, 2006).
Grundy (2000,p.105-106) comes with six principles of relevance. These
principles emanate from Sperber and Wilson’s (1986) theory on relevance. They are:
i.
Every utterance comes with a guarantee of its own optimal relevance. An
individual’s particular cognitive goal at a given moment is always an instance of
a mere general goal, maximising the relevance of the information processed.
ii.
Addresses cannot prove the relevance of the utterance they hear without the
context consideration, the speaker must make some assumptions about the
hearer’s cognitive ability.
iii.
The determination of sense requires an inferential process.
iv.
The combination of a propositional form of an utterance and
extralinguistic factors enable one to deduce the relevant understanding.
v.
The most accessible interpretation is the most relevant.
vi.
Context is not treated as a given common ground, but rather as a set of
more or less accessible items of information which are stored in short term
or manifest in the physical environment.
In summary, relevance theory postulates a balance between processing effort and
determining the relevance of an utterance. Through this theory, we appreciate the
importance of context in explaining how inferences are generated from what is said
and what is not linguistically expressed. This theory relies on human cognition as a
guarantor of successful communication in contrast to the Gricean’simplicature that is
22
based on social principles. An approach to pragmatics using relevance theory is in
agreement
with
Kempson’s(1986)
definition
of
pragmatics,
quoted
from
Osisanwo(2008, p.54),that pragmatics is “the study of the general cognitive principles
involved in the retrieval of information from an utterance”. This theory is said to be
one of the contemporary developments in pragmatics (Korta and Perry, 2006).
2.4
ELEMENTS OF PRAGMATICS
2.4.1
IMPLICATURE
One of Yule’s (2002) definitions of pragmatics is that “pragmatics studies how
more gets communicated than is said” (p. 3). One area that is concerned with this is
implicature. The term “implicature” was coined by H.P. Grice in his influential
publication, Logic and Conversation(1975). While Yule(2002, p.35) defines
implicature as an additional conveyed meaning”, Fromkin, Rodman and Hyams(2007,
p.206) defineimplicature as:
Deductions that are not made strictly on the basis of the
content expressed in the discourse, rather, they are made
in accordance with the conversational maxims, taking into
account both the linguistic meaning of the utterance as well
as the particular circumstances in which the utterance is made.
The two definitions given above indicate that when speakers mean more than
what they linguistically express, such meaning that is not expressed linguistically is
called implicature.
23
As the proponent, Grice identifies two types of implicature which are
conventional and conversational implicature. Conventional implicature is related to
semantics. According to Yule (2002, p. 45), conventional implicatureis not based on
the co-operative principle.
Conversational implicature on the other hand is concerned with pragmatics. It
emerges from the co-operative principle. One may however question the use of
conversational implicature as an element of pragmatics in a speech without
conversation. This question has been rightly answered by Wilson(1985, p.639) thus:
“Grice argued that many aspects of utterance interpretationtraditionally regarded as
conventional or semantic, couldbe more explanatory treated as conversational or
pragmatic”.
This discovery by Wilson (1985) in Grice’s works supports our application of
conversational implicature in a speech without conversation.
To explain this implicature, Grice introduced the co-operative principle which
is a “social-psychological perspective” of how communication takes place between or
among people (Wilson 1985, p.639; Spencer-Oatey&Zegarac 2002, p.83). Grice states
in the co-operative principle that “make your contribution such as is required at the
stageat which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or directionof the talk exchange in
which you are engaged” (Korta and Perry 2006).
Wilson states furtherin his observation of Grice’s works that, according to
Grice, the pragmatic content of an utterance “should in some sense follow from a
knowledge
of
thecontext
of
utterance…and
24
general
principles
of
truthfulness,informativeness, relevance and clarity which speakers areexpected to
follow” (Wilson 1985, p. 639).
The above quotation talks about the co-operative principle of Grice. Grice
therefore developed four conversational maxims from his co-operative principle
which are:
i.
Maxim of Quantity: Make your contributions as informative as is required. Do
not say more than is required.
ii.
Maxim of Quality: Make your contribution true. Do not say what you believe
to be false.Do not say for which you lack adequate knowledge.
iii.
Maxim of Relation: Make your contribution relevant and appropriate to the
immediate need at each stage of the transaction.
iv.
Maxim of Manner: Be perspicuous, avoid ambiguity, obscurity, and strive for
brevity and order. This maxim deals with how the contribution to a discourse
is made.
When any of these maxims are not observed either by flouting, violating,
infringing, opting out of a maxim or suspending a maxim, this results to implicature
(Thomas 1995, p. 63-64).
Grice also developed what he termed ‘generalised’ and ‘particularised’
implicature (Grundy 2000, p.81). Generalised conversational implicature arises
irrespective of the context in which the utterance occur i.e. the utterance do not rely
on context before the implicature in it can be known. On the other hand, particularised
25
conversational implicature requires that the context of the utterance should be known
before the implicature can be generated.
Levinson(1983) observes that Grice’s maxims clearly spell out the way
conversations can be carried out efficiently, rationally and cooperatively. While
Grice’s contributions has been praised and further developed by Levinson (1983),etc.,
Sperber and Wilson(1986, 1995) have been their major critic.
2.4.2
INDEXICALS
Indexicalsare context sensitive expressions. David(2007) defines indexicals
as“linguistic expressions whose reference shift from context to context”. SpencerOatey and Zegarac (2002 p. 78) says that indexicals “are linguistic items that point to
contextually salient referents without naming them explicitly”. These definitions
indicate thatindexicals rely on context to get their meanings.
Indexicals are also referred to as deixis. The origin of “deixis” is traced by
Yule (2002) to a Greek term that means “pointing” via language. That is why he
defines it as a linguistic form used to accomplish pointing in language (p.9).
Mey(2001,p. 54) says that “the chief linguistic means of expressing an
indexical relationship are called deictic elements”. With this opinion from Mey
(2001), we arrive at the idea that deixisand indexicalscan be used interchangeably.
Various scholars of pragmatics have classified indexicals (or deixis) into three
types(Grundy,2000; Mey, 2001; Yule, 2002 & David, 2007). The three types
identified are person, place and the time indexicals. Mey(2002, p. 54) expresses that:
26
Since all indexing or pointing is done by human beings,
andtherefore all pointing expressions have to be related
to theuttering person, pointing in a particular place and
at a particulartime involves the traditional philosophic
and linguistic categoriesof person, place and time.
The three types of indexicals are explained below:
i.
Person Indexicals: This classification belongs to the category of linguistic
expressions used for the speakers, addressees and others. They are used to
indicate people. Examples are I, you, we, they, he, his, she, her, etc.
ii.
Place Indexicals: This is also called spatial deixis by Yule(2002, p. 9). They
are used to indicate the location of people and things being discussed.
Examples of place indexicals are there, here, behind, above, up, etc.
iii.
Time Indexicals:They can also be called temporal deixis. Time indexicals
refer to events,persons or objects that are near or away from the speaker or the
hearer in relation to time. They are reflected in adverbs of time and the tense
of the verb. Examples of time indexicals are later, now, then, etc.
From the above discussions on indexicals, their importance in pragmatics is
made obvious because indexicals help the interlocutors to identify referents in terms
of the three classifications given above. A listener needs to assign reference to the
words that a speaker uses. When people know what they are talking about, decoding
meaning will be easy. Thesubmission by Grundy (2000) on indexicals is germane. He
(Grundy) says that the“property of linking what is referred to to a backgroundor
27
context is what causes us to categorise deixis, andindexicality generally, as
pragmatics”(Grundy 2000, p. 43).
2.4.3
CONTEXT
Many definitions of pragmatics place important value on the role of context
(Blakemore, 1992; Ayodabo, 1997,etc.). Infact, we can say that pragmatic analysis is
impossible withoutcontext. Spencer-Oatey and Zegarac(2002, p.83) defines it as the
“set of assumptions that have a bearing on the production and the interpretation of
particular communicative acts”.
Korta and Perry (2006), after evaluating Kaplan and Stalnaker’sschemes,
express their own view on context as “anything in the indefinitely large surrounding
of anutterance,from the intentions of the speaker to theprevious topics ofconversation
to the objectdiscernible in the environment”.
We can observe that Spencer-Oatey and Zegarac’s (2002, p. 83) definition
draws insight from the cognitive-psychological approach to pragmatics by referring to
context as relating to what exist as assumptions in the mind. That of Korta and Perry’s
(2006) definition draws eclectically from the social-psychological approach and the
cognitive-psychological approach to pragmatics.
What is referred to as context can be traced to Malinowski (1923),a term that
he used to describe his findings at the Trobrian Islands (Verschueren 2003, p. 75). He
(Malinowski) says:
28
Exactly as in the reality of spoken or written language,a
word without linguistic context is a mere figment andstands
for nothing itself, so in the reality of a spokenwritten tongue,
the utterance has no meaning exceptinthe context ofsituation.
(Verschueren 2003, p. 75).
Firth(1957) furthers Malinowski’s concept of context and proposed three
categories of context of situation (citedfrom Odebunmi 2006,p. 39), which are:
A. The verbal features of participants, persons, and personalities.
i.
The verbal action of the participants.
ii.
The non-verbal action of the participants.
B. The relevant objects.
C. The effect of the verbal action.
The two above authorities(Malinowski and Firth) view context similarly as a social
phenomenon.
Later developments on context feature contributors like Hymes(1964). Hymes (1964)
sees context as having a number of features like participants, topic, setting, channel,
code, message form, key and purpose(cited from Osisanwo 2008,p.78). Another is
that of Halliday’s (1978) context as comprising field, mode and tenor.
Apparently, the above identified contributions on context have been subsumed
by a broader view of what context is (by Lawal1997; Cuttings 2002; Verschueren
2003; Osisanwo 2008, etc.). The earlier contributions of Firth (1957), Hymes (1964)
29
and Halliday (1978) on context now fall under the situational context identified by
modern contributors on context.
Lawal (1997cited from Osisanwo 2008, p.117-118)develops the “models of
the aspect of a pragmatic theory” in which he identifies six contexts of an utterance.
They are cosmological, sociological, social, psychological, situational and linguistic.
Cuttings (2002) categorised context into situational, background knowledge
and co-textual context.
Verschueren (2003) based his own classification on the mental world, social
world and the physical world.
Osisanwo’s (2008) classification of context includes the physical context,
socio-cultural context, psychological context and linguistic context.
From the above contributions on context, we can subsume Lawal’s (1997)
cosmological, sociological, and social context under Cutting’s (2002) background
knowledge context. Verschueren’s (2003) social world and Osisanwo’s (2008) sociocultural context canbe subsumed also under Cutting’s (2002) background knowledge
context. The rationale for this is to avoid repetition and because Cutting’s explanation
of background knowledge context captures social, sociological, cosmological, and
socio-cultural contexts.
With this, four types of contexts have been identified. They are situational
orphysical context, background knowledge context, psychological context ormental
world and co-textual context or linguistic context. However, co-textual context or
linguistic context will not be considered in our analysis because another element that
30
has been earlier identified in this report, indexicals, will take care of most part of what
linguistic context entails in pragmatics. This decision is supported by Grundy’s (2000,
p.43) expression that “indexicality provides clear evidence that language is not just an
autonomous or self-contained phenomenon but that aspect of context is organised as
grammatical” and Spencer-Oatey and Zegarac’s (2002 p. 77) definition of indexicals
as “linguistic items that point to contextually salient referents without naming them
explicitly”.
From all these, we now arrive at three types of contexts which are situational
context, psychological context, and background knowledge context and they shall be
explained below:
i.
Situational Context: This is the immediate physical co-presence.
Osisanwo (2008) calls it physical context. It includes the time, place,
participants, channel, etc. of the speech situation.
ii.
Background Knowledge Context: It includes the cultural context, general
knowledge that most people have about areas of life and interpersonal
knowledge. Also, as we have earlier mentioned, it includes the social,
sociological, cosmological, and socio-cultural knowledge.
iii.
Psychological Context:Verschueren (2003) also calls it the mental world.
It is the state of mind or the emotional status of the participants.
These three identified contexts will be deployed in our analysis.
31
2.5
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have been able to trace the history of pragmatics, reviewed
different definitions of pragmatics, some theories and elements used in pragmatics as
well as their contributors. We have also spelt out the elements that we will use in our
analysis so that our research questions can be answered. We will therefore apply the
theories and elements in the next chapter.
32
CHAPTER THREE
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
3.0
INTRODUCTION
This chapter shall contain two sections. The first section shall be the section
where our data will be analysed using our selected elements and the second section
shall be the section where we shall discuss the observations that emanate from our
analysis.
3.1
DATA ANALYSIS
UTTERANCE 1
SPEECH ACTS
Direct Illocution: Assertive (stating).
Indirect Illocution: Expressive (lamenting).
Perlocution:It has the effect of catching the attention of Nigerians and to make them
become sober.
CONTEXT
Situational Context: President Goodluck Jonathan is the speaker while Nigerians are
the primary audience. The activity is a televised delivery of inaugural speech. The
place of delivery is the Presidential Palace in Abuja on May 6, 2010. The speaker was
the acting president since February 9, 2010, when the senate through a resolution
empowered him to serve as the acting president due to the illness of the late president.
Mental Context: The feeling of sorrow at the death of President Umar Yar’adua.
33
Background Knowledge Context: A close relationship exists between the speaker
and the listeners. The speaker believes that Nigerians understand idioms and the
society expects that euphemism should be used to convey unpleasant news. The late
president was sick before his death.
INDEXICALS
Person Indexicals: My and I. The referent of these indexicals is President Goodluck
Jonathan.
Time Indexicals: “Is” refers to the present state of the speaker. “Received” indicates
that the speaker has heard the news of President Yar’adua’s death before the time of
his speech.
IMPLICATURE
The use of the idiom “passing on” flouts the maxim of manner. The idiom implies that
the former president has died. The speaker implies that he is not happy with the death
of the former president.
RELEVANCE
The utterance is relevant. The speaker has used an idiomatic expression (euphemism)
to encode his utterance because he assumes that Nigerians have knowledge about the
meaning of idioms and about the pleasant way that death news is to be conveyed. The
presence of procedural encoding expressions which are “deep sense of loss” and
“profound sorrow” help us in drawing these inferences: the former president, Umar
Yar’adua is dead and the new PresidentGoodluck Jonathan is sad about it.
34
UTTERANCE 2
SPEECH ACTS
Direct Illocution:Assertive(reporting and stating).
Indirect Illocution:Expressive (lamenting).
Perlocution:It is said to have an effect of creating a mental picture of how the late
president died so that Nigerians can become sombre.
CONTEXT
Situational Context:President Jonathan and other Nigerians are the Participants. The
activity is the delivery of the presidential inaugural speech at the Presidential Palace
in Abuja on May 6, 2010. There is a close relationship between the speaker and
Nigerians. As the acting president, the speaker is believed to be knowledgeable about
the situation that surrounded the death of the president.
Mental Context: The speaker feels sorrowful at the death of President Yar’adua and
expects that Nigerians also will be in the same mood.
Background Knowledge Context: The late President was ill and he had sought for
medical treatment outside the country before he finally died. There has been anxiety
in the country before his death and so, several stories have emerged about his death
and the situation that surrounded it. The listeners also need to know that Nigerians are
religious, and it is expected that death news should be taken as the will of God.
INDEXICALS
Person Indexicals: Our and We. They refer collectively to the speaker, President
Jonathan and other Nigerians.
35
Time Indexicals: “Passed away” indicates that President Yar’adua had died before
the time of the speaker’s speech. “Submit” shows the present state of the participants.
“Has placed” shows the effect of the death news before the time of the speech
delivery. “Yesterday evening” refers to the late part of the 5th day of May, 2010.
“This” refers to the death of the late President at the moment while he was in office.
IMPLICATURE
The speaker flouts the maxim of manner by using the idiom “passed away” which
implies “died”. Other implicatures arising from this utterance are that the former
president died peacefully and not painfully as most Nigerians were thinking because
of his protracted illness; that his death occurred in Nigeria and not elsewhere; and that
Nigerians are religious.
RELEVANCE
The speaker assumes that Nigerians are familiar with the use of idioms as he had done
in the first utterance. He is also aware of the anxiety Nigerians had when the late
president was ill. Nigerians are also willing to know about when and where the late
president died. The speaker recognises the intentions of Nigerians and that is why he
has fully explicated his utterance by using the adverb “peacefully” and provided
information on the date, time and place of the president’s death. We can therefore
infer that the president died peacefully and it is humane to mourn, regardless of
religion.
36
UTTERANCE 3
SPEECH ACTS
Direct Illocution: Assertive (stating).
Indirect Illocution:Commissive (pledging) and expressive (sympathising).
Perlocution: It has the effect of assuring the family of the late president of the
support of the speaker and other Nigerians.
CONTEXT
Situational Context:President Jonathan is the speaker and other Nigerians are the
audience. The primary audience is the family of the late president. The activity is a
broadcast speech delivery of inaugural speech by the president on his assumption of
office at the Presidential Palace in Abuja on May 6, 2010. As the new first citizen of
Nigeria, the speaker pledges on behalf of other Nigerians to support the late
president’s family, hence, makes the family of the late president the primary audience.
Mental Context: The speaker feels sympathetic towards the late president’s family.
Background Knowledge Context: The speaker believes that his audience
understands idioms and that the family of the late president is mourning. The listeners
are expected to know that the late president has a political pedigree.
INDEXICALS
Person Indexicals: “Our” is used to refer collectively to the speaker and other
Nigerians. “I” is referring to only the speaker, President Jonathan.
Time Indexicals: “Stand by” and “offer” indicates the present action of the speaker.
37
IMPLICATURE
The use of the idiom “stand by” flouts the maxim of manner. It implies a promise.
The speaker implies that the family of the late president will be supported.
RELEVANCE
The speaker knew that the family of the late president will be mourning. Nigerians
also expect that the speaker say something about the bereaved family.The bereaved
family also await the response of the new president. The speaker still uses an idiom
“stand by” to convey his intention because he still relies on the assumption that
Nigerians have the knowledge about idioms. The recognition of these intentions by
the participants makes the utterance relevant. We can infer that the speaker is
promising the bereaved family his support and other Nigerians’ support.
UTTERANCE 4
SPEECH ACTS
Direct Illocution:Assertive (stating and praising).
Indirect Illocution: Expressive (lamenting).
Perlocution:It has the effect of making Nigerians to recall and appreciate the
contributions of the late president towards the growth and development of Nigeria.
CONTEXT
Situational Context: The activity is the delivery of President Jonathan’s inaugural
speech. Nigerians are the audience. The speech is broadcast on May 6, 2010.
Mental Context: The speaker is recalling the contributions of the late president,
therefore lamenting.
38
Background Knowledge Context:The death of President Yar’adua and the
assumptions that Nigerians understand euphemisms are the background knowledge.
The listeners also need to know that the dead president was the boss of the speaker
and he has a great political profile. There was an intimate relationship between the
speaker and the late president: President- Vice President relationship.
INDEXICALS
Person Indexicals: “He and His” are referring to the late President, Umar
Yar’adua.“Our” refers to President Jonathan and other Nigerians.
Time Indexicals: “Would” and “will” refer to future actions. “Was”, “displayed”,
“left”, “created” and “lost” indicate the actions of the dead president in the past (when
he was alive).
IMPLICATURE
The implicatures that the first sentence would have resulted to has been cancelled in
the sentences that follow. However, the speaker still flouts the maxim of manner with
the use of euphemisms “exit” and “lost” which results to an implicature. These
euphemisms imply “death”. In the utterance, the speaker implies that the late
president’s contribution should be appreciated.
RELEVANCE
The speaker has fully explicated his utterance. The speaker intends to share the
achievement of the late president with Nigerians. Nigerians also expect that the new
president says something about his predecessor. In addition, the background
knowledge that the late president was dead helps us to decode the meaning of the
39
words “exit” and “loss” to mean “death”. From therecognition of these intentions and
the context, we can infer that the former president is dead and that he contributed
immensely to the Nigerian society when he was alive.
UTTERANCE 5
SPEECH ACTS
Direct
Illocution:Assertive
(stating),
Directive
(urging)
and
Commissive
(commanding).
Indirect Illocution:No indirect illocution. The illocution is direct.
Perlocution: The utterance is made with the effect of persuading Nigerians towards
upholding the good values and aspirations of Nigeria.
CONTEXT
Situational Context: The activity is the delivery of President Jonathan’s inaugural
speech. Nigerians are the audience. The speech is broadcast on May 6, 2010.
Mental Context: The mood is still mournful, however, the speaker is now addressing
the issues of national interest.
Background Knowledge Context:The listeners are expected to know the
constitutional provision backing the speaker to become the president (i.e. chapter 6,
section 146, subsection 1 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
that states that “the vice president shall hold the office of president if the office of the
president becomes vacant by reason of death….”). In addition, President Yar’adua
isthe only democratic president that died while in office and that his death is the only
sad event that occurred at the moment the speaker becomes the president.
40
INDEXICALS
Person Indexicals: “I and me” refer to the speaker, President Goodluck
Jonathan.“We and ours” refer to President Jonathan and other Nigerians.
Time Indexicals: “Having taken” indicates that the action of oath taking is in the
past. “Urge” indicates the speaker’s action at the present.
IMPLICATURE
There are several implicatures in this utterance. Firstly, the speaker has flouted the
maxim of quantity when he said “these sad and unusual circumstances”. There is no
adequate information about what the speaker mean. He possibly implies the death of a
democratic president in Nigeria while in office. Secondly, he has cancelled the
implicatures that his use of “while this is a major burden on me” might result to by
adding “and indeed the entire nation”. This is one of the features of implicature.
Lastly, the use of euphemism “departed” flouts the maxim of manner. The speaker
implies the death of his predecessor.
RELEVANCE
The speaker assumes that Nigerians are not ignorant about the history of Nigeria and
the present situation. That is why he has referred to a plural context. Nigerians, as the
audience, are only knowledgeable that the late Yar’adua is the only democratic
president that died in office and that his death was the only sad event that has
happened at that moment. Processing the meaning of the utterance is difficult because
the whole intentions of the speaker are not recognised. However,from the little
background knowledge and the utterance uttered, we infer that the speaker has
41
assumed the president in a sad atmosphere; he is also calling on Nigerians to
cooperate with him as a collective effort to achieve success.
UTTERANCE 6
SPEECH ACTS
Illocution: Commissive (promising) and directive (commanding).
Indirect Illocution:No indirect illocution. The illocution is direct.
Perlocution: The utterance is made with the effect of equipping Nigerians on the
information about the direction of the speaker’s administration.
CONTEXT
Situational Context: The activity is the delivery of President Jonathan’s inaugural
speech. The primary audience moves from the ordinary Nigerians to the executives.
The speaker is President Goodluck Jonathan.
Mental Context: The speaker is optimistic. He hopes that the issues that he has raised
will be addressed.
Background Knowledge Context:
Knowledge that good governance, electoral
reform, corruption, 2011 general elections, etc. are important issues in Nigeria is
needed in this utterance. In addition, the speaker is in the right position to address the
issues as the new president.
INDEXICALS
Person Indexicals: The first use of “our” refers to president Jonathan and the ruling
council. “I” refers to President Goodluck Jonathan as the speaker. “We” and the
second use of “our” refer to President Jonathan and other Nigerians collectively.
42
Time Indexicals: “This” refers to the present administration of President Jonathan.
“Would”, “must enshrine” refer to actions that will be done in the future.
IMPLICATURE
This utterance falls under the generalised scalar implicature. It implies that the
government will not be less committed to the issues raised and that there will be free
and fair election in 2011.
RELEVANCE
The speaker is aware of some issues in Nigeria that need to be addressed like good
governance, electoral reform, anti-graft, the Niger-Delta crisis, etc. Nigerians also
expects that the new president (Goodluck Jonathan) will indicate the direction of his
administration. The speaker also assumes this. The intentions recognition makes the
utterance to require less processing cost because we can easily infer that the utterance
is a statement of the speaker’s promises.
UTTERANCE 7
SPEECH ACTS
Direct Illocution: Assertive (stating) and commissive (promising).
Indirect Illocution:Commissive (promising).
Perlocution:This utterance is made with the effect of reminding Nigerians about the
government’s promises on May 29, 2007 and to make them know that the government
is caring and has not forgotten her promises.
43
CONTEXT
Situational Context: President Jonathan and other Nigerians are the participants. The
activity is the delivery of President Jonathan’s inaugural speech at the Presidential
Palace. The speech is broadcast on May 6, 2010.
Mental Context: The speaker is also optimistic that the promises made at the
beginning of the tenure that started in May 29, 2007 will be fulfilled.
Background Knowledge Context: It was the duo of late President Yar’adua and
Goodluck Jonathan that assumed office on May 29, 2007 in which they promised
Nigerians about what they will do. Also, Nigerians are facing various challenges like
unemployment, labour- government crisis, etc. which need to be addressed.
INDEXICALS
Person Indexicals: “I” refers to President Jonathan. The first use of “we” refers to the
government that was headed by the late PresidentYar’adua. “Our” and the second use
of “we” refer to the new government administration now headed by the speaker,
President Jonathan.
Time Indexicals:“Want” and “reassure” indicate the present action of the speaker.
“Had made” indicates the speaker’s action in the past.
IMPLICATURE
The speaker implies that the new administration will be a continuity of the last
administration of the late president.
44
RELEVANCE
The speaker assumes that Nigerians have not forgotten the promises they (the late
President and Goodluck Jonathan) made on May 29,2007 when they were sworn in.
Nigerians are also inquisitive about the agenda of the new administration. The speaker
made this utterance an answer to Nigerians’ questions. We can infer from the
utterance that the new administration is caring; has not forgotten Nigerians and that
theadministration will make sure that all promises made are fulfilled.
UTTERANCE 8
SPEECH ACTS
Direct Illocution: Directive (commanding and praying).
Indirect Illocution: No indirect illocution. The illocution is direct.
Perlocution: This utterance is made with the effect of achieving a sad reflection
about the death of the former president on Nigerians and to pray for him.
CONTEXT
Situational Context: President Jonathan is the speaker. The primary audience are
Nigerians. The activity is the delivery of inaugural speech by the President of Nigeria,
at the Presidential Palace in Abuja on May 6, 2010. The speech was broadcast.
Mental Context: The speaker returned to the sombre mood, being the apparent
mental context that surrounds the speech.
Background Knowledge Context: President Yar’adua has died. Knowledge that the
society of the speaker and the listeners believes that the dead can be prayed for, is also
needed in this utterance.
45
INDEXICALS
Person Indexicals: “My” and “I” refer to President Jonathan as the speaker.“Our”
refers to President Goodluck Jonathan and other Nigerians.“His” refers to God.“Him”
refers to the late President Yar’adua.
Time Indexicals:“Call”, “pray” and “grant” indicate what the speaker want at the
time of delivering the speech.
IMPLICATURE
The euphemistic word “departed” implies dead. With this utterance, the speaker
implicates the death of President Yar’adua as a causal factor for his assumption of
office; a remembrance of Yar’adua; a request of prayer for the dead president and a
conclusion of his speech.
RELEVANCE
The speaker still respects the late president and that is why he has used a euphemism
here again to express the president’s death and prayed for him. As a religious country,
the speaker and other Nigerians believe in praying for the dead. We can infer that the
utterance shows the great love and respect that President Goodluck Jonathan has for
the late president.
46
3.2DATA DISCUSSION
The analysis done above has been represented in the table presented at the
appendix 2 (Figure A). Where signs are used, the positive sign indicates that the
element above it is present and the negative sign indicates the corresponding element
above it is absent.
Speech acts, which are analysed using the illocutionary acts and the
perlocutionary acts of the utterances, show what the speaker used his utterances to
perform; the way he has used the utterances and the effects that the utterances are
expected to have on the listeners. We can observe that in all the eight utterances, there
are eighteen illocutionary acts: twelve direct illocutions and six indirect illocutions.
This indicates that the speaker is direct in some utterances (utterances 5, 6, 8)
and indirect in some utterances (utterances 1, 2, 3, 4, 7). This observation contradicts
Ayodabo’s(1997) finding that all utterances contain direct and indirect illocutions.
Therefore, not all utterances contain direct and indirect illocutions
Also, the use of an idiom can result to performing an indirect speech act. This
is evident in the third utterance of the speech.
We can also observe that the speaker predominantly uses assertivesand
expressives in the speech (6assertives and 4 expressives) to describe the state of
affairs of the nation; to show his rich knowledge about the sad event and to show his
personal and emotional concern. They are therefore used to create a feeling of trust
for him(Jonathan) by Nigerians and to prepare their (Nigerians) minds towards
achieving the illocutionary forces of other utterances that he later uttered, which are
47
commissives (to make them belief in his promises) and directives (to make them
perform the actions that he wants them to perform).
Another observation is that the speaker combines two illocutionary acts
together in an utterance (utterances 5, 6 and 7). In addition, we observed that an
utterance (utterance 3) has more than an illocutionary force. This shows that an
utterance can contain more than one illocutionary acts and more than one
illocutionary force.
We can therefore say that President Jonathan carefully strings his words
together to perform many actions with few utterances.
Implicature, as another element deployed, is present in all the utterances. This
is calculated with the social principles that govern conversations. As we can observe,
most implicatures that arise from the utterances are because of using euphemistic
expressions. This is because the news of the president’s death is, by social convention,
expected to be conveyed pleasantly and honourably. Theseimplicaturesrepresent
thesocial-psychological approach to pragmatics in which the utterances of the speaker
are embedded in and constrained by social, cultural and other contextual factors.
Another observation is that the speaker makes his propositions explicit in
some utterances and provides procedural encodings in some utterances which will
restrict or cancel many implicatures that might arise from the utterances.This is done
because of the socio-political nature of the speech. A case study is in utterance 5
where the speaker added “and indeed the entire nation” to the utterance so as to cancel
the implicatures in “while this is a major burden on me”
48
The relevance of each utterance has been accounted for, using the relevance
theory. With this theory, we have also provided the inferences obtained from each
utterance. The recognition of the speaker and the hearers’ intention made this
possible. As it has been earlier said, relevance theory provides explanation for
inference and gives reasons for inadequate inference(s). In a case of inadequate
inference, relevance theory provides reason(s) for it. This is what occurred in
utterance 5 where there is inadequate inference and the reason for this has been
explained by using relevance theory. This theory shows the importance of
participants’ cognition in encoding utterances and decoding meanings from
utterances.
With the application of indexicals as an element, we can observe the presence
of person and time indexicalsthroughout.Place indexicals are absent. The time
indexicals are used to reflect the time of occurrence of actions mentioned by the
speaker, showing them as part of context.The person indexicals (used to refer to
himself only) are used to acknowledge his unique position as the new President of
Nigeria. Other person indexicals (used collectively for other Nigerians and himself)
e.g. our, we, are used to show his intimacy with Nigerians to achieve a rhetorical
effect.The reason for the absence of place indexicals is that the speaker prefers to use
a proper noun for the locations mentioned in his utterances.
Not only these, we can observe that the speaker used a form of indexical to
refer to different persons. This occurred in utterances 6 and 7 (for instance, in
utterance 6 where the first use of “our” refers to President Jonathan and the ruling
49
council; and the second use of “our” refers to President Jonathan and other Nigerians).
This indicates that a single indexical used more than once in an utterance can have
different referents.
The presence of context in all the utterances indicates the pivotal role of
context in generating meaning from utterances. Other elements of pragmatics rely on
context. This supports our assertion that pragmatic analysis is impossible without the
context.
In our analysis, the speaker, the place, time and channel are the same
throughout the speech. Also, the primary audience of the speaker shifts as he
addresses the nation. The reasons for these are respectively given thus: firstly, the
speech is a written speech that allows for no conversation throughout; secondly, the
need for the new President to address various groups of people, individuals or the
whole nation because he is delivering an inaugural speech as a President.
The application of relevance theory, implicature and context show that
cognition, social principles and context are the determiners of the utterances made by
the speaker, the way he has encoded his utterances and the tools for us to decode the
relevant meanings from what is linguistically expressed and what is not linguistically
expressed.
50
3.3
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have analysed President Goodluck Jonathan’s inaugural
speech using speech acts theory (Searle’s illocutionary act classification was
adopted), implicatures, relevance theory, indexicals and context. This has also been
presented in a table (Figure A at the appendix section), the observations arising from
the analysis have been discussed and the answers to our research questions have been
provided as well as achieving the aims and objectives set out at the beginning of this
report. The next chapter will therefore be a summary of the research report, a
summary of our findings and conclusion.
51
CHAPTER FOUR
SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
4.0
SUMMARY
This research report, a pragmatic analysis of President Goodluck Jonathan’s
inaugural speech, contains four chapters. In chapter one, the general introduction to
the study was presented. It is made up of an introduction to the study, the statement of
the research problem, the research questions, aims and objectives of the study, the
scope of the study, the justification, the methodology applied in the study as well as a
description of our data, which isPresident Goodluck Jonathan’s inaugural speech,
titled Nigeria: Our Nation in Mourning.
Chapter two contains the literature review. We started by tracing the history of
pragmatics, we reviewed some of its definitions, we also reviewed some theories and
elements of pragmatics as well as looking at the efforts of their contributors. Speech
acts theory, relevance theory, implicature, indexicals and contexts are the pragmatic
tools that we reviewed.
In the third chapter, the reviewed theories and elements in the second chapter
of this work were deployed on our data for analysis. The summary of the analysis was
later presented in a table (figure A at the appendix 2) and the observations that arose
from it were discussed. It was in this chapter that our research questions were
answered.
In the light of these, we shall proceed to present a summary of our findings
and conclusion.
52
4.1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Going by the analysis done so far and the data discussion presented in the third
chapter of this report, the salient findings are summarised below:
Firstly, context is an important element in the interpretation of utterances. It
serves as a conversational undertone for speeches where there is no immediate
linguistic feedback.
It is also through context that implicatures can be calculated. What forms a
social principle (which its flouting results to implicature) is based on context.
Therefore, implicature is calculated using context.
In addition, context helps us to recognise the intention of participants in a
communicative act. It is through this intentions (cognition) recognition that adequate
inferences can be gotten.
Furthermore, assertives and expressives are necessary for achieving
persuasion and creating a strong co-operation between the hearer and the speaker.
These illocutionary acts provide the felicity conditions that will guarantee the success
of other illocutionary acts. From these, it is obvious that the way a speaker arranges
his utterances affects the success of a communicative act.
Another finding is that more than one illocutionary act can be embedded in an
utterance. This shows that a speaker can perform many actions with few utterances.
Person indexicals are essential for achieving a rhetorical effect by a speaker.
Apart from these, a single indexical can be used more than once in an
utterance to refer to different referents.
53
Not only these, speakers can use their utterances to refer to the whole
population of listeners, specific group of people or an individual among the whole
population. In a situation where the utterance shifts from addressing the whole
population to a specific group of people or an individual, such group of people or the
individual forms the primary audience.
Euphemisms can be used to express respect and honour.
Finally, when a speaker understands that his audience can calculate a negative
implicature from his utterance, he makes the implicit meaning to be explicit; cancel
the implicature; or provide procedural encodings that will restrict the implicature.
4.2
CONCLUSION
President Goodluck Jonathan’s inaugural speech, titled Nigeria: Our Nation
inMourninghas been looked into using some theories and elements of pragmatics. As
it is already known, the aim of pragmatics is to investigate how meanings are
generated from utterances beyond the reliance on only the linguistic properties of
utterances made.
It is, by general observation, known that language is the means of
communication and there is the great need for leaders to communicate with the
governed. It therefore behoves one to properly account for the meanings contained in
the utterances of leaders. That is why we have chosen the inaugural speech of
President Goodluck Jonathan for analysis.
In this research report, it has been proven that President Goodluck Jonathan’s
inaugural speech, titled Nigeria: Our Nation inMourningis embedded in and
54
constrained by cognition, social principles of communication and the context that
surrounds it.This report also shows the president as a careful user of words and a
performer of many actions with few utterances.
55
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adeniji, A. (2009).Speech Acts in the Second Inaugural Addresses of Nigeria’s
President OlusegunObasanjo and America’s President George Bush. In A.
Odebunmi, E.A. Arua& S. Arimi (Eds.). Language Gender and Politics: A
Festchriftfor YisaKehinde Yusuf (pp. 275-296). Lagos: Concept Publications.
Akmajian, A., Demers, R., Farmer, A.,Harnish R. (2008). Linguistics: An
Introduction to Language and Communication (5th ed.). New Delhi: Asoke
Pretice Hall of India Private Limited.
Austin, J. L. (1962).How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ayodabo, J. O. (1997). A Pragma-Stylistic Study of Abiola’s Historic Speech of June
24, 1993. In A. Lawal (Ed.). Stylistics in Theory and Practice(pp. 132-149).
Ilorin: Paragon Books.
Babatunde, S.T. &Odepidan, O. (2009). Pragma-Rhetorical Strategies in Selected
Speeches of President OlusegunObasanjo. In A. Odebunmi, E. A. Arua& S.
Arimi (Eds.). Language Gender and Politics: A Festchrift for YisaKehinde
Yusuf (pp. 297-312). Lagos: Concept Publications.
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cuttings, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse.New York: Routledge.
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
David, B. (2007). Indexicals (StamfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy). Retrieved July
10, 2010 from http://plato.stamford.edu/ entries/pragmatics/indexicals.
Dr Goodluck Jonathan Sworn in as Nigeria’s President on May 6, 2010. Retrieved
July 10, 2010 from http://www.news2onlinenigeria. com.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. &Hyams, N. (2002). An Introduction to Language (8th
ed.). USA: Thomson Wordsworth.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole &J. Morgan (Eds.) Syntax and
Semantics 3: Speech Acts(pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
56
Korta, K. & Perry, J. (2006). Pragmatics (Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Retrieved July 10, 2010 from http://plato.stamford.edu/entries/pragmatics.
Lawal, A. (1997). Pragmatics in Stylistics: A Speech-Act Analysis of Soyinka’s
“Telephone Conversation”. In A. Lawal (Ed). Stylistics in Theory and Practice
(pp. 150-173). Ilorin: Paragon Books.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
McGregor, W.B. (2009). Linguistics: An Introduction. London & New York:
Continuum International Publishing Company.
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction.Oxford: Blackwell.
Odebunmi, A. (2006). Meaning in English: An Introduction.Ogbomoso: Critical
Sphere.
Osisanwo, W. (2008). Introduction to Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics(2nd ed.).
Lagos: Femolus-Fetop.
President of Nigeria- GoodluckEbele Jonathan. Retrieved March 18, 2011 from
http://www.ngex.com/nigeria/govt/president/default.htm.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Searle, J. (1975). Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts.
Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Spencer-Oatey, H. &Zegarac, V. (2002). Pragmatics. In N. Schmmit(ed.). An
Introduction to Applied Linguistics(pp. 74-92). London: Hodder Arnold.
Sperber, D &Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition(2nd
ed.).Oxford: Blackwell.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London:
Longman.
Verschueren, J. (2003). Understanding Pragmatics.London: Hodder Arnold.
Webster, J.J. (2009). The Essential Halliday: M.A.K. Halliday. London &New
York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
57
Wilson, D. (1985). Pragmatics. In K. Adam & K. Jessica (Eds.). The Social Science
Encyclopedia(pp. 639-640). London, Boston & Henley: Routledge&Kegan
Plc.
Winkler, E.G. (2007). Understanding Language. New York: Continuum.
Yule, G. (2002). Pragmatics(6th Impression). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58
APPENDIX 1
NIGERIA: OUR NATION IN MOURNING
Address by President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, GCON, to the Nation on assumption
of office as President, Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, today
6th May, 2010.
UTTERANCE 1
My dear brothers and sisters, it is with deep sense of loss and profound sorrow that I
received the news of the passing on of His Excellency, President Umaru Musa
Yar’Adua, and Grand Commander of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
UTTERANCE 2
Our President passed away peacefully in the Presidential villa in Abuja yesterday
evening, the 5th day of May 2010. While we submit to the will of God as a people of
faith, this sad event has placed our nation in deep mourning.
UTTERANCE 3
On behalf of the good people of our great Country Nigeria, I stand by our First Lady,
Her Excellency HajiaTuraiYar’Adua, the Children, our Mother, HajiaHabiba Musa
Yar’Adua, and the entire Yar’Adua family and offer our heartfelt condolences on the
demise of our amiable leader.
59
UTTERANCE 4
President Yar’Adua’s contribution to political development and good governance
would never be forgotten. He will therefore always occupy a pride of place in the
political history of our dear Nation. He was a man of great personal integrity, deep
devotion to God and outstanding humility. In all his public service, he displayed
uncommon commitment to the peace, progress and unity of our country. He has left
for us a profound legacy that provides a firm foundation for Nigeria’s future. His exit
has therefore created a huge vacuum in his personal contributions to the political
growth and development of our nation. I have lost not just a boss but a good friend
and brother.
UTTERANCE 5
Having taken the oath of office in line with the Nigerian Constitution, under these
very sad and unusual circumstances, I urge all fellow citizens to remain steadfast and
committed to the values and aspirations of our nation. While this is a major burden on
me and indeed the entire nation, we must in the midst of such great adversity continue
to garner our collective efforts towards upholding the values which our departed
leader represented.
UTTERANCE 6
In this regard our total commitment to Good Governance, Electoral Reform and the
fight against Corruption would be pursued with greater vigour. As I had stated time
60
and again, we must enshrine the best standards in our democratic practice. One of the
true tests would be to ensure that all votes count and are counted in the upcoming
General Elections. Similarly the effort at ensuring the sustenance of peace and
development in the Niger Delta as well as the security of life and property around the
entire country would be of top most priority in the remaining period of this
administration.
UTTERANCE 7
I want to reassure all Nigerians that the pledges which we had made to improve the
socio-economic situation which we face through improved access to electricity, water,
education, health facilities and other social amenities would continue to be given the
needed emphasis. The welfare of our teeming workers and the unemployed youths
would also be accorded a new impetus.
UTTERANCE 8
My brothers and sisters, I call on all Nigerians to pray for the repose of the soul of our
departed President. May God, in his infinite mercy, and compassion grant him eternal
peace.God bless Nigeria.
61
RELEVANCE
IMPLICATURE
Time
Situational
Mental
Background
knowledge
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
_
_
_
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
_
_
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Nil
+
+
+
+
_
+
+
+
+
Commissive
+
+
+
+
_
+
+
+
+
Nil
+
+
+
+
_
+
+
+
+
INDIRECT
ILLOCUTIONS
Utterance 1
Assertive
Expressive
Utterance 2
Assertive
Expressive
Utterance 3
Assertive
Commissive and
Expressive
Expressive
Utterance 4
Assertive
Utterance 5
Assertive, Directive and
Commissive
Commissive and
Directive
Assertive and
Commissive
Directive
Utterance 6
Utterance 7
Utterance 8
Nil
INDEXICALS
Person
DIRECT
ILLOCUTIONS
Perlocutions
SPEECH ACTS
LOCUTION
Place
APPENDIX 2
FIGURE A
The above table shows the description of the analysis done at the third chapter from the
first utterance to the eighth utterance.
i
CONTEXT