CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1.1 Background to the study
Varied researches on the use of language
has made language users understand the fact that there is more to
meaning making than grammaticality of a sentence. Semantics is made an
anchorage of the branch of linguistics that studies meaning making in
communications. Further researches by scholars have however shown that
there is more to the ordinary, literal meaning of sentences got from
string of utterances. Often times we mean more than we say as much as we
say more than we mean. Our words are constantly redefined by the
context of usages. Pragmatics has thus been able to explain the
mechanics of meaning making over and above the wordings of a text or a
spoken conversation.
The mere fact that communication is an
essential part of human living makes pragmatics and meaning making a
daily and constant phenomenon. Humans continuously and unconsciously
engage in the negotiation of meaning in every conversation. Failure in
negotiation of meaning is often the cause of linguistic conflict in
conversation. For a peaceful and successful coexistence in the human
community as far as language use is concerned, pragmatics is most
needed.
Nowhere in the field of human discourse
is the business of meaning making most revered than in the world of
politics. Knowing how to give out orders or having the support of the
masses does not make one a good Politician. What makes one a good
politician is how to find ones way language. Being a good language user
means one is able to negotiate ones way out of conflicts and
successfully through language use,turning the table against others when
needed. It also
means manipulating
others through the use of language. Such is the business of politics
where language is needed to persuade, manipulate, accuse, and sometimes
incriminate other political actors. One would not argue the fact that it
is usually the function of spokespersons to successfully manipulate
language to the benefit of their group.Politicians see language as a
very essential tool in political aspect due to the fact that language
helps in identifying the ideological perspectives of politicians. That
is why it is possible to have a language which favours some particular
group of people or party while such type of language does not favour
other groups or parties.Opeibi (2009) emphasizes the fact that no matter
how good a candidate’s manifesto is; no matter how superior political
thoughts and ideologies of a political party may be, these can only be
expressed and further translated into social actions for social change
and social continuity through the facilities provided by language.
Egbewole and Etudaiye
(2010) state that for a party in opposition, it is its function to
engage in constant criticisms of governmental policies which are
formulated by the majority, to scrutinize carefully the manner in which
these policies are administered, and to keep thepossibility of
alternative legislative policies and administrative practices constantly
in the view of the electorate.
It is this peculiar curiosity as to the
ways in which language is specially used by political actors that
informs this research. It has been discovered that euphemisms and
dysphemisms make up a larger percentage of the features of political
language.
Opposition started in Nigeria in the
First Republic by the popular Chief ObafemiAwolowo who was the leader of
the opposition. The opposition that was practiced in the First Republic
was in line with the opposition that was practical in the United
Kingdom then(Egbewole and Etudaiye (2010). Opposition
is muffled in many parts of Africa because of colonial legacies and
cultural factors. Democracy in Nigeria will develop if the opposition
appropriately appreciates its role and adequately carries out same with
the expected altruistic motives(Alabi 2009 cited in Egbewole and
Etudaiye, 2010).
Political opposition is one of the basic
features of liberal democracy. In this context, opposition denotes
organized partisan movement dedicated to opposing and possibly changing
an incumbent government (Okoli, 2001).Okoli further argues that “in
parliamentary democracies, opposition is formally institutionalized in
the process of public governance. In this context, the opposition party
works to position itself as a “shadow government” by over-sighting the
incumbent government in-between elections and offering itself as an
alternative platform in the next election”. In the same vein, Robertson
(1985:357) stated that “an opposition is a political grouping, party or
loose association of individual who wish to change the government and
its politics”. Okoli (2001) finally concludes that “in advanced
democracies of the world, political opposition is operated along
inter-party lines”.
Opposition in politics is carried out in
form of inter-party competition. Competition is one of the features of
modern democracy in which political parties engage in the battle for
power. In Nigeria, opposition is actively practiced among political
parties but sometimes, it is done in an unlawful manner because it often
leads to violence. Opposition is better practiced if it is done with
the aim of improving the governing process of the country. Opposition
should be seen by the politicians as an act of competition which aims at
improving the administration of the country but not as an opportunity
to fulfil their personal aims.
The 2015 general election in Nigeria
provides a fertile ground for the application of features of pragmatics
to the study of meaning making in the war of words of politicians on the
Nigerian political scene. Such is the reason this study focuses on
analysing, pragmatically, the linguistic features of selected political
speeches of one of the most active participants in the build-up to and
after the 2015 general election in the person of Barrister Olisa Metuh.
Metuh, the national publicity secretary of the People’s Democratic Party
(PDP), other than doing his primary job of airing the views of the PDP
on national issues, could not hide his distaste for the flag bearer of
the APC, General Muhammad Buhari (rtd). Buhari eventually won the 2015
general election, defeating the incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan,
thus marking the first time in Nigeria’s history that an incumbent
President was defeated in an election by the leader of the opposition.
He was sworn in on 29 May 2015. Of course, this aggravated different
criticisms and comments from the electorates in which Olisa Metuh is
part of.
Olisa Metuh, national publicity
secretary of People’s Democratic Party (PDP), born to a fourth
generation law officer, Chief J.N Metuh, is from OtoloNnewi in Anambra
State. Olisa Metuh attended the Ivy League University of Nigeria Nsukka,
Enugu campus where he graduated with a degree in Law and was called to
the bar in 1988. In 1996, he started his own Law Firm, Olisa Metuh and
Co, and provided many young lawyers the opportunity to provide services
in legal practice, real estate and share acquisitions and other
investments in the capital market. He is a member of Nigeria Bar
Association, and Association of Business Lawyers of Nigeria.
Olisa was made a National Auditor in
2007 and automatically became a member of the National Working
Committee. It is important to note that Olisa Metuh is the longest and
the youngest serving elected member of the National Executive Committee
of the PDP.
Olisa Metuh has in different manners
addressed President MuhammaduBuhari’s administration in somewhat
dysphemistic ways, and being the publicity secretary of the PDP his
words could and would be taken to be that of the PDP.
Dysphemism comes from the Greek word,
‘dys’ ‘mis’ and ‘pheme’, meaning speech, voice, and reputation
respectively. It is an expression with connotations that are offensive
either about the subject matter or to the audience, or both. It is
sometimes motivated by feelings such as, fear, distastes, hatred and
contempt(Wikipedia, 2015). In speeches, dysphemism is an
evident feature which expresses the natural state of the speaker in
relation to sociological factors.
President Muhammadu Buhari was born on
December 17, 1942, in Kastina state, Nigeria. He served as the military
ruler of Nigeria (December 31, 1983 – August 27, 1985). In 1985, Buhari
was overthrown in a coup led by General Ibrahim Babangida on August 27th,
and other members of the ruling Supreme Military Council (SMC)
ostensibly, because he insisted on investigating allegations of
fraudulent award of contracts in the Military of Defence. Buhari
contested the Presidential election as the candidate of the All Nigeria
People’s Party in 2003. On 18th December 2006, Gen. Buhari
was nominated as the consensus candidate of the All Nigeria People’s
Party. His main opponent in the 2007 April polls was the ruling PDP’s
UmaruYar’Adua, who is from the same state –Katsina state, however, he
lost. In March 2010, Buhari left the ANPP for the Congress for
Progressive Change (CPC), and was the Presidential candidate in the 16
April 2011 general election, running against the incumbent president
Goodluck Jonathan of People’s Democratic Party (PDP), they were the
major contenders amongtwenty contestants.
Buhari won the 2015 general election,
defeating the incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan, thus marking the
first time Nigeria’s history that an incumbent President was defeated in
an election by the leader of the opposition. He was sworn in on 29 May
2015.
Of course, this aggravated different
criticisms, comments and effects on the readers and listeners (that is,
Nigerians open to the mass media). For the purpose of the research,
however, the concern shall be to analyseOlisa Metuh’s selected speeches
in its different varieties, employing the method of pragmatic theories.
This research is conceptualized as a
result of personal urge to determine the motive of Olisa Metuh’s use of
dysphemism, the supports given as basis for inference by the reader and
the pragmatic significance.
1.2 Statement of Research Problem
After the successful Presidential
election of March 2015, Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressive Congress
(APC) emerged as the winner of the Presidential election winning over
the incumbent President, Goodluck Jonathan of the People’s Democratic
Party (PDP) in an election widely adjudged free and fair election. This
loss caused ill expressions from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP)
which was spoken and written by the National Publicity Secretary (Olisa
Metuh) who has been vested with the power to do so. Unfortunately, the
People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has not forgotten this defeat and has
successfully portrayed President MuhammaduBuhari’s administration in a
dysphemistic manner, and many of these speeches has caused uproar in the
country.
A number of scholars have worked on the Pragmatic analysis of speeches and other related essays:
Ayeomoni and Akinuolere (2012) worked on
the “Pragmatic Analysis of Victory and Inaugural Speeches of President
Umaru Musa Yar’Adura”, where they noted in their findings that the
“Overall Relative Frequency Percentages (ORFP) results showed that Umaru
Musa Yar’ Adua relied more on sentences that performed assertive acts
than other speech acts.
Josial and Johnson (2012) also worked on
“Pragmatics Analysis of President Goodluck Jonathan’s and President
Barack Obama’s Inaugural Addresses”results in their findings shows that
the speeches are relatively alike because each speaker speaks for his
entire nation, regardless of his political party.
However, little or no research has been
done on the Pragmatic Analysis of Olisa Metuh’sDysphemisms against
President MuhammaduBuhari’s Administration and this is the gap this
research hopes to fill with a view to unraveling the meanings embedded
in the dysphemistic expressions against Buhari’s administration.
1.3 Aim and Objectives
The aim of this study is to do a
pragmatic analysis of Olisa Metuh’sdysphemisms against President
MuhammaduBuhari’s administration with specific objectives as follows:
i. toidentify the dysphemism used in Olisa Metuh’s speeches.
ii. to categorise them according to speech acts.
iii. to discuss the pragmatic meaning inferred from the categories.
1.4 Significance of the Study
This study seeks to contribute immensely
to existing works done in pragmatics because the significance of
dysphemism to the overall interpretation and analysis of a text cannot
be over emphasized.
The research will provide answers to the
underlying motives and aims enabling the production of dysphemistic
expressions by Olisa Metuh using pragmatic approaches.
Consequently, Dysphemism will be exposed
as a political communicative tool that has in itself, the effect of
blunt expressions and negativity
1.6 Scope of Study
The study is concerned with identifying
dysphemisms and providing its pragmatic implications from speeches made
by Olisa Metuh in three instances of political events, having headlines
on different Newspapers as:
- Premium Times: PDP demands removal of new INEC acting chair Amina Zakari (July 1, 2015).
- Leadership: PDP accuses Buhari of dividing Nigeria over voting pattern statement (July 27, 2015).
- Vanguard: APC, a party of shameless, desperate liars (August 1, 2015).
This research work will be analysed
using Austin’s classification of illocutionaryact, which are:
Verdictive, Behabitive, Exercitive, Commissive and Expositive.
1.5 Expected Contribution to Knowledge
The research work will focus on the
diatribes of Olisa Metuh’s speeches against President MuhammaduBuhari’s
Administration and it will contribute tremendously to the works done in
pragmatics, this is also because this essay will employ theoretical
framework in the pragmatic field.
As regards the objectives of this essay, procedures to achieve them will be derived by scholars who examine or study this essay.
The issues that constitute the content
of the dysphemistic speeches by Olisa Metuh are socio-culturally based,
thus meanings derived and analysed will serve as semantic resources and
solutions for someone who is not naturally inclined or contextually
inclined to the Nigerian political issues.