This Study analyses and discusses the pragmatically negation in
selected U.S and Nigerian presidential speeches. It first examined the
process of speaking as a form of intimated and supportive relationship
that serves as cement that holds friendships, families, communities,
societies and government together. The focus is on political discourse
which is closely related to power, that put certain political economic
and social ideas into practice. Text of acceptance and inauguration
speeches of President Barak Obama of the U.S.A and President Goodluck
Jonathan of Nigeria are selected to be the working data. Three
components, Description, Interpretation, and Explanation were used as
the bases for analysis and discussions.
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.0 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
Most of our social lives depend on speaking to one another. It is the
way we form intimate and supportive relationship. The mind of one human
can reach the mind of another by a process of speaking. Speaking is the
cement that holds friendship, families, communities, societies, and
government together (Philips, Kougi and Kelly 1985). For any meaningful
development and change to take place in a society, people must first
speak out. At a formal level of interaction, there are many forms of
public discourse, which among others include sermons, debates, and
political speeches. Central to all public discourse is language.
Language is indispensable tool more especially in political discourse.
Schaffher (1996:1) supports the argument, which put forward, language as
and octant factor in political spe. He said that any political action
is prepared, accompanied, controlled, and influenced by language.
The Held of politic related to power. The power to put certain
political, economic and social ideas into practices (Bayram, 2010). For
this to be established one of the effective means at the disposal of
those concerned with politics and by extension power is the act of
making speeches. The ultimate aim of political speeches is to persuade
their audiences especially of the validity of their political claims.
However, this task is challenging because the audiences of political
speeches are broad and that makes the language use within that domain to
be complicated. Unlike other genres of public discourse, political
speeches aim at wider range of audiences. Hence, language in the hand of
modern politicians is at risk of becoming an obfuscating rather than a
means of enlightenment. This trend in the use of language bypoliticians
made Orwell (1946) to conclude that in cash is in a bad way. Orwell
criticizes the English of his one citing examples from ng metaphors',
verbal 'pretentious dictions and "meaningless words.
The features outlined above by Orwell are some of the ways language
is used to deceive by those in power. This kind of language used to
deceive. Or veli termed it as 'Newspeak' popularly known as
'doublespeak". Doublespeak is a language that pretends to communicate,
but really does not, which makes bad seem good, negative positive.
Language that avoids or shifts responsibility and conceals thoughts.
For a politician, this sort of language is risk free. It commits the
speaker to nothing. It creates no expectation in the listener beyond the
dull and nauseas certainty that there will be more-much more to come.
Clear language is of course risky to them.
Speeches are undeniably part of the political state of affairs. Once
someone has become a political figure, there will always be a time when
he or she will be confronted to make speech. For presidents, the task of
making speeches begins from the day they are declared winner of an
election and on the day of taking oath of office.