ABSTRACT
This study analyses the power relations, ideologies and persuasive techniques employed through language in the selected campaign speeches of two presidential candidates – Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and John Dramani Mahama during the 2012 general elections in Ghana. The linguistic and textual features of the selected speeches and the socio-cultural situations that influence the speeches are considered in the analysis. The analysis employs analytical frameworks mainly in a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) fashion with other related frameworks serving as associations. (Fairclough 1989, 1992, Halliday 1978, Wodak 1996). It analyses these under three subtopics: Descriptive, Interpretational and Explanational to reveal the implicit underpinnings by which the speakers sought to persuade their audience to endorse their quest for power. The analysis is undertaken through an eclectic selection of sections of the data. The findings reveal that the selected candidates develop power relations, and use strategies that are ideologically motivated in presenting their ideas to the audience. These strategies have an ultimate aim of persuading the audience to endorse their bid for the position of president. The relations developed and ideologies presented by the speakers are weaved into the speeches implicitly and explicitly. The analysis reveals the following persua- sive strategies among others: self projections; blurred agency; literary devices; intertextuality; speech acts which are developed and supported by appropriate interpretations of the social practices of context towards persuading the audience.
| CDA | CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS |
| GSS | GHANA STATISTICAL SERVICES |
| IEA | INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS |
| NDC | NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS |
| NPP | NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY |
| SFL | SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS |
| SSSS | SINGLE SPINE SALARY STRUCTURE |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page
DECLARATION………………………………………………………………………………………………………… i
CERTIFICATION……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ii
DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………….. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………… vii
CHAPTER ONE………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
CHAPTER TWO………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE…………………………………………………………………… 17
CHAPTER THREE…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY………………………………………… 33
- INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33
CHAPTER FOUR…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………… 49
4.1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
- DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS OF TEXT AND LINGUISTIC FEATURES…………. 49
CHAPTER FIVE……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 100
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………….. 100
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 106
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 111
- INTRODUCTION
The practice of politics is mainly anchored on speeches delivered by seekers of political pow- er and directed at their supporters and society as a whole. Like every organised field, politics is also unique in its production and presentation of speeches to its targets. Political speeches are carefully crafted to woo audience to a side of the divide and also to persuade them to ac- cept the speech maker’s stance. At this stage, the aim is to influence and control the way the audience receive and perceive the message, the truth-value of the discourse being relegated to the background as the concentration at this point is on the attainment of a single inclusive un- ion with the audience. The intended effect of political speeches is to legitimize a perspective. In other words, it hopes to enact the perspective into becoming part of an order and subse- quently, the order of discourse through the accumulation of some ideologies that support the chosen perspective through discourse.
This involves the presentation of a view-point that can be easily accepted by the audience, a delivery based on issues that seem to place the speech maker in the same group as the audi- ence, hence make them identify with the audience/reader. Thus, it is in the nature of political speeches to re-echo already existing views on an amplified scale depending on their (politi- cians’) interest which could result either in painful memories or happy pasts. These views could be on issues that have been completely settled in times past or partially put to rest. Adjei-Fobi (2011), attests to this point in his pioneering work on metaphors in selected speeches of named Ghanaian politicians.
Every politician has a principal objective which is to capture power. Discourse is one of the commonest processes that leads to power in modern times. Harvey on this point says:
Yet power is partly discourse, and discourse is partly power – they are differ- ent but not discrete, they ‘flow into’ each other; discourse can be ‘internalised in power and vice versa; the complex realities of power relations are ‘con- densed’ and simplified in discourses. (Harvey 1996, quoted in Fairclough 2010: p. 4)
All discourse contains strategies, that is, subtle ideological underpinnings, persuasive and au- thoritative (power) elements, that are employed to drive home the messages intended for the audience. (Fairclough 1989, 1992, 1995, Gee 1999, 2005, Obeng 2002, van Dijk 1996, Wodak 1996). This premise has informed the research into selected campaign speeches, one each of two presidential candidates in Ghana in the lead up to the 2012 general elections. They are: John Dramani Mahama of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo of the New Patriotic Party (NPP). Since they belong to two dif- ferent political party persuasions, it is expected that the strategies they use will differ and so will the messages and vehicles they employ.
Since the inception of the fourth republic in Ghana, only the two political parties mentioned above have had the opportunity to rule. This makes them the parties with the highest follow- ers so that they are the most popular today. Apart from the above, the issues surrounding the selection of the two candidates have greatly influenced the choice to examine their speeches. Nana Addo Danquah Akufo-Addo of the NPP won a contest involving seventeen contenders for the position of flag bearer in the run up to the 2008 elections with over 60% of the total votes cast. During the main elections that same year, he lost by a margin which was consid-
ered all over the world as one of the most keenly contested elections ever of about 40,000 votes out of several millions of votes cast. He got the approval once again in the 2012 period as the flag bearer on the ticket of the NPP. With the previous margin by which he lost, it was expected that the 2012 campaigns would be intensely organized and so would the speeches to be delivered.
For the second candidate – John Dramani Mahama, his tenure as Vice President is seen by many Ghanaians as one of the most successful due to his contributions toward the successful single-term presidency of the late John Evans Atta-Mills (president of Ghana from January, 2009-2012). This won him a declaration as flag bearer for 2012 general elections by his party
– the NDC, without him having to compete with others for it. The challenge he faced in cam- paigning throughout the whole nation in just three months meant he had a difficult task to per- form. His campaign, like Nana Akufo-Addo’s, was expected to be as intense as possible. Based on the processes the two candidates went through, they are considered the most popular candidates for the election hence the selection of their speeches for analysis.
This research will attempt to explain the underpinnings of power and ideology in the selected speeches to be examined and look out for any similarities and differences that may exist be- tween them. The research will use the theories espoused in the field of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) which posit among others that texts are carriers of ideologies and that it is not possible to take away ideologies from texts. Ideologies are used through discourse to cre- ate hegemony, power relations are created and enacted, changed or maintained through ideo- logies in analyzing the campaign speeches of the aspirants for similarities and differences that are employed in the race to attain power, (Fairclough 1995, Gee 1999, van Dijk 1996, Wodak 1996). The assertions of leading researchers in the field of Discourse Analysis, including
those referenced above, point out that individuals (power seekers and power holders) and in- stitutions employ ideologies which are produced and reproduced through accumulation of dis- courses which aid their quest to wrestle power or hold on to it, either by altering or re- enacting the social order. (Fairclough, 1989).
Apart from the above, it will also examine the trends employed in weaving ideologies into the discourse as well as possible influences of the candidates’ background in their discourse trends. The research will hopefully contribute to the creation of awareness of the elements of power and ideology that can be contained in discourse. It will also equip readers with some skills in analysing discourse to unravel especially, implicit ideological underpinnings which hitherto eluded many.
- BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
Language is a primary tool available to all human beings, which is harnessed to serve their every communication need. It is through language that the social and other needs of human existence are given meaning. Language has been used for different purposes since the begin- ning of human evolution till modern times. Research on language has focused much on the traditional branches of linguistics such as Morpho-syntax, Semantics and Phonology among others. It was not until a few decades ago that works on language outside the above branches began to take centre stage. J. L. Austin’s 1962 work was one of the ground breaking works on modern philosophies of language. His assertiveness in taking language from the traditional views held on it into action orientedness through the Speech Act Theory opened the doors for more research on modern views of language. With contributions by researchers such as, Bourdieu (1977), Fairclough(1989), Foucault(1971) Halliday (1978), van Dijk(1985) and
Wodak (1996) who took language beyond the abstract, passive and unattested level into more complete strings of language as text, as used in real-life practical situations. It is insights, contributions and developments upon the works of the above researchers that resulted in the build-up of a theoretical framework referred to as Critical Discourse Analysis. This frame- work is based upon the realization that language includes much more than linguistic structures only. It also sees a bilateral relationship between language and society where they both define the other’s existence. A major reason behind the application of CDA in any research activity is to draw attention to an assumed ‘social wrong’ (Fairclough 1992). For this reason, it ap- pears that any reflection on language must also touch on other disciplines that theorise on so- ciety and its associations. These include Anthropology, History, Sociolinguistics, Sociology, Politics and many more. The interdisciplinary theory of CDA asserts that language is power; that language (discourse) always contains ideology; that power and ideology are dependent on each other in ways that are at times implicit and at other times explicit; that accumulations of discourse constructs hegemony in power relations. (Fairclough 1989; 1992; van Dijk 1996; Wodak 1996). Thus, the implicit employment of ideology in discourse is done through accu- mulations of such discourses which result in them attaining statuses of ‘obviousness; natural; automatic and common-sense’ assumptions. (Fairclough 1989). This is to say that the general style of these discourses do penetrate and subsequently establish themselves as the right order of discourse for society. When discourses go through this phase, they rise above the level for any doubt that can lead to a questioning of it.
