Re-Appraisal of the Linguistic Manipulations of C. K. Nzeogwu’s Coup Speech: Discourse as Text
Article Main Content
This research discussed the various discourse strategies employed by Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu in the coup text of 15th January 1966, in Nigeria. The researchers used the first component in Fairclough’s three-dimensional conception of discourse, the text, to drive the research. The central focus of this research was to review Major Chukwuma Nzeogwu’s coup speech meant to usher in the military into political power in 1966. The study revealed Nzeogwu’s deliberate employment of appropriate discourse modes, lexical items, and grammatical structures to illuminate salient aspects of the Nigerian socio-political crisis, which informed his ideology of change. The problem of the Nigerian autocratic democracy, subservient followership by citizens and the supremacy of the military elites, manifest through Nzeogwu’s linguistic manipulations, as revealed by the text analysis done in this research. There were notable nuances of military discourse which shows the speaker’s intention and exploitation of interpretation. Hence, the research x-rays the language of authority and legitimacy used by the military to sway their subjects to their side. Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis model and methods of text analysis are used to bring out the hegemonic ideological practices in military discourse especially in Nigeria.
References
-
Abrams, M.H. and Harpman, G.G. (2013). A Glossary of Literary Terms. Australia: Cengage Learning.
Google Scholar
1
-
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1988). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Google Scholar
2
-
Dijk, T. (1998). What is Political Discourse Analysis? Political Linguistics, 11, 11-52. Doi: 10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
Google Scholar
3
-
Dijk, V. (2005). Opinions and Ideologies in the Press. In Bell, A. and Garret, P.(eds). Approach to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Google Scholar
4
-
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Google Scholar
5
-
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
Google Scholar
6
-
Fairclough, N. (2001). The Dialectics of Discourse. Textos XIV(2) 231-242.
Google Scholar
7
-
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
8
-
Fairclough, N. (2008). The Language of Critical Discourse Analysis: Reply to Michael Billig. Discourse and Society, 19(6), 811-819. Doi:10.1177/0957926508095896.
Google Scholar
9
-
Henry, F. and Tator, C. (2002). Discourses of Domination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Google Scholar
10
-
Janks, H. (1998). Reading ‘Women Power’ Pretexts: Studies in Writing and Culture. 7(2) 195-212 New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
11
-
Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
12
-
McGregor, L. T. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis: A Premier. Kappa Omicron Nu Forum, Vol 15, No1.
Google Scholar
13
-
Montgomery, M. (2007). An Introduction to Language and Society. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
14
-
Njemanze, Q and Ononiwu, M, (2020). Use of Codes: A Model of Language Shift in Nigerian Communication. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Studies (JHSSS), 2:1, 77-83.
Google Scholar
15
-
Njemanze, Q, (2012). Issues in Bilingualism in Nigeria: A Reality or an Illusion. International Journal of Linguistics and Languages, . 4(1), 24-29.
Google Scholar
16
-
Obiegbu, I and Njemanze, Q, (2015). The Communicative Needs of English in a Multilingual Nigeria. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 4 (4), 161-170.
Google Scholar
17
-
Renkama, J. (2004). Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishers.
Google Scholar
18
-
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
19