Sentence Pattern and Usage in Nigeria’s 2015 Presidential Debate

Roseline Abonego Adejare

Abstract


This study of sentence pattern and usage in Nigeria’s 2015 Presidential Debate identifies and accounts for all occurring major and minor sentences, classifies the major sentences into simple, compound and complex subtypes, determines their typological and thematic distribution, and demonstrates how they were strategically employed to articulate each debater’s points. The data comprises 1876 sentences and was analysed using an improved version of the systemic grammatical model. Results show that major and minor sentences represent 92 and 8 per cent respectively and that while the simple sentence accounted for 77 per cent, compound and complex sentences make up 10 and 13 per cent respectively. Mean length of sentence was 13.6 words and clause density in respect of compound and complex sentences was 1.6 and 2.22 per sentence. Of the seventeen variants of the simple sentence isolated 21 per cent had their elements of structure realised by rankshifted clauses while 20 per cent were affected by multiplicity, mobility and inversion. Though the rest 59 per cent were kernel sentences of the basic SPCA structural pattern, it was not uncommon to find structurally complex groups as elements of clause structure. What determined which of alpha or beta was clause-initially was the focus of the message conveyed. So thematic fronting is not limited to the single clause sentence. Sentence length and type, positioning of clauses or parts thereof, and decisions on conjunctions and finite or non-finite clauses, were greatly governed by theme and the speaker’s mediate goals and grammatical sophistication. These are proofs of the strategic use of the sentence by politicians.

Keywords


Sentence Pattern, Major Sentence, Minor Sentence, Simple Sentence, Compound Sentence, Complex Sentence, Clause Structure, Rankshifted Clause

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdel-Moety, D. M. (2015). American political discourse as manifested in Hilary Clinton’s interviews: A critical discourse approach. English Linguistics Research, 4(1), doi:10.5430/elr.v4n1p1;URL:https://elr.doi.org105430/elr,v4n1p1.

Adejare, O. (Forthcoming). Natural language linguistics: Text, form and situation.

Adejare, R.A. (2013). The English verbal group: Its form, meaning and function. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.

Adejare, R. A. (2018). The central pronouns in Nigeria’s 2015 Presidential Debate: A grammatical analysis. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(2), April 2018, pp56–72; Available: URL:http://doi.org/10.5539/ijelv8n2p56. December 2017.

Adejare, R A. & Adejare, O. (2006). Tertiary English grammar (2nd ed). Lagos: DIFAMO Books.

Akinwotu, S. A. (2013). A speech act analysis of the acceptance of nomination speeches of Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Chief M.K.O. Abiola. English Linguistics Research, Available: URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/elr.v2n1p43-51.

Astrero, E. T. (2017). Linguistic analysis of social relation in a political and religious discourse. Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2017. De La alle University, Manila, Philippines, June 22, 2017. Available: www.disu.edu.pb/conferences/disu-research.congress-proceedings/LCS-1002pdf.

Ayeomoni, M.O. (2001). Style in Nigerian political speeches. Ife Studies in English Language. 5, September 2001, pp117-128.

Bellovẚ, H. (2012). Political crisis speeches of American presidents: 1861-2011. Master’s Thesis, Masarryic University, Bryno. Available: info.searchnil.com/sarmg2.b/search/web? fcoid =41.7& &fcop=topnn&fpid=2&com_next

Berry, M. (1975). Introduction to systemic linguistics I: Structure and systems. London: B. T. Batsford.

Bloor, T.& Bloor, M. (1990). The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan approach. London: Arnold.

Butler, C. S.(1979).Recent work in systemic linguistics. Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts 12-1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 71-89.

Cienki, A. (2009). Spoken language framing in political discourse. Workshop paper prepared for Joint ECPR Joint Sessions. Lisbon, Portugal, 14-19 April 2009. Workshop 19: Studying the Political through Frame Analysis. Available: https://ecpr.eu/filestore/Paper Proposal/187c5cda-fd7d-499e-b6ca-cd518820fd17pdf.

Coulthard, M.& Montgomery, M.M.(1985).Originating a description. In M. Coulthard & M. M. Montgomery (eds). Studies in discourse analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp1-12.

Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.

Firth, J.R.(1951). Modes of meaning. Papers in linguistics. (Rpt. from Essays and Studies. The English Association), pp 190-215.

Halliday, M..A.K.(1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word. (Rpt. as Bobbs-Merill Series, No Language 36), 17(3). 241-92

Halliday, M. A. K.(1966).Some notes on ‘deep’ grammar. Journal of Linguistics 2, .pp57-67.

Halliday, M. A. K.(1970). Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons (ed.). New horizons in linguistics. Middlesex: Penguin. pp140-65.

Halliday, M. A. K..(1985).An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K.& Matthiessen, C. M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K., Mclntosh, A. & Strevens, P.(1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Webster, J. J. (2008).Text linguistics: The how and why of meaning. London: Equinox.

Harris, R. (1990). The integrationist critique of orthodox linguistics. In M.P. Jordan (ed.). The Sixteenth LACUS forum 1989. Illinois: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States, pp 63-77.

Huddleston, R. (1988).Constituency, multi-functionality and grammaticalization in Halliday’s functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), pp137-174. Available: http://wwwjstor.org/stable/4115924.

Kenhekanova, K. K. (2012). Linguistic features of political discourse. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. Available: A http://dx.doi:..org/10.5901/mjss. 6(62), p192.

Millar, R. & Currie, I. (1972). The language of prose. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.

Morley, G.D. (1985). An introduction to systemic grammar. London: McMillan.

NEDG Presidential Debate (2015). 1st session, 12 00pm, size 258 MB. 2nd session.3.00pm-5.00pm, size, 295 MB, length 01:38:11, 22 March 2015. Available: wwwyoutube.com; https://youtu.be/MGwkZr3 S81.

Opeibi, O. B. (2010). Language, globalisation and democratic governance: English in Nigeria’s political discourse. In O. Okoro (ed.). Nigerian English in sociolinguistic perspectives: linguistic and literary paradigms. Lagos: Pumark Nigeria Ltd, pp241-260.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

Saussure, F.de (1916). A course in general linguistics. Trans. Wade Baskin. ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. Intro. Jonathan Culler. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 1974.

Van Dijk,T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Available: http://www.discourses.org. pp 11-52.

Van Leeuwen, M. (2012). Rhetorical effects of grammar. Critical approaches to discourse analysis across disciplines. http://cadaad.net/journal, 5(2), pp88-101.

Wilson, J. (2005). Political discourse (Chapter 20). In D. Schiffin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (eds.). The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. E-version: 14 Jan.2008. http:www//doi.org/10.1002/9780470753460..ch21.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.4p.117

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2021 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.