THE USE OF ‘I THINK’ AND ‘I BELIEVE’ IN GHANAIAN PARLIAMENTARY DISCOURSE
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v7i5.4473Mots-clés :
lexical modals, parliamentary debates, modalityRésumé
The current study explores the varied uses of the modal lexical verbs think and believe in expressing modality in parliamentary debates in Ghana using Context-Dependency and Lexical Specialisation theory by Angelika Kratzer (1981, 1991) and modality under the interpersonal metafunction of Halliday‘s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). The study is a summative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) that employs the qualitative research design in analysing the data. The data for the study has been collected from the Hansard online from www.parliament.gh/publications/49, the official website of Ghana’s Parliament for the period of five months, from November 2016 to March 2017. In all, 300 clauses containing the lexical verbs of interest were purposefully sampled. The paper is in response to an existing claim that the modal lexical verbs think and believe express uncertainty. Though this is true, however, the technicality of political discourse renders this assertion not generally true. The current study finds that in parliamentary discourse, although the two modal lexical verbs express uncertainty to some extent, they are mostly employed as emphasisers to express a sense of urgency and to show a higher sense of validity in propositions participants make. As emphasisers, they serve a useful tool for the audience’s persuasion. The study concludes with some pedagogical implications that border on the teaching of the lexical modals.
Article visualizations:
Références
Bayley, P (2004). The whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. In: Bayley, P (ed.) Cross-cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–44.
Brandford, W. (1967). The elements of English: An introduction to the principles of the study of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Chilton P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse. London and Nork: Routledge.
Erhman, M. (1966). The Meanings of the Modals in Present-day American English. The Hague: Mouton & Co.
Fetzer A. (2008). ‘And I think that is a very straightforward way of dealing with it’: The communicative function of cognitive verbs in political discourse. Journal of language and social psychology. 27(4) 384-396.
Fetzer, A. (2014). I think, I mean, and I believe in political discourse: Collocates, functions, and distribution. Functions of Language, 21(1), 67-94. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.05fet.
Fowler, R. (1985). ‘Power’, in van Dijk, T. A. (ed) Handbook of discourse analysis 4, London: Academic Press, 61-82.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. (2nd edn.). London: Edward Arnold.
Holmes J. (1990). Hedges and Boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication. 10(3) 185-205.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Huddleston, R. (1971). The sentence in written English: a syntactic study based on the analysis of scientific texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, Ken (2004). ‘A convincing argument: corpus analysis and academic persuasion’. In: Connor Ulla and Thomas A. Upton (eds.) Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87-112.
Ilie, C. (2000). Cliché-based metadiscursive argumentation in the Houses of Parliament. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(1): 65–84.
Ilie, C. (2003a). Parenthetically speaking: Parliamentary parentheticals as rhetorical strategies. In: Bondi, M, Stati, S (eds) Dialogue Analysis 2000: Selected Papers from the 10th IADA Anniversary Conference. Bologna, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 253–264.
Ilie, C. (2003b). Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics 2(1): 71–92.
Ilie, C. (2006). Parliamentary discourses. In: Brown, K (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 2. Oxford: Elsevier, 188–197.
Ilie, C. (2010). Analytical perspectives on parliamentary and extra-parliamentary discourses. Journal of Pragmatics 42(4): 879–884.
Karkkainen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on, I think. Philadelphia, John Benjamin’s Publishing.
Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H. J. Eikmeyer, & H. Rieser (Eds.), Worlds, Words and Contexts, Berlin: De Gruyter pp. 38-74.
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In Von Stechow, A. Wunderlich (Eds) Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Berlin: De Gruyter pp.639- 650
Langacker, R. (2009). Investigations into cognitive grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Lilian, D. L. (2008). Modality, persuasion, and manipulation in Canadian conservative discourse. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 2(1), 1-16.
Marin Arrese, J. (2007). Effective vs. epistemic stance, and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse. A case study. In A. Tsangalidis, and R. Facchinetti, (Eds.) Studies on English Modality. Bern: Peter Lang, 23-52.
Ngula, R., S. (2017) Epistemic Modal Verbs in Research Articles Written by Ghanaian and International Scholars: A Corpus-Based Study of Three Disciplines. Brno Studies in English Volume 43(2).
Palmer, F. (1965). A linguistic study of the English verb. London: Longman.
Palmer, F. (1979). Modality and the English modals. London, New York: Longman.
Palmer, F. (1979). Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.
Parina, J. C. M. & De Leon, K. D. (2014). A stylistic analysis of the use of modality to identify the point of view in a short story. The southeast journal of English language studies. 20(2), 91-101.
Sarfo, E. (2016). Questioning and Debating in UK and Ghanaian Parliamentary Discourse. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leeds.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (1996). Image-Building through modality: the case of political interviews. Discourse & Society 7(3), 389-415.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (1997). Modal (un)certainty in political discourse: A functional account 19 (4) 341-356.
Simon‐Vandenbergen, A. M. (2000). The functions of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 41-63.
Simpson, P. (1990). 'Modality in literary-critical discourse'. In Nash, W. (ed.) 1990: 63-94.
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology, and point of view. London: Routledge. Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.
Simpson, P. (2004). Stylistic: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Syal, M. (1994). Because I tell a joke or two: Comedy, politics, and social difference. Routledge.
Van der Lee, A. (2016). Cultural differences in the use of epistemic modality in the European Parliament. Published Doctoral Thesis. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 4 (3); 180.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). ‘Parliamentary debates’, in Wodak R. and T. A. Dijk (eds.)
Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Parliamentary Debates. In R. Wodak & T. A. van Dijk (Eds.), Racism at the Top. Parliamentary
Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). ‘Knowledge in parliamentary debates,’ in journal of language and politics, 2: 1, 93-129.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2004). ‘Text and Context of parliamentary debates.’ in Bayley, P. (ed.), 339-372.
Vasilescu, A. (2010). Meta stance in the Romanian parliamentary discourse: Case studies. Reveu Roumaine de Linguistique.4, 365-380.
Verhulst, A., & Heyvaert, L. (2015). Root modal uses of should, ought to, and be supposed to in present-day English: From patterns and profiles to proficiency guidelines. English Studies, 96(5), 562-595.
Von Fintel, K. (2006). Modality and Language. Retrieved: February 20, 2012. Website: http://mit.edu/fintel/www/modality.pdf
Vukovic, M. (2012). Positioning in pre-prepared and spontaneous parliamentary discourse: Choice of person in the Parliament of Montenegro. Discourse & Society, 23(2), 184-202.
Vukovic, M. (2014). Strong epistemic modality in parliamentary Discourse. Open Linguistics 1: 37–52
Téléchargements
Publiée
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
