PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SELECTED POLITICAL SPEECHES OF NELSON MANDELA

ABSTRACT

This study is a pragmatic analysis of selected political speeches of Nelson Mandela. Using the Speech Acts theory the researcher interprets Nelson Mandela’s utterances, and determines the perlocutionary acts of Mandela’s speeches in order to judge whether his speeches meet the felicity conditions as spelt out by J.L Austin (1962). The linguistic and non linguistic factors such as speech acts, socio-political context and deixis are considered as relevant situational factors that helped to provide an account of how the interpretation is achieved. The method of data analysis is qualitative analytical method. The speeches are presented and analyzed using Austin’s speech act theory with special reference to Searle’s taxonomy of illocutionary act. The  findings  of this  study indicate  that  Nelson  Mandela’s  speeches  are  used  to  achieve persuasion and the utterances are either implicitly or explicitly stated. The implicit utterances are doubly pragmatic in that he did not state clearly what his intentions are but rather he uses such moods as: indicatives and imperatives which are all implicative. That is, they all have implied  meanings.  The implicit  nature of Nelson Mandela’s speeches is intended to avoid being overly aggressive in achieving his intentions. Explicit utterances on the other hand, are clearly stated using perfomative verbs. Also, we observe that in the representative or assertive acts, Nelson Mandela was explaining, informing, asserting, proving and stating the facts of the situations at heart. The perlocutionary acts indicate that, Mandela enlightens, convinces, and persuades his audience to accept his opinion.  Using the directive acts, the speaker makes his speech by ordering, admonishing, appealing,  advising, and pleading for the change they  so  much  desire.    The  perlocutionary  acts  in  the  directives  are  such  that  Mandela convinces, persuades and inspires his audience to bring about the positive change they so much  desired.  Finally,  Nelson  Mandela’s  speeches  met  J.  L.  Austin’s  (1962)  felicity conditions  and  they are,  therefore,  felicitous.    This  study also  reveals  that  in Mandela’s speeches,   there  is   an  evidence  of  the  speaker’s  cultural  influence.   Nelson  Mandela unconsciously upholds his culture in terms of greeting, appreciating and thanking his audience and his language use in terms of his communicative competence was part of the key to South African’s freedom from the apartheid conflict and eventual emergence of democratic rule.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1       Background to the Study

Language  has been defined  over  the  years,  in so  many ways and by people  with diverse  interests.  There are a number of definitions which are notable and which  express different uses of language. Sapir (8) defines language as, “a purely human and non-instinctive method  of communicating  ideas,  emotions  and desires by means  of  voluntarily produced symbols”. Bloch and Trager (5) define language as, “a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by which  social  group  co-operates’’.  Chomsky  (4)  in  his  Language  and  Mind  states  that, “knowing  a language  is knowing  the grammar  of  that  language”  and the “grammar  of a language  purports to be a description of the  ideal speaker-hearer’s  intrinsic  competence”. Bolinger   (2)   views   language   as,   “a   system   of  vocal-auditory   communication   using conventional signs, composed of arbitrary patterned sound units and assembled according to set when interacting with the experience of its users”.

From the above definitions, it is clear that human language is a system of symbols and signs that are primarily vocal and arbitrary and used for communication of ideas, thoughts, emotion, and information within a social group. The essence of language is communication and  communication  is  from  the  Latin  word,  ‘communicare’,  which  means  ‘sharing  in common’.  Communication  can  be  defined  as,  “the  process  by  which  one  person  shares information  with  another  person,  so  that  both  of  them  clearly  understand  each  other’’ Ogunpitan, (01).

It is the total process by which one person relates to another person. Communication succeeds if the hearer identifies the speaker’s communicative intention in the way intended. In any  interactional  exchange,  the  intention  of  the  individual  is   very  important  for  the

participants to engage in communication. At this point, it is important to explain an issue that arises from the definition above especially as it relates to this study. When Chomsky indicates that, ‘‘knowing a language is knowing the grammar of that language’’, the researcher needs to explain that, ‘‘knowing a language’’, in the context of this study is more than knowing the grammar of that language. It is important to know the  phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics of a language but the knowledge of the demands of the communicative competence of  the  language  is  equally  important  for  one  to  interact  effectively  in  a  conversational exchange. One must have the intuitive  knowledge which comes from correct application of the formal grammatical rules of the language for it is only when the grammatical or linguistic competencies are matched with actual communicative competence based on the context that meaningful communication is achieved. This is in fact, the concern of this study, to analyze the speeches of Nelson Mandela based on the context of his political experiences. It is only in this way that the intentions of the speaker or writer can be effectively presented. To achieve the  purpose,  therefore,  the  speeches  are  analyzed  based  on  conversational  principles  of pragmatics with great recourse to Austin (1962) Speech Act Theory. Further definitions  of language need to be highlighted in order to see different nuances of meaning which different scholars attach to the concept of meaning. While these definitions are  important, this study appreciates  a definition that hinges more on situational  imperatives  of the user which we should  understand  in  order  to  effectively  understand  the  message  and  intentions  of  the speaker.  It  is  really  the  message  and   intentions  of  the  speaker  that  bring  about  the perlocutionary act of the language.

Language  is therefore,  used to communicate  something meaningful,  either  through speech or writing, this being done through words organized into utterances or  their written representation.   Language  provides  humans  with  a  standard  means  of   communication,

interaction  and  socialization.   Human  language   therefore,   refers,  to  any  standard   and conventional system of vocal or written symbols, used for meaningful communication in a speech community.

Language is so much connected with human nature that it constitutes the focal point of human lives and activities. Among other things, language allows for communication, conflict resolution, promotion of ideas and influence.  The main essence of language is  manifested when it is used; that is why Halliday comments that, “language  cannot be  experienced  in isolation” (3). Brook too affirms this when he opines that, ‘‘different behaviours of human beings are reflected through language” (64).

Language  is used for the expression of emotion which  is shown by the ability  of persons  to  pour out  the much bottled  nervous  energy.  This  perspective  is crucial  in the analysis of Nelson Mandela’s speeches because the speeches are laden with pent-up emotions and obvious sense of painful denials. In this regard, language can be used to show annoyance, anger and anxiety. Language is a social instrument and a vehicle by which unity is promoted in society.  This  is because  the society always  comprises  different  groups  of people who probably use language in different forms based on such elements as background, education, social  class,  profession,  gender,  religion  etc.  Language  therefore  has  magical  power  to influence, persuade, control and to direct.

Language  is  essential  to  politicians  because,  ‘‘politics  is  inherently  dependent  on language,  hence the notion that language  is an instrument  of power”  Nyachae,  (01).  lt is obvious that language has been and is still a powerful tool in the hands of political leaders as they manipulate  the tool to suit their purposes.  This assertion  supports the importance  of speech writing and its delivery in politics. Every utterance in such a speech communicates meaning and to be able to appreciate the meaning of any speech in a more appropriate way,

there is the need to apply the approach of pragmatics to show how it is that language can be used to communicate information that are not directly related to the additive value of the raw linguistic forms in use.

It must be pointed out that as interesting as the phenomenon of language is, it is also very delicate  and sensitive  in its uses  and applications.  In a situation where  language  is structured for complaints or challenges, there could be counter reaction which will in turn generate strife, ill feelings, and violence. For this reason, language can be structured in such a way that it will help to realize the various functions  and at the  same time, achieve  one’s intention and desired effect.

Communication is a lifelong process which is learned and developed throughout one’s life time. To pass across some message, language must be structured in such a way that our intended  meaning  is  passed  across.  In  doing  this,  we  have  to  put  the  information  in  a systematic set of symbols which are then transmitted through some medium. This systematic set of symbols is identified as language and the medium of transmission can be identified as spoken or written.

In communication, there must be some shared knowledge between those involved which helps them arrive at the message or meaning of what has been communicated. Searle supports this assertion in his Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of  Language, (89) when he states, “if communication involves an acoustic blast between at least two persons, then there must be some underlying principles guiding each understanding”.  It is clear therefore, that every communication process involves at least two parties, the encoder –who is the speaker, or  writer  and  the  decoder–  who  is  the   listener  or  reader.     The  speaker  creates  the communication text, while the hearer tries to make some meaning of the text, falling back on shared knowledge and experience between him and the speaker. Such knowledge enables him

to understand the text, whether spoken or written. Communication is a process that occurs in a variety of situations or contexts. It takes place between participants – speaker/  hearer – at some specified time and place, under specified circumstances or mood  according to Brown and  Yule  (50).  A  competent  speaker  according  to  Hymes  (97)  can  use  the  so  called knowledge of the components of speech, choose an appropriate code and also understand how a communicative event achieves its objectives.

Every time we speak or write, we are involved in an act of communication. Several factors need to be taken into consideration when analyzing meaning and the choice of language in a particular act of communication.   Hymes notes that every speech  situation possesses eight defining features (derived from the acronym SPEAKING):

S  –  The  setting  and  the  scene  of  speech;  setting  refers  to  the  time,  place,  physical circumstances, and psychological setting and scenes. That is, concrete physical circumstance in which speech takes place.

P – Participants (speakers, addressors, hearers, and addressee). E – End (purpose, outcome and the goal of the speech).

A – Act sequence (message content and message form).

K – Key- the tone, manner, or spirit in which a particular speech is conveyed. It could be humorous, playful, solemn, pedantic, sarcastic, etc.

I – Instrumentalities  – refer to tools that are used in the construction of the speech event, codes  (language  or  language  variety  and  channel  vocal  or  non-vocal  e.g.  oral,  written, telegraphic, verbal, or non-verbal means, etc.)

N – Norm-interaction  and interpretation of specific language behaviour which include  turn taking patterns, etc.

G – Genre – this refers to clearly demarcated types of utterances like sermon, lectures, poems, interviews, oration, editorial, advertisement and  campaign.

Each of these genres is more appropriate on certain occasions than the other.  This study recognizes the various defining features and therefore, chooses the political speeches of Mandela as one that could be subjected to pragmatic analysis.

Chomsky in his Language and Mind developed the concept of linguistic competence as a major concern in formal linguistics. For him, linguistics is the study of a homogenous speech community where everyone speaks  alike. In the late 1960s  Hymes introduced  the Concept  of  communicative  competence.  The  term  is  offered  as  a  deliberate  balance  to Chomsky’s   linguistic   competence.   Hymes   in  his   Foundation   in  Sociolinguistics:   An Ethnograghic Approach, observes that, a person who had only linguistic competence would be  quite  unable  to  communicate.  According to  Cook,  ‘‘they  would  be  a  kind  of  social monsters producing grammatical sentences unconnected to the situation in which they occur’’ (42). Hymes (74) criticizes  Chomsky’s  view as not being the adequate reflection of one’s knowledge  of a  language.  As a result,  he uses  the term  “communicative  competence”  to depict a more colourful picture of man’s language ability. Hymes (75), sees communicative competence as the ability not only to apply the grammatically correct sentences, but also to recognize where and when to use those sentences.

Spitzbers  (105)  defines  communicative  competence  as,  “the  ability  to  interact  well  with others”  and  explains  the  term  well  in  terms  of  ‘accuracy,  clarity,   comprehensibility, coherence, expertise, effectiveness, and appropriateness’.

Bell (207) opines that, “he who has communicative competence has innate knowledge”. He further states,

… The innate knowledge… permits the use of language to create and comprehend utterances, to issue the communicative token of speech acts, in which language operates as an open system in constant interaction with its  environment,  and is therefore an instance of pragmatic  knowledge  of which  syntactic and semantic knowledge  are  part.  A  specification  of  communicative  competence  can  be recognized  as  an  attempt  to  define  not  only  how  a  user  is  able  to  judge grammatically but also how he is able to recognize what is acceptable as speech act in a social situation.

In communication, the use of language cannot be characterized in terms of grammar alone.  For  this  reason,  a  complementary   theory  is  needed   to  account   for  linguistic performance.  This is accounted  for in the field of pragmatics.  Atkinson,  Kilby and Rocal (217) opine that, pragmatics is, “the distinction between, what a speaker might mean by his words”. That is, to say that, it is not what words/utterances literally mean that matters when we talk or write. At one time, one may say one thing but mean another or ask questions to express  requests/demands.  Thus,  pragmatics  demonstrates  the  relationship  between  what speakers say and what they actually mean and the kind of effect they expect from the hearers. The study of pragmatics, therefore, aims at enlarging the scope of enquiry into the true nature of social meaning and their effects in various situations. Pragmatics explores into the social language skills we use in our daily interaction with others and these include what we say, how we say it, our body language and what is appropriate to the given situation. Pragmatics studies linguistics  phenomenon unexplained  by the grammatical or logical analysis of language. It deals with those aspects of meaning of the utterance which are not captured in semantics.

It  is  a  known  fact  that  language  expresses  the  customs,  traditions  and  cultural identities of its speakers but ‘Pragmatics specifically studies the use of  language  in human

communication as determined by the condition of the society,’ Mey, (6). When language is used, it must reflect the cultures, traditions, worldview, etc. of its speakers. Mey supports this when  he  says  that,  “the  users  of  language  communicate  and  use  language  on  society’s premises” (6).  He continues that, “pragmatics being the study of the way human beings use their language in communication,  bases itself on a study of those premises and determines how they effect and effectualize human language use. Pragmatics studies the use of language in human communication as determined by the condition of society.’’ For instance, the use of the English language in the South African environment is different from its use in Britain or America because in each context, the English language is used to express the totality of the cultures of its users.

Pragmatic features of South African English show aspects of South African English that reflect the cultures, traditions, worldview and customs of the South African users of the language. These pragmatic features can only be understood when studied in relation to the South African context and the South African environment.  It is a  known  fact that in the pragmatic use of English in South Africa, the rules of English typical in native situation have been influenced and modified under pressure from the cultural practices of the South African environment.

1.1.1          Political Speeches and Political Language

According to Beard (5), every discourse fragment is an example of a political  text. That  is to  say that we can,  for instance,  talk about  the politics of sports,  the  politics  of admission  into  our  tertiary  institutions  or  the  politics  of  change  in  the  current  Buhari’s administration of Nigeria. In that broad sense of the word ‘politics’,  any issue of discourse in spoken form can be regarded as a political speech but   the real  use of the term ‘politics’

strictly refers to the art of  governance.   Nevertheless, there is what can be termed political language. Politics, like all spheres of social activities has its own ‘code’, that is, a language variety particular to politicians. Beard (148) agreeing with Wilson (639-640), Adegbite (11-

12)  states     that  the  term  ‘political  discourse’  like  ‘politics’  is  ambiguous,  such  that delimitations of the political discourse is difficult to maintain in exact terms; and the analyst needs to make clear her own motivation and perspectives. Political discourse refers to a type of discourse that consists of political speeches and content. This can come under different labels, all aimed at the same content and intent. Such labels include political rhetoric, political speech, and political language.

The  concept  of political  speech  is that  speech  by a  leader  in  governance  to  any segment or the generality of those governed. The narrower sense of a political speech as a form of persuasion on any subject matter; it is a verbal address by a politician to a specified audience.  A Political  speech,  therefore,  refers to political  rhetoric  usually delivered  by a politician through the medium of the radio, television, newspaper or magazine. According to Jonathan Charteris-Black, “Political Speech is a coherent stream of spoken Language that is usually prepared for delivery by a speaker to an audience for a purpose on Political occasion” (xiii). It is intended to influence people and it is the skill of using language in speech or in a special way that influences or incites people. This definition is preferred for the purpose of this study and it is also worth knowing the speech as a speech act. In most political speeches, there is a specific audience that is targeted by the speaker. Due to the specific nature and the importance of the speech, the speaker will assume that there is a wider audience beyond those he is addressing. In that sense, a speech or verbal address by a politician, representative of a political structure put in place for purposes of governance at all tiers of government, directed

at some specified  audience on specified  matters for some specified  intention is a  political speech.  The  primary  purposes  of  political  speeches  are  to  influence,  educate,  inform, persuade,  incite or entertain the masses and this definition of political  speech informs the choice of data under investigation in this research. A speech is a connected discourse which is spoken formally to an audience. Harold (4) says,  “Speaking is a social act, one of the most common and significant.” Speech serves various purposes: to do things with people and to provide something to people for personal and social growth.

1.1.2     Socio-Political Background of Nelson Mandela’s Political Speeches

The history of South Africa is a long one.  The European colonization of South Africa by Dutch (Afrikaner) and English settlers began in the 17th century. Great  Britain secured control over the area as a result of the Anglo-Boer war but Afrikaner nationalists took over the government in 1948. During the 1940s and 1950s, white South Africans instituted a policy of apartheid or separation, designed to guarantee their continued domination over the country and its resources. Under the leadership of Hendrik Verwoerd, Minister of Native Affairs and later prime minister, the rights of Black South Africans were systematically stripped away. They were denied citizenship and were forced to live in poor or rural areas.

At first, the whites and blacks engaged in friendly trade, but in 1779, the first of a long series of Xhosa wars broke out between them, primarily over land and cattle ownership. The whites sought to establish the Great Fish as the southern frontier of the Xhosa. By the early

18th century, most San (bushmen) had migrated into inaccessible parts of the country to avoid European  domination;  the  more  numerous  Khoikhoi  (the first  natives  people  to  come  in contact with the Dutch settlers in the mid 17th century)  either remained near the Cape, where

they became virtual slaves of the Europeans, or dispersed into the interior. During the18th century, intermarriage between Khoikhoi slaves and Europeans began to create what became later known as the “Coloured” population. At the same time, white farmers (known as Boers or Afrikaners) began to trek (journey) increasingly farther from the Cape in search of pasture and cropland. (http://www.southafrica.info/travel/cultural/sterkfontein.htm)

Great Britain alienated  the Boers (Dutch)  by remodelling  the administration  along British lines, calling for better treatment of the coloured and blacks who worked for the Boers as servants or slaves, granting (Ordinance 50, 1828) free nonwhites’  legal  rights equal to those of the whites, and restricting the acquisition of new land by the Boers. In 1833, slavery was abolished in the British Empire; an act that angered South African slave owners, but the freed slaves remained oppressed and continued to be exploited by white landowners.

To escape the restrictions of British rule as well as obtain new land, about  12,000

Boers left the Cape in what is known as the Great Trek. The Voortrekkers (as these Boers are known) migrated beyond the Orange River. Some remained in the highveld of the  interior, forming isolated communities and small states. A large group travelled  eastward  into what became Natal, where 70 Boers were killed (February, 1838) in an attack by Dingane’s Zulu forces.

A crucial new element was evangelism, (the act by which a person tries to persuade people to become Christians  especially by travelling around  the country  holding religious meetings or speaking on radio or television) brought to the Cape by Protestant missionaries. The  evangelicals  believed  in  the  liberating  effect  of  ‘free’  labour  and  in  the  ‘civilising mission’ of British imperialism. They were convinced that indigenous people could be fully

assimilated  into  European  Christian  culture  once  the  shackles  of  oppression  had  been removed. The most important representative of the mission movement in South Africa was Dr John Philip, who arrived as the superintendent of the London Missionary Society in 1819. His campaign on behalf of the oppressed Khoisan coincided with a high point in official sympathy for philanthropic concerns.

The Ordinance 50 of 1828 guaranteed equal civil rights for ‘people of colour’ within the colony and freed them  from legal discrimination.  At the same time, a  powerful anti- slavery movement  in Britain promoted  a series of ameliorative  measures, imposed on the colonies in the 1820s, and the proclamation of emancipation, which came into force in 1834. The slaves were subject to a four-year period of ‘apprenticeship’ with their former owners, on the grounds that they must be prepared for freedom which came on lst December 1838. For the slaves, and the Khoisan servants, the reality of freedom was different from the promise. As the wage-based economy developed, they remained dispossessed and exploited with little opportunity  to escape  their servile lot. The ‘coloured’  people are a group of people who include the descendants of unions between indigenous and European people, and a substantial Muslim  minority  who  became  known  as  the  ‘Cape  Malays’.  The  coloured  people  were discriminated against on account of their working-class status as well as their racial identity. Among the poor, especially in and around Cape Town, there continued to be a great deal of racial           mixing           and           intermarriage           throughout            the            1800s. (http://www.southafrica.info/travel/cultural/sterkfontein.htm)

The following years saw two of the most significant events of the decade.  One is to establish how far the government was willing to pursue its aims. Unable to gain the two-third majority required  by the 1910  constitution  to  remove  coloured  people from  the common

voters’ roll, the government changed the composition of the Senate by increasing its size (and consequently Nationalist  majority)  to give it the required  majority in a joint  sitting  of the Senate and the House of Assembly.  The second  watershed  moment  came  when,  after  an African National Congress campaign to gather mass input on freedom demands, the Freedom Charter – based on the principles of human rights and non-racialism – was signed on June 26,

1955          at          the          Congress          of          the          People          in          Soweto. (http://www.southafrica.info/about/history/kliptown-22065.htm).   Reaction   was   swift   the following year, 156 leaders of the ANC and its allies were charged with high treason. The

1950s were to bring increasingly repressive laws against black South Africans and its obvious corollary – increasing resistance.  The Group Areas Act, strengthening the racial division of land, and the Population Registration Act, which classified all citizens by race, were passed in

1950. The pass laws, restricting black movement, came in 1952.  The Separate Amenities Act of 1953 introduced ‘petty apartheid’ segregation, for example, on buses and in post offices.  In reaction to all these, came the mass mobilization of the Defiance Campaign, starting in 1952. Based on non-violent resistance, it nevertheless led to the jailing of thousands of participants. The result was to increase unity among resistance groups with the forming of the Congress Alliance, which included black, coloured, Indian and white resistance organizations as well as the South African Congress of Trade Unions. The 1950s had still offered many opportunities to resolve South Africa’s racial injustices peacefully. This, however, was contrary to official ideology. Instead, apartheid transmuted itself into the policy of ‘separate development’, the division of the black  population into ethnic ‘nations’, each of which was to have its own

‘homeland’                            and                           eventually                            ‘independence’.

(http://www.southafrica.info/about/history/521107.htm)

The historical background of the socio-political and religious life in South Africa as given  above  is  important  for  proper  appreciation  of  the  political  speeches  of  Mandela. According to Achebe in There was a Country, “a man who does not know  where the rain began to beat him cannot say where he dried his body” (1). The rain that beat South Africa began many years before Mandela was born. A brief history of the Boer wars as well as the history of the European  colonization  of South Africa  is  important  if we must appreciate Nelson Mandel’s sacrifice for the restoration of the positive esteem of black humanity. For one to be a slave in a foreign land can be hard to bear but for one to be a slave in one’s land provokes  a strong and bitter  feeling of  deprivation  and dehumanization.  It is indeed  this feeling and tortuous experience and anguish that made Nelson Mandela speaks and acts the way he did. Due to the peculiar  nature of the environment and bitterness that informed the speeches and actions, there  is  need to subject those speeches to a special analytical model (Speech Acts) in order to show the perlocutionary acts of such utterances.

1.1.3      Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela’s Profile

Nelson Rolihlahla  Mandela  (18th July,  1918 – 5th December,  2013)  was a  South African anti apartheid revolutionary politician and philanthropist who served as the President of South Africa from 1994 – 1999.The name ‘Rolihlahla’ when translated,  literally means,

‘pulling the tree branch’ Mandela’s Long Walk To Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela, (1). However, its more colloquial meaning is ‘trouble maker’ (1). Indeed, Mandela did cause trouble for the oppressive white minority rulers of South Africa. He was the driving force for change in the apartheid system. He was raised to  believe that he would not be a passive member of society, but that he would take action Sampson, (5).

Mandela’s parents helped to shape and fashion his politics through his childhood in a significant  way. Mandela’s  father,  Henry Mphakanyiswa,  was a chief by both  blood and

custom. Mandela’s family had been in tribal royalty for over 20 generations. His father was a royal chief, and throughout Mandela’s childhood, he was groomed to become the next chief after his father. This requires a very high level of maturity and leadership at an early stage. Mandela could not often be just like any of the other boys of his age;  he has to lead his people. The fact that Mandela’s father was a royal chief helped fashion Mandela’s politics in two ways: it not only prepared him for leadership positions, but also made Mandela a positive role model. Mandela’s father was probably one of the most influential people in Mandela’s childhood environment Meredith, (6-24).

Mandela’s family values and culture, presented to him in his early childhood, proved to fashion a great deal of his politics. For example, Mandela recalls one of his  childhood experiences with African culture:

In African culture, the sons and daughters of one’s aunts or uncles are considered brothers and sisters, not cousins. We do not make the same distinctions among relations  practiced  by whites.  We  have  no  half  brothers  or  half  sisters.  My mother’s sister is my mother; my uncle’s son is my brother; my brother’s child is my daughter or my son. Mandela,(8).

From Mandela’s vivid details, one can see that the concept of family is much broader than the western view. Any service to ‘my brothers and sisters’ is a service to the society. The ideology  of  a  broader  range  of  family  shows  how  Mandela’s  childhood  environment fashioned his politics. Mandela did not only believe that he was fighting for the rights of his people but that he was fighting for his family, his brothers and sisters. This gives Mandela’s mission more meaning and purpose. He cared for each of the natives of South Africa as if they were part of his whole family.  Again, we see  the influence  of Mandela’s childhood environment on his political agenda. When one  looks at the roles that Mandela played as a

child, one again concludes that Mandela’s childhood environment played a crucial part in his politics.

Mandela was no more than five when he became a herd boy, looking after sheep and calves in the field. I discovered the almost mystical attachment that the Xhosa have for cattle not as a source of food and wealth, but as a blessing from God and as a source of happiness .Mandela, (8).

From the text, one can see that at a young age of five, Mandela was given the task of taking care of livestock. This is a hard task, and at a young age, Mandela had to learn to do the task right. He was called at a young age to be a leader and have a great responsibility .The significance  of the young Mandela being a herdsman  is also seen  when one looks at the position of the cattle and sheep in the society in which Mandela was raised. Cattle were not just seen as pets. They represent food, wealth, happiness  and a blessing from God. All of these were entrusted to a five year old. This childhood environment no doubt prepared him for his future political involvement in which he would be in charge of the entire South African country. The fact that Mandela was given such a high responsibility prepared him for a life of leadership and the strength to carry the weight of oppression on his shoulders.

Nelson’s father tribal tradition played a crucial role in the development of Mandela’s childhood and consequently, his political involvement. One particular tribal tradition is when a boy becomes a man at the age of sixteen. During this ceremony, circumcision takes place. The lurid details leave an unforgettable picture in the minds of the reader.

At dawn, when the stars were still in the sky, we began our preparations … I was tense and anxious uncertain of how I would act when the critical moment came filching or crying out was sign of weakness and stigmatized one’s manhood. I was determined not to disgrace myself, the group or my guardian. Circumcision is a

trial of bravery and stoicism; no anesthetic is used; a man must suffer in silence … without  a word,  he took my foreskin,  pulled  it forward,  and then in a  single motion, brought down his assegai. I felt as if fire was shooting through my veins, the pain was so intense that I buried my chin into my chest. Many seconds seemed to pass before I remembered the cry, then recovered, and call out ‘Ndiyindoda … A boy may cry; a man conceals this pain (Mandela, 24).

It  could  be  seen  that  Mandela’s  childhood  cultural  environment  valued  the endurance of pain and suffering. This value that Mandela received as he left childhood would allow him the strength to continue under painful circumstances, such as 27 years in prison. If Mandela had not maintained endurance and long suffering as values he would abandoned his political agenda, principles and performed other tasks. Mandela learned at early age what true suffering is about and he learned to face it without any fear and this mentality allowed him to be successful.

Truly,  Nelson Mandela  could  not have  come  about  without  the pivotal  childhood environment that fashioned his politics and character. The family value, culture, and class of Mandela’s childhood truly defined the identity of Mandela. No political figure possessed the distinctive character traits that made Mandela truly exceptional, namely his moral authority, tenacity and leadership skills. Moreover, his generous spirit and passion for tolerance have enabled him to transform the racial politics of South Africa and bequeath to his country, a rare legacy of political compassion  and  new hope for racial harmony.   Mandela  had patience, wisdom and a willingness to sacrifice for others. He led a movement to unify a divided nation and reconcile decades of pain and racism. Throughout his life, Mandela continuously chose to learn from his mistakes rather than repeat them. This personal integrity helped him win South Africa’s  first democratic  presidential  election,  and  calm the fears of a nation in turmoil.

Mandela’s biggest triumph was not his election as the president of South Africa.  Rather,  it was the lessons he learned and the path he repeatedly chose to walk many years before.

Nelson Mandela being a great communicator and persuader uses his mastery of the English language to get many things done. In his speeches, words and sentences are carefully selected and well ordered to convey his intentions, meanings and his leadership commitment. These words and sentences form themselves into coherent speeches or texts for the pragmatic analysis.

It is necessary at this point to explain the components of pragmatic approach that is significant for this study which are Speech Acts and implicature. Speech Acts refer to actions that are carried out through language in the course of the utterances. It is any act that may be performed by a speaker in making an utterance, as stating, declaring,  complaining, asking, requesting, advising, criticizing, or warning. These are considered in terms of the content of the message, the intention of the speaker, and effect on the listener. The basic unit of human communication is not mere statement but rather the performance of certain kind of acts such as:   making   of   statements,   asking   question,   solemnizing   a   relationship,   explaining, apologizing, congratulating, naming, complaining and promising. The three basic acts are:

i.     Locutionary Act which is the denotative meaning of words in an utterance.

ii.     Illocutionary Act focuses on the intention of the speaker’s utterance. It refers to the implication of words and emphasizes  the saying and doing of something if  certain situations are possible to be met.

iii.    Perlocutionary Act refers to the intended or unintended effect of performed linguistic act on the hearer or audience. These three aspects of speech involve the performance of  action  and  the  performatives  are  literary  performances  of  what  one  is  doing

simultaneously at the time of speaking. A performative utterance, therefore, performs some act and simultaneously describes that act. They are utterances that are used to do things or perform acts. The uttering of the sentence is part of  doing an action, in speech act.

Richards  and  Schimdtin  posit  in  their  Longman  Dictionary  of  Language  Teaching  and Applied Linguistics that, “in speech act theory, perfomatives  are utterances which  perform acts”. According to them, ‘‘Austin further distinguished between explicit performatives (those containing a ‘performative  verb’, such as, promise, warn, deny,  which name speech act or illocutionary force of the sentence) and the implicit  performatives,  which do not contain a performative verb, e.g. There is a vicious dog behind you (an implied warning).

Felicity conditions are conditions that must be met for a performative to be successful or felicitious. An illocutionary act can be said to be felicitous or infelicitous, depending on how such an act meets felicity conditions spelt out by J.L Austin. There are four of them.

i.     Sincerity Condition tells how sincere a speaker is with the particular illocutionary act.

ii.    Preparatory Condition indicates how appropriate the participants and circumstances of the speech acts for successful performance of the speech acts

iii.    Executive Condition shows whether the speeches are properly executed.

iv.    Fulfilment Condition tells the perlocutionary effect of the speech act.

‘Implicature’  is what  is implied  but not stated  in the proposition  of an  utterance. Osisanwo (92) views it as “what the speaker (or writer) can imply or suggest as distinct from what the speaker (or writer) literally says or writes”. Grice identifies two types of implicature:

‘conventional  and  conversational’  implicature.  The  former,  according  to  Thomas  in  his

Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics (57), refers to “what is implied by the

literal meaning of words” while the latter “is what is implied according to the context  of utterance.”

From the on-going, we understand that to be able to give meaning to any speech in a more appropriate way, there is the need to use the speech act analysis. Therefore, in a socio- cultural or socio-political context, language is one and the only effective means of controlling people’s opinion either by creating propaganda to influence meaning or  telling the truth to convince  those  involved  through the mass media, speech,  and so  on,  in order to achieve certain aims or purposes. Language use places itself as a  weapon to influence or convince people into accepting or discarding one’s opinion. In this light, political language becomes a strategic instrument in controlling society.

1.2       Statement of the Problem

A  speech  is  a  kind  of  discourse  which  normally  and  expectedly  exhibits  power relationship  Hardy,  (3), transmits  knowledge  or information,  cultural  values  and  identity Ayodele,  (65) as well as achieves  specific  communicative  goals.  Bolinger, (22) however states that, “the words we use are the words that are there; we can only choose from them, and if they are clean to begin with, the precision not to mention, the honesty of our messages will suffer.”

Some researchers have examined reflections of meanings through the speech act theory, Maiyanga,  (29-124),  Adetunji  (275-296)  ,Babatunde  and  Odepidan,  (275-296)  and others through other linguistic  frameworks,  Opeibi (45),  kamalu  and Agangan  (32-52), Scholars such as Emeka-Nwobia  (23-138) and Ike-Nwafor (52-127) examine  speeches that exposed

obvious deceit in the political game of promises that never square-up with the realities on the ground.

Mandela’s speeches are different from other speeches because his speeches flow from the heart  that  is troubled  with the  pain of a people  who  are denied  the right  of  meaningful existence just because of the colour of their skin. The study is, therefore, different from other studies of political speeches and it is this difference that informs the structure of the language of Mandela’s speeches and justifies the pragmatic exploration of the language through Speech Act theory.

This present study is therefore, to analyze selected political speeches of Nelson Mandela using speech act theory. This is to find out whether the speeches of Nelson Mandela have been effective or not, in terms of his use of utterances in speech situations and the meanings of  these  utterances,  is what  this  study seeks  to  investigate  by  examining  the  meanings, intentions and perlocutionary acts of these speeches.

1.3       Objectives of the Study

The main purpose of this study is to examine the selected political speeches of Nelson Mandela to find out how Nelson Mandela performs actions with his utterances to achieve his intentions through speech acts. Specifically, the objectives of the study are to:

i.     interpret the speech acts performed by Nelson Mandela in the selected speeches. ii.      determine the perlocutionary acts of Nelson Mandela’s political speeches.

iii.      judge whether the speeches conform to felicity conditions as enumerated by J.L.

Austin.

1.4       Significance of the Study

This thesis is on pragmatic analysis of selected political speeches of the former South African president, Nelson Mandela and it is significant in a number of ways.

It shows how the English language is used as a political class code in South Africa to achieve special purpose. The language as used by Mandela is not ordinary. Instead, it is the English language specially used to carry the pains and the desires of a people marginalized and dehumanized  in their own land and how he led to a peaceful transfer  of power in the harshly segregated nation.

The application of Speech Act theory is crucial for this study especially as Austin’s (1962) original intention  is to provide how to do things with words. The  extent to which Mandela’s speeches provoked necessary action in South Africa is likely to serve as a strong impetus for the application of Speech Act analytical model by other scholars in the field.

This study will also provide insight which can be exploited for further researches. It will guide others in their research in the field by providing important data for more fruitful studies. Also, since the Pragmatics studies of texts are fast growing as acceptable procedure for rewarding research, the insight from this study will provide significant data base for more research in the field.

1.5       Scope of the Study

This  research  examines  four  political  speeches  by late  Nelson  Mandela  of  South Africa.  Nelson  Mandela  gave  many  evocative  speeches  in  the  course  of  his  political experience and career but out of all these speeches, four have been selected for analysis. They are:

1.   “I am prepared to die”  of 1964

2.   ‘‘Nelson Mandela’s address to Rally in Cape Town on his release from prison”  of

1990

3.    ‘‘Nelson  Mandela’s  address  to  the  people  of Cape  Town,  Grand  parade,  on  the occasion of his inauguration as state president” of 1994

4.   ‘‘Statement  of the president  of the African  National  Congress,  Nelson  Rolihlahla Mandela at his inauguration as president of the Democratic Republic of South Africa Union Buildings’’ of 1994.

The choice of these periods and the speeches selected is based on the chronology of Nelson  Mandela’s   battle  against  apartheid   and  South  Africa’s   reemergence   as  a democratic nation. Pragmatics is an approach that contains a number of theories but this study will be limited to the theory of Speech Act.

₦5,000.00 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :