THE USE OF ‘I THINK’ AND ‘I BELIEVE’ IN GHANAIAN PARLIAMENTARY DISCOURSE

Cynthia Logogye

Abstract


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:

Hit counter


Keywords


lexical modals, parliamentary debates, modality

Full Text:

PDF

References


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




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v7i5.4473

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright © 2015 - 2023. European Journal of English Language Teaching (ISSN 2501-7136) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).