Ideological Inferences of Deictic Expressions in Mahamudu Bawumia’s 2024 Concession Speech
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v8i1.378-408Abstract
In Ghana’s evolving democratic landscape, concession speeches play a vital role in stabilising political emotions, legitimising electoral outcomes, and maintaining national unity. However, such speeches remain underexplored, particularly with regard to how deixis functions as an ideological and cognitive resource. This study, therefore, examines the types of deictic expressions and the ideological inferences embedded in Mahamudu Bawumia’s 2024 concession speech, focusing on how linguistic choices shape political meaning during electoral transitions. Adopting a qualitative, text-based approach, the study applies Critical Discourse Analysis by integrating van Dijk’s (1998) socio-cognitive model with Levinson’s (1983) deixis typology. The findings reveal that personal, social, temporal, and discourse deixis are strategically deployed to assert political maturity, reinforce democratic norms, construct group identity, and manage the relationship between the speaker and the audience. The analysis further demonstrates how deixis shapes public perception by framing the election outcome as legitimate and facilitating emotional transition from contestation to acceptance. The study advances scholarship on political discourse by demonstrating that deixis functions as an ideological resource in concession speeches, while also offering practical insights into how political communication can be used to manage legitimacy and emotional transition during periods of democratic change.
References
Ademilokun, M. (2016). Appraisal of Resources in Post-Election Defeat-Concession Speeches of some Gubernatorial Candidates in Southwestern Nigeria, 2014-2015. Africology: The journal of Pan African Studies 9(1), 177–191.
Adetunji, A. (2006). Inclusion and exclusion in political discourse: Deixis in Olusegun Obasanjo’s speeches. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 167–187.
Alexander, J. C. (2004). Cultural pragmatics: Social performance between ritual and strategy. Sociological Theory, 22(4), 527–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2751.2004.00233.x
Allen, P. (2007). Australian political discourse: pronominal choice in campaign speeches. In Mary Laughren and Ilana Mushin, eds., Selected Papers from the 2006 Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society, pp. 1-13
Anurudu, S.M., & Oduola, T.A (2017). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Concession Speeches Goodluck Jonathan, Kayode Fayemi and Mitt Romney. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 22(3), 15–26.
Asare, E., Amoakohene, B., Gyan, I. M., & Atta-Asamoah, O. (2025). An analysis of personal deictic expressions in selected victory speeches of Ghanaian presidents. E-Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 12 (6), 3285–3300. http://doi.org/10.38159/ehass.202561229.
Ayeomoni, M. O., & Akinkuolere, O. S. (2012). A pragmatic analysis of victory and inaugural speeches of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(3), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.3.461-468.
Beard, A. (2000). The language of politics. Routledge.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.
Cap, P. (2008). Towards the proximisation model of the analysis of legitimisation in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.001
Cap, P. (2013). Proximisation: The pragmatics of symbolic distance crossing. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Dadugblor, S. K. (2016). Clusivity in presidential discourse: A rhetorical discourse analysis of State of the Nation Addresses in Ghana (Master’s thesis). Michigan University.
Djabetey, I. N. (2013). Language, power and ideology: A Critical Discourse Analysis of selected speeches of Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Addo and John Dramani Mahama. A published M.Phil. thesis, Department of English, University of Ghana, Legon.
Djabetey, I. N. (2013). Language, power and ideology: A critical discourse analysis of selected speeches of Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Addo and John Dramani Mahama (Master’s thesis). Department of English, University of Ghana, Legon.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002004
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). Deixis. In E. L. Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics of natural language (pp. 359–376). Cambridge University Press.
Forceville, C. (2020). Visual and multimodal metaphor research: Past and future. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00002.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1962)
Hanks, W. F. (2005). Explorations in the deictic field. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 191–220. https://doi.org/10.1086/428799
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Jaworski, A., & Fitzmaurice, S. (2008). Discourse, culture and social cognition. Mouton de Gruyter.
Jaworski, A., & Galasiński, D. (2000). Theories of identity: Language, discourse and social practice. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 315–328). Routledge.
Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Sage Publications.
Kaswan, S., & Suprijadi, D. (2016). Qualitative research in English language teaching: A critical review. Journal of English and Education, 4(1), 63–73.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold.
Kuo, S. H. (2002). From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second person pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text, 22(1), 29–55.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vols. 1–2). Cambridge University Press.
Min, S. J. (1997). Constructing ideology: A critical linguistic analysis. Journal of Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 27(2), 148–165.
Mwinwelle, E., Adukpo, J. A., & Mortey, M. A. (2019). A critical discourse analysis of presidential concession speeches: A case study of Mahama and Akufo-Addo. Journal of African Studies and Development, 11(6), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.5897/JASD2019.0546.
Obeng, S. G. (2000). Speaking the unspeakable: Discursive strategies to express emotion in African languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00052–1.
Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Scollon, R. (1998). Mediated discourse as social interaction: A study of news discourse. Longman.
Some Gubernatorial Candidates in Southwestern Nigeria, 2014-2015. Africology: The Journal
van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In C. Schäffner & A. Wenden (Eds.), Language and peace (pp. 17–33). Dartmouth.
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Blackwell.
van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250
van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, ideology, and discourse. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 9, pp. 728–740). Oxford: Elsevier.
van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schifrin, D. Tannen & H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), A handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2009). Critical discourse analysis. In J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies. Amsterdam: John Bery Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.148.
Wilson, J. (1990). Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Basil Blackwell.
Wodak, R. (2007). Language and ideology: Language in ideology. Journal of Language and Politics, 6(1), 1-5.
Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, R. (2011). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
Yankah, K. (1995). Speaking for the chief: Okyeame and the politics of Akan royal oratory. Indiana University Press.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ebenezer Asare, Benjamin Amoakohene, Victoria Ogunnike Faleke, Obed Atta-Asamoah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License and Copyright Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.
Copyright
Authors who publish with JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS RESEARCH 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 (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment 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 acknowledgment 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.
Indonesian Pragmatics Association
