1. 73 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) ISSN (Print) 2313-4410, ISSN (Online) 2313-4402 © Global Society of Scientific Research and Researchers http://asrjetsjournal.org/ A Pragma-Semantic Study of Former President Mugabe’s Speech at the 26th Summit of the OAU at Addis-Ababa (Ethiopia, 30/01/2016) Barnabé Katsuva Ngitsi* Research Fellow at Muhangi Teachers’ Training College, PO BOX 308 BUTEMBO, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) Email: ngitsiba1234@gmail.com Abstract The issue addressed in this article is twofold; first of all, it seeks to show how pragmatics and semantics are two inseparable fields, for both of them are related to meaning. Nevertheless, needless to say, meaning in pragmatics seems to be more meaningful since it relates to real situations. In addition, the work depicts the language used in political spheres where the former Organization of the African Union (OAU) Chairperson Robert Mugabe displays anger since he is asked to give up the leadership of Zimbabwe, his cake. The speech is a real cacophony: use of non-sentences, banter principle, ellipses and so on; which reveal Mugabe’s uneasiness and of course he is not ready to yield in. To reach the goal assigned to this study, the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was used. In addition to the CDA, Speech Act Theory (SAT) was of great deal to depict Mugabe’s sense of irony and lack of politeness. However, Mugabe, the outgoing Chairperson of the OAU, succeeded to call for reforms at the United Nations (UN). Despite his hypocritical attitude, the Africans, i.e. “us” as opposed to “them”, i.e. the Westerners; are shown by the addresser (Mugabe) to be under domination of Europe. Besides, through laments, he clearly demonstrated that the latter are dictators and have no lesson about democracy to give to the former. Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis; Face Threatening Act; Pragmatics; Semantics; Speech Acts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Corresponding author. http://asrjetsjournal.org/ American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 74 1. Introduction It is by now a commonplace in many studies carried out in the domain of Semantics and Pragmatics that scholars have looked down the issue related to their relationship. Pragmatics has always seen itself as complementary to Semantics ([20;22;21;4;44]), for the former has to do with the pragmatic force of an utterance and the latter with its semantic sense, i.e. “semantics studies the relations of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable” [20:172]; and research in Pragmatics distinguishes important features of the immediate context such as speakers, hearers, settings, expectations, intentions…[44:206]. The former, according to many a scholar such as [15], is the study of the toolkit for meaning knowledge encoded in the vocabulary of the language and its patterns for building more elaborate meanings up to the level of sentence meanings. Pragmatics, however, understands and describes language as social action. That is, it deals with concrete utterance tokens made by speakers in concrete discourse situations which are located in time and space, while Semantics abstracts away from those concrete contextual factors and studies the decontextualized expression types that underlie those utterances. In this sense, the relation between semantics and pragmatics parallels the broader distinction between competence and performance [6] or langue and parole [37]. In other words, semantics is RULE-GOVERNED [21] whereas pragmatics is rhetorical or PRINCIPLE-CONTROLED [21], i.e. the former studies the linguistic expressions themselves and abstract grammatical sentences; but pragmatics is concerned with the speaker’s utterances in specific contexts. As a result, the meaning carried by concepts cannot be determined by the intentions of the interactants and/or the context. The only meaning aspect that falls under the scope of semantics is the literal meaning or denotative meaning of an expression. The main concern of this paper is to highlight the relationship between pragmatics and semantics in discourse analysis. Secondly, our focus is President Mugabe’s speech to show how words and utterances are given meaning for the speaker to disclose his intentions, and to see how the audience/ hearers might react against the intended meaning. Specifically, this study attempts to discuss a political issue using both Pragmatics and Semantics, contrary to prior studies which gave much importance to semantic meaning alone. The question here is to see how words are woven to make sense and how they can contribute to the humanity’s change. That is, the research addresses power relation and conflict amongst the African leaders and Europeans as expressed through irony and banter of President Robert Mugabe who held the OAU leadership from January, 30, 2015 till January, 30, 2016 and President of Zimbabwe from 1987 till 2018. 2. Methodology Since Mugabe’s speech is primarily political, it would be interesting as well as noteworthy to study, interpret and analyze the carefully selected contexts, co-texts and speech acts through Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to equate Pragmatics and Semantics. This CDA is worth using in political discourses because, for it, language is not powerful on its own – it gains power by the use powerful people make of it [44]. In other words, Reference [41] highlights that critical discourse analysis is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. In addition, critical discourse analysis is ‘critical’ in the sense that it aims to reveal the role of discursive practice in the maintenance of the social world, and those social relations that involve unequal relations of power [19]. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 75 3. Discussion and Data Analysis 3.1. Speech acts Looking at Mugabe’s speech, it can be noted that it is primarily unilateral; but the speaker implies something wrong within the political spheres, mainly he castigates the Westerners’ attitude particularly in the UN Security Council and generally towards Africans. His main aim is to transmit the information that will affect Mr Ban Ki Moon and Barack Obama who held office respectively as Secretary General of the UN from 2007 to 2016 and President of the United States of America from 2009 to 2017. In line with the perlocutionary effect of the speaker’s words on the attendance, Mugabe’s question “Is that democracy?” the speaker convinces them (Westerners) through a rhetorical question that they have sown an evil called democracy in Africa. He clarifies that this bête noire (democracy) is alien to Africans and it is not even respected by them: for instance, during the America’s elections in 2000, votes were stolen and George Bush rejected the counting machine in Florida State, for he suspected massive fraud of votes by his opponent, Gore [19]. Reference [25] in his contested essay entitled Stupid White Men, has devoted pages on topics such as “A Very American Coup”, “Dear George”, “Idiot Nation”… Indeed, “Dear George” [25:29-46] is an open letter to ‘President’ George W. Bush. The letter is a poignant criticism about the America’s mismanagement which includes the overexploitation of the developing countries through debts, felony, and racism to cite a few misdeeds. Whereas the Americans struggle to be on top of all the nations by controlling mass chemical weapon production, struggling against drug addict and terrorism; Reference [25] makes it clear that they hide all those ills behind hypocrisy. For instance, the question “What felonies did you commit before 1974, George?” [25] implies that George Bush is a felon (criminal) and he is not the paragon to be imitated all over the world. Moreover, Mugabe gives overt and covert directives. “The honour of equality in the Security Council, nonsense!” and “There should be real equality in the Security Council” are declarations which function as direct representatives, and statements describing the personality of westerners. Implicitly, these utterances are directives with illocutionary force of forbidding them to “Do not be so discriminators; implement real equality among people.” When he tells them his theory behind his thoughts, he become more direct through directives such as “Tell them to shut their mouths”, “What help is coming from them?” Unlike the first which is exclusive jussive imperative, the second is hidden behind a negative imperative telling them, “Don’t disturb us with your nonsense help.” In this respect, Reference [30] think that the developed countries should release Africa from its unbearable debt and Africa, however, should be self-reliant because development will never come from outdoors. As far as felicity conditions are concerned, Mugabe has fulfilled some and breached others. For example, the general condition which applies to all speech acts and requires that the participants in an exchange understand the language and that they are serious in what they are doing, is met because the speaker and hearers have mastered the political environment in which they roams: a hegemonic and demagogic world. However, the preparatory condition is not met in that some of the participants were not prepared to hear such a speech. As a result, they are not happy about his harsh and prompt declarations, insults… I do not even think that the UN General Secretary, Ban Ki Moon, Mugabe’s target, will be able to tell his bosses to shut their mouths (see [12]). 3.2. Politeness and impoliteness in discourse American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 76 As for maxim flouting, President Mugabe has flouted a number of maxims: quality maxim, quantity maxim, tact maxim, generosity maxim… For example, he uses non-sentences and therefore, there is a significant mismatch in non-sentential speech between what the expression type means in language and what the speaker of it means [38:269]. Is he doing so because he is angry with them, or is he looking for a quick solution against the subjugation he faces, or is he simply perorating? In fact, he alludes frequently to “Regime change”, “Mugabe”, “another body”, “take over”, and this might be the core of his problem. As linguistic politeness implies the use of communicative strategies to maintain or promote social comity between interactants, Mugabe cannot respect the rules of communication. Sometimes he stops to think of what is to be said next; on the other hand, he stops to be assured by the hurls of applauses by the attendance. His speech shies away from a formal to a familiar language as it implies irony and banter. Reference [21:144] claims: While irony is an apparently friendly way of being offensive (mock-politeness), the type of verbal behaviour known as “banter” is an offensive way of being friendly (mock-impoliteness. As seen in Mugabe’s speech, the quality maxim is flouted not only through irony and banter but there are other different ways of breaking the maxim of quality. First of all, he may quite simply say something that represents something else. To exemplify, he may flout the maxim by exaggerating as in the hyperboles “pink noses”, “how millions are they even man to man?” It is worth mentioning that the hyperbole is often at the basis of humour which hides behind it scorn and mockery. In addition to hyperbole and banter, the language is obstructed through overuses of ellipses as in the following utterances: The blacks, when you go to Harlem, you’ll shed tears. […] Blacks in the streets, and nobody seems to talk about it. It is up to the audience to guess or/and restore the missing words in “Blacks are in streets”. Reference [10] states that such a banter is dangerous, for it can offend if the hearers do not recover the conversational implicature, or if they suspect that there is truth in the words uttered. The quantity maxim is flouted in that too little information is given, for instance when Mugabe says “We thank you for that, and of course you don’t come from those countries”. Mugabe has given a list of good deeds of the current UN Secretary. These deeds include visiting Africa during some calamities such as wars, Ebola disease to cite only a few. However, the audience does not grasp the information that they need to appreciate what is being said about “those countries”. Later on, the question “What are those countries?” will raise suspicion among the listeners who do not have enough background knowledge about those countries. Using ambiguous and obscure terms, President Mugabe flouts the manner maxim. These terms include, for example, “superior”, “Obama is a voice”… Sometimes Mugabe plays on words to heighten the ambiguity so as to make a point. For Mugabe and those who side with his opinion, despite the African origin of Obama, the latter cannot speak for Africa, he is only a “voice” or a puppet of America. Still, Obama works hard for the supremacy of America over the so-called third world since he is powerless to speak for his black race and like many other black Americans, he is naturalized. Likewise, Semantics would consider the phrase like “pink noses” as semantically deviant and weird or strange, due to the fact that the so-called SELECTION RESTRICTION in combination of certain categories are violated: the use of the colour “pink” requires that the expression it applies to denotes at least inanimate object, a flower herein. Therefore, the phrase is sortally incorrect due to the sorts of objects. Thus, the hearers (the attendance) of the above utterance would only accommodate themselves to the speaker’s presupposition in order to understand the utterance. Reference [7:5] contends that “Accommodation in Pragmatics and Semantics refers to the acceptance by a hearer of the presupposition made by the speaker that was not previously part of their common ground.” So, the attendance at the 26th summit of the African Union on hearing Mugabe’s expression “pink noses”, would accept the American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 77 presupposition that there are people of pink noses even if they were unaware of the fact. Is he ironically criticizing the Whites who have become the target in his speech? Furthermore, all we know about “We are not ghosts” as a disembodied sentence, is that it contains an incongruity between the subject (we) and ghosts, which will presumably receive response in discourse context. It can trigger metaphorical interpretation only when it appears in contexts such as “The ghosts held a meeting in the cave.” In the noun phrase “the ghosts” which mostly starts with the definite article and with its semantic components of +inanimate, +human, -animate, the ghosts are humanized by the speaker (Mugabe). This style breaks ethics of conventional expectation. It beats one’s imagination to hear ‘ghosts’ holding meetings, to see ‘we/us’ seeking recognition ... The deviant linguistic features are channels through which Mugabe communicates his vision [43], on commenting on this semantic cross-relationship or dependency, declares that by relating these, we get the impression of animate force and violence embodied in the ghosts, eager to threaten the living (westerners) to get freedom. However, in the aforementioned case, Africans are not ghosts and have no underground caves since they are body-and-flesh-living. So, they should not be discriminated and should be given the same opportunity and chance to be equal partners in the Security Council. Impoliteness, however, has been extensively explored by [8:38] who contends that “Impoliteness comes about when: (1) the speaker communicates face-attack intentionally, or (2) the hearer perceives and/or constructs behavior face-attacking, or a combination of (1) and (2)”. For [2:62-70], face is twofold: - Positive face: the want of every member that his/her wants be desirable to at least some others. E.g. you want me to acknowledge your existence (e.g. say ‘Hello’), approve of your opinions (e.g. ‘You’re right about that tutor’), or express admiration (e.g. ‘I thought you did a good job’). - Negative face: the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his/her actions be unimpeded by others. E.g. you want me to let you attend to what you want, do what you want, and say what you want. Positive politeness is therefore indicative of an ‘approach-based’ strategy which, according to [2:70], ‘anoints’ the face of the addressee by indicating that in some respects, S wants H’s wants (e.g. by treating him as a member of an in-group, a friend, a person whose wants and personality traits are known and liked) By contrast, negative politeness is indicative of avoidance or ‘withdrawal’ based strategy and works to indicate that “the speaker recognizes and respects the addressee’s negative face wants and will not (or will only minimally) interfere with the addressee’s freedom of action” [2:70]. Acts such as requests and criticisms are face threatening acts (FTAs). Indeed [2:74-8] keep on arguing that the determination of how face threatening an act is and how much politeness is needed to redress it involves three sociological variables: • social distance between participants, • relative power of the hearer over the speaker, and • absolute ranking of the imposition involved of in the act. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 78 So, for example: • Asking Ban Ki Moon to do a chore is more face threatening than asking a colleague president (the distance variable); • Asking an imperialist to leave and go back home is more face threatening than asking a colleague African (the power variable); and • Asking for African more freedom and asking for stopping an odd policy are more face threatening than broadcasting a president’s misdeed (the ranking variable). In fact, Mugabe has no reason to side with Leech’s Pollyanna Principle “always look at the bright side of life, by softening painful, distressing, embarrassing, shocking events (quoted in [10]. He cannot be polite towards the very people who harass him to get off the bus he is driving, Zimbabwe. One can think that he uses the deictic marker “you” in relation to the French “tu/vous” which denotes disrespect towards the addressee as in: But you (Ban Ki Moon) have done a good job for us. You have visited our countries; you have wept with us where disease has visited us, whether it was Ebola or some other, where calamities occurred, where fights have taken place, where terrorism has also affected us. Impoliteness involves language or behaviours which are negatively evaluated in a particular context, for example, impositives. They are negatively evaluated because they offend somebody’s face (identity or rights). In addition, they cause specific emotional reactions (e.g. hurt, anger). Here below is some implied offensive behaviour through which Mugabe is impolite: • Dismissals : e.g. get out of my way, let me manage myself… • Silencers: shut up, shut [the fuck] up, and tell them to shut their mouths… • Threats: that should stop; tell them, is that democracy?… It is a threat in some cultures mainly European to break the vertical relationship between speaker and hearer. That is, in the relation authoritor-authoritee the latter is not allowed to name after his authority. Mugabe would have used hedges and some honorific terms such as “Sir”, “His honorable” or “His Excellence” ... instead of Mister Ban Ki Moon. 3.3. Culperper’s impoliteness superstrategies [8:1545-1579] suggests the following impoliteness superstrategies: 1. Bald/on-record impoliteness: the FTA is performed in a direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way in circumstances where face is not irrelevant or minimized. E.g. any situation in which it is Mugabe’s intention to attack his target’s face, and there is much face at stake. 2. Positive impoliteness: any action that damages the addressee’s positive face wants. E.g. disinterest of Mugabe to westerners, seeking disagreement with the hearer, snubbing/insulting westerners, use inappropriate identity markers to them (they are robbers, criminals…), use of taboo or abusive American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 79 language, i.e. obscene and vulgar words such as “ghosts”, ‘punch’.... 3. Negative impoliteness: any action that damages the addressee’s negative face wants. E.g. any action which either frightens and scorns or ridicules the addressee (with white faces and pink noses). Belittling, invading the addressee’s space linguistically or physically; and associating addressee with negative aspect. Once more the use of an authority’s name is too belittling (Mr Ban Ki Moon, Mr Obama). 4. Banter/Sarcasm/Mock politeness: use of insincere politeness, i.e. the use of implicature to express the opposite of what is said. E.g. “But you (Ban Ki Moon) have done a good job for us.” in confrontational context implicates irony. 5. Withhold politeness: remain silent where politeness is expected. E.g. Mugabe keeps silent towards the goodness of some westerners who sympathise with Africa (those who do not side with the wars fought in Africa, those who think pauperizing Africa by Europe is a bad thing). However, he might have refrained in saying so when those people are like most Africans, excluded from the share of the cake. 6. Off-record impoliteness: FTA is performed by means of an implicature but in such a way that one attributable intention clearly outweighs any others. To exemplify, this sequence of utterances without any cohesive ties can be comprehended through implicature. “But no, two members, 54 countries here, this is the body of respected people. The body of Africa”. Clearly, Mugabe reflects on the way Africans are ill-treated: out of 54 African countries, only two countries are permanent members of the Security Council. Where is equality? One question arises as to the identity of Mugabe who is viewed as a nationalist by many an analyst. However, some people and the researcher herein, think he plays a football game in a team where he himself plays the number nine among the white men players. In fact, if he were not, his speech would have upset the opposite party and the result would be even worse than expected. The speech is somehow odd and could trigger anger among the targeted group (the westerners) who, most of the time, are quick tempered; they can react angrily against the crow of a cock if this one does not pertain to their allegiance. In fact, because of telling the truth, how many cocks and sheep have not they been slaughtered in the bloody cowshed during the animal revolution in the animal farm? For instance, the sheep is torn into pieces and his blood is sucked for the simple and wrong fact of confessing that he urinated in the drinking pool [34:73]. Therefore, we can only hypothesize that Mugabe displays the Irony Principle because “If the PP (politeness principle, my explanation) breaks down, it is liable to break down on both sides: direct accusation leads to counter-accusation, threat to counter-threat, and so on” [21:144]. In other terms, Mugabe uses the technique of comic irony to mask his people through applauses, jokes and wrong accusations so as to tighten friendship with his bosses, the whites. Indeed, white men are his friends in need and he secretly works for them; he is their CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), the US federal bureau responsible of gathering foreign intelligence activities. He should remember his fellows who were famous thanks to helping westerns achieve their wrong business of exploiting Africa. That is why he should not play with the double-edged-sword who can kill their peer whenever they want. Indeed, as highlighted by [39:20], “among potential causes of conflicts is nationalism”. So, unlike Emery Patrice Lumumba, Laurent Desiré Kabila, Moamar Khadafy and other authentic nationalists who fought for the African unity and who were killed for the cause of Africa, Mugabe disturbs only the gallery to mask his nakedness and the emptiness in seemingly American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 80 nationalistic speeches. To put it otherwise, therefore, he performs Banter Principle through jokes together with seemingly impoliteness [21:144-5] suggests: [u]nderpoliteness can have an opposite effect of establishing or maintaining a bond of familiarity. […] Hence lack of politeness in itself can become a sign of intimacy; and hence, the ability to be impolite to someone in jest helps to establish and maintain such a familiar relationship. Mugabe has played a great deal in the maintenance of Capitalism and the struggle against the Communist ideology in Africa. Henceforth, he became the pillar of the Cold War after the death of late Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga of Zaire, the baron of dictatorship who held office within thirty-two years (1965- 1997), and who played an important role in the liberation war of Angola from the control of Cuba (see [24]). Perhaps Mugabe is afraid of being killed by the knife he used to kill his fellows, because, like late Sadam Hussein, Mobutu Sese Seko and other many dictators, he is being vomited by the very people who were supporting him. Thus he has to negotiate and claim for his own not for African identity, identity which is, according to [33:5] “how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future”, since his future leadership is questionably uncertain. 3.4. Wordplay strategy Wordplay strategy (play on words), that means, the playful use of words, the humorous effect of which depends on ambiguity of the words used or on the identical or similar pronunciation of two related words with different meanings. In the same perspective, Reference [44:214] posits that “Playing with names and distorting names thus has to be seen as denying and threatening the identity of a specific person.” For example, the name of the General Secretary of the United Nations is repeatedly uttered in Mugabe’s speech. Clearly, allusions and semantic associations with other concepts can be constructed and conceptual metaphors are implied through the name “Ban-ki-Moon”. Indeed, Ban-ki-Moon is vehemently criticized by President Mugabe whose words are powerful; they threaten the identity of the aforementioned authority due to its funniness. Morpho-semantically the name can be analysed as follows: • to “ban” – to annihilate/to banish • ki/vi – “ki” – prefix/class 7/8 in most bantu languages (ki-moon/vi-moon); but the “ ki” in Mugabe’s understanding is pejorative. Hence, “ki – moon” means « not attractive » or bad by contrast to “ ka – moon” which denotes something positive and attractive. So, in line with Mugabe’s comments, can we only infer that the moon has done nothing to shed light on the Africans’ matters of insecurity and leadership which should be the core of all the United Nation’s debates. Still, the archetype “moon” denotes female principle [28]. Thus, one can ask: does Mugabe consider the current UN Secretary as weak and emasculated? American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 81 The meaning of words is also understood thanks to componential analysis in terms of binary opposites, i.e. “+” and “-” features [40:123]. Thus, the logical or denotative significations of man and woman are: • Man : + HUMAN + ADULT – FEMALE • Woman : + HUMAN + ADULT – MALE In strong patriarchal peoples such as the Jews (see the Bible) and the Africans, the component “+ WEAK” and/or “+ FRAILTY” are connotations or values added to woman to differentiate her from man. Connotatively Mugabe means: woman=human+ female+ adult+ weaker sex. As a result, Magabe clears his throat to mutter that “the moon” is so weak that he could not shine to enlighten the Africans and chase obscurity brought by the imperialism from West. Rather, she (the moon) helps the westerners achieve their goals through neocolonial exploitation, wars and all sorts of subjugation. Besides, as Ki-Moon is an Asian, he has no power and no say in the Security Council of the UN who muffle all non-westerner members. Hence, the contrast US versus THEM as seen in the figure below. US THEM We They Blacks Whites Africans Westerners These countries Those countries Ghosts The living Slaves Free-borns Wrong members of the UN Real members of the UN Inferiors Superiors The disrupted nations The United Nations Artificial members Natural members Harassed The harassors Inequality Equality Figure 1: “US” and “THEM” Strategy Herein, the repetition ‘THEM’ as contrasted to ‘US’, is a sign of racism, xenophobia and exclusionism which exists between Africans and Westerners. [44:205-6] argues: The discursive construction of ‘US’ and ‘THEM’ is the foundation of prejudiced, anti – Semitic and racist perception of discourses. This discursive construction starts with the labeling of social actors, proceeds to the generalization of negative attributions and then electorate arguments to justify the exclusion of many and the inclusion of some. Indeed, through the discursive construction of social groups in membership categorization device (MCD): real members of the UN (Them) and wrong members (Us), Mugabe denounces the ills of the society he is living in. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 82 As he and his people are black, they are looked down, harassed, subjugated... Barack Obama (the first African- American president of the USA from 2009 till 2017) himself is alluded to as a puppet who has no say about the Africans’ fate. Once more, through the rhetorical question “Is this democracy?” the implied force of the question is that “There is no democracy at all”; i.e. that new leadership is imposed from Europe. For him, the concepts “democracy” and “unity” enveloped in the concept “United Nations” are not only empty and hollow but they are also wrong, for they are only masks. The African who dare think of creating the “United States of Africa” appalls seriously the westerners whose view of the world is to cling to the veto right alone. Thus, when he attends their meeting neither can he be seen and nor heard because he is only a ghost who can harm their interests. So, the equality of nations idealized by Africans is utopian in that the superpowers such as America and England boast and swell like frogs to be on the top and do not like to hear about other emerging countries. [34:114] puts it: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Not only is Mugabe out crying and lamenting about his own fate; he is also pleading for all the third world people including Asians, Amerindians to mention only these. Still, black is incompatible to white, and darkness cannot cope with light, for Night will never meet Light forever, said [31]. But there are people who think that because they are white and others are black, they can dominate the latter. The contrast white and black has raised hot debates in scientific and social spheres. Some religion tokens think that God conferred superiority to the whites through their white colour whereas the blacks are cursed through Cain who killed his brother Abel. Such mythical discourses are empty and cannot be relied on because, even Jesus Christ; who is said to be white, carries on his head black hair, that means, He is the mediator of all the races. In addition, how can we account for such discourses as “white lies” and “white night” which, both refer to negative aspects? Mugabe’s address is somehow incoherent, for he moves from one idea to another without any logical ties. Still, the addresser has used a great deal of verbiages as in “Some people (sayer) still saying (process: verbal) because we are white… (verbiage)” About verbiage, Reference [16] asserts that the participant who is speaking is called Sayer, the addressee to whom the process is directed is Target, and what is said is Verbiage. He goes on to say what is said may be either directly quoted or indirectly reported. Despite this, Mugabe is still aiming at his target: the westerners. He uses a profusion of dangling clauses together with isolated phrases and sentences which are in accordance with anger and his eagerness to denounce their mismanagement. Coherence, according to [41:278], specifically presupposes knowledge of the world and generally knowledge about concrete situations, events and individuals. Thus, the speaker’s shying away from coherence to incoherence is the irony hidden in the message. The incongruity behind it means the westerners impose to Africans what they themselves have never achieved. Mugabe mutters: The blacks, when you go to Harlem, you’ll shed tears. There is no education for all. No health (care) for all. Blacks in the streets, and nobody seems to talk about it. But they (whites) instead, still want to talk about us. They are everywhere in Africa. If not physically, through NGO’s [Loud applauses], through spies, through pretenders who come to us and to say they are here in Africa to assist us. Even in groups, armed groups in some of our territories. What help is coming from them? Regime change. Clearly westerners have come in Africa with odd orders and wrong ideologies; but Mugabe seems to be skeptic about them because none of these ideologies is fulfilled and still a dream in West. Inequality and racism are also American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 83 stigmatized through the denial of education for the black children, the denial of immigration of blacks in some European countries, the overexploitation of Africa and Asia through NGOs. Briefly, he doubts about their so- called HELP which, he thinks is not only the way of dominating Africans; but it is the source of the endless wars fought in the world. Reference [17] quoted in [26] makes it clear that the pretext of universal emancipation of the world, i.e. the world vision through globalization is a way for Europeans to re-colonize the world. [32:225] highlights that the Westerners used cultural imperialism as a powerful tool to distort people’s vision of history, for example, in reinforcing the idea of white gods and angels reigning and choiring in golden heaven while black devils writhed in hell because of their black sins. In addition to the incoherence of ideas noticed in so far, the indexical deictic marker “they” is not clearly highlighted either. Indeed, there is once more an incongruity between “they” and “blacks in streets”. However, it comes apparent that Mugabe alludes to the whites when he says that they are everywhere in Africa through NGOs, that is to say, he wonders whether the blacks can also create their NGOs overseas and be accepted there. Their display of help is certainly pretence. [11:104] makes it clear that such an attitude has produced a new imperialism in which international financial agencies under the tutelage of the US and its rich allies indiscriminately impose restructuring, sometimes with disastrous outcomes as Russia and Argentina; an imperialism which has recently begun to take a military form in the war on terrorism. To sum up [1:57] suggests that the binarism of “Us” and “Them”, i.e. speeches centered on insider versus outsider; Israeli/Rwandans/Congolese… versus outcasts; female versus male; and black versus white should be replaced by what he calls “social process of enunciation”. This is, according to him, a dialogic process which attempts to break the gaps that exist between races and tribes all over the world. 3.5. The superordinate “Body” The lexical item “body” can be interpreted semantically as follows: • X is a body entails X is an arm. • X is an arm entails X is a body. The relationship between body and arm that where the object to which they refer are in a part-whole relation. Linguists refer to this phenomenon as meronymy [36:197]. Meronymy is a term used in semantics as part of the study of the sense relations which relate lexical items. It is the relationship between ‘parts’ and ‘wholes’, such as body and head or leg and knee. In other terms, “X is a part of Y” (= X is a meronym of Y) contrasts especially with the ‘X is a kind of Y’ relationship (hyponymy). The complementary relationship is holonymy, i.e. part- whole relation (= Y is a holonym of X) [7]. The prototype body can be said thus to have a head, arms, feet, legs … but all of them are co-meronyms; but the legs of human body cannot be equated to the legs of the table (thing). In the “has-relation”, body can be understood as in the diagram below: American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 84 Figure 2: Has relation From this Fig., we remark that all the parts of human body are co-meronyms to each other. Besides, each part plays its role for the harmony of the whole body, i.e. all the parts of human body work in unison for the health of the whole. Eyes cannot pretend to be superior for the fact that they are the leading figures. Toes in turn should not feel inferior because of being bottomed, so should not the Africans for being located southwards. So, out of the body of fifty-four African countries, only two countries in the Security Council of the UN are not good representative of Africa. In short, people should not discriminate one another. Instead, they should make a corps, for instance, the body of Africa or the United States of Africa, to eradicate hatred, injustice and racism. In so doing, as seen in Fig. 2, all the continents should be equal partners not in the relation haves versus have nots or superiors versus inferiors. However, from the body, women seem to be marginalized since they are only mentioned twice in Mugabe’s speech. They have no say in political gatherings such as the OAU. Mugabe considers this fact as a mistake from Europe; once more they have imposed a policy called “parity” when it is not respected in West. Cixous, quoted by [39:3] argues that the exclusion of women from writing and speaking is linked to the fact that the Western history of writing is synonymous with the history of reasoning and with the separation of the body from the text. Indeed, females are subdued by their counterpart males and this situation is permanent all over the world even if some nations have tried to loosen the chain. Mugabe, a watchdog of westerners, again hides his nakedness behind a hollow speech, for women in Zimbabwe are still not given space in political decision making. In their study [23] have investigated social inequality existing between females and males. They have found out that Rwanda is ranked first in the world with good statistics: 56,5% of Rwanda’s National Assembly and 38,5% of its Senate. However, “In some cases the rise of women can be linked to their ‘usage’ as pawns by male political players to checkmate their male political rivalries” [23:152]. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 85 Figure 3: Hyponyms of continents As it can be noticed in the above figure there is incompatibility about contrast: for example, Africa and America are two different entities from each other within the category of continents since they view the world differently. For instance, Westerners view the world as globalised, that is, it is a small town whose chief is His EXCELLENCE THEMSELVES, the caporal leader who cannot stand hearing another cock crowing. As for democracy, Mugabe puts it that it is viewed differently as well. For the westerners, democracy means “regime change”; whereas other people think it is “the right to form a government in which power is invested in the people as a whole on their behalf by elected representatives” [23]. Therefore the European’s view of it should not be imposed to Africa as Europe is incompatible to Africa. Furthermore, both continents do not have the same historical background. 3.6. Deixis, Deontic and epistemic modality Deixis, according to [24:47], is used in linguistic theory to include those features of language which refer directly to the personal, temporal or locational characteristics of the situation within which an utterance takes place, whose meaning is thus related to that situation; e.g. now/then, here/there, I/you, this/that are deictics (‘deictic’ or exophoric words). Through deixis use, Mugabe proves to embody discourse competence. For instance, it must be clear that the spatial location “here” in … as a message you’ve heard the last time from here… could be interpreted as having concentric relation spreading out from the speaker, i.e. the deictic centre is located where the speaker is. But he mutters “Now you hear some people still saying…” In this situation , “now” is used in what might be called “displaced context”, that is to say, as [3:53] put it “Speakers, or writers, do have the option of transferring the deictic centre to the hearer’s, or reader’s, spatio-temporal situation in which the text will be encountered.” Likewise the exophoric “that/those” has no reference back and fore; rather, it refers the listener to an external situation “That should stop!” In addition to deixis, Mugabe overuses modals like deontic and epistemic modality. The former is concerned with the logic of obligation and permission, e.g. the use of the modals in sentences such as “We must be equal partners of it”, i.e. it is obligatory that we be equal partner of the U.N. Deontic modality thus contrasts with alethic and epistemic modality, which would interpret this sentence respectively as it is metaphysically necessary for us (the speaker) to be equally considered in the U.N. Council and it follows from what is known that the so-called third-world countries are equal partners American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 86 even though they are discriminated (see [7]). However, [35] claims that deontic “must” entails deontic “should” and vice-versa. Thus Mugabe’s proposition “That should stop!” implicates an impositive and hence, he is impolite towards his audience even if he uses the hedge “should”. “As long as I’m still alive, I’ll still have the punch”. Indeed, the word “punch” in this utterance is somehow deviant since it has double meaning. First, “punch” means power; and the speaker clearly says he will not quit the throne until death. But, when “Punch” is capitalized and used together with the deixis “I” and the process “have” it denotes the name of a glove puppet that was used in a Punch and Judy show. In the same respect, the pun (the play on word/a humourous use of word) “Punch” is defined in [23] as a quarrelsome puppet character from the traditional children’s show. Conversely, Mugabe is performing a play in which spectators are children who cannot interpret the cock’s crow; and he (the performer) is the puppet. To utter his words otherwise one would say: “As long as I’m still alive, I’ll still be the Punch”. One can remark that Mugabe is self-confident of his speech and has no fear, for he well knows that even after “regime change”, he will still be the westerners’ spy. 4. Conclusion So far, this paper has been able to shed light on how meaning is arrived at in a literary discourse by correlating semantic meaning and pragmatic meaning to get to the intended meaning or the vision of the Zimbabwean former president. Also, the paper has x-rayed the way Mugabe uses the language to hide hypocritically his vision of playing a game with the very people he is criticizing in the speech. Indeed, the 26th ordinary session of the Assembly of the Heads of States and Government of the African Union took place on the 30th and 31st January 2015. The summit launched of the theme: “2016: African year of Human Rights with a particular focus on the Rights of Women”. However, Mugabe scarcely alluded to women in the speech. Finally, it has clearly been remarked that however deviant a literary discourse may seem in terms of semantics, syntax and pragmatics, such a deviation is, nevertheless, interpretable since it is justifiably motivated by the speaker/writer who deliberately uses the language the way he/she does in order to deliver his/her message clearly as seen in the speech analyzed in this paper. Reference [5:8] closes this discussion in these words: “Political parties and governments agencies employ publicists of various kinds, whose role is not merely to control the flow of, and access to information; but also to design and monitor wordings and phrasings, in this way to respond to challenges or to potential challenges.” 5. Recommendations Owing to what precedes, the following pieces of advice are raised: • Africa ought to be considered as an equal partner of the Security Council, for she has a good representative body as the rest of the other continents. In other words, the gap which exists between Westerners and Africans should be reduced through mutual acceptance and collaboration. • Africa should be released of her unbearable debt by the World Bank. It cannot be understood that the producers of the raw material are the pauper while the consumers strut around. • Africans, in order to develop, should be SELF-RELIANT and SELF-CONFIDENT, for development will never come from outdoors. They ought to cast away their attitude of begging instead of working, American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 87 and side with the claim that in the new global economy, countries must embody a highly competitive sense in order to survive. This competition is not a hegemonic struggle based on power and the exploitation or domination of the emerging countries, for most of the time Westerners (America and Europe) think they are the mainstream paragon. • African leaders ought to be more responsible rather than ruling their countries in dictatorship which urges them to cling to the power. In this perspective, true democracy should be implemented in the developing countries, not the kind of democracy dictated from Europe which has the mere connotation of “regime change”. • Finally, security should be the core of the UN rather than observing how people kill themselves either through terrorism or warring, i.e. peace must be implemented all over the world regardless of race and power. References [1]. Bhabha, H. K. “Post-colonial authority and post-modern guilt”. In L. Crossberg, P. Nelson, and P. Treichler (eds.). Cultural Studies, London: Routledge, 1992. [2] Brown, P. and Levinson S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. [3] Brown, G. and Yule G. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1983. [4] Chilton, P. Analysing Political Discourse. London: Routledge, 2004. [5] Chilton, P. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge., 2007. [6] Chomsky, N. Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1965. [7] Crystal, D. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 6th edition, London: Blackwell Publishing. 2008. [8] Culpeper, J. “Impoliteness an entertainment in the television quiz show: the weakest link”. Journal of Politeness Research 1:35-72. 2005. [9] Culpeper, J. “Politeness in interaction”. In: Culpeper, J., Katamba, F., Description, Variation and Context. Palgrave, Chapter 31, 2009. [10] Cutting, J. Pragmatics and Discourse: A resource book for students, London and New York: Routledge, 2002. [11] Fairclough, N. “Critical Discourse Analysis in Researching Language in the New Capitalism, Overdetermination, Transdisciplinarity, and Textual Analysis”. In: L. Young and C. Harrison (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Continuum, 2004. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 88 [12] Flowerdew, J. Discourse in English Language Education, London and New York: Routledge, 2013. [13] Fowler, R. Literature as Social Discourse, London: Bastford Academic and Educational Ltd, 1981. [14] Grice, P. Studies in the way of words, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. [15] Griffiths, P. An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University, 2006. [16] Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Second Edition, London : Edward Arnold, 1994.. [17] Herder, J. G. Une autre philosophie de l’histoire, Paris : Aubier, 1964. [18] https://unmission.org/.../african_union_summit_what_you_need_to_know.pdf [19] Jorgensen, M. and Phillips, L. J. Discourse as Theory and Method, London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2002. [20] Leech, G. Semantics, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974. [21] Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics, London and New York: Longman, 1983. [22] Leech G. and M. H. Short, Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose, London and New York: Longman, 1981. [23] Maphosa M; Tshuma, N. & Tcube, G. “Participation of Women in Zimbabwean Politics and Mirage of Gender Equity”, Ubuntu: Journal of Conflict and Social Transformation, Vol. 4, Number 2, pp. 127- 159, 2015. [24] Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. [25] Moore, M. Stupid White Men, New York: Penguin Books, 2002. [26] Moreau, D. (n.d.). Raison et comparaison : la genèse du souci comparatiste en éducation, in Education comparée, nouvelle série, 271-296. [27] Mugabe, R. (2016, Jan. 26). AU Chair Robert Mugabe speech in Addis-Ababa Ethiopia. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNa8bWLCUYU [Nov.17, 2018]. [28] Ngitsi K. and Kiura, K. Critical Approaches in Poetry, Mombasa/Kenya: Cactus East Africa Publishers, 2018. https://unmission.org/.../african_union_summit_what_you_need_to_know.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNa8bWLCUYU American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 89 [29] Ngitsi K. “Obscenity and vulgarity in the language of Ayi Kwei Armah’s The Beautyful Ones Are Not Yet Born: A pragmatic outlook”, in Journal of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 26, 335-350,. 2017b. [30] Ngitsi K. and Kayisavira, K. “The African Ruler’s Policy of ‘Divide and Rule’: A Socio-political Criticism through some Novels”, in Journal of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 19, 255-265,. 2010. [31] Ngitsi K. and Mukokoma, K. “Disruption of Society as viewed in some African Poems”, in Journal of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 16, 271-289, 2007. [32] Ngugi wa Thiong’o. “Literature in Schools”, In: C. Brumfit and C. Ronald (eds.), Literature and Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 223-229. [33] Norton, B. Identity and language learning: gender, ethnicity and educational change, London: Harlow, 2000. [34] Orwell, G. Animal Farm, London: Penguin Books, 1945. [35] Portner, P. Modality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. [36] Radford, A. et al. Linguistics: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. [37] Ferdinand de Saussure. Course in General Linguistics (trans. Roy Harris), London: Duckworth, [1916]1983. [38] Stainton, R. J. The Pragmatics of Non-sentences, pp.265-287: In Horn, L.R. and Gregory Ward (Eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2006. [39] Suurmond, J. M. (2005, March). “Our Talk and Walk: Discourse Analysis and Conflict Studies”, from http://www.clingendael.nl/cscp retrieved 22/09/2015. [40] Syal, P. & Jindal, D.V. An Introduction to Linguistics: Language, Grammar and Semantics, New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, 2002. [41] van Dijik, T. A. “Discourse semantics and ideology”, Discourse and Society, 6 (2):243-289, 1995. [42] van Dijk, T.A (1998, June) “Critical Discourse Analysis”. Available: http://www.hum.uva.nl/teun/cda.htm [Oct. 28, 2018]. [43] Widdowson, H.G. Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature London: Longman Group Ltd, 1975. [44] Wodak, R. “Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry”. Pragmatics and Cognition 15:1, 203-225, 2007. http://www.clingendael.nl/cscp http://www.hum.uva.nl/teun/cda.htm American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2019) Volume 58, No 1, pp 73-90 90 6. Appendix: Excerpts from Mugabe’s speech And now you get some people still saying because we are white and you are black we can’t lead you. The honour of equaliy in the Security Council. Nonsense. [Loud applauses] That should stop. Mr Ban Ki Moon just tell them from the last time [Applause] just just as a message you’ve heard the last time from here that there should be real equality in the Security Council. We can’t just be coming to general simply to make empty hollow speeches and go back home nobody takes care of all the contents we express. No. Anyway [Silence] the headquarters is … actually of the United Nations is misplaced [Loud applauses]. Where do you have most of the people? You have 1.2 million people … billion … I have 1.2 million people in India; 1.3 [Silence] in China; and Africa we get to nearly 2 billion also. And now put us together as three, and then put those with white faces [Loud applauses] and pink noses [Sheer applauses] put them together against us. How many are there even man to man. And do we allow that that war… group should continue, you know, to harass us even in our independent countries? Regime change, Mugabe should not be there, we want someone else. I will be there until God said come and join the others. But as long as I’m still alive, I’ll still have the punch [Applauses]. That he has they had been told that oh no your Chama Cha Mapinduzi had been in power for too long. You must now allow another body also to take over. Is that democracy? And that was coming from Europe. Tell them to shut their mouths [Loud applauses]. But you (Ban Ki Moon) have done a good job for us. You have visited our countries; you have wept with us where disease has visited us, whether it was Ebola or some other, where calamities occurred, where fights have taken place, where terrorism has also affected us. We thank you for that, of course you don’t come from those countries. But no, two members, 54 countries here, this is the body of respected people. The body of Africa. Tell them…tell them we are not ghosts that we also belong to the world [Silence] part of the world called Africa, and Africans shall no longer tolerate a position of slavery, slavery by any other name. By denial of rights, slavery by being treated in a manner we regard as not equal to the manner in which they treat themselves. If we decide as we shall certainly do so one of these days, that down with the UN, we are not members of it, we are artificial members of it, and we, we can’t continue to be artificial members of it. If the UN is to survive, we must be equal members of it. Equal members, members [Applauses] who can say when we go to the body, that we can now, speaking truly as members with a voice that is understood, respected and honoured. There is (President) Obama today, yes. But what is he? What is he? A voice to speak their language, to act their act; and not our act, but their act. They are still superiors. The blacks, when you go to Harlem, you’ll shed tears. There is no education for all. No health (care) for all. Blacks in the streets and nobody seems to talk about it. But they (whites) instead, still want to talk about us. They are everywhere in Africa. If not physically, through NGO’s [Loud applauses], through spies, through pretenders who come to us and to say they are here in Africa to assist us. Even in groups, armed groups in some of our territories. What help is coming from them? Regime change.