Cover not available
Part of
Let's talk politics: New essays on deliberative rhetoric
Edited by Hilde Van Belle, Kris Rutten, Paul Gillaerts, Dorien Van De Mieroop and Baldwin Van Gorp
[Argumentation in Context 6] 2014
► pp. 63–80

Dialogic voices

A pragma-dialectical approach to R. G. Mugabe’s ceremonial speeches

This chapter critically examines Mugabe’s two speeches. The one he delivered at the United Nations (UN) climate change summit that was held in Copenhagen in 2009 and the other one he delivered at the 2008 Zimbabwean independence celebrations. The chapter argues that not only conversations with explicit participants can be regarded as argumentative (van Eemeren, 2010). Thus, to achieve the purpose, the pragma-dialectic theory of argumentation is employed. The analysis of the speeches show how Mugabe utilised the podium to dialogically interact with the audience, both outside and inside, persuasively inviting them to align with him (speaker) and disalign with the ‘negative’ voices. The analysis also confirms that stance taking and value positioning is a factor in argumentative discourse.

Published online: 30 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.6.04jak
References
Akpabio, E
(2008) Framing of the Zimbabwean Crisis in Botswana Print Media. Paper Presented at the International Association of Media and Communication Research (IAMCR) Conference, University of Stockholm, Sweden, July 2008.
Chari, T
(2010) Salience and Silence: Representation of the Zimbabwean Crisis in the Local Press. African Identities, 8 (2), 131–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chigora, P
(2006) On Crossroads: Reflections on Zimbabwe’s Relations with Britain at the New Millennium. Alternatives: Journal of International Relations, 5(3), 61–76.Google Scholar
Chiumbu, S., & Musemwa, M
(2012)  Crisis! What Crisis? The Multiple Dimensions of the Zimbabwean Crisis . Cape Town: Human and Sciences Research Council.Google Scholar
Hohmann, H
(2002) Rhetoric and Dialectic: Some Historical and Legal Perspectives. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, C
(2003) Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates. Journal of Language and Politics, 1(2), 269–291.Google Scholar
Jakaza, E
(2009) This Poll has not Happened Yet: Temporal Play in Election Predictions, A Discourse Analysis Approach. Paper Presented at the International Conference of the African Languages Association of Southern Africa (ALASA), University of Western Cape, South Africa, July 2009.
Krabbe, E. C. W
(2002) Meeting in the House of Callias: An Historical Perspective on the Rhetoric and Dialectic. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, (pp. 29–40). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leff, M
(2002) The Relation between Dialectic and Rhetoric in Classical and Modern Perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis , (pp. 53–64). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R
(2005)  The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English . London: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santibāñez, C
(2010) Metaphors and Argumentation: The Case of Chilean Parliamentarian Media Participation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 973–989. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H
. (Ed) (2009)  Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen Studies on Strategic Manoeuvring . Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B
(2008) Controversy and Confrontation in Argumentative Discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory . (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R
(1984)  Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion . Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992)  Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective . London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2004)  A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P
. (Eds.) (2002)  Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Strategic Manoeuvring: Maintaining a Delicate Balance. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis , (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Strategic Manoeuvring: Examining Argumentation in Context. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen Studies on Strategic Manoeuvring , (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. A
(2007)  Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study . Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rees, A. M
(2000) Comments on the ‘Rhetoric and Dialectic in the Twent- First Century. Argumentation, 14(3), 255–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009)  Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions: A Pragma- Dialectical Perspective . Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar

Website References

www.newzimbabwe.com/news-1503-Full+Text+Mugabe+Copenhagen+speech/news.aspx
www.newzimbabwe.com/opinion