See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336613653

Lang in Conflict Resolution ...The Discourse Strategies

Article · October 2019

CITATIONS READS
2 239

2 authors, including:

Joel Iyiola Olaleye

University of Ilorin
18 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joel Iyiola Olaleye on 17 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

American Research Journal of English and Literature
ISSN-2378-9026
Volume 3, Issue 1, 10 Pages

Research Article Open Access

Language in Conflict Resolution in Africa: The Discourse

Strategies
1
Acheoah John Emike Ph.D, 2Olaleye, Joel Iyiola, Ph.D, 3Acheoah, Ofeh Augustine
Department of European Languages, Federal University, Birnin Kebi, Nigeria.
1

2
Department of English, Waziri Umar Federal Polytechnic, Birnin-Kebbi, Nigeria.
3
Department of Political Science, Lagos State Univerity, Lagos, Nigeria.
[email protected]
Abstract: This study investigates the potency of language in conflict resolution in Africa in particular, and the
world at large. Insights from sociolinguistics, pragmatics, discourse analysis and stylistics enrich the study.
Since the Millennium Development Goals in Africa does not exclude peace and development, the dynamics of
language in the resolution of conflicts is a worthy academic endeavour. One of the reasons why the international
community has not been able to resolve some conflicts in Africa is its failure to effectively explore the pragmatics
of language in peace-talks. The data of this study are generated from conflict resolution dialogue (adjacency
pairs) between two warring communities: Azuwa and Ezinma. This study hinges on two theoretical frameworks:
Roman Jackobson’s Elements of Communication and Acheoah’s Pragma-crafting Theory. The study concludes
that effective use of language in conflict management presupposes the use of diverse discourse strategies which
include imagery, special clause structure, repetition, call to action, the use of third-party, feedback, speech acts,
personal pronouns, mutual contextual knowledge, among others.
Keywords: Conflict resolution, sociolinguistics, style, discourse strategy, pragmatics
Introduction
There are critical questions to ask when analyzing discourse. Adegbija (1999:188-189) makes these
questions clear:
i. What is the conversation or discourse about? Put differently, what is the topic?
ii. What comments are being made about this topic?
iii. Who are the speakers and addressees and what are their roles and relationship?
iv. How is turn taking effected? What are the turn allocation techniques?
v. How has the topic been linked from one speaker to another? Or how has coherence in discourse been
achieved?
vi. How is reference made to different objects, persons, things, places? Is this done backwards, within the text,
or outside the text?
vii. How is meaning decoded from the discourse? (What contributions do the contexts of discourse make to the
encoding and decoding of the meaning?)
viii. What specific and overall functions do the different utterances in the discourse perform?
ix. How is the discourse terminated by participants?
x. What specific function does the discourse perform in the particular social-cultural context?

www.arjonline.org Page 1
Language in Conflict Resolution in Africa: The Discourse Strategies
The literature shows that the term “discourse analysis” relates with other language disciplines: pragmatics,
stylistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, among others. The data analyzed are instances of language use
in real life situations. No matter the dimensions which a conflict takes, language has crucial roles to play in
resolving it. Raymond Cohen (2000:25) rightly notes that “linguistic analysis points to four primary dimensions
of conflict resolution, along which significant conceptual variations reflected in language, can be detected. These
dimensions consist of assumptions about the causes and nature of conflict; expectations of the mechanics
and objectives of conflict resolution; understanding of what it means for a conflict to have been settled; and
preference for rituals appropriate for affirming and symbolizing the restoration of harmonious relations at the
end of conflict.” There is continuous interaction between language and society. This interaction is essentially the
business of sociolinguistics. The community meeting discourse analyzed in this study is a micro-representation
of the larger society where discussants “do things with words” in a bid to resolve conflict of any kind. According
to Brown and Yule (1983:26), “in discourse analysis as in pragmatics we are concerned with what people using
language are doing and accounting for the linguistic features in the discourse as the means employed in what
they are doing.” Discourse analysis is concerned with the analysis of communication events that are situated
in various social contexts. The speakers employ different strategies towards effective communication; to foster
coherent discourse, some of the strategies are essentially stylistic. Coulthard (1985:6) notes that “one of the
major aims of discourse analysis is to discover the rules of coherent discourse and to describe the conversational
structures they generate.” This study examines the various discourse strategies which make language cohere in
context and facilitate conflict resolutions.
Conflict Resolutions in Africa
Conflict can be viewed from both political and social perspectives. From the social perspective, it is an expressed
agitation between parties with conflicting interests. From the political point of view, conflict is among parties
who struggle for power and resources. The parties in conflict may be individuals, groups or countries.
Theories which explain the causes of conflict include Human Needs Theory, Relational Theory, Political Theory
and Transformative Theory. The Human Needs Theory expresses the view that without certain basic needs,
human beings cannot survive. The Relational Theory posits that conflict is the product of social interactions
that operate among people from different socio-cultural backgrounds. The political theory views the state as
the platform where people or groups with conflicting interests clash over certain benefits. Thus, a weak state
informed by poor leadership, breeds conflict among groups therein. The Transformative Theory opines that
conflict is generated by perceived inequality and injustices driven by socio-cultural, religious, political and
economic forces within a state. In a rapidly changing world, approaches to the settlement of conflicts are
also changing.
Theoretical Framework
This study is hinged on two theoretical underpinnings: Roman Jackobson’s “elements of communication” – which
was further developed by Hymes (1962) and Acheoah’s Pragma-crafting Theory.
The elements of communication (cf. Hymes ibid.) show the discrete components of human communication: the
addresser (The person who originates or sends the message); the addressee (the person to whom the message
is addressed); the channel (the medium through which the message travels); the message form (the particular
grammatical and lexical choices of the message); the topic (the information carried in the message); the code (the
system of communicating the language or dialect e.g. British English); the setting (the social or physical context).
According to Acheoah’s (2015:23-25) Pragma-crafting Theory, communication has a discourse structure which
consists of EVENT and TEXT. The former concerns the participants of discourse. Some of them make linguistic
or extra-linguistic contributions to on-going discourse (interactive participants) whereas others do not
(non-interactive participants). To participate interactively in a communicative event, the interactive
American Research Journal of English and Literature Page 2
Language in Conflict Resolution in Africa: The Discourse Strategies
participants produce linguistic, extra-linguistic (being interactive does not necessarily mean producing speech
sounds; silence interacts that is, communicates messages in discourse) and psychological acts. Linguistic acts
include: speech acts, segmental features, supra-segmental features, phones, exclamations and lyrical music.
Extra-linguistic acts include: sociolinguistic particulars (gender, age, status, cultural background), music
(non-lyrical), drumming, gestures, dance, semiotic particulars (weather, contextual object (CO), colour,
dressing, location, size, shapes and body marks) and silence. Psychological acts are the discourse emotions
expressed through linguistic and extra-linguistic acts. The three major categories of acts in EVENT are candidates
for p-crafting. P-crafting features are the tools for interpreting the linguistic, extra-linguistic and psychological
acts, although SETTING and THEME also facilitate this process of interpretation. SETTING is the physical
context revealed by TEXT, and this is an optional category as some texts are not SETTING-revealing. THEME
is the message(s) revealed in TEXT through topic-suggestive words and p-crafting features. On the whole, the
Pragma-crafting Theory shows that indeed, ‘communicative Acts’ (CA) – differentiated from speech acts used
in EVENT – interact with ‘communicative features’ (CF). Thus, linguistic, extra-linguistic and psychological acts
are ‘communicative acts’ whereas p-crafting features are ‘communicative features’.
Linguistic implicatures (LI) are meanings implied through language while behavioural implicatures (BI) are
meanings implied through extra-linguistic and psychological acts. Contextual presuppositions (CP) are products
of shared contextual knowledge (SCK); in a specific (micro-context) discourse, participants deduce meanings
from verbal and non-verbal data limited to the participants themselves. The meanings deduce are treated as
background assumptions (Bas) which direct interlocutory roles. DCs (decoders) imply that ENCs (Encoders)
know that certain VEs (Verbal elements) & NVEs (non-verbal elements) are deduced as OR (object referred) in
OL (the Operative Language).
Methodology
Using Random Sampling Method, this study selects conversational exchanges (micro-structures) from the
entire dialogue using certain parameters: topic, quality of the language and clarity of message. The Content
Analysis approach also informs the selection. According to Asika, this approach is suitable for the analysis of a
wide range of texts because it answers crucial communication questions: Who says what, to whom and on what
occasion? On the whole, five corpora are selected in this study; each corpus is comprised of conversational turns.
Data Analysis
The analyses of corpora 1-5 (see appendix) are done in this section; it is integrative, drawing insights from
pragmatics, sociolinguistics, stylistics and discourse analysis as depicted in the theoretical frameworks.
Corpus 1
The speaker hinges on metaphor (“This gathering is the rainbow that has united our clan for centuries”)
to make his speech forceful and emotive. The use of “rainbow” rather than any other agency of nature is of
thematic relevance; a rainbow appears on the sky as an object that is almost circular, thus enclosing anything
that is within its range. In the context of Corpus 1, this depicts communal bond and fraternity which the elders
of the two disputing communities (Azunwa and Ezinma) represent in the struggle to restore lasting peace in
their communities. The speaker’s choice of words is germane to the topic of discourse; he uses image-conjuring
dictions (“thickened” and “fresh”) to impinge on the audience’s emotions, so that the audience will see the
urgent need to stop terror in the warring communities. Via mutual contextual beliefs, the speaker is able to
remind the audience that war is inimical to societal progress. By reminding the audience of terrorism that
plagues the present world, the speaker succeeds in making the audience desire peace (perlocutionary act). The
speaker’s illocutionary goal (see Austin’s 1962 classification of speech acts into locutionary, illocutionary
and perlocutionary acts) is to shift the minds of the audience from an unacceptable social order to an
acceptable, rational one.
American Research Journal of English and Literature Page 3
Language in Conflict Resolution in Africa: The Discourse Strategies
Corpus 2
The speaker uses proverb to lampoon man’s inordinate ambition and inhumanity towards other human
beings. The proverb (“The vultures must stop smiling at our foolishness”) is very condensed and witty. The
universality of the proverb conveys the speaker’s message clearly. The proverbial saying depicts the ravages
of wars in this present world where peace is almost elusive. The speaker’s language is elevated (literary). For
example, because of the speaker’s language, (as in the sentence “I do not want their claws on those mutilated
bodies”) the audience could vividly imagine the horrors of war. Lee (1997) proposes the Cognitive Grammar
notions of frame, profiling and radiality as useful discourse analysis tools. The notion of frame varies from that
used in the ethnography of communication (where the frame is key of activity being engaged in, e.g. joking)
or interactional sociolinguistics (where the frame is used for the interpretation of utterances and is signaled
through contextualization cues). The cognitive frame relates to the “conceptual structures invoked by individual
words and the concepts they denote (p.340). Examples of such words in Corpus 2 are “vultures”, “foolishness”,
“claws”, “mutilated bodies”, “pellets of flesh” and “inordinate ambition”. Profiling relates to foregrounding on
element within the frame, and radiality describes how to refer to situations that are different yet connected by a
central or prototypical meaning” (Leung ibid. p.11). In this corpus, the speaker uses people-inclusive pronouns
(“our”, “us”) to involve the audience in the situation at hand; thus, in conflict discourses, the participation of the
audience is skillfully invoked by a good speaker. This corpus reveals that usual collocates help communicate a
speaker’s message effectively. The expressions “vultures”, “claws”, “mutilated bodies” and “pellets of flesh” are
usual collocates because they can thematically co-occur in language-use to depict the terrific nature of war.
The speaker uses “specification” as a discourse strategy. He specifically mentions the wrong doing of the Okada
Clan and the Ogi Warriors. This strategy authenticates a speaker’s claims in a conflict resolution discourse. It
is a way of avoiding contradiction. According to Goodwin (1990:158) “… factors which escalate disputes are:
recycling positions by sustained contradiction, the use of non-specific proof strategies …” (p.165)1.
Corpus 3
The speaker uses conditional clause to establish cause-effect phenomenon. He does this without using the usual
“if” that typically initiates the conditional clause. The use of the futuristic positive clause declarative (“There will
be…”) and the non-futuristic negative clause declarative shows sentence variation that conveys same message.
The speaker emphasizes harmony (an emphatic clause is a discourse strategy) to make his audience reason.
This strategy generates audience’s response; it is a direct call to action.
The speaker uses paraphrase (re-expressing same proposition via language variation); “the pillars of peace”
and “the wind of harmony” convey same meaning. In addition, when the speaker says: “Our brotherhood
must continue” and thereafter says: “... the precious lives of their kinsmen transcend the booties of war”, he
elaborates. Elaboration is a discourse strategy through which a speaker ensures that his expressions are void
of ambiguity. The gravity of the evil of killing innocent people as a result of greed is the reason for the speaker’s
harsh tone – the speaker is pragmatically impolite. However, the speaker strikes a balance between politeness
and impoliteness by commending the audience: “I commend your wisdom for holding this meeting”. In our
present world ridden by crisis and insurgency, “language engineering” – constructing expressions to achieve
illocutionary goals – is indeed, crucial in conflict resolution. A good speaker knows when to speak with harsh or mild
tone. Rees-Miller (2000) posits that Brown and Levinson’s notions of power and severity of offence influence the
choice of strategies in disagreements though in addition other complex factors in particular the importance of
the situational context, are at work. Positive politeness may also play a role in minimizing disagreement episodes
(Holtgraves 1997). Resolving conflict is not an easy task. So, the participants in any conflict resolution situation
must use language skillfully if any meaningful settlement is to be achieved. Santoi Leung (ibid.) notes that once
a dispute has begun, there may be disincentives for bringing it to a termination (p.3). Although resolution may
not be reached, participants used to, on some level, collaborate in order to bring the conflict episode (if not the
American Research Journal of English and Literature Page 4
Language in Conflict Resolution in Africa: The Discourse Strategies
actual conflict) to an end. This collaboration may take a variety of forms. An excellent example of the variety of
instances of termination is reported via Vuchinich (1990)2.
Corpus 4
The speaker uses “contextual recall of antecedent” as a discourse strategy. It is used as an illocutionary act
preparatory device. The strategy makes the audience undergo a quick retrospection. It puts them in sober
reflection before the articulation of the speaker’s message. The speaker also uses creative repetition to
articulate clausal antonym (“Your decision is their life. Your action is their death”). Through this device, the
speaker subtly accuses the audience of not acting early enough – a delay, which has caused many their lives. In
a conflict resolution talk, a good speaker manipulates situational variables and contextual nuances to ensure
that the illocutionary force of his utterance is clear and pungent. This process may involve attacking the
audience. Infante and Rancer (1996) review the literature of conflict resolution on two features of aggressive
communication: argumentativeness (attacking the positions that others take on given issues); and verbal
aggressiveness (attacking the self-concepts of others rather than their positions) – cited in Santoi Leung
ibid.). Indeed, corpora 1-4 show that to some extent, the speakers use different discourse strategies to convey
messages. Santoi Leung (ibid.) opines that rather than seeing differences in communicative style as the cause
for (intentional) misunderstanding, some researchers see them as resource that interlocutors can deliberately
draw upon for their own goals. An example is presented in Keim’s (1996) study of a community association
meeting. They propose that speakers can use their different communication style for political action, to polarize
their own position and that of others. Hence, communicative style is defined as “various features of verbal and
non-verbal behavior such as phonological variation, patterns of syntactic structures, special meanings of lexical
terms, formulaic speech, pragmatic rules of politeness, special ways of conflict management” (p.271).
This corpus reveals that the speaker explores feedback as another discourse strategy, to give the audience a
glimmer of hope in the quest for lasting peace in the two warring communities. In many conflict resolution
or settlement discourses, there is “third-party” phenomenon. For example, involving the police (as in this
corpus), is synonymous with a situation whereby two warring countries engage the international community
to intervene in a certain crisis/conflict/war. Thus, corpora 1-4 depict universality; that is, what operates in
the larger society is depicted in the corpora. In a conflict situation, the involvement of third-party depends
on the situation at hand. This view corroborates Genishi and di Paolo (1982) who posit that “the termination
of a conflict talk episode is highly dependent on the context in which the episode takes place.” In classroom
disputes, children may not need to resolve conflicts on their own because teacher intervention is available.” In a
similar perspective, Santoi Leung (ibid. p.14) asserts that “the presence and role of a third party in termination
of a conflict talk episode seems to be a key contextual element. However, although third parties are often
present in conflict data, there is not a great deal of literature explicitly considering their role in termination. One
area where third party intervention is central is within the conflict resolution field. For example, in mediation
settings, the third party, or mediator, is seen as taking a neutral position in order to help the participants resolve
their dispute. However, there are few studies that carry out microanalyses of the actual interactions between
mediators and their interactants. One example is Greatbatch and Dingwall’s (1997) work…”
Corpus 5
The speaker explores his understanding that regional communication is facilitated by mutual contextual beliefs.
For example, “A7” communicates the speaker’s message effectively because the participants had embraced the
social realism that produced the expression. Acheoah (2012) uses the term “geoimplicature” to explain the
pragmatics of language-use within a speech community. According to Raymond Cohen (2001:26), “… communal
life is possible only because members of a community possess a set of shared meanings, enabling them to
make coherent sense of the world. This stock of meanings constitutes the common sense of the community and
underpins all communication and organized activity.” In addition, Cohen (ibid. p.26) further notes that “… systems

American Research Journal of English and Literature Page 5

Language in Conflict Resolution in Africa: The Discourse Strategies
of symbolic meanings that demarcate communities include religion, popular culture, and nonverbal behavior.”
Language is indeed, instrumental to conflict management because it encapsulates the psyche or socio-cultural
beliefs of a speech community3. In Corpus 5 therefore, A7 is uttered with the communicative presumption (see
Bach and Harnish’s speech act theory for illuminating perspectives on Communicative Presumption (CP) that
the decoders understand the expression “A7” as “an unacceptable societal practice/vice”.
Another discourse strategy in this corpus is “contextual recall of antecedents”. Via this strategy, the speaker
contends that there cannot be true resolution of the prevailing conflict unless those who had violated the
traditions of the communities in the first place, are made to face the wrath of the law. The speaker is sure that
since the participants are aware of the traditions, it will not be difficult for them to understand and accept his
message. This implies that cultural similarities are facilitators of conflict resolution in Africa and the entire
world. Cross cultural differences in the depiction of reality are hard to accept, precisely because we take the
picture of the world conveyed by our native language to be self-evident and project it onto everyone else (Cohen
2001:26). Raymond Cohen (ibid.) submits further that “different languages convey different versions of reality.
To grasp what people think about, for example, the term ‘reconciliation’, we must first find out what they mean
by the equivalent concept in their own language…”
An additional discourse strategy in this corpus is “skillful selection of speech acts”. See Bach and Harnish
(1979) and Searle (1969) for tips on speech act taxonomy. Seeking refuge in Searle and Bach and Harnish’s
categorization/taxonomy of speech acts, this study opines that speech acts in Corpus 5 include Informatives,
Declaratives and Dissentives. These speech acts are performed with varied clause structures; Acheoah (2014)
who examines the communication of messages via clause-structure variation, is worthy of scholarly attention
as far as clause-structure-driven performance of illocutionary acts is concerned.
Discussion and Conclusion
Conversations that concern conflict reveal a wide range of discourse strategies which the participants explore
towards effective communication. Adegbija (1999:189) submits that “a conversation is a string of at least
two turns. Each conversation typically involves speaker change. This occurs as the conversation progresses.
Normally, one person speaks at a time but this is usually for a brief period. Transitions between one turn
and the next with no gap and no overlap between them are common. Turn allocation techniques, which
may vary from culture to culture, are used. Turn allocations are sometimes prearranged. A speech exchange
often involves a single allocation of turns at a time though further turns may be negotiated as the discourse
progresses. Turn taking concerns changes in the roles of speakers and addressees which occur successively,
often with overlapping speech and a few periods of silence. Speaker change is often introduced by grammatical,
phonological or semantic clues.” Language is the amalgam of a people’s ways of life. The relationship which
Africa and Europeans had through colonialism can be explored towards ensuring that peace abounds in Africa.
However, without the involvement of the Africans themselves in third-party-moderated conflict resolution
discourses, the mediation of any third-party such as the European Union (EU) will not produce expected results.
This is because the linguistic identities of the Africans, whose regions are plagued with crisis, have crucial
roles to play in conflict resolution. Commendable efforts abound on the stride of the international community
towards conflict resolution in Africa.
Contemporary research provides insights on how the international community can foster peace in Africa. For
example, Acheoah Ofeh Augustine (2017) opines:
“As a way of finding lasting peace in South Sudan, the UN should sponsor a constitutional and
security sector reforms. While the constitutional reform will bring about separation of powers in
the three arms of government and share the excessive powers vested on the executive branch by the

American Research Journal of English and Literature Page 6

Language in Conflict Resolution in Africa: The Discourse Strategies
Transitional Constitution signed into law on Independence Day… security sector reform will facilitate
the demilitarization of the South Sudanese society, mop out small and light weapons from the hands
of ethnic militia groups. Lastly, the leaders of South Sudan must stop to exploit the ethnic cleavages
among them as a basis to keep the world’s youngest country in an intractable conflict. No matter the
effort of the international community within the instrumentality of the UN the government and people
of South Sudan have the biggest stake in the search for peace in South Sudan.”
However, as far as international involvement in fostering peace in Africa is concerned, much work still has to
be done. Considering the history of international assistance to Africa, language has crucial roles to play
in results-oriented synergies between international bodies and war-torn Africa. Hymes (1974) opines
that “the resources that are available to participants in conflict talk are those of communicative competence.”
In addition, Gumperz (1980) and Tanen (1990b) posit that “given that there are cultural differences in how
conflict talk is conducted, it follows that arguments, in essence, miscommunication, can result from lack of skills
in understanding interpretive conventions or a mismatch of communicative styles.” Aligning with this view,
Santoi Leung (2017) submits that “in addition to group differences, individual differences in communicative
styles may also have impact on how a conflict talk progresses…” Rather than being settled, many conflicts in
Africa escalate. However, it is often possible to de-escalate conflicts. Political analysts believe that the
war-of-words between the North Korean leader and his US counterpart could escalate the conflict
between the two regions. Greatbatch and Dingwall (1997:157-161) “demonstrate that the disputants
often initiated de-escalation themselves and that these practices are generic and present in everyday
conversation. Similar to findings in other studies, the participants did not generally move towards
agreement when ending a conflict talk episode, but tried to exit without submitting or making
concessions. For example, they would not take their turn to speak which implies a withdrawal but at
the same time, deflects blame” (cited in Santoi Leung ibid.).
Resolving conflicts in Africa via language presupposes understanding and articulating the pragmatics of
multiculturalism. Raymond Cohen (2000:25) opines that “conflict resolution is a basic activity articulated
and conducted in forms that significantly vary across cultures. Differences in approach rest on contrasting
understandings of the nature of conflict and society. A good way to study these differences is through a
comparative analysis of language”. The analysis done in this study reveals different facts about the components
of discourse. Stubbs (1983:1) posits that “discourse is defined as “(1) concerned with language use beyond
the boundaries of a sentence/utterance, (2) concerned with the interrelationships between language and
society and (3) as concerned with the interactive or dialogic properties of everyday communication.” For Stef
Slembrouck (1998-2003 p.1), “the term discourse analysis is very ambiguous... Roughly speaking, it refers to
attempts to study the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study
the larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts. It follows that discourse analysis
is also concerned with language use in social contexts, and in particular with interaction or dialogue
between speakers.”
This study contends that in conflict resolution, language is a stronger weapon than the arms and ammunition
which the international community uses in attempting to resolve many conflicts in Africa. Whether caused by
ethno-religious or electoral factors, conflicts in Africa can be resolved via language. This study attempts an
integrative, succinct and discursive overview of “conflict”, “language” and “Africa”. Although each society has
its own peculiarities, this study hinges on the Projection Principle to conclude that a wide range of discourse
strategies are instrumental in the resolution of conflicts not only in Africa, but in all human societies. These
strategies include: image-conjuring dictions, illocutionary-goal-driven clause structure, thematic repetition,
recalling antecedents, direct call to action, third-party phenomenon, feedback, paraphrase, elaboration, skillful
selection of speech acts, people-inclusive personal pronouns, usual collocates, specification, figurative language,
exploring shared knowledge and politeness.
American Research Journal of English and Literature Page 7
Language in Conflict Resolution in Africa: The Discourse Strategies
Notes
1. Other factors which escalate disputes have been noted by scholars to include the use of rhetorical questions
(Brenneis 1988; Tagaki 1999) and highly face aggravating responses (Muntigl and Turnbull 1998).
2. In his analysis of American family disputes at dinnertime, he observed five main formats: submission where
one participant accepts the other’s position, dominant party intervention where the disputants submit to a
third party, compromise where one participant offers a concession which is then accepted, stand-off in which
there is no submission or compromise, and finally, withdrawal either from one verbal conflict or physically from
the environment (see also Dersley and Wootton 2001) – cited in Santoi Leung (2017:13).
3. This submission corroborates Cohen (ibid. p.26) who asserts that “from the premise that language constitutes
a community’s shared stock of meanings, we can conclude that the study of language may provide an excellent
entry point for investigating how members of a group understand and handle conflict.” In addition, Cohen (ibid.)
submits that “cross-linguistic comparison reveals much about other societies and provokes thoughts about our
own. It is also expedient since the resolution of intercultural conflict, already salient in multicultural societies,
is likely to become increasingly significant in an interdependent world. When paradigms of conflict resolution
clash, conceptual and technical contradictions have to be addressed if they are to be overcome…
References
Acheoah, John Emike. (2012). “Geoimplicatures: Critical Perspectives on Cross-cultural and Intra-cultural
Pragmatics”. Online International Journal of Arts and Humanities, Volume 1, Issue 4: 43-50.
___ . (2014). “The Illocutionary Frames Principle (IFP) and the Austinian Postulations: A
Clause-structure Investigative Discourse”. Global Journal of Human- Social Science, Linguistics and Psychology
Volume 13, Issue 13, Version 1.0: 21-29.
___ . (2015). “The Pragma-crafting Theory: A Proposed Theoretical Framework for Pragmatic Analysis”. American
Research Journal of English and Literature, Volume 1, Issue 2:21-32.
Acheoah, Ofeh Augstine (2017). “The Role of the United Nations in Peace Keeping: A Case of South Sudan”. M.A.
Thesis, Department of Political Science, University of Lagos. .
Adegbija, E. (Ed.) (1999). The English Language and Literature in English: An Introductory Handbook. Ilorin:
University of Ilorin.
Asika, Namdi. (1991). Research Methodology in Behavioural Sciences. Ikeja: Longman.
Austin, John. (1962). How To Do Things With Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bach, Kent and Harnish, Robert. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts.Cambridge:
Massachusetts. The MIT Press.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brenneise, D. and Lein, L. (1988). “Language and Disputing”. Annual Review of Anthropology, 17, 221-237.
Coulthard, M. (1985). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Dersley, I. and Wootton, A. J. (2000). “In the Heat of the Sequence: Interactional Features Receding Walouts from
Argumentative Talk”. Language in Society, 30, 611-638.
Genishi, C. and di Paolo, M. (1982). “Learning through Argument in a Preschool”. In L. C.
Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the Classroom. (pp. 49-68). New York: Academic Press.
American Research Journal of English and Literature Page 8
Language in Conflict Resolution in Africa: The Discourse Strategies
Grimshaw, A. D. (1990). Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Goodman, M. (1990).
He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hymes, D. (1962). “The Ethnography of Speaking.” In Fishman, J. A. Ed. 1968. Reading in the Sociology of
Language. The Hague: Mouton.
___. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Infante, D. A. and Rancer, A. S. (1996). “Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggression: A Review of Recent Theory
and Research”. Communication Yearbook, 19, 319-351.
Jacquemet, M. (2000). “Conflict”. In A. Muntigl, P. and Turnbull, W. (1998). “Conversational Structure and
Facework in Arguing”. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225-256.
Raymond, Cohen (2001). “Language and Conflict Resolution: The Limits of English”. Interactional
Studies Review, Vol. 3. No 1. Pp. 23-51.
Rees-Muller, J. (2000). “Power, Severity, and Context in Disagreement”. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1087-1111.
Searle, John. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stef, Slembrouck (1998-2003). “What is meant by Discourse Analysis?” Department of English, University of
Gent. Semantics, Vol.1 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stephanie, Taylor (2013). What is Discourse Analysis? Bloomsbury.
Stubbs, Michael (1983). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Tannen, D. (1990b). You just don’t understand: women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Appendix
Duke Donald, Chief, Etimi, Papa and Madama (corpora 1-5)
Corpus 1
Duke Donald: This gathering is the rainbow that has united our clan for centuries. A community that is united
in love and purpose should not continue to waste lives. The streams of Azuwa and Ezinma are thickened by the
blood of the martyrs of this age-long conflict. The smell of fresh blood all over the land must mean a lot to us. We
are here to resolve this conflict. My clansmen, we must give peace a chance. The terror that plagues the present
world is the reason for retrogression and fear. I do not doubt the fact that we are the answers to our problems.
Corpus 2
Chief: The vultures must stop smiling at our foolishness. I do not want their claws on those mutilated
bodies. They clap their wings as they take pellets of flesh up the Iroko trees. The flesh of men, women and
children – victims of man’s inordinate ambition. Be prepared. You have to. Let us reason. Stop the killing.
See a way out. Rise. Okada clan thought war was the answer. Ogi warriors thought their swords could
overthrow the status-quo. After several years of reckless killing of innocent people, they embraced
belated dialogue.
American Research Journal of English and Literature Page 9
 Language in Conflict Resolution in Africa: The Discourse Strategies
Corpus 3
Etimi: Dialogue has always been the panacea to resolving issues. The land belongs to both communities. There
will be peace and harmony if we evolve sharing formula. Our brotherhood must continue. That is what our
ancestors want. There are crooks who want this dispute to linger on for their selfish motives. They do not know
that the precious lives of their kinsmen transcend the booties of war. There cannot be peace unless we fish out
those who orchestrated the perpetuation of conflict and murder in our communities. We know them. We smell
them. We hate them. We can crush them. I commend your wisdom for calling this meeting. You are the pillars
of peace, the wind of harmony.
Corpus 4
Papa: It is unfortunate that wise ones like you could allow our people die in their thousands before
this peace-meeting. Your decision is their life. Your action is their death. Anyway, it is better that you
can no longer fold your hands to see dead bodies in our farmlands and streams. The police have pledged to
give us all the necessary support as we come together to strike a deal for lasting peace in our communities.
A few of us agreed before this meeting, to invite our sons abroad to participate in building our communities.
We wrote a letter to them through the President of the Association of Azuwa People in Europe. Their reply is
encouraging. Long live our communities. Long live Nigeria.
Corpus 5
Madama: Now I see that A7 does not have a place anymore in Azuwa. I see no reason why two communities that
share same cultures and values cannot bury greed and hatred. According to our traditions, the resolution of the
Council of Elders must stand. Each of the two neighboring communities knows its share of the land. Traditions
do not allow either a community or a member to sell any portion of land that is for other people. This is the
genesis of the crisis between Azuwa and Ezinma. Unless the culprits are made to face the wrath of the law, there
cannot be true reconciliation between the two communities. Let the money be returned. Let the buyers forfeit
the land. Then we can talk of togetherness, peace and community building.

Citation: Acheoah John Emike Ph.D, Olaleye, Joel Iyiola, Ph.D, Acheoah, Ofeh Augustine, ” Language in
Conflict Resolution in Africa: The Discourse Strategies” American Research Journal of English and Literature,
vol 3, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1-10.
Copyright © 2017 Acheoah John Emike Ph.D, Olaleye, Joel Iyiola, Ph.D, Acheoah, Ofeh Augustine, This
is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

American Research Journal of English and Literature Page 10

View publication stats