A Pragmatic Analysis of Person Deixis in a Political Discourse: The Case Study of President Akuffo Addo’s Inaugural Address

This study investigates the use of person deixis in President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo’s 2017 inaugural address within a pragmatic framework. The study aims to identify, quantify, and interpret how deictic expressions—particularly personal pronouns—are used to construct political identity, express ideological stance, and engage the audience. Drawing on Levinson’s (1983) theory of deixis, the research adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative frequency analysis with qualitative interpretation of contextual usage. The findings reveal that first-person plural deixis (we, our, us) is the most dominant, accounting for 60.6% of all deictic references, followed by third-person (17%), first-person singular (15.1%), and second-person (7.4%) forms. This distribution indicates a strong preference for collective framing, with the president positioning governance as a shared national responsibility. The alternation between I and we reflect a pragmatic balance between personal accountability and inclusive leadership, while second-person forms (you, your) enhance direct audience engagement. Third-person deixis functions to differentiate the current administration from past regimes, thereby reinforcing ideological positioning and historical continuity. The study concludes that person deixis in political discourse is both a quantifiable linguistic feature and a powerful rhetorical resource, used to construct solidarity, legitimacy, and national vision. Beyond the Ghanaian context, the findings highlight the broader significance of deixis in shaping political rhetoric in emerging democracies. The study therefore recommends comparative analyses of presidential discourse in Ghana and other African contexts to further illuminate how deictic strategies evolve across political regimes and communicative settings.

Person deixis, pragmatics, political discourse

1. Adegoju, A. (2009). The Pragmatics of Political Discourse in Nigeria. Language, Society and Culture, 28, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Agyekum, K. (2015). The Pragmatics of Akan Political Discourse. Legon Journal of the Humanities, 26(2), 1–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Austin, J. L. (1962). How To Do Things With Words. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Beard, A. (2000). The Language Of Politics. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bramley, N. R. (2001). Pronouns Of Politics: The Use Of Pronouns In The Construction Of ‘Self’ And ‘Other’ In Political Interviews (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Australian National University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bull, P., & Fetzer, A. (2006). Who Are We And Who Are You? The Strategic Use Of Forms Of Address In Political Interviews. Text & Talk, 26(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians And Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power Of Metaphor (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory And Practice. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing And Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study Of Language. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language And Power (2nd ed.). Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fillmore, C. J. (1975). Santa Cruz Lectures On Deixis. Indiana University Linguistics Club. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hanks, W. F. (2005). Explorations In The Deictic Field. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 191–220. https://doi.org/10.1086/427077 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles Of Pragmatics. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Marmaridou, S. S. A. (2000). Pragmatic Meaning And Cognition. John Benjamins. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Obeng, S. G. (2002). Political Discourse Analysis In African Languages. Nova Science Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Okoro, E. (2017). Pragmatic Analysis Of Nigerian Presidential Inaugural Speeches. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(2), 257–276. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Opeibi, B. (2009). Discourse, Politics And The 1993 Presidential Election Campaigns In Nigeria. Stylistic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Thomas, L., & Wareing, S. (2004). Language, Society And Power: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse As Structure And Process. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, Ideology And Discourse. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Encyclopedia Of Language And Linguistics (2nd Ed., Pp. 728–740). Elsevier. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Wilson, J. (1990). Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis Of Political Language. Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Wodak, R. (2009). The Discourse Of Politics In Action: Politics As Usual. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests