Constructing Institutional Identities: The Case of the Slogans of Selected Public and Private Universities in Ghana

University slogans serve as potent semiotic tools through which higher education institutions communicate their identities, philosophies, and aspirations to the public. In Ghana, both public and private universities employ slogans to construct and project institutional identities that align with national development goals, cultural expectations, and global competitiveness. Drawing on data from the official slogans of ten public and ten private universities in Ghana, this study investigates the linguistic and ideological features that underlie the construction of institutional identities. Employing a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) framework and Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as analytical lenses, the study examines how language choices in these slogans reflect particular institutional values, power relations, and socio-cultural orientations. The analysis reveals that public universities tend to emphasize national service, knowledge production, and moral responsibility, while private universities foreground spirituality, entrepreneurship, and global citizenship. The findings highlight the intersection of education, ideology, and discourse in the Ghanaian higher education landscape, offering insights into how institutional communication serves as a microcosm of broader societal narratives.

Institutional Identity; University Slogans; Ghana; Systemic Functional Linguistics

1. Adika, Gordon S. K. 2012. English in Ghana: Growth, tensions, and trends. International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication 1(1), 151–166. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Agyekum, Kofi. 2019. Linguistic Landscapes and the Sociolinguistics of Place in Ghana. Ghana Journal of Linguistics 8(2), 1–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Angouri, Jo & Ruth Wodak. 2021. Language, Gender and Leadership: Authenticity, Power and Performance. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bamgbose, Ayo. 2000. Language and Exclusion: The Consequences of Language Policies in Africa. Münster: LIT Verlag. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bednarek, Monika & Helen Caple. 2020. The Discourse of News Values: How News Organizations Create Newsworthiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bhatia, Vijay K. 2005. Generic Patterns In Promotional Discourse. In Vijay K. Bhatia & Maurizio Gotti (Eds.), Explorations in Specialized Genres, 213–228. Bern: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bhatia, Vijay K. 2008. Genre Analysis, ESP And Professional Practice. English for Specific Purposes 27(2), 161–174. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bondi, Marina & Rosa Lorés-Sanz. 2020. Language in Academic and Professional Settings: Variation And Change. Bern: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bucholtz, Mary & Kira Hall. 2005. Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5), 585–614. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Creswell, John W. & Cheryl N. Poth. 2018. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 4th Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. 2nd Edn. London: Continuum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse And Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Fairclough, Norman. 1993. Critical Discourse Analysis and the Marketization of Public Discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society 4(2), 133–168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Fairclough, Norman. 2001. Language and Power. 2nd Edn. London: Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Flick, Uwe. 2020. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 6th Edn. London: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction To Functional Grammar. 4th Edn. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Henderson, Meagan & Jennifer Bowden. 2020. An Emerging Model for University Branding: A Qualitative Exploration. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 30(1), 1–22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Higgins, Christina. 2011. Identity Formation in Globalizing Contexts: Language Learning in the New Millennium. Berlin: De Gruyter. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Jackson, Kristi & Pat Bazeley. 2019. Qualitative Data Analysis with Nvivo. 3rd edn. London: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Jaworska, Sylvia & Crispin Thurlow. 2021. Introducing Semiotic Landscapes. In Crispin Thurlow & Adam Jaworski (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook Of Language And Digital Communication, 129–144. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. KhosraviNik, Majid. 2020. Social Media And Critical Discourse Studies. In John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook Of Critical Discourse Studies, 582–596. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. KhosraviNik, Majid & Johann W. Unger. 2022. Critical Discourse Studies And Social Media: Power, Resistance And Critique. Critical Discourse Studies 19(3), 247–261. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language Of Evaluation: Appraisal In English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2021. Register Variation In Digital Discourse: A Systemic Functional Perspective. Functions of Language 28(1), 1–35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Mautner, Gerlinde. 2020. The Marketization Of Higher Education Discourse: A Critical Perspective. Discourse, Context & Media 35, 100389. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Mwinlaaru, Isaac N. & Mark Nartey. 2022. Discourse And Identity In Ghanaian Public Communication. Journal of African Cultural Studies 34(3), 345–360. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Sabelo J. 2021. Decolonization, Development And Knowledge In Africa: Turning Over A New Leaf. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. O’Connor, Cliodhna & Helene Joffe. 2020. Intercoder Reliability In Qualitative Research: Debates And Practical Guidelines. Qualitative Research in Psychology 17(3), 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Oduro, George K. T. 2019. Faith-Based Higher Education And National Development In Ghana. International Journal of Educational Development 65, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. O’Halloran, Kay L., Sabine Tan & Marissa K. L. E. Wignell. 2021. Multimodal Discourse Analysis. In Ken Hyland & Brian Paltridge (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Handbook Of Discourse Analysis, 2nd Edn., 451–467. London: Bloomsbury. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Paulus, Trena M., Michelle Woods, David P. Atkins & Rachelle Macklin. 2017. The Discourse Of QDA Software: Learning From Users. Qualitative Inquiry 23(9), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Piller, Ingrid. 2001. Identity Constructions in Multilingual Advertising. Language in Society 30(2), 153–186. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Prah, Kwesi Kwaa. 2009. The Language Of Instruction Conundrum In Africa. Cape Town: CASAS. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Rogers, Rebecca, Malinda Schieble, Rebecca Mosley & Daniel R. Hui. 2005. Critical Discourse Analysis In Education: A Review Of The Literature. Review of Educational Research 75(3), 365–416. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Saichaie, Kem & Christopher C. Morphew. 2021. What College And University Websites Reveal About The Purposes Of Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education 92(1), 1–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Saldaña, Johnny. 2021. The Coding Manual For Qualitative Researchers. 4th Edn. London: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Thurlow, Crispin & Adam Jaworski. 2010. Tourism Discourse: Language And Global Mobility. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. van Dijk, Teun A. 2008. Discourse and power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. van Leeuwen, Theo. 2005. Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse And Practice: New Tools For Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Wodak, Ruth. 2011. The Discourse Of Politics In Action: Politics As Usual. 2nd Edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Wodak, Ruth & Michael Meyer (eds.). 2016. Methods Of Critical Discourse Studies. 3rd edn. London: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Wodak, Ruth & Martin Reisigl. 2020. The Discourse-Historical Approach. In John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook Of Critical Discourse Studies, 44–59. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Synonymy in the Songs of Ummaru Bagobiri: A Contextual Linguistics Analysis
• Aspect of Compounding and Affixation in Bassa-Nge
• Kinayah (Metonymy) in Malay: An Analysis Based on the Science of Balaghah
• Optimality Theory: Application of Dahl’s law in Kindia
• Selling Diversity: The Politics of Representation in Global Advertising