You have no items in your shopping cart.
This study examines the expression of stance in the national debate on restructuring of the Nigerian federation. Using the various positions (stances) canvassed on the raging debate by Ohanaeze Ndigbo (South East), Afenifere (South West), Pan Niger Delta Forum (South South), Middle Belt Forum (North Central), the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) committee on true federalism, the core North, and President Mohammadu Buhari as reported in newspapers as the corpus, the study assesses stance in terms of t's semantic projections and interpersonal functions as conveyed by the linguistic deployments of the interlocutors in the debate. The data are analysed quantitatively and qualitatively using Du Bois' interactional view of stance and Martin and White's Appraial framework. The combined methodology is complemented with Biber et al's lexico-grammatical resources for expressing stance together with Hunston's discourse analytical apapproach to stance which views stance as an area of interpersonal meaning. This is done in order to provide a coherent account of stance at lexico-grammatical and contextual levels.The examination of the expression of stance in the data reveals that the stance expressed realises epistemic, attitudinal, and style meanings. These semantic dimensions of the expressed stances perform different interpersonal functions that verge on contraction, expansion of the dialogic space, negative valuation and graduation of the propositions expressed. Quantitative analysis reveals that interlocutors in the restructuring of Nigeria debate make use of stance resources that have the interpersonal function of dialogic space contraction more than the ones that open up dialogic space in order to allow for flexibility of positions and accommodation of contrary views. The resultant effect of this is espousal of positions that are not amenable to negotiation. This undermines the essence of the debate and erodes the unity and cohesion of the country. In order to avoid unnecessary heating up of the polity and advance the course of the debate, this study recommends that linguistic resources that favour accommodation of contrary views and flexibility of debate should be privileged over the ones that contract dialogic space and make positions expressed resistant to negotiation.
