The discursive structures selected in talks and texts in politics and other spheres of social life are determined by the situations in which they are used. Politics and rhetoric are interwoven, and the latter is highly esteemed as an instrument of persuasion or manipulation in the former. Personal pronouns provide an easy access to these activities in mind control because they readily provide multiple identities. This researcher argues that Muhammadu Buhari in both his maiden speech as a Military Head of State in 1984, and inaugural speech as a President with executive powers in 2015 tactfully deployed personal pronouns to present different identities and project different ideologies, and that the backgrounds from which he spoke impacted on his pronominal choices. This study, therefore, sets to provide an insight into the influences of the ideological stances from which he spoke on his choice of language. The theoretical framework guiding the study is critical discourse analysis. The analysis reveals that by strategically selecting personal pronouns, Buhari constructed the identities that reflected the military and civilian backgrounds from which he spoke, as well as created the in-groups and out-groups he desired to project the authoritarianism and persuasion of military and democratic regimes respectively.

1. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Muhammadu Buhari’s Inaugural Speeches with a Focus on Pronouns
IJLLL
A Critical Discourse Analysis of Muhammadu Buhari’s
Inaugural Speeches with a Focus on Pronouns
Geraldine Ifesinachi Nnamdi-Eruchalu
Department of English Language and Literature, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, PMB 5025, Awka, Anambra State,
Nigeria.
E-mail: g.nnamdieruchalu@unizik.edu.ng; geraerus@gmail.com Phone Number: +2348039398784
The discursive structures selected in talks and texts in politics and other spheres of social life are
determined by the situations in which they are used. Politics and rhetoric are interwoven, and the
latter is highly esteemed as an instrument of persuasion or manipulation in the former. Personal
pronouns provide an easy access to these activities in mind control because they readily provide
multiple identities. This researcher argues that Muhammadu Buhari in both his maiden speech as
a Military Head of State in 1984, and inaugural speech as a President with executive powers in 2015
tactfully deployed personal pronouns to present different identities and project different
ideologies, and that the backgrounds from which he spoke impacted on his pronominal choices.
This study, therefore, sets to provide an insight into the influences of the ideological stances from
which he spoke on his choice of language. The theoretical framework guiding the study is critical
discourse analysis. The analysis reveals that by strategically selecting personal pronouns, Buhari
constructed the identities that reflected the military and civilian backgrounds from which he spoke,
as well as created the in-groups and out-groups he desired to project the authoritarianism and
persuasion of military and democratic regimes respectively.
Key words: personal pronouns, junta, discursive structures, ideologies, Muhammadu Buhari,
INTRODUCTION
All activities of man in social life are executed through
language. In the political domain, the ability to deploy the
ideological properties of language to sway the people and
manipulate their mind is a sure way to achieve success.
Widdowson (2007) affirms that:
… all communication, to a greater or lesser
extent, is an exercise in control, an attempt to
assert one’s own position and to persuade the
other to accept it. When somebody says, or
writes something, it is with the intention of
getting the addressee, the second person party
to think or feel or act in a certain way…. (67).
Language is a powerful tool in the hands of leaders.
Speakers in political domain seek appropriate means of
merchandising their ideas to the consumers, who, in turn,
are swayed by the most powerful speeches. Personal
pronouns readily provide politicians with an effective
instrument of manipulating peoples’ mind since they
present multiple identities. Politicians tactfully deploy them
to assert their power status; take responsibility for their
actions; shirk it and implicate others; show commitment;
establish solidarity with the masses; align with the in-
group, or expose the wickedness of the out-group, and a
lot more.
In 2015, Enyi conducted a comparative Pragmatic
Analysis of Major General Muhammadu Buhari’s Maiden
Speech of 1st January, 1984 and his Inaugural Speech of
29th May, 2015. He adopted Austin’s (1962) Speech Acts
Theory as revised by Searle (1962,1999) as his theoretical
framework, and analyzed excerpts from the speech using
the illocutionary forces deployed in them.
He observes that Buhari manipulated the people to make
the desired inferences from the socio-political contexts of
International Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics
Vol. 4(2), pp. 156-164, July, 2017. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Review Article

2. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Muhammadu Buhari’s Inaugural Speeches with a Focus on Pronouns
Nnamdi-Eruchalu 157
the speeches. He also discovers that Buhari’s use of
language in both contexts reflected his dispositions as a
military leader and a democratic president respectively.
Sharndama (2015) studied Buhari’s inaugural speech of
25th May 2015 from the perspective of Critical Discourse
Analysis using Fairclough’s (1989) Three Dimensional
Analytical Model. The analysis reveals that the ideologies
/ plans of Buhari’s administration include to promote good
governance, strengthen international relations, foreign
policies, democracy, fight insecurity, and others.
Ademilokun (2015) carried out a linguistic appraisal
analysis of aspects of attitudinal change in the 2015
inaugural speech. He made the Appraisal Theory of Martin
and White (2005) his analytical tool, and observes that
Buhari used affective meaning, judgment, and
appreciation to convey attitudinal meaning with which he
established interpersonal relationship with the people, as
well as seek their cooperation. Oke (2015) carried out a
brief critique on the 2015 inaugural speech. He did not
adopt any theoretical or analytical framework. No sampling
technique was used in selecting the few sentences he
analyzed, and his observations were more of personal
opinions.
The present study focuses on unpacking Muhammadu
Buhari’s pronominal choices in the two inaugural speeches
he presented to Nigerians from a critical discourse
perspective, with a view to making overt the meanings
behind the personal pronouns deployed in them.
Pronouns are powerful linguistics / rhetorical devices
capable of creating referential ambiguity as well as
projecting in-group and out-group identities, and as a
result require some attention in political discourse. Tyrkkö
enthuses thus:
Given that nearly all political speeches are
ultimately intended to exploit in-group and out-
group dynamics to the advantage of the speaker
and detriment of their political opponents, the
considered use of personal pronouns is a highly
salient characteristic of political speaking (2).
Since personal pronouns are considered fundamental in
political discourse, and Buhari’s inaugural speeches
delivered from two opposing backgrounds at different
stages in his life have not been studied from this
perspective as far as the researcher knows, it becomes
crucial to study the pronominal choices he made in them
to establish that contexts are instrumental to the choice of
pronouns. This researcher, therefore, compares his
pronominal choices as he constructed and managed the
different social roles and role relationship with his
audience in the contexts of the speeches.
Political discourse is complex and multifaceted, and
comprises parliamentary debates, speeches, propaganda,
political talk shows, interviews, and a host of others. It
aims at persuading or manipulating the audience to accept
what the leaders sell to them. It is often seen as “typically
verbose, hyperbolic, dishonest and immoral’ and is
sometimes simply labelled ‘rhetoric” (van Dijk 1997: 4).
George Orwell exploited the use and abuse of the English
language by political elites in his Nineteen Eighty Four and
suggested that “Language has the power in politics to
mask the truth and mislead the public” (Berkes 2000:1). In
other words, politicians choose words that help them gain
control over the people by selling to them ideologically
loaded words which on further interpretations may end up
in lies, deception or absolute nothingness.
Political speeches are delivered for different purposes,
including the inauguration of new government. Inaugural
speeches signal the end of a tenure of office and the
inception of a new leadership. It is delivered by the head
of the incoming executive to set the tone of the new
administration. Such a speech therefore contains the
mission statements of the new government. In the case of
coup d’états, the new head of the junta justifies their
seizure of state power, while in a democratically elected
regime, the incoming leader appreciates the electorates
for casting their votes for him/her, while promising them
good governance. Inaugural speeches also weigh the the
out gone leadership. Muhammadu Buhari delivered two
inaugural speeches to Nigerians:
a. The maiden address he presented on January 1, 1984
as the Head of a junta.
b. The inaugural speech he delivered on May 29, 2015
after he won that year’s presidential election.
The constitutional role of the military is to defend the nation
state from external aggression and internal threats, but
most often they interfere in governance, especially in the
developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
In Nigeria, particularly, the military have constantly
dabbled into governance for reasons ranging from
corruption and financial recklessness to tribalism, breach
of a constitutional provision, and a host of others.
Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, for instance, in his maiden
speech after their January 15, 1966 coup maintains that:
Our enemies are the political profiteers, the
swindlers, the men in high and low places that
seek bribes and demand 10 percent; those that
seek to keep the country divided permanently so
that they can remain in office as ministers or VIPS
at least, the tribalists, the nepotists, those that
make the country look big for nothing before
international circles, those that have corrupted
our society and put the Nigerian political calendar
back by their words and deeds. (Para. 7)
Major General Muhammadu Buhari cites
“mismanagement of political leadership and a general
deterioration in the standard of living’ as some of the
reasons for the December 31, 1983 coup. He called his

3. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Muhammadu Buhari’s Inaugural Speeches with a Focus on Pronouns
Int. J. of Lit., Lang. Ling. 158
emergence as the Head of the Supreme Military Council a
“challenge and call to national duty” (Para. 1). Meanwhile,
Major General Ibrahim Babangida in his inaugural speech
after ousting Buhari insists that “the principles of
discussion, consultation and cooperation which should
have guided decision-making process of the Supreme
Military Council and the Federal Executive Council were
disregarded soon after the government settled down in
1984” (Para. 5), and that “Major General Muhammadu
Buhari was too rigid and uncompromising in his attitude to
issues of national significance” (Para. 6).
Military governments usually have their flaws, one of which
is that they are ill-equipped for politics and politicking.
“Officers trained to perform professional and frequently
technical tasks may find it difficult to adapt themselves to
the very different kind of leadership required by
government” (Jordan 1985: 98). Nigeria was under military
regimes from 1966-1979 and 1983-1999. The current
democratic dispensation started on 29th May, 1999.
Effective communication “is at the base of every military
strategy” (Condurache 2007: 1). Ambiguity and
misinterpretations could be ignored in casual
communication within the military since meaning can
always be worked out without causing damage. In formal
military operations, the reverse is the case. The military
operate under great stress most of the time in formal
situations due to their “high workload, high emotional
tension, G forces and other conditions commonly
encountered in the battlefield”, so, inability to interpret
signals in such situations could be catastrophic (Use of
Speech and Language Technology in Military
Environments: 10). Military speech “under stress” “is the
speech that has had its characteristics modified as a result
of an environmental (situation and /or physical) force
applied to the person speaking” (Use of Speech and
Language Technology in Military Environments 2003: 10).
The sources of stress in military speech are divided into
four categories – physical, physiological, perceptual and/or
psychological. Coup involves deep mental, psychological,
emotional and physical engagement on the part of the
executors, leaving them in some kind of trauma during and
after its execution. To this end, the maiden speech of the
head of a junta reflects his emotional, mental and
psychological state, as he rolls out instructions to the
people who must comply or face the music of non-
compliance.
Consequently, military communications are direct, brief,
highly intelligible, and authoritative in nature. No wonder,
Kirtley (2011) notes that in the military “every
communication must be clear and quick so that sensitive
orders can be carried out without dangerous incidents”
(14). Among the features of military language that have
been identified through linguistic analysis are: “it tends to
be a sanitized form of language; it emphasizes the
expertise of those who use it, and it contains a specific
notion of hierarchy” (Encyclopedia.com: Language,
Military: Official, Terminology: 1). Within the military,
acronyms, military jargon, specialized lexis and phrases,
as well as specialized coding system and figures of speech
that enable them to conceal meaning by downplaying
details that could trigger high emotions are used in
communication. Communication from the military to the
public is direct, brief and authoritative, and contains
euphemisms for the purposes of masking the truth if need
be.
Pronouns are words that substitute for nouns and noun
phrases in sentences. “Such nouns occur (or are
understood) as their antecedents in the sentences or
passages where they are used” (Egbe 2000: 88).
Pronouns are a small group of words belonging to the
closed system items. They are sub categorized into
personal, demonstratives, possessive, reflexive,
interrogative, indefinite, relative, but of all these, personal
pronouns are hugely exploited in political discourse.
“They are personal pronouns because they are used by
the speaker (or writer) for referring to one or other of the
three kinds of entities (persons and things all technically
known as persons) normally involved in actual
communicative uses of language” (Aremo 2004: 15). The
English language maintains three grammatical persons:
i. First person: the speaker or writer or the speaker or
writer and others. The pronouns are I and we
(subjective case), me and us (objective case) and my
and our (possessive case).
ii. Second person: the person the speaker or writer is
addressing. The pronouns are you (subjective and
objective case) and your (possessive case)
iii. Third person: the person or thing the speaker or writer
talked about. The pronouns include he, she, it and they
(subjective case); him, her, it and them (objective
case), and her, his, its, and their (possessive case).
I, we, you and they (as well as their objective and
possessive cases) are used extensively in political
discourse because they present multiple identities.
Political office holders deploy them in varying degrees,
depending on which of their senses they want to construct.
I, for instance, presents multiple selves. It makes reference
to the person speaking and also points to his/her public
(professional or institutional) and private discourse
identities in politics (Bramley 2001). In addition, it is used
to indicate commitment and establish authority (Bramley
2001, De fina 1995). I enables politicians to assert
themselves as people with political clout to make decisions
and assertions on behalf of the people. “Politicians jump
between the various identities; whether they choose to be
private or public depends on the context and the effect the
politician is looking for’ (Nakagwee 2001: 7). Presenting
private aspect of themselves paints a picture of sincerity

4. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Muhammadu Buhari’s Inaugural Speeches with a Focus on Pronouns
Nnamdi-Eruchalu 159
and helps to build the credibility of the public identity
(Fetzer 2002).
You presents a complicated picture because it performs
multiple functions in sentences, “making it difficult to
understand its referent by an unsuspecting audience”
Bramley 2001: 261). It addresses part of or the entire
audience. This prompted Kitagawa and Lehrer (1990) to
identify three uses of you:
i. Referential you – it identifies a specific person.
ii. Impersonal you – it is also called indefinite or generic
you. Impersonal you can refer to anyone or
everybody, making it have a general referent.
iii. Vague you - it refers to a specific but unidentified
individual.
The impersonal you “can be used in two ways; to refer to
the speaker, as a replacement for I, and for the speaker to
include themselves as a typical member of a category, in
which case it refers to us” (Allen 2007: 4). He goes on to
note that “it can distance the speaker from the actions
being discussed by expressing them as a part of social
order over which they have no control” (4). It behooves the
listener to make conscious effort to identify its referents.
Political speakers deploy this feature of you to present their
beliefs and opinions as commonsense or familiar
knowledge, and the audience accepts them without
questioning their meaning.
We conveys a sense of collective identity or group
membership, making the speaker the mouthpiece of the
audience. In other words, it enables speakers to identify
with “us” (the in-group), while distancing themselves from
“them” (the out-group). In addition to the inclusive or
patriotic we, there is also the exclusive we which refers to
the speaker and some people other than the general
public. “The use of political plural we (or its possessive our)
has many implications for the political position, alliances,
solidarity, and other sociopolitical position of the speaker,
depending on the relevant in-group being constructed in
the present context”. (van Dijk, 1997: 33-34).
They serves to distance the speaker from the subject
matter and creates the out-group. It also serves as a
referent for third person plural.
Citing Ochs (1996), Hall states that “social identity
encompasses participant roles, relationships, reputations,
and other dimensions of social personae, which are
conventionally linked to epistemic and affective stances”
(2011: 32). Members of a social group access similar
language variety, and are expected to conform to the
appropriate choices of words and linguistic structures.
“Speaking the ‘correct’ variety makes the individual an
‘insider’, a member of the in-group’; not doing so identifies
the individual as an outsider or a member of the ‘out-
group’: s/he is not one of us, an X, because s/he does not
speak our language” (Byram 2006: 7). So, speaking the
language, dialect, jargon of your numerous social groups
makes you a member of the groups.
Major General Muhammadu Buhari, in his January 1, 1984
maiden speech enacted the identity of not only the military,
but also the Head of the Supreme Military Council and
Federal Executive Council with all the powers and
influence that go with the office. The role relationship
involved in that speech introduced constriction, terseness,
and remoteness, with a heavy dependence on the passive
on his language. The language of May 29, 2015 speech
was far more relaxed and contained nothing like the
authoritative and dictatorial language of military
broadcasts. It resembled the language of political
maneuvering aimed at manipulating the audience and
controlling their mind to his advantage.
CDA is an approach in language study which focuses on
the inter-relatedness of language, power and ideology.
“CDA specifically focuses on the strategies of
manipulation, legitimization, the manufacture of consent
and other discursive ways to influence the minds (and
indirectly the actions) of people in the interest of the
powerful’ (van Dijk 1995: 18). The texts and talks we
produce in various speech events are constructed to serve
the interests of the dominant members of society. In other
words, “our words are not neutral. Our words are
politicized because they carry the power that reflects the
interest of those who speak” (McGregor 2003: 2). The
choices we make of words from a number of alternative
words available are self-serving, but many language users
subscribe to them unknowingly. We arrive at speech
events with the assumptions that we must abide by some
sociolinguistic conventions guiding texts, talks and
conducts. These assumptions are naturalized
commonsense ideologies institutionalized by power elites
to fan the embers of power asymmetry. So, political elites
consciously choose discourse structures that place them
at the centre of power. CDA questions these naturalized
assumptions that sustain power relationship with the aim
of raising consciousness and creating awareness that will
engender social equality and social justice.
METHOD
The speeches under analysis are Muhammadu Buhari’s
January 1, 1984 speech published by Premium Times
from the archives on May 25, 2015 and his May 29, 2015
speech published by the Vanguard on May 29, 2015. They
comprise one thousand two hundred and twenty-seven
(1227) and one thousand nine hundred and seventeen
(1917) words respectively. Data for analysis were
excerpted from the speeches by deliberate selection. The
analysis was done in two parts - quantitative and

5. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Muhammadu Buhari’s Inaugural Speeches with a Focus on Pronouns
Int. J. of Lit., Lang. Ling. 160
qualitative. The quantitative analysis is done using a table
to determine the frequency of occurrence of personal
pronouns in the two speeches, while the qualitative
analysis deploys critical discourse analysis to interpret the
pronouns so as to highlight the meanings behind their
choice.
RESULTS
The tabulation of the personal pronouns deployed in the
speeches is as follows:
I My Me We Our Us You Your They Their Them Total
1 1984
Speech
4 1 - 13 11 3 3 - 1 4 1 40
2 2015
Speech
22 8 1 22 28 9 2 1 5 3 1 101
Figure 1 showing the distribution of personal
pronouns in the speeches.
As noted above, the 1984 speech contains only forty (40)
personal pronouns, whereas the 2015 speech contains
one hundred and one (101). I is used only four (4) times in
the 1984 speech and twenty two (22) times in the 2015
speech. My occurs only once in the 1984 speech and eight
(8) times in the 2015 speech. Me did not occur at all in the
1984 speech, but it is used once in the 2015 speech. The
1984 speech has thirteen (13) we, while the 2015 speech
has almost twice the number (23). Our occurred eleven
(11) times in the 1984 speech and as many as twenty eight
(28) times in the 2015 speech. Us is used three (3) times
in the speech of 1984 and nine (9) in the one of 2015. You
is used three times in the 1984 speech, while your did not
occur at all in it. In comparison, you is used twice, and
your once in the 2015 speech. In the 1984 speech, They
and them are used once and four times respectively, while
them is used once. In the 2015 speech, they is used five
times, their three times, and them once.
Buhari as a Head of a junta had little or no reason to
persuade Nigerians to accept his government or cooperate
with so he used personal pronouns minimally in the 1984
speech. On the contrary, the 2015 speech which typifies
political speech was aimed at achieving mind control by
creating in-groups and out-groups. Personal pronouns are
therefore far more in number in the 2015 speech than in
the 1984 speech because the onus of winning the mind of
the public was more on him in the former than in the later.
DISCUSSION
Use of I
Excerpts from the 1984 speech to illustrate the use of I
include:
1. In pursuance of the primary objective of saving our great
nation from total collapse, I, Major- General Muhammadu
Buhari of the Nigerian army have…been formally invested
with the authority of the Head of the Federal Military
Government and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed
Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is with humility
and deep sense of responsibility that I accept this
challenge and call to national duty. (Para 1)
2. … I am referring to the fire incidents that gutted P&T
buildings in Lagos, the Anambra State Broadcasting
Corporation, the Republic Building at Marina, the Federal
Ministry of Education, the Federal Capital Development
Authority Accounts at Abuja and the NET Building.…
(Paragraph 9)
3. Fellow Nigerians, this indeed is the moment of truth. My
colleague and I – the Supreme Military Council, must be
frank enough to acknowledge the fact that at the moment,
an accurate picture of the financial position is yet to be
determined….(Paragraph 10)
The first occurrence of I in paragraph 1 line 1 referred
cataphorically to Major General Muhammadu Buhari. The
other uses of I in paragraph 1 line 5; 9 line 5, and 10 line 1
referred to Buhari’s public discourse identity as the Head
of a Government. It reveals that the speaker was vested
with the power and authority of office to speak bluntly on
the crucial national issues raised in sections of the speech.
There was no reason to present his private discourse
identity to the people since his government was an
imposition on them. He would readily stifle compliance
from them if the need arises. Consequently, the use of I in
the speech was restricted to his professional and
institutional identities as a soldier and the head of a junta.
In paragraph 10 line 1, my colleagues and I, could have
been simply replaced with we, if not that we would
introduce ambiguity. To exclude the public from the we, he
tactically mentioned the Supreme Military Council, and
then used we in the succeeding sentence in paragraph 10
line 3 as an anaphoric referent.
In sharp contrast to the 1984 speech, President Buhari had
ample opportunity and reasons to present his private
identity to Nigerians in his 2015 Speech.
Below are some excerpts:
4. I am immensely grateful to God who has preserved us
to witness this day and this occasion… (Para. 1)
5. I would like to thank President Goodluck Jonathan for
his display of statesmanship in setting a precedent for us
that has now made our people proud to be Nigerians
wherever they are… I hope this act of graciously accepting
defeat by the outgoing president will become the standard
of political conducts in the country. (Para. 2)
6. I would like to thank the millions of our supporters who
believed in us even when the cause seemed hopeless. I
salute their resolve in waiting long hours in the rain and hot
sunshine to register and cast their votes… I thank those
who tirelessly carried the campaign on social media. At the
same time, I thank our other countrymen and women who
did not vote for us … (Para. 3)
7. I thank all of you. (Para. 4)
President Buhari uses I in the excerpts above and some
other places in the speech to highlight some of his inert

6. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Muhammadu Buhari’s Inaugural Speeches with a Focus on Pronouns
Nnamdi-Eruchalu 161
personal qualities such as a believer in God and his
powers to give life; a man who appreciates good gestures;
a man who believes in the exercise of fundamental human
rights.
Here are excerpts on the deployment of I to project his
institutional discourse identity:
8. I belong to everybody and I belong to nobody. (Para. 4)
Buhari presents himself as a fine and responsible leader
whose administration would not be discriminatory, and
who would give Nigerians equal attention. The statement
also means that he does not owe anybody, including
godfathers, any obligations.
9. As far as the constitution allows me, I will try to ensure
that there is responsible and accountable governance at
all levels of government in the country. For I will not have
kept my own trust with the Nigerian people if I allow others
abuse theirs under my watch. (Para. 14)
It signals Buhari’s public identity as a leader who believes
in the rule of law and accountability. His use of my shows
possession – ownership of the government and so
denotes power relationship. It is the awareness of the
ownership that prompted the appeals he made to workers,
the press, and the Niger-Deltans to work towards
achieving productivity, patriotism, and unity respectively in
the following excerpts:
10. … I appeal to employers and workers alike to unite in
raising productivity so that everybody will have the
opportunity to share in increased prosperity… My appeal
to the media today … is to exercise its powers with
responsibility and patriotism (Para. 15)
11. My appeal for unity is predicated on the seriousness of
the legacy we are getting into... (Para, 16)
12. The amnesty programme in the Niger Delta is due to
end in December... I call on the leadership and people in
these areas to cooperate with the states and federal
government ... As ever, I am ready to listen to grievances
of my fellow Nigerians. I extend my hand of fellowship to
them…. (Para. 21)
The President presents himself as an amiable leader
soliciting support for and cooperation with his government
from different segments of the Nigerian society.
Use of You
You is sparsely used in the two speeches. Here are
instances of its use in the 1984 speech:
13. As you must have heard in the previous
announcement, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (1979) has been suspended… (Para. 2)
14. The last Federal Military Government drew up a
programme with the aim of handing over political power to
the civilians in 1979. The programme as you all know, was
implemented to the letter…. (Para. 4)
15. We are confident and we assure you that even in the
face of the global recession … given prudent management
of Nigeria’s existing financial resources and our
determination to substantially reduce and eventually nail
down rises in budgetary deficits and weak balance of
payments position…. (Para. 12)
These are instances of the generic you deployed by Buhari
to evoke group membership in the hearers. The issues are
presented as commonsense; giving the hearers no room
to question what he meant. You in the excerpts above is
generalized to address all Nigerians.
In the 2015 speech, you occurs only in “Thank you”
in Paragraph 4 where he is appreciating Nigerians for
voting or not voting for him, and at the end of the
speech where it serves as a closing statement. The
referents are the Nigerian populace. Buhari is very
conscious of the divisiveness across religious, political,
ethnicity, and regional lines at that point in Nigerian history
as evidenced in the pattern of voting in the 2015
Presidential election, so he did not want to be
misunderstood.
Use of We
In his 1984 speech, Muhammadu Buhari indicates his
awareness of the team spirit in military government. To this
end, he deployes the exclusive we extensively to establish
group membership with his colleagues, while excluding the
rest of Nigerians. Here are some instances:
16. …We have no doubt that the situation is bad enough….
(Para. 10)
17. …We are determined that with the help of God we shall
do our best to settle genuine payments to which
Government is committed, including backlog of workers’
salaries after scrutiny. (Para. 11)
18. We are confident and we assure you that even in the
face of the global recession, and the seemingly gloomy
financial failure, given prudent management of Nigeria’s
existing financial resources and our determination to
substantially reduce and eventually nail down rises in
budgetary deficit s and weak balance of payments
position…. (Para. 12)
We refers to the General and members of his government
in all the three excerpts above.
19. Fellow Nigerians, finally, we have dutifully intervened
to save this nation from imminent collapse. We therefore
expect all Nigerians, including those who participated
directly or indirectly in bringing the nation to this present
predicament, to cooperate with us…We shall remain here
and salvage it {Nigeria}. May God bless us all. Good
morning. (Para. 18)
The first and second we in Paragraph 18 line 1 (as well as
the objective case us in line 3) are exclusive since they
create an in-group membership with the General and
members of the Federal Military Government alone, while
the last we in line 4 (and the last us) is inclusive because
it refers to the General, members of the Federal Military
Council, and Nigerians.
Other instances of inclusive we in the speech are:

7. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Muhammadu Buhari’s Inaugural Speeches with a Focus on Pronouns
Int. J. of Lit., Lang. Ling. 162
The last general election was anything but free and fair…
while corruption and indiscipline have been associated
with our state of under-development, these two evils in our
body politics have attained unprecedented height in the
past few years. The corrupt, inept and insensitive
leadership in the last four years has been the source of
immorality and impropriety in our society. (Para. 8)
Buhari deploys our to establish group membership with
Nigerians so as to make them feel he has their interest at
heart and has spoken on their behalf.
In the 2015 speech, the exclusive we is also used
extensively because the President has to convince
Nigerians that his government would deliver on the lofty
campaign promises he made to the people. Here are some
examples:
21. Elsewhere, relations between Abuja and the states
have to be clarified if we are to serve the country better.
(Para. 14)
22. … For the longer term we have to improve the
standards of our education. We have to look at the whole
field of medicare. We have to upgrade our dilapidated
physical infrastructure (para. 16).
23. … We shall rebuild and reform the public service to
become more effective and more serviceable. We shall
charge them to apply themselves with integrity to stabilize
the system. (Para. 17)
In all these, we has the President, his party and his would
be appointees as referents.
24. … Together we cooperated to surprise the world that
had come to expect only the worst from Nigeria…. (Para.
3)
We in the paragraph has both President Muhammadu
Buhari and Ex-President Goodluck Jonathan as its
referents.
Some of the few instances of inclusive we in the
speech are:
25. At home we face enormous challenges…
26. We can fix our problems.
We include Buhari and Nigerians. Buhari is the
mouthpiece of Nigerians, reminding them that they jointly
will solve the problems of Nigeria. It is obvious that in both
speeches, Buhari made greater use of the exclusive than
inclusive we. In the 1984 speech, he projects the group
leadership of a junta, and in the 2015 speech he tries
convincing Nigerian that his All Progressive Congress
(APC) led government will turn the fortunes of Nigeria and
Nigerians around for good after the sixteen uninterrupted
years of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) led
governments which his party had described as corrupt.
Use of They
In the 1984 speech, they feature only once where it
created an out-group of the legislators who were adjudged
selfish.
27. … the legislators were preoccupied with determining
their salary scales, fringe benefit and unnecessary foreign
travels, et al, which took no account of the state of the
economy and the welfare of the people they represented.
(Para. 6)
28. Corrupt officials and their agents will be brought to
book. (Para. 12)
The legislators, corrupt officials and their agents are
portrayed as the enemies of the people. Instead of doing
the work they were sent to do, they turned around to
pursue personal gains and divert the resources meant for
the public to their pockets.
In the 2015 speech, Buhari uses they, not to create an out-
group, but as a cohesive device.
Examples:
29. At home we face enormous challenges. Insecurity,
pervasive corruption, the hitherto unending and seemingly
impossible fuel and power shortages are our immediate
concerns. We are to tackle them head on. Nigerians will
not regret that they have entrusted national responsibility
to us… (Para 9)
Them and they are anaphoric referents to challenges and
Nigerians above.
30. However, no matter how well organized the
governments of the federation are they cannot succeed
without the support, understanding and cooperation of
labour unions, organized labour… (Para15)
They is an anaphoric referent to governments.
CONCLUSION
The study analyzed the two speeches delivered by
Muhammadu Buhari on the occasions of his maiden
speech on January 1, 1984 after he toppled the
government of Alhaji Shehu Shagari and emerged the
head of the junta that ruled Nigeria for the next 20 months,
and on May 29, 2015, on the occasion of his inauguration
as the President of Nigeria and the winner of the 2015
Presidential election. It establishes that Muhammadu
Buhari’s choice of personal pronouns reflected his military
background and conveyed his military ideology and
disposition in the 1984 speech, and popped up the
politician in him in the 2015 speech. The 2015 speech is
an embodiment of political discourse where the speaker’s
intention is to sway the audience to believe whatever s/he
packages for them. Discourse structures therefore portray
the identity of their users, and the context from which they
speak or write determines their choice of language.
REFERENCES
Abonyi NN (2005) Political Science:A Fundamental
Approach. Enugu: John Jacob’s Classic Publishers Ltd.
Ademilokun M (2015). Aspects of Attitudinal Meaning in
Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari’s Inauguration

8. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Muhammadu Buhari’s Inaugural Speeches with a Focus on Pronouns
Nnamdi-Eruchalu 163
Speech: An Appraisal Analysis. The African Symposium.
15 (2): 1-10.
Allen W (2007). Australian Political Discourse: Pronominal
Choices in Campaign Speeches. Selected papers from
the 2006 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society.
Laughren, Mary and Mushin, Ilana (Ed.) Retrieved 4th
January, 2017 from http.//espace.library.uq.edu.au
Aremo B (2004) . An Introduction to English Sentences 1
and 2. (3rd ed). Ibadan: Scribo Publications Limited.
Asiegbu ND, Oguejiofor GN, Ewim E (2002). Modern
Approach to Government of West Africa. Awka: Nuel
Publishers Ltd.
Austin JL (1962). How to Do Things with Words. (2nd ed).
Urmson, J.O. and Sbisa, M. (Eds.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Berkes J (2000). Language as the “Ultimate Weapon” in
Nineteen Eighty-Four. Retrieved 5th October, 2014 from
http:www.berkes.ca
Bello U (2013). “If I could Make It, You Too Can Make it!”
Personal Pronouns in Political Pronouns. in Political
Discourse: A CDA of President Jonathan’s Presidential
Declaration Speech. International Journal of English
Linguistics: 3 ( 6): 2013.
Bramley NR (2001). Pronouns of Politics: the Use of
Pronouns in the Construction of ‘Self’ and ‘Other’ in
Political Interviews. Unpublished PhD Thesis: Australian
National University.
Byram M (2006). Languages and Identities. Strasboug,
Cedex: Language Policy Division, Council of
Europe. Retrieved 12 July 2013 from
http:/www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Byram_identiti
es_final_EN.doc
Condurache, Doru. (2017) The Features of Military
Communication. Retrieved January 15, 2017 from
www.armyacademy.ro/biblioteca/anuare/2007.
Encyclopedia.com Language, Military: Official
Terminology. (2000). Retrieved January 15, 2017 from
www.encyclopedia.com
Egbe DI (2000). Essentials of English Grammar and
Syntactic Analysis. Bariga, Lagos, Panaf Publishing
INC.
Enyi AU (2016). ‘Pragmatic Analysis of Nigeria’s President
Muhammadu Buhari’s Maiden Coup Address of January
1 1994 and his Inaugural Address of May 29, 2015: A
Comparative Appraisal’. International Journal of English
Language and Linguistics Research. 4(5): 47-64.
Fairclough N (1989) Language and Power. Essex,
England: Longman.
Fennigan E (2012) Language: Its Structure and Use
(6thed.). Wadsworth, Cengage.
Fetzer A (2002). “Put Bluntly, you have something of a
Credibility Problem”: Credibility in Political Interviews”. In
Chilton, P. and Schäffner, C. (Ed.). Politics, as text and
Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, pp. 173-201.
From the Archives: Buhari’s First Speech as Nigeria’s
Military Head of State. May 25, 2015.
www.premiumtimes.com Retrieved January 13, 2017.
Hall JK (2014). Review of Teaching and Researching:
Language and Culture. Retrieved 4th May, 2014 from
Linguisticlist.org.
Inaugural Speech by His Excellency, President
Muhammadu Buhari following His Swearing-in as
President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on 29th May,
2015. Retrieved January 13, 2017 from
www.vanguardngr.com
Jordan RS (1985). Government and Power in West Africa.
Benin City: Ethiope Publishing Corporation.
Kitagawa C, Lehrer A (1990). “Impersonal Uses of
Personal Pronouns”. Journal of Pragmatics. 14: 739-
759.
Kirtley JM (2011). Speech in the U.S. Military: A Socio
Phonetic Perception Approach to Identity and Meaning.
Unpublished M.A. Thesis. University of Hawai’I at
Mānoa.
Ochs E (1996). “Linguistic Resources for Socializing
Humanity” in Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Gumperz
J, Levinson, S (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 407-438.
Oke IA (2015) Critique of Buhari’s Inaugural Speech.
Vanguard. Retrieved November 16, 2016 from
www.vanguadngr.com
Onwubiko KBC (1972). School Certificate History of West
Africa. Book Two. Aba: Africana Educational Publisher
Co. Nig.
Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu’s January 15,1966
Coup Speech. Retrieved January 13, 2017 from The
Anchor Online.com.
McGregor SLT (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis: A
Primer. Kappa Omicron Nu Forum, Vol.15, No.1.
Martin JR, White, PR (2005). The Language of Evaluation:
Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nakaggwe L (2012). ‘The Persuasive Power of Personal
Pronouns in Barack Obama’s Rhetoric”. Unpublished
paper prepared by the Department of Education and
Public Programmes, John F. Kennedy Presidential
Library and Museum. Retrieved 15 July 2014 from
www.diva-portal.org.
Searl J (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy
of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Shandama EC (2015). "Political Discourse: A Critical
Discourse Analysis of President Muhammadu Buhari’s
Inaugural Speech". European Journal of English
Language and Linguistics Research. 3 (3): 12-24.
Text of General Ibrahim Babangida's Coup Speech,
August 27,1985. Retrieved January 13, 2017 from
scannewsnigeria.com

9. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Muhammadu Buhari’s Inaugural Speeches with a Focus on Pronouns
Int. J. of Lit., Lang. Ling. 164
Tyrkkö J (2017). Looking for Rhetorical Thresholds:
Pronoun frequencies in Political Speeches. The
Pragmatics and Stylistics of Identity Construction and
Characterization. vol. 17: 1-16. Retrieved 25th June,
2017 from http//www.helsinki.fi
Use of Speech and Language in Technologies in Military
Environments. (2005). RTO/NATO. Retrieved
January 13, 2017 from www.stephanepigeon.com
Van Dijk TA (1995). Aims of Critical Discourse Analysis.
Japanese Discourse, 1 (1): 17-28.
Van Dijk TA (1997). What is Political Discourse Analysis?
Keynote Address on Congress Political Linguistics.
Antwerp, 7-9 December, 1995. In Blommaert, J. and
Bulcaen, C. (Eds.). Political Linguistics. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, pp. 11-52. Retrieved 5th October, 2014
from www.discourse.org.
Widdowson HG (2007). Discourse Analysis. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Accepted 7 May, 2017
Citation: Nnamdi-Eruchalu GI (2017). A Critical Discourse
Analysis of Muhammadu Buhari’s Inaugural Speeches with a
Focus on Pronouns. International Journal of Literature,
Language and Linguistics, 4(2): 156-164.
Copyright: © 2017 Nnamdi-Eruchalu. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are cited.