Welcome to the InfoSci Platform
Reference Hub2
Argumentation and Appraisal in Divergent Zimbabwean Parliamentary Debates

Argumentation and Appraisal in Divergent Zimbabwean Parliamentary Debates

Ernest Jakaza, Marianna W. Visser
Copyright: © 2016 |Pages: 17
ISBN13: 9781522500810|ISBN10: 1522500812|EISBN13: 9781522500827
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0081-0.ch007
Cite Chapter Cite Chapter

MLA

Jakaza, Ernest, and Marianna W. Visser. "Argumentation and Appraisal in Divergent Zimbabwean Parliamentary Debates." Political Discourse in Emergent, Fragile, and Failed Democracies, edited by Daniel Ochieng Orwenjo, et al., IGI Global, 2016, pp. 126-142. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0081-0.ch007

APA

Jakaza, E. & Visser, M. W. (2016). Argumentation and Appraisal in Divergent Zimbabwean Parliamentary Debates. In D. Orwenjo, O. Oketch, & A. Tunde (Eds.), Political Discourse in Emergent, Fragile, and Failed Democracies (pp. 126-142). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0081-0.ch007

Chicago

Jakaza, Ernest, and Marianna W. Visser. "Argumentation and Appraisal in Divergent Zimbabwean Parliamentary Debates." In Political Discourse in Emergent, Fragile, and Failed Democracies, edited by Daniel Ochieng Orwenjo, Omondi Oketch, and Asiru Hameed Tunde, 126-142. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2016. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0081-0.ch007

Export Reference

Mendeley
Favorite

Abstract

The chapter makes a critical exploration of the Zimbabwean divergent parliamentary debates held after the ‘controversial' March 2008 election and June 2008 run-off. Considering the impact of the deliberations in the parliament, not much discourse- linguistic research occurs on Zimbabwean and African parliamentary discourse yet research on language use in the context of the European, Asian and American parliaments is enormous. It is the focus of this chapter to examine the nature of strategic manoeuvering realized in Zimbabwean divergent parliamentary debates. Strategic manoeuvering is evident in divergent debates as interlocutors advance their positions in an effort to resolve a difference of opinion. The researchers argue that participants in divergent debates employ valid and fallacious strategic moves in an effort to clear the difference of opinion and have the debate resolved in their favor.

Request Access

You do not own this content. Please login to recommend this title to your institution's librarian or purchase it from the IGI Global bookstore.