?CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY This study is an attempt to employ linguistic methods in analyzing meaning potentials in literary text, in this case, in Chimamanda Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus (2003). The working assumption is to employ the various levels of discourse strategies in investigating the linguistic resources harnessed to deduce the writer’s message in the selected text. We shall take a point of focus ‘Discourse Strategies’ (Gumperz, 1982; Dijk, Kinsch, 1983 and Scupin, 1988) which we understand both as a specific from of social situation (Van Dijk, 1986b). Thus, the text here is seen as language in operation and the textual component embodies the semantic systems by means of what text is created. Discourse Analysis is basically concerned with the concepts and application of linguistics to the explication of structure and meaning of texts. Wellek (1971:68) suggests that: All our thinking, certainly about literature is done in language and a literary work is accessible only through its language. Language is a medium for human interaction, an instrument through which people communicate with one another, exchange thoughts and understand each other. This is because it constitutes a shared meaning potential, at once both a part of experiences commenting on the novel to study language. Chomsky (1972:103) pointed out that “a number of questions might lead one to undertake a study of language”. ‘Personally’ he enthused; I am primarily intrigued by the possibility of learning something, from the study of language, which will bring to light inherent properties of human mind’. Based on this illustration, scholars have taken a cursory look at the concept of language and have attempted to give it different definitions According to Lehman (1976:4) ‘Language is a system for the communication of meaning through sounds’. In his own view, Osisanwo (2003:1) defines language thus: ‘Language is human vocal noise or the arbitrary graphic representation of this noise, used systematically and conventionally by members of a speech community for purposes of communication’. From the above definition, it would be understood that language itself is subject to diversity of subordinate levels of the phenomenon. In this sense, there are levels on which language is or should be studied. The analysis of discourse is necessarily the analysis of language in use (Olateju). As such it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistics forms independent of the purpose of functions which those forms are designed to serve in human affairs. While some linguists may concentrate on determining the formal properties of a language, the discourse analyst is committed to an investigation of what that language is used for while the formal approach has a long tradition, manifested in innumerable volumes of grammar, the functional approach is less well documented (Brown and Yule, 1983). Attempt to provide even a general set of labels for the practical functions of language have resulted in vague and often confusing terminology. Hence, only two terms will be adopted to describe the major functions of language and emphasize that this division is an analytical convenience. That function which language serves in the expression of ‘content’ we will describe as ‘transactional’, and that function involved in expressing social relation and personal attitudes will be described as interactional. Thus, the transactional/interactional stands in general correspondence to the functional dichotomies – ‘representative/expressive’ found in (Buhler, 1934), ‘referential/emotive’ (Jakobson, 1960), ‘ideational/interpersonal’ (Halliday, 1970b) and ‘descriptive/social expressive’ (Lyons, 1977). In the transactional view, linguists and linguist philosopher s tend to adopt a limited approach to the functions of language in society (Brown and Yule, 1983). While they frequently acknowledge that language may be used to perform many communicate functions, they nonetheless make the general assumption that the most important function is the communication of information. Thus, Lyons (1977:32) observes that the notion of communication is readily used ‘of feelings, moods and attitudes’ but suggests that he will be primarily interested in ‘the intentional transmission of factual, or propositional information’. Similarly, Bennett (1976:5) remarks ‘it seems likely that communication is primarily a matter of a speaker’s seeking either to inform a hearer of something or to enjoin some action upon him’. Furthermore, whereas linguists, philosophers of language and psychologists have paid particular attention to the use of language for the transmission of ‘factual or propositional information’ a clear indication of transaction function, sociologists and sociolinguistics have been particularly concerned with the use of language has been frequently commented on part