A PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL APPROACH TO THE DISCOURSAL FUNCTIONALITY OF ARGUMENT SCHEMES IN COUNTY ASSEMBLY DEBATES, KENYA

Abstract

The communicative interaction between discussants in parliamentary debates is aimed at exchanging different viewpoints through discussion in order to arrive at a policy decision. In debates in Nairobi County Assembly, discussants are believed to put forward their standpoints in order to win arguments, and to do so in a persuasive language that helps build conversations, minimize potential conflict and maximize personal profit. Debating on proposals, plans, and policies and arriving at a resolution by both the protagonists and antagonist sides of the assembly requires employing appropriate and convincing arguments that are also reasonable to the discussants in such debates. The aim was to examine the discoursal functionality of argument schemes in County Assembly Debates using the pragma-dialectical theory. The specific objectives were to categorise discoursal texts, identify and describe the prototypical argument schemes employed by interlocutors, and finally to determine the strategic manoeuvring employed by discussants in debates for a period of ten months between February to November in the year 2023. A descriptive case study design was used in the study. Qualitative approaches were used in the study in order to allow a deeper enquiry into the phenomenon of debates in real life contexts using data from online archival materials of Nairobi County Assembly. The study was carried out in Nairobi County Assembly from where the discussants, that is, the Members of County Assembly are drawn from. The study targeted 48 debate transcripts of the print version of the Hansard that were collected from sittings of the Nairobi County Assembly over the months of February to November 2023. Additionally, public documents from the County Assembly registry consisting of schedules of the sectorial committees of the assembly that make up the ministries in the county government and the standing orders were collected from the websites of the assembly. Purposive and simple random sampling procedures were employed to obtain a list of complete debates from each of the thematic areas selected from the sectoral committees of the assembly. Qualitative data were analysed with simple and complex speech acts forming the units of analysis. These were the data that were subjected to analysis using the critical discussion method as the analytical tool. This helped to determine the qualities of reasonableness and efficacy of the discussions in attempting to convince discussants to agree with the speaker’s standpoints. Data of debate transcripts that had been analytically processed, and provided all analytically relevant argumentative moves that were made in an argumentative discussion was presented for discussion. This data consisted of permutations, deletions, addition and substitutions of data transcripts that were relevant in the analysis. The data was presented in form of detailed descriptions following the four stages of the criteria of a critical discussion. Internal validity was provided in the use of the pragma-dialectical theory through which the study did an objective evaluation of the discussion moves using defined criteria for a critical discussion as envisaged. Reliability of the findings was observed by anchoring the study in pragma-dialectical approach which serves as a heuristic tool for evaluating discourse in speeches and related debates. The study established that discussants used argument structures to serve the function of supporting the standpoints and minimizing anticipated doubt or criticism of the standpoint. Discussants employed strategic manoeuvres deliberately and more often at the beginning of the debate to persuade the antagonists to agree to their standpoints. The study established that discussants used symptomatic argumentation, especially argument from administrative authority to give directions on debates The study was useful in suggesting procedural interventions aimed at improving parliamentary argumentative practices that could benefit practitioners of parliamentary discourse. Furthermore, new argumentative practices from a population not earlier studied, that was, the county assembly level provided new insights into deliberative strategies in the political genre.