Argumentation Strategies in Selected Editorial Reviews on Muhammadu Buhari's Administration in the Nigerian Tribune

Abstract

This study investigated argumentation strategies in selected editorial reviews on Muhammadu Buhari’s presidency in the Nigerian Tribune, addressing the research gap regarding how editorial reviews shape public understanding and perceptions of governance. The specific objectives of the study were to: identify and categorise argumentation strategies and topoi used in the selected editorial reviews; analyse how linguistic features legitimised or delegitimised presidential actions and policies; and evaluate the impact of editorial argumentation in the historical, social and political context of Nigeria. The study was anchored in the Discourse-Historical Approach and employed a qualitative design, analysing five purposively selected editorial reviews on security, health, electoral reforms, education, and the economy. The study found that the topoi of responsibility, failure, and reform were most frequently used to guide readers’ interpretations of governance, while linguistic features such as evaluative adjectives, modality, presupposition, and agency construction facilitated legitimation and delegitimation. The study also found that editorial argumentation significantly shapes historical understanding of governance, social values, and political perceptions in Nigeria. The study concluded that editorial discourse functions as a powerful tool of political evaluation and public engagement. It contributed to existing knowledge by providing empirical evidence of the strategic interplay between language, argumentation, and political perception in Nigeria.

Keywords: Editorial Reviews, Argumentation Strategies, Topoi, Governance, Nigerian Tribune