A SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPRAISAL OF NIGERIA – SOUTH AFRICA DIPLOMACY

ABSTRACT

This  research  work  appraises  the  nature  of  language  use  in  diplomacy especially as it concerns the Nigeria foreign policy as evident in the Nigeria- South Africa diplomatic relations. It traverses into the intricacies of language and diplomacy, highlighting the chain relation that exists therein. By adopting the survey method,the work looks into the sociolinguistic politeness theory as a tool for appraising language use in diplomacy. From the finding of this work, it was  discovered  that  proper  language  use  in  diplomacy  is  germane  to  the peaceful coexistence between nations. The mucky relationship that existed between Nigeria and South Africa before it was fixed is a product of wrong language use. Hence, it is therefore recommended that politeness strategies more pertinently positive politeness and negative politenesstenets will be better achieved  in  this  case,  by  applying  strictly  appropriate  language  use  in diplomacy so as to reinforce a cordial diplomatic relationship between the duo African nations in review. The diplomats should always examine their language before dishing it out in the course of discharging their duties.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1      Background to the Study

Language is the vehicle by which human beings effect communication. According to Agbedo (2009), Language is the pivot on which all human activities ranging from the most prosaic to the most profound revolve.  There is no society that has ever existed in isolation of language or without language. Language is the life of any society; therefore, no society can exist   without   using  or  having   a  language.   It  is  the  conduit   through   which   most communication activities are done in any given society.

The importance  of language  in linguistic  study cannot  be overemphasized,  this  is because of its centrality in all linguistics sub-fields; be it syntax, semantics,  morphology, phonetics, phonology, applied linguistics or sociolinguistics. In sociolinguistics however, the emphasis goes beyond the analysis of structures and theorization to the actual use of language in the society. Several definitions of language have been proposed by several scholars from the earliest times to the present day.

According  to  Agbedo  (2000:1)  “Language  is  a  method  of  communicating  ideas, emotions, feelings, and desires by means of a system of vocal and sound symbols”. Bucher (1979), states that language is the development of the basic forms of communication between human beings and the society. According to Nathan (2004), we cannot communicate in real sense without language, other than gesture: we do  communicate through some non-verbal forms like the visual-arts-painting and sculpture and through dance, but the culmination of true, articulate, communication is through language. Language is obviously a vital tool. Not only is it a means of communicating thoughts and ideas, but it forges friendships, cultural ties and economic relationship.

The importance of language for effective communication cannot be over emphasized. The primary purpose of language is to enable communication.  Communication  is a social activity. It makes interaction between humans possible and effective. Language is the vehicle through which thoughts and feelings are expressed and understood. It is the environment of language used that determines the expressional approach through which ideas acquire their meaning and relevance.

Ohaegbu  (1992), points out that there  is no society without  language  of  which it serves as the medium of communication. He further states that a person’s functional language

is that in which  he possess  a communicative  and linguistic  competence.  Communicative competence means the ability to use the language for actual communication. For expression of one’s thoughts and ideas and for understanding of others who use same language. So, the importance of language in human communication cannot be underestimated.

Wilkins  (1982),  also  states  that  our  entire  social  structure  is  mediated  through language and that it is inconceivable that we would have constructed  so  complex a social interaction  if we have no spoken and written language  at our  disposal.  Trever  (2001:27) observes that “Language is a social activity which demands joint action”. We all aim to speak successfully and while doing so take into  consideration the view of others the speaker and listener or the writer and the reader must belong to the same speech community for them to be able to understand, and comprehend the message effectively”.

Another eminent scholar Sapir (1921) says that “Language is purely human and not instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desire by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols. These are in the first place auditory and they are produced by the organs of speech”. The nature of language in diplomacy has also attracted much attention in the discussion of the language use in diplomacy, thus the  insight into what language is. This has brought about a branch of study known as linguistics. Linguistics as the discipline studies  language  as  a  means  of  communication  user  primarily  by  human  beings.  The recognition of language as organic to human beings is also recognized by Chomsky (1968), who sees language as  species specific human possession; the human essence and the only being  valuable  in  the  context  of  humans  as  opposed  to  animal.  Most  fundamentality, Chomsky states further that it is the association with thought, concepts of images in mind and the ability both to produce and to interpret such sounds in recurrent patterns that marks the natural language out of the reach of any other species other than man.

Lawal (1989), believes  that  it is this power of language  to interact  with  thought, concept or image in the mind that language becomes a double edge sword of facilitator and at the same time a dangerous weapon. Afuba (2004:6) rightly put it “Language is power”. He goes  further  to  say that  it  is  a medium  of passing  relevant  information  and  knowledge required of the people.

Meribe (1980) also states that the importance of language in human communication cannot be underestimated, more so, it’s use in diplomacy. He further says that the objective of communication rests mainly on the bedrock of language and the whole of communication is rooted in language. Again, that the fundamental basis of any communication depends wholly on the language used. It is important to note that communication relies heavily on linguistics,

in that linguistic concepts provide a fundamental basis for language analysis which  helps towards effective communication.  Without language,  there will be no  communication  and social integration becomes impossible.

Hall (1973:153) states, while communication is the process or art; “Language is the medium of the process”. This therefore, suggests that general issues of communication can only be fully appreciated in the context of understanding the logical structure of language. As Bridge (1980:16), rightly points out, “It is only ridiculous to under estimate the importance of language is human communication. More so, is its use in diplomacy”. He argues that most development  messages  in  the  developing  countries  have  failed  because  they  were  not communicated through the right code (language).

Thus, language is basically the symbols we use in order to communicate with  one another and rules that govern how we use them. More so, language is succinctly a  human system of communication that uses arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures or written symbols. It is pertinent to note that over the years, scholars have been paying attention to the various aspects of language with a view to analyze the systems and conventions inherent in language  use.  The  study  of  language  has  over  time  been  undertaken  in  two  different orientations, namely – the asocial orientation and the social orientation. Since those aspects of language   study   which   belong   to   theoretical   linguistics   like   phonetics,   phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics have been explored by renowned scholars whose views centres on the asocial orientation of language analysis, the need for other aspect of language study, which accounts for how we use language in context to the society that is ‘language use in social context’ or the social orientation (sociolinguistics), becomes necessary especially in the area of diplomacy.

To make the social orientation of language study (sociolinguistics)  clearer,  scholars like  Fowler  (1974:213)  define  sociolinguistics  as  the  study  of  variation  in  the  form  of language  in  the  light  of  non-linguistic  dimensions  of  social  structure;  in particular,  the correlation between grammatical choices and societal functions and situations; the correlation between  the  repertoire  of language  varieties  available  to  an  individual  and  the  roles  he performs in society; and the values a culture ascribes to its language(s) or its languages and to the varieties of its language(s). He goes further to say that sociolinguistics includes the study of the ways language behaviour determines other kinds of social behaviour.

Malmkjaer (1991: 415) in his own opinion says that “many sociolinguistic studies are concerned with the way in which language varies according to the social group to which a user belongs. He says that the aim of sociolinguistics is to describe this variation and to show how it reflects social structures. Wardhaugh (2006) says that  sociolinguistics  is concerned with investigating the relationship between language and society with the goal being a better understanding of the structures of language and how languages function in communication; the equivalent  goal in the social structure  can  be better understood  through the study of language.  He  opines  that  the  approach  to  sociolinguistics  encompasses  everything  like considering- who speak or write what language to whom, when and to what end.

Akindele  and  Adegbite  (1999)  aver  that  sociolinguistics  examines  the  interaction between  the  use  of  language  and  the  social  organization  behaviour.  They  explain  that sociolinguistics focuses upon the entire gamut of topics related to the social organization of language behaviour, including not only language use per say but also language attitudes and overt behaviour towards language users.

Hudson (1980) asserts that sociolinguistics is the study of language in relation to the society. He further says that sociolinguistics is partly empirical and partly theoretical- partly a matter of going out and amassing bodies of fact and partly sitting back and thinking. In line with Hudson’s view, Agbedo (2000:169) says “sociolinguistics takes into account the social aspect of language as a means of human communication”.  Finch  (2000) in his own view believes   that  sociolinguistics   is  interested   in  real   speech  within  and  among  speech communities;  its concern is with the way in which  language varies according to the social context in which it is used and the social group to which it belongs to.

Tagliamonte  (2006:3) says “sociolinguistics  argues that language exists in  context, dependent on the speaker who is using it and dependent on where it is being used and why”. He goes further to say that speakers mark their personal history and identity in their speech as well as their socio-cultural,  economic and geographical coordinates  in time and space. He notes that some researchers would argue that, since  speech is obviously social, to study it without reference to society would be like studying courtship behaviour without relating the behaviour of one partner to that of the other.

Anagbogu, Mbah and Eme (2010) claim that sociolinguistic investigation deals with the study of the way language attempts to adapt itself to the needs of the society. They hold

that sociolinguistics studies try to investigate such problems as the causes and effects of the differences that exist among various dialects of the same language. Nwala (2004) believes that sociolinguistics is the relationship between 1anuage and the society. He goes further to say that it is the part of linguistics which investigates the field of language and society and has  close  connection  with  social  science  especially  psychology,  anthropology,  human geography and sociology.

Trudgil (1974b) in Agbedo (2003) is of the opinion that the term sociolinguistics is problematic because it means different things to different people. To him, though everybody agrees that sociolinguistics  has something to do with language & society it  is clearly not concerned  with  everything  that  could  be  considered  language  and  society  because  the problem lies in drawing the line between language and society and sociolinguistics.

Olaoye (2007) opines that sociolinguistics  tends to be seen by people in  different ways because of its parentage in sociology and linguistics. He goes further to say that some defined sociolinguistics as the study of language in relation to the society where emphasis is on the  language:  others  defined  it as the  study of society  and  how it operates  with  its multifarious languages which is from sociology of language perspective. That is to say that the outlook depends on two basic concepts that is the  investigators interest whether he is concerned in language or the society.

Radford, Atkinson, Britain, Clahsen & Spencer (2009:14) affirm that “sociolinguistics is the study of the relationship between language use and the structure of society; it takes into account such factors as the social backgrounds  of both the  speaker  and the addressee the relationship between speaker, the context and manner of the interaction maintaining that they are crucial to an understanding of both the structure and function of the language used in a situation”. This is why the academia in humanities and social sciences has come to identify with  the  fact  that  language  use  in  most  sectors  of the  society  is  unique  and  plausible, especially in the area of diplomacy.

According to Nick (2002) diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations, and skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility. Reaching back into antiquity,   diplomacy   involved   mediation,   or  managing   an   entity   or   an  individual’s relationships with another. It was only with the  development  of the modern state system, dating from the 16th century that diplomacy took on its more narrow current contemporary

meaning:  managing  the  foreign  affairs  of  states  at  the  governmental  level.  Today,  both scholars and practitioners suggest this narrow interpretation has lost its utility. The ability to practice  diplomacy  is one  of  the  defining  elements  of  a state,  and  diplomacy  has  been practiced since the formation of the first city-states. Originally diplomats were sent only for specific negotiations, and would return immediately after their mission concluded. Diplomats were  usually  relatives  of  the  ruling  family or  of  very  high  rank  in order  to  give  them legitimacy when they sought to negotiate with the other state.

According  to  Kurizaki  (2011),  traditional  diplomacy  has  been  most  importantly concerned with the transition from a state of peace to a state of war, and vice versa; in other words, dealing with the interface of conflict and peace-making. And while this is a central aspect of diplomatic activities in the past and present, it should also be noted that it is today only one, important,  aspect.  Diplomacy has become  something  very much more than the diplomacy of states and governments. Though it is still true that the legal formalities based on the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations acknowledge only the diplomacy of states, on the ground, it is impossible to ignore the diplomacy of the global economic system, from the activities  of TNCs  (transnational  corporations)  to the intervention  of the  global economic    IGOs    (intergovernmental    organizations),    particularly    the    World    Trade Organization. These, in turn, have diplomatic webs which operate both within and outside the traditional diplomatic system. The same is true of another vast area of diplomatic activity, the diplomacy of civil society organizations. Moreover, the saga of failed and failing states, civil conflict, and international terrorism has in reality created a radically new global  world of urgent   communications   between   states   and   NGOs   (non-governmental   organizations), between NGOs and IGOs, and amongst NGOs themselves.

Thus, diplomacy is the means by which States throughout the world conduct  their

affairs in ways to ensure peaceful relations. The main task of individual diplomatic services is to safeguard  the interests of their respective  countries abroad. This concerns  as much the promotion  of  political,  economic,  cultural  or  scientific  relations  as  it  does  international commitment to defend human rights or the peaceful settlement of disputes.

To  be  diplomatic,  however,  has  long  involved  astute  skills  of  tactful  conciliation  and negotiation. Diplomacy has always included the notion of communication, as well. Added to those meanings in recent decades have been persuasion, conflict resolution, and a whole host of  managerial  activities  centred  on  economic  development  and  nation-building,  such  as

economic aid and Peace Corps activities. These tasks have required organizational structures that many nations are now being forced to adjust to significantly changed circumstances. Diplomacy takes place in both bilateral and multilateral contexts. Bilateral diplomacy is the term used  for communication  between two  States,  while  multilateral  diplomacy  involves contacts between several States often within the institutionalised setting of an international organisation. Negotiation is the one of most important means of conducting diplomacy, and in many cases results in the conclusion  of treaties between States and the codification  of international  law.  The aim  of  such  international  treaties  is  primarily  to  strike  a balance between State interests.

Matteucci (2002) avers that, Powers speak to one another through the language  of diplomacy.  Diplomatic  language  should  thus lead  to better  understanding  between  them. Language yields an incomplete sense of the speaker’s meaning as well as of his intent. It is thus  legitimate  for  a  diplomat  to  seek  ways  to  decode  the  partner’s  conscious  and subconscious  meanings and intentions,  or unmask his attempts at  deceit—the  latter being partly the purview of intelligence gathering. Language also  comes with hidden baggage of many shapes and forms: historical and political context, legal precedent, whatever, that shape the words’ content. Understanding the words’ context is thus a germane task of a diplomat. That’s why language use in diplomacy is a variable phenomenon, with an amazing variety of character(s).  It  encompasses  all  the  aspects  of  diplomacy  including,  public  diplomacy, economic  diplomacy,  citizen  diplomacy,  official  diplomacy,  virtual  diplomacy,  military diplomacy,  coercive  diplomacy,  and  non-governmental  diplomacy;  these  are  the  most important instances of diplomacy.

Nick (2002)  avers that the phrase  “language  use in diplomacy”  obviously  can  be interpreted in several ways. First, as tongue (“mother” tongue or an acquired one), the speech “used by one nation, tribe, or other similar large group of people”; 1 in this sense we can say, for example, that French used to be the predominant diplomatic language in the first half of the 20th century. Second, as a special way of expressing the subtle needs of the diplomatic profession;  in this way it can be said, for example,  that the  delegate of such-and-such  a country spoke of the given subject in totally non-diplomatic  language. Also, the term can refer  to  the  particular  form,  style,  manner  or  tone  of  expression;  such  as  the minister formulated his conditions in unusually strong language. It may mean as well the verbal or non-verbal  expression  of  thoughts  or  feelings:  sending  the  gunships  is  a  language  that everybody  understands.  But in this sense,  the use of language  in diplomacy  is of major

importance,  since language  is not a simple tool, vehicle  for transmission  of thoughts,  or instrument of communication, but often the very essence of the diplomatic vocation, and that has been so from the early beginnings of the profession. That is why from early times the first envoys of the Egyptian pharaohs, Roman legates, mediaeval Dubrovnik consuls, etc., had to be educated  and trained people, well-spoken and polyglots.  This  is  to eschew them from wrong language usage.

Considering  the  important  role  played  by  diplomacy  as  agents  of  development, conflict resolution and information dissemination, it is expected that in order to play these roles effectively, language should be used properly.

The correct use of language made some scholars like Widdowson (1978) to explain the difference between use and usage of language in the following definitions. According to Widdowson  (1978:59)  “use  is  the  realization  of  the  language  system  as  meaningful communication behaviour, while usage is “the manifestation of the  knowledge of language system. This distinction of “use” and “usage” of language is based on the notion effectiveness for communication”. This means that an utterance with a well-formed grammatical structure may or may not have a sufficient value for communication in a green context.

Diplomacy in itself is formulated out of and is governed by certain particular rules of a given language. The language use forms the justification for positing “language use in diplomacy” and  the  need  to  appraise  sociolinguistically,  the  language  use  in  diplomacy  using  the politeness theory thus arises.

1.1.2     Levels of Analysis in the Study of Language

It is a basic principle of linguistics that we should make a clear distinction between a formal analysis of language and one which is based on sociolinguistic appraisal. A formal analysis  is  concerned  with  observable,  actually  occurring  forms  of  language  and  the relationship between them, while a sociolinguistic based analysis is concerned with the ways in which the forms are used as a vehicle for communication in the context of the society. A language has a highly complex structure, and it is impossible for the linguist to describe it all at once. The visual procedure is to divide up the subject matter into a number of different but interrelated aspects, and to attend to this one at a time. By this means, linguistics have come to recognize various levels of analysis in the study of language, three of the most commonly discussed levels being those of phonology, syntax and semantics. These units of analysis in

the study of language forms the building blocks  of sociolinguistic  analysis (appraisal)  of language use in diplomacy.

Tomori  (1977)  explains  that: Modern  descriptive  linguistics  is usually studied  from  the following angles; phonetics and phonology;  grammar comprising morphology and  syntax; and semantics of all these three levels called levels of linguistic analysis.

It will be generally important in this analysis to distinguish between a broader and a narrower aspect of linguistic study, the term “Macrolinguistics” and Microlinguistics. Microlinguistics refers to what may be called the core of language analysis, the areas of phonology, grammar and  semantics.   Macrolinguistics   refers  to  sociolinguistics,   psycholinguistics,   historical linguistics,  speech  pathology,  lexicography  and  computational  linguistics,  communication theory etc. It is a unit of this macrolinguistics known as sociolinguistics that the language analysis of this work is based on.

Based on the above premises, this thesis attempts a sociolinguistic appraisal of language use in diplomacy. Most attempts to appraise the language use in diplomacy have concentrated on finding out formal mistakes committed with a critical view.  These criticisms view language use  in diplomacy  as a  formal  system  –  a  grammar.  But  language  can  also  be  seen  as functional system – a system in use. It is on the notion of language as a “functional system – a system in use” that the beam-light of this research work centres on, and having its focal point on politeness strategies.

1.2       Statement of the Problem

Some language  and communication  scholars,  like Defleur  and Kearney,  especially sociolinguists akin to McLaughlin (2009), Wardhaugh (2006), Pakzadian (2012) etc. assert that the society in its segmental nature and varied personalities that make it up, have different views  in  understanding  diplomatic  communication  content,  which  is  expressed  through language. It is in this light that Grossberg et al (1998) approaches the problem of diplomatic language  use  from  a  different  angle.  They  presented  Stuart  Hall’s  (1993)  opinion  that communication has to be seen as two distinct processes – encoding and decoding- which do not have any necessary relationship  to each other. According to them, readers or audience interpret any communication by transplanting them into their own framework or codes. Thus, the  interpretation  of a text or a statement becomes a complicated  and varied task (that is problematic task). This problem has its hinge on the politeness strategies employed by both

the encoder and decoder of the message therein. Thus the problem of wrong language use in diplomacy may ensue if the politeness strategies are wrongly applied. It is in line with above problem, the focal point of this thesis seeks to address the wrong application of the politeness strategies.

1.3      Objectives of the Study

The purpose of this study is to carry out sociolinguistic appraisal of the language use in diplomacy with focus on the Nigeria – South Africa diplomatic  communications, using politeness strategies model. In diplomacy, language is used to induce or compel actions and reactions  by  means  of  persuasion  on  the  encoder  and  the  decoder  of  the  message.  In pursuance of this, we have the following as the objectives of this study:

1.   To find out how language use in diplomacy as a functional system in use, arouses the interest of participating diplomats in a diplomatic discussion or conversation;

2.   To x-ray and reveal the language use present in the Nigeria – South Africa diplomatic communications;

3.   To identify and describe the factors that influence the diplomatic language use between Nigeria and South Africa; and also reveal the intricacies and hidden facts of language use in the Nigeria – South Africa diplomatic communications;

4.   To bring out how best to employ the politeness strategies as an effective tool of language use in diplomacy in resolving conflicts between Nigeria and South Africa; also in turn contribute positively to the national development of Nigeria through this study.

1.4       Research Questions

There  are  some  questions  that  if  at  the  end  of  this  research,  remain  unanswered;  the objectives of this work will not be achieved. To resolve the problem of this study, answers must be provided for the following research questions:

1.   How do we find out the language use in diplomacy as a functional system in use, and how it arouses the interest of participating  diplomats  in a diplomatic  discussion or conversation?

2.   How do we x-ray and reveal the language use present in the Nigeria – South Africa diplomatic communications?

3.   What are the ways to identify and describe the factors that influence the diplomatic language use between Nigeria and South Africa; also how do we reveal the intricacies

and  hidden  facts  of  language   use  in  the  Nigeria   –  South  Africa   diplomatic communications?

4.   What are the best politeness strategies to be employed as effective tools of language use in diplomacy in resolving conflicts between Nigeria and South Africa; also what are the contributions of this study to the national development of Nigeria?

1.5       Significance of the Study

Different varieties of research have been carried out on language use in diplomacy but much have not been done on the sociolinguistic appraisal of language use in diplomacy, with its  focus  on  our  home  front,  Nigeria;  bearing  the  Nigeria  –  South  Africa  Diplomatic communications in mind. This above stated fact is what motivated the researcher to carry out this research. This work will be a very important reference work for sociolinguists, diplomats and the academia in general, because it presents a  workable solution that bridges the gap which exists between the contributors of subtle conversations in most cases of language use in diplomacy.

Furthermore, this study will contribute to the body of knowledge in existence and also form a useful material for researchers explaining the politeness strategies  available  in the Nigerian diplomacy as it relates to language use. This will also serve as a succinct material for  scholars  who  may  wish  to  undertake  similar  sociolinguistic  appraisal  studies  on the various aspects of diplomacy.

This  study will also  provide  veritable  tools for practicing  diplomats  to  utilize  in gaining  the  requisite  skills  in language  use (especially  in the rightful  application  of  the politeness strategies), so as to eschew themselves from being side-lined in the ever evolving diplomatic world and industrial expertise.

This study will also reveal to sociolinguists, the fact that they are meant to be among the  best  diplomats,  interpreters,  professional  negotiators  etc  for  the  diplomatic  industry. Again, it will reveal to the diplomatic world the need to revitalize the system so as to function better in the society and meet the global challenges.

Also,   the   Nigerian   Foreign   Affairs   Ministry   is  aware   of  the   much   needed advancement that their colleagues in other nations of the world clamour for, in the area of apt diplomatic  language  use. Thus,  this  study tends  to provide  the blue-print  needed  by the

Nigerian Foreign Affairs Ministry to transform innovatively their diplomatic communication through effective and efficient language use as presented by this study.

Finally, the diplomatic circle is believed to have a very high influence in educating the international community properly, on current issues around the globe. But most of these messages  are not worth to be consumed  by the international  community wholly without sieving  it; thus,  this study presents  to the  international  community,  the tools  needed  for proper understanding of diplomatic language and applying them as at when due.

1.6       Scope and Delimitation of the Study

Language use in diplomacy is present in all the nations of the world, but the scope of this study will focus on the Nigerian diplomacy, using the Nigeria – South Africa Diplomatic relations segment as the focal point, with the recently resolved showdown between Nigeria and South Africa as the case study respectively. Content wise, it investigates the politeness strategies as a sociolinguistic tool for appraisal/analysis. It hinges on the intrinsic features of language  use  in Nigerian  diplomatic  communications  in question;  highlighting  avoidable wrong applications  of sociolinguistic  theory of  politeness  strategies  that  are prevalent  in diplomatic language use.

1.7       Limitations of the Study

Diplomacy is variegated in nature, in other words diplomacy is a very vast heading. The researcher of this work encountered some limitations in the area of trying to streamline this vast heading (topic) “Language  use in Diplomacy”,  to a unit where  he will base his appraisal/analysis.

Also sourcing of materials for this study was faced with some bureaucratic bottle-neck in the government agencies like MFA and South Africa Embassy in Abuja where some data were sourced.

Another  problem  is the analysis  of the data,  that is choosing  from the  numerous Nigerian  diplomatic  relations  (and  the  language  use therein)  with other  nations  that will provide enough and factual data for this study’s appraisal/analysis, was to an extent another constraint faced by this study. The researcher was faced with the problem of limited finance, and  this  caused  some  delay in the research  time-frame.  Time  factor  was  another  minor constraint encountered in this research.

However, combining the project work with other academic works was really a tedious task. To cope with the above limitations, the researcher was able to device certain measures to deal with the limitations. When a researcher set some goals to be achieved, the next thing is working hard towards achieving the set goals. To achieve his aim(s); in the area of finance, the researcher focused his attention more on the available financial resources around him. To solve  the problem  of sourcing  of materials,  the  researcher  concentrated  on the available materials in the Nnamdi Azikiwe library Nsukka, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Information Centre, the High Commission of South Africa in Abuja, and other sources such as the internet materials. On the data analysis, the researcher was able to conduct some survey/sampling on the Nigerian diplomatic relations with other nations; and at the tail-end choose the Nigeria – South Africa Diplomatic relations (and the language use therein) for the data analysis.

On the other hand, the problem of time as the minor constraint was handled by juxtaposing the academic work with the research work. Other extracurricular activities were suspended in order to have enough time. Therefore, the above limitations did not in any way affect the authenticity of the research findings.

₦5,000.00 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :