The discourse functionality of argument schemes in county assembly debates in Kenya using the pragma-dialectical approach

Abstract

The communicative interaction between discussants in parliamentary debates is aimed at exchanging different viewpoints through discussion to arrive at a policy decision. Discussants in Nairobi County assembly debates present their standpoints in a persuasive language that helps build conversations, minimise potential conflict, and maximise personal profit. This study aimed to examine the discoursal functionality of argument schemes in county assembly debates using the pragma-dialectical theory. A descriptive case study design was used with qualitative approaches to allow a deeper enquiry into the phenomenon of debates using data from online archival Hansard records of the Nairobi County assembly. The study systematically sampled 48 debate transcripts of the print version of the Hansard from a total target population of 132 debates for a period of ten months. The study then purposively sampled 20 debates, which consisted of motions of the Nairobi County assembly over the ten months, for analysis from February to November 2023. Public documents from the Nairobi County assembly registry, consisting of schedules of the sectoral committees and the Standing Orders of the assembly, were collected from the website. Qualitative data were analysed with speech acts forming the unit of analysis. The data were subjected to analysis using the criteria recommended in the pragma-dialectical theory. The study established that discussants employed pragmatic and symptomatic argument schemes purposefully to resolve differences of opinion on the merits in debates. The study was useful in suggesting procedural interventions aimed at improving parliamentary argumentative practices that could benefit discourse practitioners.