LANGUAGE AND ECOLOGY: A SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR ANALYSIS OF THE MAU FOREST CONSERVATION IN KENYA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejals.v3i2.278Keywords:
lexical choices, metafunctions, beliefs, SFG, forest conservation, KenyaAbstract
This paper explores political leaders’ utterances in regard to the Mau Forest complex in Kenya. The paper adopts an ecolinguistic approach to critical discourse analysis to shed light on how political leaders use language to encode their perceptions and feelings about environmental conservation in general and Mau Forest restoration in particular. Awareness on such language use is important because of the understanding that political leaders are part of the elite members of society who inform and direct public opinion on many critical issues in society. The political class also controls the agenda of public debate on many societal issues. Using Critical Discourse Analysis within Halliday’s (1994) Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) approach, this paper brought to fore how the political class uses language to (de)emphasize or conceal meanings depending on whether such meanings or beliefs are for or against the political leaders’ interests. The findings revealed that the political leaders perceived the forest conservation programme as oppression, distortion and provocation to ethnic-based violence. In addition, the politicians’ lexical choices indicate that the politicians perceived the Mau Forest restoration programme as a falsehood propagated by the political rivals.
References
Alexander, R. & Stibbe, A. (2014). From the analysis of ecological discourse to the ecological analysis of discourse. Language science 41.104-110.
Bang & Door, J. (2007). Language and society: a dialectical approach. London: Continuum.
Bryant, L.R. (1997). Third world political ecology. London: Bailey.
Couto, H. H. (2014) Ecological approaches in linguistics: a historical overview. Language Science 41. 122-128
Daily Nation (July 20, 2018). Nairobi: Nation Media Group.
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: continuum.
Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (2019). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London: Wesley publishing co.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: text analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Fill, A. & Muhlhausler, P. (2001). The Eco linguistics reader: language, ecology and environment. New York: Continuum.
Finke, P. (1998). Identity and manifoldness; new perspectives in science, language and politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Goshgarian, G. (1998). Exploring language. New York: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K & Matthiessen (2014). Introduction to functional grammar. New York: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K & Ruqaiya, H. (1985). Language, context and text: aspects of language on social-semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K (2007). Language and society. London: Blackwell.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1992). ‘New ways of meaning: the challenges to applied linguistics’, in Putz, Matin (ed): Thirty years of linguistic evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Co.
Halliday, M.A.K (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Harre, R.B. & Muhlhausler, P. (1999). Greenspeak: a study of environmental discourse. Thousand oaks CA: Sage.
Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. London: Stanford university press.
jacksoner@nku.edu- journal of Panafrican studies
Jones, J. & Peccei, J. S. (2004). Language and politics. In Thomas, L (ed), Language, society and power. New York: Routledge.
Kagwanja, P. (2010). ‘Fighting for the Mau Forests: Land, climate change and the politics of Kibaki succession’. African policy report,2010. Nairobi.
Kahenda, M. (2016). Fresh Mau Forest evictions leave 1,000 families in the cold. The Standard,2016, February 8.p30.
Kenya Forestry Service website http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/
Kristen & Barbra, E. (2000). Science explorer. New Jersey: New Hall.
Mau Forest Politics. Retrieved from www.nation.co.ke/mau-forest.
Mau Forest Politics. Retrieved from https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/
Mau Forest speeches. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g3RiLwm9OU
Mehler, A & Walraven, K. (2009). African year book vol.6: politics, economy and society south of the Sahara in 2009. Boston: Rill.
Ministry of Environment (2010). National climate change response strategy. Nairobi: GOK printer.
Ministry of environment (2010). National climate change response strategy. Nairobi: GOK Printer.
Naess, A. (2008). Ecology of wisdom. Barkley, CA: Counterprint.
NEMA (2008). State of Environment Report Kenya, 2006/2007: Effects of climate change and coping mechanisms in Kenya. Nairobi: NEMA.
Office of the Prime Minister (2009). Report of the Prime Minister’s task force on the conservation of the Mau Forests complex. Nairobi. GOK printer.
Potter, J. W. (2009). Mass media scholarship. Delhi: Sage.
Ralph, N. & Stanyer, J. (2007). The politician communication reader. New York:
Rowel, R. (1999). The diversity of living organisms. London: Blackwell.
Stabbed, A. (2014) Ecolinguistics, language, ecology and the stories we live by. London: Routledge.
Stibbe, A. (2014). An ecolinguistics approach to critical discourse studies. Critical discourse studies 11(1) 117-128.
Teubert, N. (2005). My version of corpus linguistics. International journal of corpus linguistics, 10(1)1-3
The Guardian (2015, September 25). US Catholics ready to follow Pope’s marching orders on climate change: https://www.guardian.com
The Holy Bible (Contemporary English Version). British and Foreign Bible Society, UK.
The Standard (March 4, 2015). Nairobi: Standard Group.
The Whitehouse office of the press secretary (2015)
Vaccaro, J & Beltran, O. (2013). Political ecology and conservation policies: some theoretical genealogies. Pierre Alexandre Paquet.
Van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and society (4)2.249-83.
van Dijk, T. (1998). Ideology: a multidisciplinary study. London: Sage.
van Dijk, T. (2000). Critical discourse analysis (https://www.discourse-in-society.org/).
van Dijk. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. (http://www.discourse-in-society.org/).
Wendel, J. (2005). Notes on ecology of language; In Bunkayo Gakuin university academic journal 5,511-16.
Wodak, R. (2009). The semiotics of racism: a critical discourse historical analysis. In Renkama, J (ed.) Discourse of course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 311-326.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
