A Critical Analysis of Emerging Attitudes from the Mau Forest Restoration Discourse in Kenya
This essay seeks to examine attitudes towards forest conservation as covertly expressed in the Mau Forest conservation discourse. It was based on the assumption that political discourse informs and influences social attitudes towards environmental conservation. The study was guided by Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) framework. The study adopted a qualitative research design. The study focused on a population of 35 speeches. Downsampling procedure was used to select 20 speeches by political leaders on the Mau Forest debate. These speeches were obtained from the media for transcription and analysis. The CDA analysis was carried out on a sample of texts from the corpus and the data were analyzed using qualitative techniques. The data analysis was based on the lexical choices and language features and their social implications for forest conservation in Kenya. The results indicated that various language techniques such as lexicalization, metaphors, and rhetorical questions served to express the speakers’ hatred, contempt and dislike for the forest conservation cause. The data was presented as transcripts or excerpts of political utterances. The findings of this study would be beneficial to the Government and policymakers by showing that language can help achieve a shift in attitudes and behaviour on forest conservation issues.
Alexander, R. & Stibbe, A. (2014).‘From the analysis of ecological discourse to the ecological analysis of discourse’, Language science 41.104-110.
Barasa, N. M. (2014). Discursive strategies in Kenya’s 2008 post-election consultation discourse. Unpublished PhD Thesis: Laikipia University.
Couto, H. H. (2014) ‘Ecological approaches in linguistics: a historical overview’. Language Science 41. 122-128
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Daily Nation (2010-2018). Nairobi: Nation Media Group.
East African Standard (2010-2018). Nairobi: Standard Group.
Fill, A. & Muhlhausler, P. (2001). The ecolinguistics reader: language, ecology and environment.New York: Continuum.
Finke, P. (1998). Identity and manifoldness; new perspectives in science,language and politics.Cambridge: MIT Press.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming a qualitative researcher: an introduction. Boston: Pearson educational inc.
Goshgarian, G. (1998). Exploring language. New York: Longman.
Halliday, M. (1992). ‘New ways of meaning; the challenges to applied linguistics’, in A. Fill. and P. Muhlhausler(eds) The ecolinguistics reader: the language ecology, ecology and environment. London: continuum.
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. & Ruqaiya, H. (1985). Language, context and text: aspects of language in social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harre, R.B.& Muhlhausler, P. (1999). Greenspeak: a study of environmental discourse. Thousand oaks CA: Sage.
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research methodology: methods and techniques.New Delhi: New Age.
Kristen, E. B& Barbra (2000).Science Explorer. New Jersey: New Hall.
Malvern, L. (2000). A people betrayed. London: Zed Books Ltd.
Marshall, C.& Rossman, G. (2006).Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Mau Forest speeches. Retrieved from https//www.m.youtube/watch
Mazayev, A. Y. (2005). Political discourse: factor of addressee. Moscow: Gnos.
Muhlhausler, P. (2003).Language of environment, environment of language; a course in ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge UK.
Naess, A. (2008).Ecology of wisdom. Berkley, C.A: Counterprint.
NEMA (2008).State of Environment Report Kenya, 2006/2007: Effects of climate change and coping mechanisms in Kenya. Nairobi:NEMA.
Njoroge, M.C. (2011). ‘Putting ethnicity in perspective: In Ndirangu Wachanga, Cultural identity and new media.Winconsin.
Potter, J. W. (2009). Mass media scholarship. Delhi: Sage.
Ralph, N. and Stanyer, J. (2007).The politician communication reader. New York:
Schultz, B. (1992). ‘Environmental matters and communicational challenges’,
in Australian journal of communication 21/3,26-39
Stibbe, A. (2014) An ecolinguistics approach to critical discourse studies. Critical discourse studies 11(1) 117-128.
Stibbe, A. (2014) Ecolinguistics, language, ecology and the stories we live by. London: Routledge.
van Dijk, T. (1993).Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and society 4(2)249-83.
van Dijk, T. (1995).Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse and society 6 :243-289”
van Dijk, T. (1998).Ideology: a multidisciplinary study. London: Sage.
Copyright (c) 2020 Albert Mogambi Moinani, Margaret Barasa, Eucabeth Ong'au
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.