Comparative Study of War in Iraq Discourse

7/24/2019 Comparative Study of War in Iraq Discourse

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-war-in-iraq-discourse 1/59

1. Introduction

This paper attempts to compare and contrast the standpoint of both Bush and

Obama regarding the Iraq war. The rationale for this paper and the main motivation is

to trace the discourse of opposition compared to that of authority, the way each

discourse leads propaganda campaigns for implicit or explicit ideology. Critical

iscourse !nalysis " C!# is the overarching framewor$ , focusing mainly on

identifying the underlying ideologies in the text and the mechanisms used to mobili%e

the nation in light of those ideologies. &ystemic 'unctional (rammar " &'(# is the

analytical tool chosen to enable the researcher to reali%e this ob)ective through

tracing the ideational metafunction along with the textual organi%ation. The paper

analy%es transitivity patterns, logico*semantic relations and text building devices in

Obama+s speech +anti*war rally+ and Bush+s speech +war ultimatum+ speech before the

military invasion of Iraq.

1.1 Systemic Functional Grammar

alliday+s &ystemic 'unctional (rammar "&'(# "-/012334# is an influential

model, widely used in critical discourse studies. In &ystemic 'unctional (rammar,

language is a means to construct meaning. !ccordingly, grammar is a set of linguistic

resources available to convey those meanings. Two dimensions are stressed when

adopting a functional approach. The first dimension is the available structures that

language offers spea$ers and writer, the different sets one can choose from to express

a certain message and achieve a certain goal. The second dimension is thesignificance of this choice in terms of its function contrasted with other available

choices. It does not adopt a prescriptive approach li$e traditional grammar.

1.2 Metafunctions

alliday uses the term +metafunction+ to refer to the broad functions language serves

according to the three $inds of meaning people want to convey.

1.2.1 Interpersonal Metafunction5anguage here is used to enable people to interact, to establish different

relationships, to influence the behavior of others and to express one+s attitude towards

the content of what one says. Interpersonal meaning is reali%ed through patterns of

modality that include modal verbs, adverbs ,any evaluative lexis.

1.2.2 Textual Metafunction

5anguage is used to organi%e the message to let the message fit with other

messages. Textual meaning is reali%ed through the thematic choices, information

structure and the way the text hangs together.

1



1.2.3 The Ideational Metafunction

6eople use language to express their ideas, to represent the world, and to describe

events, states and the entities involved in them. They also use language to represent

what is going on inside them. Ideational metafunction is reali%ed through transitivity

patterns that are reflected in process types and the logico*semantic relations that tieclauses. Through this function people represent reality or their experiences or what

they perceive to be the reality through language.

2. Data

The data analysed in this research paper comprises two political speeches. The first speech

"appendix -# has been given by the then*&enator Barac$ Obama in Chicago on October 2,

2332 during the lead*up to the invasion of Iraq. In his speech, he has voiced out his fierce

opposition to the impending war. The position he adopted on the war, bac$ then, was not a

popular one, since most of the polls confirmed that the ma)ority supported the military

invasion. The second speech "appendix 2# has been delivered by (eorge 7. Bush on 8arch

-/, 2339: )ust a few days before the military invasion of Iraq. It is $nown as Bush;s war

ultimatum speech in which he warns the Iraqi regime of serious consequences if it does not

disarm immediately. In this speech, Bush also states his ideological stance through explaining

the actions that have been ta$en and that will be ta$en concerning the issue of Iraq.

3. Methodology

This paper is divided into 2 ma)or parts. The first part presents an analysis of Obama;s speech

while the second part presents an analysis of Bush;s speech. The analysis of both speeches

uses critical discourse analysis as its theoretical framewor$, focusing on the concept of self

and other representation. 8oreover, the analysis employs systemic functional grammar as an

analytical tool to help reveal the underlying ideologies of the spea$ers of the two speeches.

<ach part is followed by a commentary discussing the ideological implications inferred from

the speeches based on the analysis. Those two ma)or parts of the paper will finally be

followed by a conclusion highlighting points of similarities and differences between the two

speeches.

2



. !nalysis

.1. Ideational Metafunction

This part tac$les the analysis of the Ideational 8etafunction in Obama &peech, namely,

transitivity patterns and logico*semantic relations.

Clause number 6articipant 6rocess 6articipant Circumstance- you

omitted

5et begin

initiator causative

2 me &aying that although

this=.

&ayer verbal verbiage

9 I &tand before you

location*spatial

actor material as someone who

is not opposed to

all wars

role* guise

4 The Civil 7ar is One of the

bloodiest..

identified relational

identifying

identifier

0 it was only through thecrucible of the

sword

carrier relational

circumstantial

identifying

manner* means

> 7e begin to perfect

drive the

scourge=

this union from our soil

actor material goal location*spatial

? I don+t oppose all wars

3



sensor mental*cognition phenomenon

5ogico*semantic relations

In this paragraph Obama introduces himself and, more importantly, his stance. e opts for

holding contrast to highlight his position, to refute the misconceptions the audience might

have.

In clause "2#, "ro#ection hypotactic, where Obama as$s for the audience permission in an

attempt to build rapport with them and to engage them in resisting the dominant ideology.

This is manifested in the use of although $expansion%enhancing%concession& in a hypotactic

way, and in clause "0# through using yet $ expansion ' extension %ad(ersati(e &

hypotactically.

Clause number 6articipant 6rocess 6articipant Circumstance

/ 8y grandfather signed up for a war

cause*purpose

after the day =

actor material location*

temporal

e fought in 6atton+s army

omittedactor

material location*spatial

-3 e saw the dead and

dying

across the fields of

<urope

senser mental*

perception

phenomenon location*spatial

-- e heard the stories of

fellow troops

=

senser mental*

perception

phenomenon

-2 e fought in the name of a

larger freedom=

actor material cause* purpose

-9 e did not fight in vain

actor material manner *quality

-4 I don+t oppose all wars

senser mental* phenomenon

4



cognition


In clause "-2# and "-9# Obama expounds on the glorious history of his family and their actsof heroism, represented by his grandfather, this is reflected in his choice of the paratactic

+and+ "expansion*extension*additive#.

Clause

number

Circumstance 6articipant 6rocess 6articipant Circumstance

-0 !fter &ept. --,

after

witnessing the

carnage and

destruction#

I supported this

administration+s

pledge

to hunt down

and root out

those =.

"cause*

purpose#

location

temporal

senser mental*

cognition

phenomenon

-> willingly I ta$e up arms myself

manner* means

manner*

quality

actor material goal to prevent

such=

cause*purpose

-? I don+t oppose all wars

senser mental*

cognition

phenomenon

-/ I $now that in this

crowd today,

there is no

shortage of

patriots=

"#

senser mental*

cognition

phenomenon


5



In clause "-0#, Obama tries to be ob)ective, he is playing the devil+s advocate ,)ustifying the

rationale of war, a position he will soon contradict, on the basis of what !merica has

witnessed on --1. In clause "-?# he adds that these events have influenced him to that extent

that he may go to the battlefield, he uses +and+ "expansion*extension*additive# in a paratactic

way.


- 7hat I am

opposed to

is a dumb war

carrier relational attribute

23 7hat I am

opposed to

is a rash war

carrier relational attribute2- 7hat I am

opposed to

is the cynical

attempt by

@ichard 6erle

to shove down ..

cause Apurpose

identified identifying

relational

identifiers irrespective of

the costs in

lives=#

contingency*

concession

clau

seCircumstan

ce

6articipa

nt

6rocess 6articipant process 6articipa

nt

Circumstance

22 7hat I

am

opposed

is the attempt

by political

hac$s

to distract us

from a rise in

the uninsured

Identified relational

identifying

identifier cause*

purpose

29 That is what I+m

opposed to

identifier relational

identifying

identified

24 This is a war based

not on

reason but

on passion,

not on principle but

6



on politics

omittedcarrier omittedrelational

attributive

attribute

20 ow you let me be clear

location*

temporal

omitted

attributor

causative carrier relation attribute

2> I suffer no illusions

=

possessor relational

possessive

possessed

2? e

carrier

is

relational

attributive

a brutal man

attribute

who=

2/ a man butchers his own

people

to secure his

own power.

actor material goal cause* purpose

2 repeatedly he defied

thwarted

developed

resolutions

inspection

teams

chemical

and

biological

weapons

manner*quality

actor material (oal

93 he coveted nuclear

capacity

"&enser#

"omitted#

"mental A

desiderative#

phenomenon

9- e is a bad guy

7



carrier relational

attributive

attribute

92 The

world,

and the

Iraqi people

would be

better off without him

carrier relational

attributive

attribute accompaniment

comitative

Clause

number

6articipant 6rocess 6articipant circumstance

99 I $now that &addam poses no

imminent and

direct==

senser mental*

cognition

phenomenon

99 the Iraqi

economy

is in shambles

carrier relational

attributive

attribute

94 he falls away into the dustbin

of history

location Aspatial

actor material in the way of all

petty dictators.

manner* quality

90 I $now that even a

successful war

against Iraq

will require a .&.

senser mental*

cognition

phenomenon

8



9> a successful war

against Iraq

will require a & occupation of

undetermined length

, at undermined

cost , with

undetermined

consequences

actor material goal

9? I $now an invasion of

Iraq without a

clear rationale

and without

strong international

support will only fanthe flames

senser mental*

cognition

phenomenon

9/ an invasion of

Iraq without a

clear rationale

and withoutstrong

international

support

will only fan

encourage

strengthen

material

material

material

flames of the 8iddle

<ast

goal the worst

goal

the recruitment arm

of ..

goalactor

9 I am notopposed to all wars

senser mental*

cognition

phenomenon

43 I opposed to dumb wars

senser mental*

cognition

phenomenon

9



no circumstance 6articipant 6rocess 6articip

ant

process 6articipa

nt

6articipant

4- for those of

us=

cause*behalf

4- today you let "us# send a clear

message

to the president

location*

temporal

initiator

omitted

causative actor material goal recipient

42 you want a fight

senser mental*

desiderative

phenomen

on

49 you let+s

"omitted#

initiator

causative

no 6articipant 6rocess 6articipant circumstance

49 us Awe 'inish the fight with bin 5aden

and al*Daida

accompaniment

comitative

actor material goal through

effective,

coordinated

intelligence

manner

means

44 you want

a fight

senser mental*

desiderative

phenomenon

10



Clause

number

6rocess 6articipant 6rocess 6articipant Circumstance

40 let+s omitted fight to ma$e sure

that

causative "we # actor material cause purpose

4>

" Cause

clause #

the ..

inspectors

can do their wor$

actor material goal

4?

" Cause

clause #

7e enforce a non*

proliferation

treaty

actor material goal

4/

" Cause

clause #

former

enemies and

current allies#

safeguard and

eliminate

material

material

their stores of

nuclear

material

goal

ultimately

actor

manner*means

4

" Cause

clause #

nations li$e

6a$istan and

India

never use the terrible

weapons

already in their

actor material goal

03

" Cause

clause #

arms

merchants in

our own

country

stop feeding the countless

wars =.

actor material goal

0- you want

a fight

senser mental*

desiderative

phenomenon


Obama here details the practical steps that should be ta$en to achieve the required results of

the good fights he urges the people and the president to )oin. e uses +and+ paratactically to

enumerate these steps. The use of +and+ "expansion* extension*additive# reflects that he views

them as equally important. It also enforces his point through the parallel structures.

11




02 we fight to ma$e sure our

so called==

actor material cause Apurpose

09 their youth grow up without

education

without prospects

without hope

actor material accompaniment A

comitative

04 you want

a fight

senser mental*desiderative

mental*desiderative

00 we fight to wean

ourselves off

8iddle <ast =

Cause*purpose

actor material through an

energy policy =.

"manner*means#5ogico*semantic relations

Obama here subtly refutes Bush+s argument for waging the war. Bush is of the opinion that

Iraq had developed mass destruction weapons: these developments might cause further

terrorist attac$s.

Obama considers this to be a symptom not a root cause arguing that encouraging reform in

the 8iddle <ast is the only to brea$ this vicious circle . Otherwise, those people will always

be potential terrorists. The paratactic use of so "expansion*enhancing* causal# serves this

function.

Clause

number

6articipant 6rocess 6articipant process 6articipant Circumstance

0> Those

identified

are

relational

identifying

the battles

that we ..

identifier

0? Those

identified

are

relational

identifying

the battles

that =

identifier

0/ The

consequencescarrier

are

relationalattributive

dire

attribute

12



0 7e

"possessor#

have

relational

occasion in

our

lifetime

possessed

to rise up in

defense of our

cause *reason

Clause

number

6articipant 6rocess 6articipant process 6articipant Circumstance

>3 7e "actor# will not

travel

down

material

blindly

manner*

quality

that hellish

path

location*

spatial

>- we "initiator # allow

causative

those

who=

actor

ma$e

material

awful

sacrifice

goal

in vain

quality

manner

.2 )esults of the analysis of Transiti(ity "atterns

"rocesses

"rocess type Totalnum*er

Fre+uency "ercentage

8aterial

?-

2 43./ E

8ental -/ 20.9E

@elational -? 29.E

Causative > /.4 E

Ferbal - -.4 E

"rocess type Su*category Fre+uency "ercentage

8ental Cognition -3 00.0 Edesideration > 99.9 E

13



6erception 2 --.-.E

@elationalattributive -3 0/./E

Identifying ? 4-.- E

,ircumstance

Type Total Fre+uency "ercentageCause

44

-/ 43.E

8anner -2 2?.2E

5ocation -3 22.? E

accompaniment 9 >./E

Contingency - 2.2E

@ole - 2.2 E

"articipants

Obama represents different entities, organi%ations, persons as actors or sensers or sayers orcarriers. Get, the conspicuous use of personal pronouns, in particular, +I+, +7e+, and +Gou+ is

significant.

"ronoun )eferent Fre+uency

'irst 6erson "I# Obama -4 times

7e "'irst 6erson# The !merican 6eople times

&econd 6erson "you # !udience 1!mericans ? times

one explicit> "omitted# through

the causative process

H5et me =H

Bush "vocative# 4 times

.3. )esults of the analysis of logico%semantic relations-

Obama does not lin$ clauses to one another using connectives extensively. 5ogico*

semantic relations are frequently used. They are employed in ->.9 E of the text. Obama

goes on to inform, expound on the causes and the consequences of the action in question,

even raises questions about the validity of such a move at this particular time without explicit

mar$ers. The relations are rather discourse Aoriented: he uses discourse mar$ers to organi%e

his argument as shall be discussed later.

Type Fre+uency Su*category

14



6arataxis ? -*<xpansion*

extension*additive

"and #

2*<xpansion*

enhancing* causal

"so that#and > times

so that - time

ypotaxis 9 -*6ro)ection

"saying that #

2* <xpansion*

enhancing*concession

"!lthough#

9* <xpansion A

extension Aadversative

"yet#

xpansion Su*category Fre+uency

<xtension adversative -

additive >

<nhancing concession -

causal -

. Implications and ,ommentary

Obama uses all the instruments that language offers to hammer home his point. The

transitivity patterns, the textual organi%ation and the rhetorical devises employed reflect his

ideologically charged message. e spares no effort to sway the audience in a serious attemptgeared towards mobili%ing them to oppose the 7ar on Iraq, which he labels as +dumb war+

15



and rash war+. The analysis has helped to crystalli%e the intentionality of his discourse in this

particular speech and most importantly, the strategies he pursues to persuade the audience.

..1 Ideational Metafunction- Transiti(ity

Material "rocess

!s the results show material processes are the most frequently used ones. 8aterial

processes are used 2 times accounting for 43./E of the text. Obama uses them to represent

past actions, the status quo and even the proposed alternative turn of events he propagates.

(enerally spea$ing, the audience find it easy to relate to material processes as they reflect

actions, happenings and events that they witness. Obama+s use of material process weaves a

three*fold pattern based on contrast. !t the outset, he recounts the glorious battles his

grandfather +signed up+, +fought+ and the favorable results this war has brought about + perfect

the union+ and +drive the scourge of slavery+. 8aterial processes are also used to represent the

repercussions of the war on Iraq, and the havoc it would wrea$ upon the country. This war

would squander money and let people lose their lives. 8oreover, this impending war will

only +fan the flames of the 8iddle <ast+, +encourage the worst+ and +strengthen the recruitment

arm of al*Daida+ . The last material process defeats the logic and rationale Bush propagates as

the reason behind the war + hunt down, root out terrorists+. Obama says that the war will

aggravate and escalate terrorism . The discourse ta$es a seminal shift: Obama underscores the

wars or the battles !mericans should fight at the country and the international level. They

should help the + inspectors do their wor$+, they should +enforce+ certain agreements. They

should ma$e sure that the oppression will not go unabated in the 8iddle <ast as this is the

only way to brea$ the vicious circle of terrorism. 'inally, Obama asserts his stance bydeclaring that !mericans will not +travel down this path blindly.+

The very same grammatical reali%ation can be ta$en as a point of similarity only to

highlight the contrast Obama provides for the nature of actions assigned to him and his

family and the nature of events the war , initiated by Bush, will cause. Obama represents

himself positively through the history of the well*tested veteran of war, his grandfather, and

subtly as a prominent figure of opposition through the reform measures he calls for as

opposed to this +dumb war.+

Mental "rocess

8ental processes come second to the material processes in frequency. In -/ clauses

the verb is mental ,which ma$es up 20.9E of the text. This asserts the fact that Obama cares

for the emotional involvement of his audience. 'urthermore, he perceives reality not only in

practical terms. e is mindful of the psychological war !mericans go through at that delicate

time. e also wants to draw their attention to the traumatic impacts of wars in general, not to

mention+ dumb war+. ifferent subcategories of mental processes are employed, perception,

cognition and desideration, yet the distribution of the sensors, phenomena and subcategory is

significant. Obama+s grandfather +saw the dying+ , and+ heard the stories+ , stressing the human

side of the Civil 7ar reminds the audience of the atrocities and beastly barbarity of the war todissuade them from falling under the false impression that this war is national or patriotic. e

16



also wants to let them recall in sensuous details the price they paid ,the difference however is

that the Civil war was worth it , yet this war is +dumb+ and +rash+. 8oving now towards

Obama, he spells out his stance clearly, he has +supported+ the call to +root out terrorism+ and

then he +opposed+ this war, in particular as it turns out to be a political hac$ not a national call.

e tries to refute the misconceptions his audience might have, he does not +oppose+ all wars.e +opposes+ this war because he +$nows+ that &addam is a threat that can be contained, he

further +$nows+ the +dire consequences+ of this decision. "&ee clauses 99*9/#.is thorough

$nowledge stands in star$ contrast to the whim of (eorge Bush to wage a war. Obama

describes this war as

+! war based not on reason but on passion.+ This is reflected in assigning

cognitive mental processes to Obama +$now+, and assigning desiderative process to Bush

+want+. The effect is even enhanced through the successive occurrences of these processes.

This is even further underlined through drawing a symmetric contrast, as each process is

repeated four times.

Gou want a fight, 6resident Bush 4 times in 9 successive paragraphs.

I $now1I also $now 4 times

The absence of affection is telling. It might be feasible to say that Obama does not want to

appear emotional as someone who is driven by his sentiments or impressions. is opposition

hinges upon cogent reasons and comprehensive $nowledge.

!nother interesting point that the analysis of mental process raises is the fact that while Bush

senses a simple phenomenon + a war+, Obama senses a metaphenomena in successive parallel

structures that constitute the whole paragraph." see paragraph > in !ppendix -#.

)elational "rocesses

@elational 6rocesses are used -? times ma$ing up 29.E. Thus, mental and relational

processes are almost equally used. @elational 6rocesses are used to establish a relation

between entities in the discourse. They are always very telling when it comes to ideology.

One ma)or privilege this type of process offers is the ability to represent one+s stances as

facts. Thus, one can appear seemingly ob)ective while expressing his very sub)ective version

of reality. Obama uses the two modes, attributive and identifying, to express his standpoint

clearly.

attributive -3 times 0/./E

Identifying ? times 4-.- E

The relational processes are used in a three*fold pattern. 'irst, Obama says that the

+Civil 7ar is the bloodiest+, yet it is the path through which !mericans could abolish slavery.

This is the first premise Obama presents to argue for the inevitability of wars at certain point

in history. e also clearly states that &adam ussien is +brutal+ and the world will be + better

17



off + without him. By portraying the Civil 7ar as noble and glorious and by demoni%ing

&adam , it might be plausible to assume that a war is still an option. Get, this technique helps

him avoid direct confrontation at the outset and establish a common ground. e quic$ly

ma$es the rebuttal point by explaining that this is a +dumb war+ +rash war+, what he exactly

opposes. e goes on to enumerate the socio*economic hindrances !merica faces along withthe grave international situation.e concludes by defining those urgent causes as +the battles

we need to fight+. ever has the contrast been clearer than in those two relational identifying

clauses.

Clause "29# That+s what I+m opposed to. ! dumb war. ! rash war.

Clause "0>#Those are the battles that we need to fight. The battles against ignorance and

intolerance. Corruption and greed. 6overty and despair.

@elational processes show that Obama assigns negative attributes to this war in both

attributive and identifying mode. 6eople are pushed to the bac$ground in this type of process,

except &adam,the focus is on the ideology they disseminate as reflected in representing it as

the carrier. This is an indirect attac$, if he labels the war as+ dumb+, then what about the

person who launches the war. @elation process highlights the positive self*representation and

the negative other representation.

,ausati(e "rocesses

In causative process, the actor is not the agent. There is an outsider who causes theaction to ta$e place or the actor to act. Causative processes are not excessively used in the

speech. !ccording to the analysis, they occur only > times "/.4E#, yet their occurrence is

very significant. The quantitative

analysis should not let us overloo$ the meaning they

convey. (enerally spea$ing, the pattern used in causative processes is +5et me+ or +5et+s+. The

analysis shows that in each case the initiator, you in this case referring to the audience, is

omitted. Obama uses this type once at the beginning of the speech and twice in the middle of

the speech and thrice at the end of the speech. The process, especially at the beginning, helps

Obama to build rapport with the audience. In addition, it gives the audience authority and let

the spea$er appear humble and modest as he as$s their permission to voice his opinion.

Two other functions are served with the use of causative process. 'irst, Obama uses the

phrase +let me+ twice, each time followed by an explanation that appears as a refutation to

some misconception or answers to questions that have not been raised yet by the audience.

"-#5et me begin by "2#saying JthatKJ althoughK this has been billed as an anti*war rally, "9#I

stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

ow let me be clear L "2>#I suffer no illusions about &addam ussein. "2?#e is a brutal

man. ! ruthless man .

18



e ma$es it clear that he is a patriot: he is not against waging wars per se. is

grandfather is one of the veterans of the &econd 7orld 7ar. e ma$es a subtle reference to

Bush+s labeling any opposition as +unpatriotic+. e is not a pacifist. 5i$ewise, he is not for

&addam, he does not tolerate terrorism. is opposition is not unpatriotic but truly patriotic.

e shares the negative representation Bush assigns to Iraq and &addam. The main differencelies in his response to those threats.

&econd, he uses the causative process to engage the audience in his decision ma$ing

process, in his reform calls, in his resistance to the main ideology. e presupposes a sense of

unity or collectivity through the use of +us+. e further consolidates this feeling and assumes a

shared responsibility. It wor$s both ways, he feels empowered as the public lend him their

support. Their support does not stop at this, it goes far beyond this. It is the main reason

behind his call. The audience might be swayed to consider Obama a voice of the voiceless.

This is most evident inM

"4-# &o for those of us who see$ a more )ust and secure world for our children, let us send a

clear message to the president today.

Clearly, the message he wants to convey is his, he is the only sayer, the real actor and most

importantly the real initiator of this +anti*war rally+. Get, representing the audience as the

main motivation, inspiration idoli%es him in a way as if he responded to the people+s call .It

also gives the message a certain weight.

/er*al "rocesses

!lthough the whole speech is an explicit act of saying, only one verbal process is usedin the speech accounting for -.4 Eof the speech. Obama is the sayer and the verbiage he

utters +"-#5et me begin by "2#saying JthatKJ althoughK this has been billed as an anti*war rally,

"9#I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.+. The

verbiage shapes the whole argument, as he goes on to classify wars. &ome wars are

inevitable: others are avoidable . e will further expound on reasons for his own stance. The

conspicuous absence of verbs li$e +tell, announce, declare, condemn, etc. is telling. Obama

does not want to sound li$e a rabble*rouser, though he tries to move and mobili%e the

audience. e does not tell, he presents the alternative path couched in material processes,

steps that should be ta$en instead of this war, based on the $nowledge he has couched in themental processes he chooses for himself.

,ircumstance

!s the analysis shows, the speech is characteri%ed by an excessive use of different

types of circumstance. Cause comes at the top of the list in terms of its frequency, -/ times

ma$ing up

43.- E of the circumstance used. Obama gives a detailed account of the reasons and purposes

not only for his actions or perceptions but also for other participants, most importantly Bush

and &adam. The contrast is still carried over even in the distribution of the cause. The great

wars are fought + in the name of a larger freedom+. Obama wants to fight to ma$e sure that

19



the root causes of terrorism is addressed "see clauses 4>*03# . Obama+s causes are all noble

and humane . On the other hand, the purpose of the war Bush wants to fight is + to distract us

from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income L to

distract us from corporate scandals and a stoc$ mar$et that has )ust gone through the worst

month since the (reat epression.+ This war is based on +politics+ not principles. Obama herestri$es a chord with the audience: he refers to the tough reality !mericans have to put up

with. The deteriorating socio*economic situation ma$es it incumbent upon the president to let

go of this war which would distract !mericans from the fights that matter and would add a

heavy burden on the shoulders of the already hard*pressed citi%ens. Cause here helps depict

Bush as a leader how does not care for his people .e ta$es critical decisions rec$lessly, ta$es

uncalculated ris$s lightly. &adam is also negatively represented as a callous power*hungry

leader who +butchers+ his own people +to secure+ his power. The use serves the persuasive

function, Obama gives a why and how for every point he raises. Thus, appealing to the

rational faculties of the audience.

&econd to cause, comes manner "2?.2 E#. Obama employs different subcategories of

manner, mostly, quality and means. !s the discourse develops, it becomes clear that Bush and

&adam are represented in a negative light, not only through their actions but most

prominently through the circumstance associated with the process. On the other hand,

Obama+s processes are always positively represented . &adam will fall +in the way all petty

dictators fall+, so there is no need to fight +in vain+ or to travel this path +blindly+. The picture is

vividly represented through the use of the concession + irrespective of the costs in lives lost

and in hardships borne.+ The war is a rec$less uncalculated ris$ whose ramifications outweigh

its benefits. Obama , however, calls for reform measure to be ta$en domestically and

internationally. These measures are clearly defined in terms of means, they would not happen

in a vacuum. e does not want to seem li$e an idealistic opposition figure who calls for a far*

fetched goals. Instead, he proposes the way they should be implemented + through

coordinated intelligence+ through an energy policy=+. The viable road map is full*fledged.

The use of location " spatio* temporal# comes third in place "22.?E#,Obama uses very

specific temporal and spatial details whether when he discusses past or current events. This

adds a sense of specificity and evidentiality

to his statements. It also enhances his credibility.

The use of + now+, +before you+, +today+ is there, the practice conforms to the tradition of giving

speeches. Obama also in an attempt to establish his identity as a man who comes from anoble family , he specifies where his grandfather fought + in 6atton+s army+ + across the fields

of <urope+ + after 6earl arbor was bombed+ which is the reason behind the &econd 7orld

7ar. (iving little chance for refutation or any smear campaigns to rob him off his

patriotism. e also expounds on his earlier stance of supporting the government+s decision +

after &eptember --+ which he later on opposes after discovering that the war is a mere+

political hac$+. !ccompaniment and role are not frequently used , both account for E of the

circumstance used . Get, through them he asserts that they have a fight with +bin 5aden+ whose

root causes are the tough reality the youth in the 8iddle <ast experience + without education+

+without hope+. On the other hand, the impending war can be avoided through cooperating

with the +international community+.

20



"articipants

The reality represented here refers to different persons and entities as active actors.

'or the scope of this research and for tracing the representation of self and other, the use of

'irst person and &econd person pronouns is analy%ed. !ccording to the quantitative analysis,

+I+ is used -4 times occupying the role of an active actor who is willing to fight and +ta$e up

arms+ in clause "->#, if necessary yet, +I+ is also the senser of + $nowing+ certain phenomena

that suggest otherwise"see clause 92*9/#. +I+ is the also the carrier that does have any +illusions+

about &addam ussien. The recurrent repetition of +I+ helps establishing Obama+s identity as

a powerful opposition figure who dares to express his concern. It also helps emphasi%e the

points he specifically opposes through the use of the 6seudo cleft structure " see clause-*29#

as discussed in the commentary of the mar$ed themes.

The sense of an opposition leader who is full of himself and his ideology is mitigated

through the use of + 7e+ times. +7e+ establishes a sense of a group identity .7e, !mericans,

need such and such, we will fight certain fights, we +will not travel down the hellish path+.

Obama does not go for any polari%ed classification addressing a certain political party or

affiliation. e portrays himself as spea$ing on behalf of and for all !mericans.

The significant use of +you+ is noteworthy. Obama explicitly uses +you+ 4 times addressing

(eorge Bush as a vocative.

Gou want a fight, 6resident Bush

&uch a use of +you+ presupposes the existence of I and 7e, Obama who is the voice of

!mericans.

&uch a representation serves two functions simultaneously. Obama represents himself as an

audacious figure who dares to challenge the president of the most powerful country. It also

portrays Bush as a leader who turns his bac$ on his people, turns a deaf ear to their demands.

Bush wants to ta$e a path different from the path nation wishes to ta$e.

Obama uses you, though omitted, to refer to the audience as discussed in the causative

processes shows.

Obama tries to portray a version of reality that embraces all the ma)or players in this power

game.

..2 Ideational Metafunction- 0ogico%semantic )elations

!ccording to the analysis, logico*semantic relations are not frequently used by

Obama. They are used only in ->.9E of the text. Two things need to be highlighted in this

regard. 'irst, the noticeable lac$ of logic*semantic relations does not affect the cohesion orthe coherence of the message. &econd, the coherence of the message can be attributed to the

21



s$illful use of discourse mar$ers that are excluded from this analysis as they fall under the

continuity ad)uncts. They do not lin$ two ad)acent clauses. Instead, they provide the

framewor$ of the interpretation of the textual meaning by relating it to what has been said

before. Obama voices out a certain stance to argue against waging war then he will use +but+

to highlight the fact that he is still against &adam.

Bac$ to logico*semantic relations, Obama employs parataxis more than hypotaxis in

the speech. ypotaxis is used 9 times only compared to ? instances of parataxis. &uch a use

supports the notion that he discusses causes and concepts that are of equal importance.

<xtension relations are the most frequently used, ma$ing up ?3E of logico*semantic

relations. In extension relation, addition tops the list, being used > times , compared to one

use of adversative relations . <xtension contributes to the continuity of the text. Obama adds

different equally important reasons for his opposition, the successive use of +and+ exercises a

certain forceful influence on the audience stressing the cogent evidence* based argument of

Obama.

The use of the adversative +yet in clause 0 in paragraph- +, at the outset of the speech, helps

to establish Obama+s identity as an eloquent orator, as a patriotic citi%en who is for glorious

wars. It also set the ground for the argument . <nhancing relations are used twice in the

speech. !gain, at the beginning of the speech, in clause "2# in paragraph -, Obama uses

+although+ to explain that contrary to the label given to his rally + anti*war+, he does not

+oppose+ all wars in all circumstances.

The use of adversative and concession is significant: Obama is after dispelling any

misconceptions the audience might have regarding his stance. e corrects and contradicts thefalse impressions to pave the road for his argument. Causal relation is used once at the end

of the speech, Obama in clause"09# in paragraph argues that corruption and oppression in

the 8iddle <ast are the main causes of the advent of terrorism . e calls for addressing these

root causes rather than attending to the symptoms only. 5ogico*semantic relations, though

relatively few, add emphasis to the argument. Obama uses them well. e beings with

adversative and concession, moves on to additive relations and finally concludes with causal

one.

22



. Textual rganiation

..1 Mar4ed Themes

"seudo%,left Structures- $Identifying theme&$Thematic e+uati(e&

Clause

number

<xample egree on the scale of

mar$edness

15 7hat I am opposed to is a dumb war. ighly 8ar$ed

Theme @heme

26 7hat I am opposed to is a rash war. ighly 8ar$ed

Theme @heme

21 7hat I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by@ichard 6erle and 6aul

=

ighly 8ar$ed

Theme @heme

22 7hat I am opposed to is the attempt by political

hac$s li$e Narl @ove to

distract us

ighly 8ar$ed

Theme @heme

23 That+s what I+m opposed to. ighly 8ar$ed

@eversed 6seudo*Cleft

&tructureTheme @heme

,left structure $"redicated theme&

Clause

number

<xample egree on the scale of

mar$edness

0,> and yet it was only

through the crucible of

the sword, the sacrifice

of multitudes,

that we could begin to

perfect this union, and

drive the scourge of

slavery from our soil.

ighly 8ar$ed

Theme @heme

23



Fronting

,lause num*er xample Type Degree on the scale

of mar4edness

-0 !fter

&ept. --,

after

witnessing

the

carnage ...

I supported this

administration+s

pledge

!d)unct of time 5ess 8ar$ed

Theme @heme

4- &o for

those of us

who see$

a more

)ust=,

let us send a

clear message

to the president

today.

'ronting of

Circumstance

5ess 8ar$ed

Theme @heme

94 in the way

of all petty

dictators,

he falls away

into the dustbin

of history.

'ronting of

Circumstance

5ess 8ar$ed

Theme @heme

..2 )esults of the analysis of the mar4ed themes

Mar4ed Themes Total num*er of

clauses

Fre+uency "ercentage

8ar$ed themes in the

text

>- -0 E

ighly 8ar$ed

themes

> >>.> E

.7 )epetition

,lause num*er item traced 8um*er ofoccurrences

24



?,-4,-?,9 I don+t oppose all wars 4 times in 9 successive

paragraphs .

-,23,2-,22,29 7hat I am opposed to is 0 times

-,29,43 a dumb war 9 times

23,29 a rash war 2 times42,44,0-,04 Gou want a fight, 6resident Bush 4 times in 9 successive

paragraphs.

-/,92,90,9? I $now1I also $now 4 times

40,02,00 5et+s fight 9 times

40,02 5et+s fight to ma$e sure 2 times

0,0/,>- sacrifice 4 times

,-2 fought 2 times

-9,42,49,44,40,0-,02,04,00,0> fight -3 times

.9 "arallelism

,lause

num*er

"arallel Structures Grammatical

,onstruction

Function

-2,-0 in the name of a larger freedom x

in the name of intolerance

in the name of noun Contrast

-0,2- pledge to hunt down and root out those

who would slaughter innocents in the

name of intolerance

x attempt =.to shove their own

ideological agendas down our throats,

irrespective of the costs in lives lost and

in hardships borne.

nouninfinitive

prepositional phrases

Contrast

24 ! war based not on reason x but on

passion, not on principle x but on

politics.

notonnoun,

but onnoun

Contrast

22 a rise in the uninsured x a rise in the

poverty rate x a drop in the median

income

a "indefinite article#

noun preposition noun

build*on

emphasis

9> of undetermined length x atundetermined cost x with undetermined

consequences.

preposition ad)ectivenoun build*onemphasis

9/ without a clear rationale x and without

strong international support

without ad)ectivenoun build*on

emphasis

09 without education, without prospects,

without hope

withoutnoun build*on

emphasis

2 defied resolutions x thwarted

inspection teams x developed chemical

and biological weapons, and x coveted

nuclear capacity

verbnoun build*on

emphasis

02 oppressing their own people, x andsuppressing dissent, x and tolerating

verbal nounnoun build*onemphasis

25



corruption and inequality, x and

mismanaging their economies

9/ will only fan the flames of the 8iddle

<ast, x and encourage the worst, rather

than best, impulses of the !rab world, x

and strengthen the recruitment arm ofal*Daida

verb noun "ob)ect# build*on

emphasis

.: ;se of nominal groups instead of clauses

clause

num*er

8ominal groups

0? The battles against ignorance and intolerance.

Corruption and greed.6overty and despair

2? e is a brutal man. ! ruthless man.29 ! dumb war. ! rash war

.5. Implications and ,ommentary

Textual Metafunction

26



The way writers organi%e their message reveals the texture of the message and brings to light

the underlying concerns and ideology of the writers. Obama presents a well*$nitted, well *

thought and well*organi%ed text. The thematic organi%ation reflects the argument line.

.5.1 Mar4ed themes

8ost of the thematic choices are unmar$ed, reserving the sub)ect for the theme

position. Get, mar$ed themes are adeptly employed. They ma$e up "-0 E# of the text. 8ore

than half of those mar$ed themes are highly mar$ed ones ">>.>E#.Of particular prominence

is the use of 6seudo*cleft "0 times# and cleft structure "- time #. 'ronting is also s$illfully

used, circumstance of time, manner and behalf are thematised in a way that adds a certain

emphasis to the message. 5ess 8ar$ed themes ma$e up " 99.4E# of the mar$ed themes.

8ar$ed themes help develop the message. These choices indicate a change in the

framewor$ of the interpretation of the message. They serve as a new departure point for the

argument. They ta$e the message to a new level that is contradictory to the previous stretch.

The speech begins by recounting the battles Obama+s grandfather fought stressing his

heroism. e further goes to assert the fruitful outcome the Civil 7ar has brought.

and JyetK it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, "># that we

could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

Get, now he has his own reasons to oppose this war. The mar$ed theme signals the

shift. 8oreover, the message conveys a certain emphasis, exclusiveness and contrast. The

focus of the message is on the identifier part the second part "the rheme#. Obama stresses the

fact that this war is +dumb+ and +rash+ . It will squander the country+s resources that should bespent on improving the situation of the marginali%ed and the disenfranchised. e is against

this very war. &uch stance may vary if the war is worth fighting. That is where the sense of

contrast and exclusiveness comes in.

-#7hat I am opposed to is a dumb war. "23#7hat I am opposed to is a rash war. "2-#7hat I

am opposed to is the cynical attempt by @ichard 6erle and 6aul 7olfowit% and other

armchair, wee$end warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas

down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

"22#7hat I am opposed to is the attempt by political hac$s li$e Narl @ove to distract us froma rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income L to distract us

from corporate scandals and a stoc$ mar$et that has )ust gone through the worst month since

the (reat epression." 29#That+s what I+m opposed to.

The mar$ed themes clearly reflect the negative representation of Bush and his

administration.

27



Fronting

"-0# !fter &ept. --, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I

supported this administration+s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter

innocents in the name of intolerance, "->#JandK I would willingly ta$e up arms myself to

prevent such tragedy from happening again.

Obama thematises the time ad)unct to let !mericans $now that he is mindful of the

tragic events that has wrea$ed havoc upon his country. e is not in any sense unpatriotic or

apologetic of any terrorist activity. e goes on later in the speech to say that &adam will

inevitably fall + in the way of all petty dictators+ , thematising the circumstance negates any

misconception the audience might have regarding Obama+s stance on &adam Organi%ing the

message this way helps focus on the fact that Obama has supported the decision to +root out+

terrorists, he now opposes the decision to wage a war as it would aggravate those terrorists as

he point out later in the speech.

In an attempt to mobili%e the audience to resist that dominant ideology, he fronts

circumstance of behalf, appealing to the noble universal values they believe in, ta$ing into

consideration the crushing socio*economic realities they have to accept.

"4-#&o for those of us who see$ a more )ust and secure world for our children, let us send a

clear message to the president today.

Text%*uilding and )hetorical de(ices

.5.2 "arallelism and )epetition

28



)epetition

!s the analysis shows, repetition is used many times in the speech. Certain lexical

items, phrases and whole clause are reiterated. The fact that the speech is relatively short

ma$es repetition an outstanding feature. (enerally spea$ing, repetition has a cohesive role

that connects the text together. Get, it does not stop at this, it goes far beyond that. It serves a

rhetorical function.

@ecurrent lexemes, phrases and clauses constitute the crux of the message. They can

perfectly summari%e the speech. Obama says +I don+t oppose all wars+ four times in three

successive paragraphs. e goes on to elaborate on his stance by repeating the pseudo*cleft

structure +what I am opposed to+ five times. e $eeps repeating the label he attributed to this

war +dumb war+ and +rash war+ three times. e goes directly to challenge Bush with a powerful

rhetorical question that he $eeps as$ing for four times +Gou want a fight, 6resident Bush+ The

questions stir the thoughts and mindsets of the audience. It lets them ponder on a salient

issue. Obama expects no answer in return. To maximi%e the effect of the question Obama

provides the answer of this question, drawing a viable road map with no +sacrifice+ through

the repetition of +let+s fight+ three times. The contrast is underscored through the dichotomy

between +you want a fight+ and +I $now+ followed by reasons accounting for the possibility of

avoiding this war due to +dire consequences+. Both of these phrases are repeated four times.

The repetition has helped shape a cogent message that can resonate with people. It

enhances the construction of the meanings explicitly and implicitly conveyed in the mental

modes of the audience. 'urthermore, it adds emphasis to his argument: it also creates a

profound lasting impression on the audience. The emotional impact it generates is immediate.It directly exercises an irresistible influence over the minds of the audience.

"arallelism

6arallelism helps Obama create rhythm and balance in his speech. It also helps him

present the argument clearly, concisely, smoothly and effectively. 6arallelism is pleasing to

the ear .It ma$es the message musical and thus easy to recall. The efficient use of parallelism

reflects the oratory power Obama masters. e cares about the content as much as he cares

about the form. The effect his words have on the audience is of great importance to him. This

is why he tries to enhance the melodious and harmonious nature of the speech. <xamples of

parallel structures abound in the speech. They are noteworthy. Obama uses different $inds of

parallelism to serve different purposes to convey his point. The contrast persists and is even

further enhanced through the parallel structures.

There is a contrast between the !mericans and the terrorists. Obama+s grandfather fought +in

the name of a larger freedom+, while the terrorists slaughter +in the name of intolerance+. The

ideals behind the wars vastly vary. This contributes to the positive self*representation and

negative other representation.

The contrast now is held between what Bush calls for and what he is really after.

29



pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of

intolerance+ +

x +attempt =.to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the

costs in lives lost and in hardships borne+. "clause -2,-0#

Obama reveals what he believes is the quintessence of the war on Iraq through the adept use

of parallel structure as if he negating all the propaganda campaign.

+! war based not on reason x but on passion, not on principle x but on politics.+

"clause 24#

The second function parallelism serves is stressing equally important points as if

Obama is going for a build*on emphasis. Obama is of the opinion that the war is an attempt

to distract the !mericans from the deteriorating living conditions that need urgent

addressing. e enumerates these problems as equally important to one another. 8ost

importantly, theses pressing challenges are far more important than the impending war. By

appealing to everyday difficulties, Obama rubs the wound and identify himself with the low*

income and middle income brac$ets in an attempt to win their minds and hearts. The parallel

structures give the utterance a certain force.

a rise in the uninsured x a rise in the poverty rate x a drop in the median income."clause 22#

Obama enumerates why this war is not worth it.

without a clear rationale x and without strong international support "clause 9/#

of undetermined length x at undetermined cost x with undetermined consequences.

.5.3 The use of nominal groups

The use of nominal groups instead of full cluases is another feature that stands out in

the speech. One common factor between these groups is that fact that they are all of a

negative sense. Obama uses this device three times. 'irst, when he asserts that this war is

pointless he says +dumb war1 +rash war+ as if they constitute a whole sentence. &econd , he

uses + ruthless man+ to describe &adam.

Third, he uses nominal groups when he describes the causes that are worth fighting for.

+The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. 6overty and despair.+

Obama stresses the negative attributes through these resonating coupling and grouping.

The speech that represents the second part of the analysis was delivered by (eorge

Bush from the Cross all in the 7hite ouse on Tuesday -/ 8arch 2339, )ust a few days

before the military invasion of Iraq. In addition to being an ultimatum speech, it contains the

implicit and explicit ideologies of its spea$er. The following analysis covers the ideational

30



metafunction in the speech and it also touches upon the textual metafunction, specifically

highlighting the mar$ed themes.

. !nalysis.1 Ideational Metafunction

"aragraph 1

Clause

o.

6articipant 6rocess 6articipant Circumstance

- <vents in Iraq have...reached the final days of

decision

now

!ctor 8aterial (oal 5ocationM temporal

2 the nited &tatesand other nations have pursued patient and honorableeffort= 'or more than adecade


9 That regime 6ledged to reveal and destroy all

its weapons of mass

destruction

as a condition for

ending the 6ersian

(ulf 7ar in --

&ayer Ferbal Ferbiage ContingencyM

condition

4 the world has engaged in -2 years of diplomacy &ince then

!ctor 8aterial &cope 5ocationM temporal

0 7e have passed more than a do%en

resolutions

in the nited

ations &ecurity

Council

!ctor 8aterial (oal 5ocationM spatial

> 7e have sent hundreds of weapons

inspectors

to oversee the

disarmament of Iraq

!ctor 8aterial (oal CauseM purpose

? Our good faith has not been

returned

(oal 8aterial

"aragraph 2

Clause 6articipant 6rocess 6articipant Circumstance

31



ere, PthatQ is used generating a pro#ection hypotactic relation with clause - and the

following subordinate clause presenting the idea confirmed by the intelligence that the Iraqi

regime owns weapons of mass destruction. This further highlights the perception that the &

and the other countries of the world are dealing with aggressive men.

"aragraph

Clause

o.


- The regime as a history of rec$less

aggression

in the 8iddle <ast

Carrier @elational !ttribute 5ocationM spatial

2 It as a deep hatred of

!merica and our

friends

Carrier @elational !ttribute9 It has aided,

trained, and

harbored

terrorists including

operatives of al Daeda

!ctor 8aterial (oal

"aragraph

Clause o. 6articipant 6rocess 6articipant Circumstance

- The danger is clear

Carrier @elational attribute

2 the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions

!ctor 8aterial (oal

9 $ill thousands or hundreds

of thousands of

innocent people

"-#in our country,

"2#or any other

!ctor 8aterial (oal "-#5ocationM spatial

"2# !ccompaniment

"aragraph 7

Clause

o.


- The nited &tates

and other nations

did nothing to deserve or invite

this threat

!ctor 8aterial (oal CauseM reason

33



2 7e will do everything to defeat it


9 7e will set a course toward safety


4 this danger will be removed

goal 8aterial0ogico%semantic relations

In clause 2, there is a use of PbutQ "expansion%extension%ad(ersati(e# establishing a

paratactic relation with the previous clause. Bush, here, uses this adversative coordinator to

show the contrast between the image of the & and other nations as victims who did nothing

to deserve the threat of &addam ussein and the other image of the & as the powerful nation

that will do everything to prevent and defeat that threat. Bush continues to stress on this idea

by using Pinstead ofQ "expansion%extension% replaci(e# in a hypotactic way lin$ing clause 9

with the previous one. ere, he replaces being victims who surrender to tragedy with being

the powerful people who will ma$e their way toward safety.

"aragraph 9

Clause

o.


- The nited

&tates of

!merica

as the sovereign

authority

to use force in assuring

its own national

security

To$en @elational Falue CauseM purpose

2 That duty falls to me "-#as Commander*in*

chief, "2#by the oath I

have sworn, "9#by the

oath I will $eep

Falue @elational To$en "-#@oleM guise

"2#8annerM means

"9# 8annerM means

"aragraph :

Clause

o.


- the nited &tatesCongress

Foted "-#overwhelmingly"2#last year "9# to

34



support the use of force

against Iraq.

!ctor 8aterial "-#8annerM quality

"2#5ocationM temporal

"9#CauseM purpose

2 !merica tried to wor$ "-#with the nited ations "2#to address

this threat

!ctor 8aterial "-#!ccompaniment

"2#CauseM purpose

9 7e believe in the mission of the

nited ations

&enser 8ental 6henomenon

4 One reason the

was founded

after the second

world war

was to confront

aggressive

dictators

actively and early

Falue @elational To$en 8annerM quality

0ogico%semantic relations

In this paragraph, there is a hypotactic relation between clause 2 and the following dependent

clause through the use of PbecauseQ "expansion%enhancing%causal #. The use of PbecauseQ

shows the representation of the & as a peaceful nation who resorts to the to resolve the

issue.

"aragraph 5

Clause

o.


- the &ecurity

Council

did act in the early -3s

!ctor 8aterial 5ocationM temporal

2 the nited &tates

and our allies

are authori%ed to use force in

ridding Iraq of

weapons of mass

destruction

(oal 8aterial CauseM purpose

9 This is not a question of authority

Carrier @elational !ttribute

4 it is a question of will


"aragraph 16

Clause

o.


- I 7ent "-#5ast &eptember

35



"2# to the (eneral

!ssembly

!ctor 8aterial "-#5ocationM temporal

"2#5ocationM spatial

2 urged the

nations of the world

to unite and

bring an endto this danger

&ayer Ferbal @eceiver Ferbiage

9 The &ecurity

Council

6assed @esolution -44- "-#On ovember /

"2#nanimously

!ctor 8aterial (oal "-#5ocationM temporal

"2#8annerM quality

4 finding Iraq in material breach of

its obligation

!ctor 8aterial (oal

0 vowing serious consequences

&ayer Ferbal Ferbiage


! hypotactic relation is created between clause 0 and the dependent one the follows through

the use of PifQ "expansion%enhancing%conditional#. sing the conditional here shows the

power of the & and, at the same time, minimi%es the power of Iraq as Bush is using the

conditional as a means of threatening Iraq with serious consequences if it does not disarm

immediately.

"aragraph 11

Clause

o.


- o nation can claim that Iraq has

disarmed

Today

&ayer Ferbal Ferbiage 5ocationM temporal

2 it will not disarm

!ctor 8aterial

9 the nited &tates

and our allies

have wor$ed "-#'or the last four*

and*a*half months"2#within the &ecurity

Council to enforce the

Council;s=


"2#CauseM purpose

4 &ome permanent

members of the

&ecurity Council

have=announced they will veto any

resolution that

compels the

disarmament of

Iraq

6ublicly

&ayer Ferbal Ferbiage 8annerM quality

36



0 These

governments

share our assessment of

the danger

!ctor 8aterial (oal

> 8any nations do have the resolve and

fortitude

to act against this

threat to peace

Falue @elational To$en CauseM purpose? a broad coalition is=gathering "-#now "2#to enforce

the )ust demands of

the world


"2#CauseM purpose

/ The nited

ations &ecurity

Council

has not lived up

to

its responsibilities

!ctor 8aterial (oal

7e will rise to ours!ctor 8aterial (oal

0ogico% semantic relations

There are several logico*semantic relations in this paragraph. In clause -, there is a pro)ection

hypotactic relation created by the use of PthatQ pro)ecting a locution of the claim which no

nation can ma$e. In clause 4, PyetQ "expansion% extension% ad(ersati(e# creates a paratactic

relation with the previous independent clause showing the contrast between the & who

wor$s with the to disarm Iraq and some other members of the &ecurity Council who will

veto compelling Iraq to disarm. There is a hypotactic relation established between clause 0

and the following one by the use of PbutQ "expansion%extension%ad(ersati(e#. This use of PbutQ here shows that although those governments will veto the resolutions that the &

supports, they are still in its group as they share its assessment of danger. It also shows the

contrast between those governments and that of the & which has more resolve and

determination to face the danger. This idea is emphasi%ed by using PhoweverQ " expansion%

extention%ad(ersati(e # in a paratactic way in clause >. There are other two paratactic

relationsM the first is in clause ? using PandQ "expansion%extension%additi(e# to confirm the

idea that many nations in the world are in the same group as the &: and the second

paratactic relation is in clause through the use of PsoQ "expansion%enhancing%causal #.

"aragraph 12

Clause

o.


- some governments

in the middle east

have been

doing

their part In recent days


2 They have delivered public and private

messages =

!ctor 8aterial (oal

9 e has=refused 'ar

&ayer Ferbal 8annerM quality4 !ll the decades of have=reached an end ow

37



deceit and cruelty


0 &addam ussein

and his sons

must leave Iraq within 4/ hours


> Their refusal to doso

will result in military conflict,commenced at a

time of our choosing

!ctor 8aterial (oal

? all foreign

nationals=

should leave Iraq "-#'or their own

safety "2# immediately

!ctor 8aterial (oal "-#CauseM purpose

"2#8annerM quality

"aragraph 13

Clause

o.


- 8any Iraqis can hear me tonight

&enser 8ental 6henomenon 5ocationM temporal

2 I have a message for them

Carrier @elational !ttribute CauseM behalf

9 it will be directed "-#against the lawless

men who rule your

country "2#and not

against you(oal 8aterial "-#CauseM behalf

"2#!ccompaniment

4 we will deliver the food and

medicine you need

!ctor 8aterial (oal

0 7e will tear down the apparatus of

terror

!ctor 8aterial (oal

> we will help you to build a new Iraq=


? there will be no more wars ofaggression=

In a free Iraq

<xistential existent 5ocationM spatial

/ The tyrant will=be gone &oon

(oal 8aterial 5ocationM temporal

The day of your

liberation

is near



There is a paratactic relation between clause - and 2 through the use of PandQ " expansion%extension%additi(e#. ! hypotactic relation is created between clause 9 and the previous

38



dependent one by using PifQ $expansion%enhancing%conditional& which shows the might of

the & to start a military campaign. !nother hypotactic relation is made between clause 4 and

the previous dependent one by using PasQ "expansion% enhancing% spatio%temporal#

showing that despite the might the & has to minimi%e the power of the Iraqi regime, the &

is a merciful and peaceful nation that is here to help the Iraqi people. The very same idea isenhanced through PandQ "expansion%extension%additi(e# which creates a paratactic relation

between clause 0 and clause > of this paragraph.

"aragraph 1

Clause

o.


- It is too late for &addam ussein

to remain in power

Carrier @elational !ttribute CauseM behalf

2 It is not too late "-#'or the Iraqimilitary="2#by

permitting= "9#to

eliminate weapons=

Carrier @elational !ttribute "-# CauseM behalf

"2# 8annerM means

"9# CauseM purpose

9 Our forces will give Iraqi

military

units

clear

instruction

=

to avoid being

attac$ed and

destroyed

!ctor 8aterial @ecipient goal CauseM purpose

4 I urge every

member

of the

Iraqi

military..

do not fight

for a dying

regime=

&ayer Ferbal @eceiver Ferbiage


In clause 4, there is a use of PifQ "expansion%enhancing%conditional# in a hypotactic way.

The conditional here also shows the power of the & represented in its ability to start a war

and in the fact that it is giving orders and instructions to members of the Iraqi military and

intelligence even before the war actually starts.

"aragraph 1

Clause

o.


- all Iraqi

military and

should listen= to this warning carefully

39



civilian

personnel

Behaver Behavioural @ange 8annerM quality

2 your fate will depend on your action in any conflict


9 o not destroy oil wells8aterial (oal

4 o not obey any command=

8aterial (oal

0 7ar crimes will be

prosecuted

(oal 8aterial

> 7ar criminals will be punished

(oal 8aterial

? it will be no defense to say=


"aragraph 17

Clause

o.


- the !merican

people

can $now that every measure=

&enser 8ental 6henomenon

2 every measure will be ta$en to win it

(oal 8aterial CauseM purpose9 !mericans understand the costs of conflict

&ender 8ental 6henomenon

4 7ar has no certainty



There is a hypotactic relation between clause - and the dependent one that precedes through

the use of PshouldQ "expansion%enhancing%conditional#. The conditional here shows that

this war is the fault of &addam ussein: it highlights the idea that the & is a victim who is

threatened by &addam ussein but, at the same time, it has the power to defeat him. Thisnotion of being victims but powerful at the same time is highlighted through the use of PandQ

"expansion%extension%additi(e# in a paratactic way in clause 2. Fiewing the & as a victim

is even more obvious through the use of PbecauseQ "expansion%enhancing%causal # in clause

9 and PexceptQ "expansion%extension%(ariation%su*tracti(e# in clause 4, both establishing

hypotactic relations.

"aragraph 19

Clause o.


40



- the only way to

reduce the harm

and duration=

is to apply the full force

and might of our

military

Falue @elational To$en

2 we are prepared to do so

Carrier @elational !ttribute9 he will remain a deadly foe until the end

Carrier @elational !ttribute 5ocationM temporal

4 he and terrorist

groups

might try to

conduct

terrorist operations against the

!merican people=

!ctor 8aterial (oal CauseM behalf

0 These attac$s are not inevitable


> They are 6ossible


? this fact underscores the reason that =6henomenon 8ental &enser

/ The terrorist

threat =

will be

diminished

the moment that

&addam=

(oal 8aterial 5ocationM temporal


The idea of victimi%ing the self expressed in paragraph -> is contradicted in paragraph -?

through the use of PyetQ "expansion%extension%ad(ersati(e # in a paratactic way in clause -.

There is another paratactic relation between clause - and 2 by the use of PandQ "expansion%

extension%additi(e# expressing the power of the &. The same idea continues in the

hypotactic relation in clause 9,using PifQ "expansion%enhancing%conditional#. !nother

paratactic relation is established between clause 0 and clause > through the use of PhoweverQ

"expansion%extension%ad(ersati(e#.

"aragraph 1:

Clause

o.


- Our

government

is on heightened watch against these dangers

Carrier @elational !ttribute CauseM behalf 2 7e are ta$ing further actions to protect our homeland


9 !merican

authorities

have expelled certain individuals

with ties to=

"-# In recent days

"2# from the country

!ctor 8aterial (oal "-#5ocationM temporal


4 I have directed additional security

of=

&ayer Ferbal Ferbiage

0 Increased Coast (uard 6atrols

of=

!ctor 8aterial (oal

41



> The

epartment of

omeland

&ecurity

is wor$ing "-#closely

"2#with the nation;s

governors "9#to increase

armed security=

!ctor 8aterial "-#8annerM quality

"2#!ccompaniment"9#CauseM purpose

"aragraph 15

Clause

o.


- they would be

attempting "-#to

shift "2#and

wea$en

"-#our attention

"2#our morale

!ctor 8aterial "-#R"2#(oal

2 they would fail

!ctor 8aterial

9 o act of theirs "-#can alter

"2#or sha$e

"-#The course

"2#the resolve of =

!ctor 8aterial (oal

4 7e are a peaceful people


0 7e ;re not a fragile people

Carrier @elational !ttribute> we will not be

intimidated

by thugs and $illers

&enser 8ental 8annerM means

? they and all who

have aided them

will face fearful

consequences

!ctor 8aterial (oal


In clause -, there is a hypotactic relation created by the use of PshouldQ "expansion%

enhancing%conditional#. ere, the use of the conditional indicates the power of the & and

minimi%es the power of its enemies. The very same concept is obvious in the use of PifQ

"expansion%enhancing%conditional# establishing a hypotactic relation between clause ? and

the preceding dependent one. The contrast between the two images of the & being a

peaceful but a powerful nation comes to the fore again by the use of PyetQ "expansion%

extension%ad(ersati(e# in clause 0 and the use of PandQ "expansion%extension%additi(e# in

clause >.

"aragraph 26

Clause

o.


- 7e are=acting now

42



!ctor 8aterial 5ocationM temporal

2 the power of

Iraq=

would be

multiplied=

"-#In one year,"2# or

five years

(oal 8aterial "-#5ocationM temporal

9 &addam ussein

and his terroristallies

could choose the moment of

deadly conflict

!ctor 8aterial (oal

4 7e choose to meet that threat ow



There is a hypotactic relation in clause - made by the use of PbecauseQ "expansion%

enhancing%causal#. !nother hypotactic relation is created between clause 9 and the

dependent clause that follows through the use of PwhenQ "expansion% enhancing% spatio%

temporal#. In clause 4, the use of PwhereQ "expansion% enhancing% spatio%temporal# alsocreates a hypotactic relation. Those three hypotactic relations are used to express the idea that

the & has to start the war to save the world from the threat of &addam ussein now and not

later, or else the danger will be multiplied.

"aragraph 21

Clause

o.


- The cause of peace requires all free nations

to recogni%e..

!ctor 8aterial &cope

2 some chose to appease dictators= In the 23th century


9 a policy of

appeasement

could bring destruction of

a $ind never=

In this century



In this paragraph, there is a hypotactic relation created between clause 9 and the previous

dependent one through the use of PwhenQ "expansion% enhancing% spatio%temporal#.

"aragraph 22

Clause

o.


- Terrorists and

terror states

do not reveal these threats with a fair notice

!ctor 8aterial (oal 8annerM means

2 responding to such

enemies=

is not self*defense

Carrier @elational !ttribute9 it is suicide

43




4 The security of the

world

requires disarming

&addam ussein

now



There is a paratactic relation between clause - and clause 2 of this paragraph. It is created

through the use of PandQ "expansion%extension%additi(e#, confirming the idea that the &

and other nations of the world have to start this war to disarm the Iraqi regime now: and it

also brings bac$ the idea stressed all through the speech that the Iraqi regime of &addam

ussein is the danger that threatens the whole world.

"aragraph 23

Clause

o.


- we will also honor the deepest commitments

!ctor 8aterial (oal

2 we believe Iraqi people are deserving

and capable of=

nli$e &addam

ussein

&enser 8ental 6henomenon 8annerM

comparison

9 they can set an example=



There is a hypotactic relation in clause - created by the use of PasQ " expansion 'enhancing '

spatio%temporal#, emphasi%ing the positive side of the & and showing that its actions

conform to the )ust demands of the world. !nother hypotactic relation can be seen in clause 2

in the use of Punli$eQ "expansion%extension%additi(e%negati(e addition#. This relation,

together with the hypotactic relation in clause -, indicates a contrast between the peaceful

civili%ed regime of the & and the aggressive violent regime of Iraq that does not even

respect its own people. The hypotactic relation in clause 9 with the use of PwhenQ

"expansion%enhancing% spatio%temporal# highlights the same concept.

"aragraph 2

Clause

o.


- The nited &tates will wor$ "-#with other countries

"2#to advance liberty and

peace

"9#in that region

!ctor 8aterial "-#!ccompaniment

"2#CauseM purpose


2 Our goal will not beachieved

overnight

44



(oal 8aterial 8annerM quality

9 it can come Over time

!ctor 8aterial 8annerM quality

4 The power and

appeal of human

liberty

is felt in every life and every land

6henomenon 8ental 5ocationM spatial

0 the greatest power

of freedom

is to overcome

hatred and

violence, and

turn =

Falue @elational To$en


There is a paratactic relation between clause 2 and clause 9 created by PbutQ " expansion%

extension% ad(ersati(e#. It shows that the goal of the & and other countries in Iraq will not

be achieved overnight. This may indicate that the & has been planning to spend a relatively

long time in Iraq.

"aragraph 2

Clause

o.


- That is the future we choose

To$en @elational Falue

2 'ree nations have a duty to defend our

people

by uniting against

the violentCarrier @elational !ttribute 8annerM means

9 !merica and our

allies

accept that responsibility

!ctor 8aterial (oal

.2 )esults of the !nalysis of Transiti(ity

"rocess

Total num*er of clauses -29

"rocess Fre+uency "ercentage8aterial ?2 0/.09 E

@elational 2 29.0? E

8ental -- /.4 E

Ferbal ?.92 E

<xistential - 3./- E

Behavioural - 3./- E

Table "-# process analysis results

!s table "-# shows, the most frequently used type of process in Bush;s speech is the

material process. It is used in ?2 clauses out of -29 with a percentage of 0/.09. The secondmost frequent type of process used is relational process. It is employed in 2 clauses, which

45



means 29.0? E of the clauses in the speech. The third most highly used type of process is the

mental process "-- out of -29S /.4 E# and the fourth is the verbal process " out of -29S

?.92 E#. The processes used least are the existential process and the behavioural process:

each of them is used once "- out of -29sS 3./-E#. Other types of processes such as the

causative process and the ergative process are not used at all in the speech.

,ircumstance

Total num*er of circumstances -

Type of circumstance Fre+uency "ercentage

5ocation 90 9/.4> E

Cause 2> 2/.0? E

8anner 22 24.-? E

!ccompaniment 0 0.4 E

@ole 2 2.- E

Contingency - -.3 E

Table "2# circumstance analysis results

!s table "2# shows, the most frequently used type of circumstance in Bush;s speech is

location "90 out of -S 9/.4>E#. It is followed by cause "2> out of -S2/.0?E#. In the third

position comes manner as it is used 22 times out of - "24.-? E#. The least frequently used

types are accompaniment "0 out of - S0.4 E#, role "2 out of -S 2.-E# and contingency

"- out of -S -.3E#, respectively.

"articipants

6articipants are surely as varied as the types of processes used in the speech. They sometimes

refer to the &, the !merican people, the or its &ecurity Council, and sometimes they

refer to Iraq, the Iraqi regime or its people. owever, it may be of some importance to trace

the interesting use of pronouns in as participants in the speech.

"ronoun )eferent Fre+uency

'irst person "I# Bush 0 times

'irst person "7e# !mericans 20 times

&econd person "you# The Iraqi people 9 times

Table "9# personal pronouns as participants

.3 )esults of the !nalysis of 0ogico%semantic )elations

Total num*er of logico%semantic relations 9 out of -29 9-.?3 E

<ypotactic relations 24 out of 9 >-.09 E

"aratactic relations -0 out of 9 9/.4> E

6ro)ection 2 out of 9 0.-9 E <xpansion 9? out of 9 4./? E

46



<nhancing - out of 9? 0-.90 E

<xtension -/ out of 9? 4/.>4 E

<laboration 3 out of 9? 3 E

Table "4# result of logico*semantic relations analysis

!s the table shows, there are logico*semantic relations in 9 clauses of the total

number of -29 clauses. ypotactic relations are used in 24 clauses while paratactic relations

are used in only -0 clauses out of 9. <xpansion is used in 9? clauses out of 9 while

pro)ection is used in only 2 clauses. 8oreover, the most frequent type of expansion relations

used in the speech is enhancing relations: it is employed in - clauses out of the 9? clauses

using expansion "- out of 9?S 0-.90 E#. <xtension is used in -/ clauses out of those 9?

clauses "-/ out of 9?S 4/.>4 E#, which ma$es it the second most frequent type of relation.The difference between the two types is, however, very little: they are almost equally used.

<laboration is not used at all in the speech.

. Implications and ,ommentary

The following part is a commentary presenting the implications inferred from (eorge

Bush;s war ultimatum speech based on the previous analysis that has covered the ideational

metafunction. This commentary is done within the framewor$ of critical discourse analysis

47



"C!#, focusing on self and other representation. 'or the purposes of this commentary, Pthe

selfQ refers to the spea$er, the & and any member of their ideological group, while Pthe

otherQ refers to &addam ussein, the Iraqi regime and any member of their ideological group.

..1 Ideational Metafunction- Transiti(ity

Material "rocesses

The results of the previous analysis of transitivity in Bush;s speech show that the most

frequently used type of process is the material process. It is used in 0/.09 E of the speech.

The second most frequent process is the relational process: used in 29.0? E of the clauses.

This extensive use of material processes and the huge difference in the frequency of

occurrence between material processes and relational processes may have a significance. The

first thing that comes to mind is that this big number of material processes may indicate that

the spea$er;s view or experience of the external world and reality is very material and is

largely based on actions, rather than ideas or emotions, for instance. ! closer loo$ at the

clauses using material processes in the speech reveals more about the underlying ideologies

of the spea$er regarding the self and the other. 'or example, out of the ?2 clauses employing

material processes, >2 clauses have actors. Out of those >2 clauses, 4> have actor and goal,

-9 have actor only and 2 have actor and scope. 8oreover, in 90 clauses out of the >2 "0>. 40

E# the actor is represented by the & or any member belonging to its ideological group,

whereas only 29 clauses "9?.3 E# have their actor as the Iraqi regime or any member of its

group. This means that the role of the self is shown as more dynamic than that of the other. In

other words, the & does not only participate a lot in the action, but also participates more

actively.

!dditionally, in almost all those clauses, the self is positively represented. The &, its

government and its people are represented as peaceful and civili%ed. 'or instance, they have

resorted to the and have made patient efforts to resolve the issue of disarming Iraq

without war. This can be seen in clauses 2, 0 and > of paragraph -, clauses 2 and 9 of

paragraph /, clauses - and 2 of paragraph -3 and in many other clauses. 8oreover, Bush and

the & are pictured as the saviours. They will not only save Iraq from the tyranny of &addam

ussein and his terrorist groups but will also protect !merica and the whole world against

this grave danger. 'or instance, in clauses 0 and > of paragraph -9, Bush addresses the Iraqi

people saying, P7e will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a newIraq that is prosperous and free.Q &imilarly, in paragraph >, !merica will do everything to

defeat the danger of &addam ussein and terrorists and Pwill set a course toward safety.Q This

idea extends until the last paragraph of the speech where the & and its allies are shown as

the ones who accept the responsibility of defending the nations of the world and Puniting

against the violent.Q

!nother idea through which the self is positively represented is the idea of unity. In

other words, the whole world is in the same team with the &. 'or example, first, the

!merican government is wor$ing with the and its &ecurity Council who have issued

resolutions supporting the !merican viewpoint that the Iraqi regime should be disarmed.

&econd, there are even some governments in the 8iddle <ast that agree with the & on the

48



necessity that the dictator, referring to &addam ussein, should leave Iraq. 8oreover,

although there are some of the permanent members of the &ecurity Council who have

declared that they will veto using force against Iraq, those members still share the &

assessment of danger but they )ust lac$ the resolve and courage to ta$e an action. In addition,

the & generally co*occur with words li$e Pour alliesQ, Pother nationsQ and Pour friendsQ,which emphasi%es the unity among the members of the self group. The self is also portrayed

as ma$ing the right decisions for the benefit of the whole world: what the & is doing is the

right thing for Pthe security of the worldQ and that the & is forming a broad coalition Pto

enforce the )ust demands of the worldQ.

This image of the self as the saviour of the world who is supported by every one may

logically signify another image depicting the & as powerful. This is simply because the one

who will save the world cannot possibly be represented as wea$. The power of the & is

obvious in many clauses using material processes as in clause 2 of paragraph where the &

is Pauthori%ed to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.Q !nother examplecomes in clauses 0 and > of paragraph -2 where Bush mentions that &addam ussein;s

refusal to leave Iraq will lead to a military conflict Pcommenced at a time of our choosing.Q

Besides, in paragraph -0, Bush uses the imperative form to address Iraqi military and civilian

personnel. The use of the imperative in the first place may indicate that the spea$er, or rather

the self, is represented as superior, more powerful and capable of ma$ing his addressees do

what they are as$ed.

!t the same time, the self is represented as merciful and peaceful. In paragraph -9, for

instance, Bush reassures Iraqi people that the !merican military campaign will not be

directed against them and that Pwe will deliver food and medicine you need.Q In some other

clauses of the speech, there is a tendency to victimi%ing the self, stating that the & Pdid

nothing to deserve or invite this threatQ and has tried to avoid war and use peaceful ways but

the approaching danger is forcing them to ta$e immediate actions.

The material processes used in the speech also reveal the ideological representation of

the other from the point of view of the spea$er. !s mentioned earlier, in only 29 clauses out

of the >2 that have actors, the other plays this role. This in itself may be seen as a negative

representation of the other. In fact, in 2- of these clauses, the other is negatively represented.

!ll through the speech, the Iraqi regime is pictured as dangerous, violent and aggressive. 'or

instance, as mentioned in clause - of paragraph 9, the Iraqi regime conceals Psome of the

most lethal weapons ever devisedQ and Pit has aided, trained, and harbored terroristsQ, as

stated in the following paragraph. &addam ussein, in many parts of the speech, is described

as Pthe dictatorQ and Pthe tyrantQ, his officials are Plawless menQ and both of them refuse to

enforce what the spea$er calls the )ust demands of the world, namely that they should leave

and allow Iraq to be disarmed. The Iraqi officials are also described as deceitful men who

have Pused diplomacy as a ploy.Q In addition, &addam ussein and the Iraqi regime almost

all through the speech co*occur with words li$e PterroristQ, Pterrorist groupsQ, PdangerQ,

PthreatQ, Pchemical, biological or nuclear weaponsQ and so on. !ll of such words clearly have

negative connotations. One final thing that also represents the other negatively is thespea$er;s use of the imperative form addressing Iraqi personnel. This pictures the other as

49



inferior and minimi%es its power. In only 2 clauses, there is a positive representation of the

other. The actor in these two clauses is some governments of the 8iddle <ast. Technically,

they are supposed to be in the group of the other. They are here positively represented only

because they are, practically, ta$ing the stance of the & and urging &addam ussein to leave

Iraq.

The huge number of material processes in the speech may have further implications.

The audience, listening to the speech, will encounter an enormous amount of actions: a large

amount of dangerous and violent actions ta$en by the other and a larger amount ta$en by the

self to protect its people and prevent the actions of the other. These two types of actions may,

to a great extent, intimidate the audience. ence, it can be said that the spea$er is depending

on intimidation as a means of convincing his audience of his stance. It may also be said that

the spea$er, using this number of actions, intends to show that there is no need to convince

his audience and that they already share the same basic stance and it is now the time to ta$e

actions depending on this stance.

)elational "rocesses

The analysis of the relational process in the speech has shown that they are employed

in 2 clauses, which means 29.0? E of the speech. This ma$es it the second most frequently

used type of process here. Careful observation of the clauses using the relational process

ma$es clear that, on the one hand, in most of such clauses "approximately >/ E# the self,

someone or something belonging to its group, is the carrier. In this case, the attribute always

bears a positive connotation. 'or instance, in clauses 4 and 0 of paragraph -, Bush states,

Pwe are a peaceful people A yet we;re not a fragile people.Q ere, again, the self isrepresented as peaceful and powerful at the same time. The idea of power is also obvious in

clause - of paragraph ? where the & is represented as having Pthe sovereign authority to use

force in assuring its own national security.Q In the following clause in the same paragraph,

Bush declares, Pthat duty falls to meQ, and in clause of paragraph -9, Bush addresses the

Iraqi people saying, Pthe day of your liberation is near.Q ere, the image of the spea$er and

the & as the saviours comes to the fore again.

On the other hand, few clauses of the 2 using the relational process "approximately

2? E# have the other, someone or something belonging to its group as the carrier. In all,

except one, of these clauses the attribute has a negative connotation. 'or example, in the firstand second clauses of paragraph 4, the Iraqi regime is pictured as having Phistory of rec$less

aggressionQ and Pa deep hatred of !merica and our friends.Q 8oreover, in clause 9 of

paragraph -?, the spea$er confirms that if &addam ussein refuses to leave Iraq, Phe will

remain a deadly foe.Q !ll these clauses emphasi%e the negative representation of the other in

the speech.

In only one of those clauses, the other has been positively represented. In clause 9 of

paragraph 29, the spea$er suggests that Pwhen the dictator has departed, they can set an

example to all the 8iddle <ast of a vital and peaceful and self*governing nation.Q This

sentence may actually imply a lot. 'irst, significantly, it comes near the end of the speech,

while all through the speech the other is negatively represented. &econd, in the dependent

50



clause at the beginning of this sentence, &addam, who belongs to the other group, is still

negatively represented, being described as a dictator. Third, PtheyQ, referring to the Iraqi

people, are not peaceful and self*governing people now: so, in the present time they are not

actually very positively represented. 'inally, the Iraqi people will be free, peaceful and self*

governing only in the future when &addam ussein is gone by the help of the &. ence,Iraq will be well represented when the & ma$es it well represented. ere, there is an

implied sense of hegemony.

Mental "rocesses

8ental processes come at the third position with a frequency of -- clauses, that is

/.4 E of the speech. In / out of those --, the senser is the self and the mental processes are

related to either cognition or emotions. In only - clause out of the --, the other is the senser

and the mental process here is related to perception. Consequently, it can be said that there is

a sense of superiority here, especially that emotions and cognition are relatively exclusive to

humans, unli$e perception, being based on senses.

In one of the clauses using mental processes: that is Pthe power and appeal of human

liberty is felt in every life and every landQ, the passive is used so the senser is completely

removed. The clause does not specify who exactly feels this Ppower and appeal of human

liberty.Q &upposedly, the ones who mostly feel it are the ones deprived of it. In this case, they

are the Iraqi people from the point of view of the spea$er. owever, they are still not used as

the senser in this clause. ence, this may imply that when the verb used in the mental process

expresses emotions, the spea$er either uses the self as the senser or prefers to completely

omit the senser, through using the passive, to giving the Iraqi people this role.

/er*al "rocesses

Ferbal processes are used only times with a percentage of ?.92, which ma$es them

the fourth most frequent type of processes in the speech. In 4 clauses out of those , the sayer

is the self, and in 9 clauses, the sayer is the other. This may show the self as more dynamic

and more actively participating in events. !dditionally, in all clauses where the self is the

sayer, it is positively represented. 'or instance, the spea$er has Purged the nations of the

world to unite and bring an end to this danger.Q e also Pdirected additional security of our

airports.Q ere, the self is depicted as the protector and the saviour of his country and thewhole world. On the contrary, the clauses in which the other is the sayer carry negative

implications. 'or example, the Iraqi regime has Ppledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons

of mass destruction.Q In the context of the speech, the Iraqi regime has not $ept this promise

and now &addam ussein has PrefusedQ to peacefully leave and disarm Iraq. 8oreover, the

Iraqi officials have, for years, PthreatenedQ weapon inspectors. Therefore, through verbal

processes, the other is pictured again as deceitful, aggressive and violent.

,ircumstance

!ccording to the previous analysis, the spea$er ma$es an extensive use of various

types of circumstances. &ome of those types can tell a lot about the ideological views of the

51



spea$er. Circumstances are employed in - clauses out of a total number of -29 clauses,

which ma$e up ?9./ E of the speech. The most frequently used type of circumstance is

location. It is used 90 times with a percentage of 9/.4>. This high frequency of locations may

have a significance. It may emphasi%e the material representation of reality the spea$er

adopts. This material representation is obviously not based on any types of actions, but it is based on real actions that have a certain time and a certain place. !lthough both spatial and

temporal locations are used, temporal locations are much more frequent as they are used in 20

clauses out of the 90 clauses that use location as circumstance, which ma$e up ?-.42 E. This

may also point out the chronological order present in many parts of the speech. 8oreover,

temporal locations underscores the informative nature of the speech. The spea$er is informing

the audience of actions that have happened in the past on certain dates, such as Plast yearQ in

clause - of paragraph / Pthe nited &tates Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to

support the use of force against IraqQ: Pin the early -3sQ in clause - of paragraph Pthe

&ecurity Council did act, in the early -3sQ: and Pon ovember /Q in clause 9 of paragraph

-3 POn ovember /, the &ecurity Council unanimously passed @esolution -44-.Q Those past

events are presented as facts that form the bases of present actions, such as PnowQ in clause ?

of paragraph -- Pa broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the )ust demands of the

worldQ: in clause 4 of paragraph 23 P7e choose to meet that threat nowQ and in clause 4 of

paragraph 22 PThe security of the world requires disarming &addam ussein now.Q

The second most frequently used type of circumstance is cause. It is used in 2>

clauses, which constitute 2/.0? E of the speech. It may be noteworthy that purpose is the

highest frequent type of cause in the speech: out of the 2> clauses the employ cause as a

circumstance, purpose is used -? times, which means >0.9/ E. This may indicate that the

spea$er intends to state the purposes of his actions rather than the reasons behind them. This

may pinpoint the idea mentioned earlier that the spea$er means to show that he is merely

delivering his speech to an audience that already has the same opinions and that there is no

need to provide reasons to persuade.

"articipants

!s mentioned in the analysis, the spea$er uses different types of participants referring

to different entities. owever, a closer loo$ at the use of personal pronouns, specifically PIQ,

PweQ and PyouQ may assist in revealing some the spea$er;s hidden ideologies. Based on the

analysis of personal pronouns, the pronoun PweQ is the most frequent. It is used 20 times

while the second most frequent pronoun is PIQ, used only 0 times. The least frequent pronoun

is PyouQ, used only 9 times. The spea$er;s extensive use of the pronoun PweQ may indicate

that his statements are based on the authority he has, being the 6resident of the nited &tates

of !merica who is spea$ing on behalf of all its people. It may also emphasi%e the idea of

unity discussed earlier. !dditionally, it may be considered significant that the pronouns PweQ

and PIQ, referring to !mericans and Bush respectively, are employed much more frequently

than PyouQ which refers to the Iraqi people. This may stress the positive representation of the

self and the negative representation of the other. This is obvious not only in the frequency but

also in the connotations of the clauses where the pronouns are used. In all those clauses, PweQand PIQ are the dynamic party who ta$es and will ta$e actions, while PyouQ is the helpless

52



party affected by those actions. Consequently, positive self representation is most clear here.

The self is represented as the powerful saviour as in clause 0 of paragraph -9 Pwe will tear

down the apparatus of terrorQ: as peaceful and civili%ed such as clause 9 of paragraph / Pwe

believe in the mission of the nited ationsQ and clause 4 of paragraph - Pwe are a peaceful

peopleQ: and as merciful such as clause 4 paragraph -9 Pwe will deliver the food andmedicine you need.Q

..2 Ideational Metafunction- 0ogico%semantic )elations

There are logico*semantic relations in 9-.?3 E of the clauses in Bush;s speech.

<nhancing relations are the most frequent, being used in - clauses. owever, extension

relations are also very frequent, being used in -/ clauses. ence, both types of relations are

almost equally used. In enhancing relations, conditional and spatio*temporal relations are

highly frequent. The use of the conditional form can be said to play a significant role in self

and other representation, as in Pif we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed

against the lawless men who rule your countryQ, Pif war comes, do not fight for a dying

regimeQ, and the &ecurity Council would vow Pserious consequences if Iraq did not fully and

immediately disarm.Q !ll these clauses represent the self positively by maximi%ing its power

and provides a negative image of the other through minimi%ing its power.

!s said above, extension relations are almost as equal in number as enhancing

relations. <xtension relations contribute to the continuity of the text. It may also imply that

the spea$er intends to show that he does not need to provide reasons or to elaborate and

)ustify his stance to convince his audience: but rather he is merely delivering his speech to an

audience with whom he shares similar opinions. This is even more emphasi%ed by the lac$ of elaboration relations in the speech. one of the clauses uses methods and words of

exposition, exemplification or clarification.

. Textual rganiation

..1 !nalysis of the Textual Metafunction- Mar4ed Themes

6aragraph

o.

Clause

o.

Theme Type of theme egree of

mar$edness

- 2 'or more than a decade !d)unct "time# 5ess mar$ed

- 4 &ince then !d)unct "time# 5ess mar$ed

2 9 Over the years !d)unct "time# 5ess mar$ed

- In the case of Iraq !d)unct 5ess mar$ed

53



2 nder resolutions >?/

and >/?

!d)unct 5ess mar$ed

-3 - 5ast &eptember !d)unct "time# 5ess mar$ed

-3 9 On ovember / !d)unct "time# 5ess mar$ed

-- - Today !d)unct "time# 5ess mar$ed

-- 9 'or the last four*and*halfmonths

!d)unct "time# 5ess mar$ed

-2 - In recent days !d)unct "time# 5ess mar$ed

-9 ? In a free Iraq !d)unct "place# 5ess mar$ed

-0 2 In any conflict !d)unct 5ess mar$ed

-? 4 In desperation !d)unct 5ess mar$ed

-/ 9 In recent days !d)unct "time# 5ess mar$ed

-/ 4 !mong other measures !d)unct 5ess mar$ed

- 2 In this !d)unct 5ess mar$ed

23 2 In one year, or five years !d)unct "time# 5ess mar$ed

2- 2 In the 23th

century !d)unct "time# 5ess mar$ed2- 9 In this century !d)unct "time# 5ess mar$edTable "0# analysis of mar$ed themes

..2 )esults of the analysis of mar4ed themes

Total num*er of clauses -29

Total num*er of mar4ed

themes

- "ercentage -0.44 E

Table "># mar$ed themes analysis results

Type of mar4ed theme Fre+uency "ercentageTime ad)uncts -2 out of - >9.-0 E

6lace and other types of

ad)uncts

? out of - 9>./4 E

Table "?# detailed mar$ed themes analysis results

Based on the results presented in tables "># and "?#, the total number of mar$ed

themes used is - out of -29 clauses. !ll of the - mar$ed themes are less mar$ed: none of

them is highly mar$ed. The most frequently used type of least mar$ed theme is time ad)unct

"-2 out of -S >9.-0 E#. 6lace and other types of ad)uncts are used ? times out of - "9>./4

E#, which ma$es them the second most frequently used type of mar$ed themes.

.7 Implications and ,ommentary

.7.1 Textual Metafunction- Mar4ed Themes

!ccording to the previous analysis, mar$ed themes are very few in the speech: theyare used in - clauses out of -29, which means -0.44 E of the speech. !ll these - themes

54



are less mar$ed: none of them is highly mar$ed. The most frequent type of mar$ed theme

used is time ad)unct. This may indicate that the spea$er gives importance to the time of

events and actions and, as mentioned earlier, this also underpins the material representation of

reality that the spea$er has which is mainly based on real actions. 8oreover, in many parts of

the speech, events seem to be chronologically ordered. This high frequency of time ad)unctscorresponds to the high frequency of spatio*temporal enhancing relations mentioned in the

previous discussion of logico*semantic relations. It also coincides with the analysis of

circumstances in transitivity. The result of this analysis, as shown earlier, indicates that

location is the most frequent type of circumstance in the speech as it is used in 90 clauses out

of the 3 clauses that include circumstances "9/.4> E#.

7. ,onclusion

The analysis of the speeches sheds the light on insightful similarities and differences in the way Bush

and Obama represent reality to others based on their ideology*based intentionality.

The quantitative analysis of the ideational metafunction reflects best those similarities and

differences. 'irst, material processes are the most frequently used type of process in both speeches.

owever, Bush uses material processes more extensively compared to Obama. 8aterial processes

55



ma$e up "0/.09E# of Bush;s speech, while they ma$e up "43./ E# of Obama+s speech. The use of

material process, though similar in terms of frequency, highlights significant differences in

terms of their function. This is further reflected in the frequency of other processes. It might

be feasible to say that Obama represents a more balanced version of reality, a version that

incorporates actions along with mental perception ta$ing into account the identity and theemotional involvement of the audience. 8ental and relational processes are almost equally

used, mental processes ma$e up "20.9E# and relational processes ma$e up "29.E#of the

speech. There is no noticeable discrepancy. This further emphasi%es the equally varied

version of representation Obama is after. On the other hand, in Bush+s speech, there is a great

discrepancy between the frequency of the use of other types of processes that come after

material processes. The second most frequent type of process is the relational, ma$ing up

"29.0?E#, and the third is mental processes with "/.4E#. This shows that Bush+s

representation of reality is much more material than Obama+s. This raises another interesting

point, Bush tends to merely recount the actions ta$en or to be ta$en as if he is informing the

audience who are already convinced of his argument. On the contrary, Obama uses other

types of processes not only to represent actions but also to establish himself as a wise

opposition figure who $nows well how to influence the audience. It becomes clear that while

Bush merely informs, Obama attempts to persuade. owever in both speeches, the spea$ers

similarly represent the other negatively, and the self positively as reflected in all the

transitivity patterns.

&econd, the analysis of circumstance contributes in highlighting some similarities and

differences. 'or example, the most frequently used type of circumstance in Obama+s speech is

Cause "43.E#. 5ocation is the most frequently used type of circumstance "9/.4>E# in Bush+s

speech. This underlines the different intentions they both have. Obama is $een to give reasons

and purposes for his statements or proposed reform measures for the sa$e of persuading his

audience , while Bush is $een to give the particular details of actions concerning their time

and place, merely informing the audience of such actions and stressing his powerful position.

Third, logico*semantic relations constitute a ma)or difference in terms of both

frequency and function. Bush uses more logico*semantic relations that connect ad)acent

clauses. Obama rather uses discourse mar$ers to enhance the continuity of the text and to

signal shifts of the discourse. Bush uses enhancing and extension relations almost equally,

whereas extension is heavily used in Obama+s speech. <laboration relations are not used at allin both speeches. !s for Bush, he does not elaborate or give reasons for his actions in order

to emphasi%e his already powerful position as well as his representation of the self.

'ourth, the way Obama and Bush weaves the text is considerably different. Obama

reflects his ideological stance in the mar$ed thematic choices he employs. e uses varying

degrees of mar$ed themes spanning the whole scale of mar$edness. e ma$es use of

thematic equatives, predicated themes along with fronting of ad)uncts. These choices reflect

the sense of emphasis and contrast he wishes to convey all through the speech. In contrast,

Bush does not use mar$ed themes that frequently. 8oreover, none of those mar$ed themes is

highly mar$ed: most of them are time ad)uncts. This conforms to his use of circumstancediscussed above: it also highlights the sense of the material version of reality he represents

56



http-==>>>.npr.org=templates=story=story.php?storyId@555175

accessed on ->1--123-4

2* (eorge Bush+s "2339# +7ar ltimatum &peech+

@etrieved from httpMwww.theguardian.comworld2339mar-/usa.iraq on ---223-4 at

>M34 pm

Secondary Sources

Bhatia, F. N., 'lowerdew, U., R Uones, @. . "233/#. Advances in discourse studies. 5ondonM

@outledge.

<ggins, &. "2334#. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics

"2nd ed.# .5ondonM Continuum.

'airclough, . "233-# "2nd ed.#. Language and power . 5ondonM 5ongman.

alliday, 8. !. N., R 8atthiessen, C. 8. I. 8. "2334#. !n introduction to functional

grammar. 5ondonM odder education.

Fan i)$,T.!"2333# Ideology and iscourse M ! multidisciplinary introduction @etrieved

from httpMwww.discourses.orgnpublished!rticlesIdeologyE23and

E23discourse.pdf on 0--23-4

Fan i)$,T.!"233-# Critical iscourse !nalysis @etrieved from

httpMwww.discourses.orgOld!rticlesCriticalE23discourseE23analysis.pdf on

0--23-4.

58

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq

http://www.discourses.org/UnpublishedArticles/Ideology%20and%20discourse.pdf


http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq



http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469



Fan 5eeuwen, T."233-# @epresentation of social actors. In Coulthard, 8., R Caldas*

Coulthard, C. @."<ds.# ,Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse

analysis"pp.92*?3#. 5ondonM @outledge.

7ang, U."23-3# ! Critical iscourse !nalysis of Barac$ Obama+s &peeches. Uournal of

5anguage Teaching and @esearch ,-"9#, pp. 204*2>-. doiM-3.4934)ltr.-.9.204*2>-.

7oda$, @., R 8eyer, 8. "233-#. Methods of critical discourse analysis."pp.-*-2# 5ondonM

&!(<.

Comparative Study of War in Iraq Discourse

Documents

Transcript of Comparative Study of War in Iraq Discourse