1

Introduction

Throughout the discursive history of the United States, going to war has always been

a calculated risk. Presidents since Abraham Lincoln knew that war brought with it a

conceptual baggagea scheme that involves blood, threat, enemies, freedom fighters,

innocent civilians, causalities, weapons, etc. They also knew that he who could arrange the

experiential chaos of this baggage into a coherent account of events gains the moral high

ground and the ultimate public support. This coherent account is made possible by an

intricately woven narrative in which America is invariably portrayed as a victim to the brutal

force of a barbaric enemy (Hodges, 2013). Although this narrative tactic predates the

relatively recent conflict in the Middle East, its relevance became clearer after 9/11. Ever

since that date, the Middle East has been assigned an inimical role in the presidential war

narrativea role that has grown into a full-blown stereotype. A decisive moment in this

shared narrative history was G.W. Bush's famous Iraq War speech (2003).

Objectives

Drawing on MAK Halliday's Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) and Adam

Hodges' semantic gradation of Presidential War Narrative (PWN), this study sets out to

investigate the way different configurations of transitivity patterns inform the ideological

construction of the war narrative in Bush's Iraq War speech (2003). In its translation-oriented

part, the study will also examine the way transitivity patterns are rendered into Arabic, and

investigate how a reconfiguration of such patterns could evidence an ideological bias on the

part of the translator.

2

Theoretical Framework

1. Hallidayan SFG: An Overview

Unlike Transformational Grammar which views language as an abstract, self-

contained set of rules (S NP VP) and is solely concerned with grammatical correctness, Systemic Functional Grammar is a semantically and pragmatically significant grammar

(Malmkjr, 2002, p. 526). It sees meaning-making as a strategic function of language in use

(Halliday, 1970, p. 141; Eggins, 1994, p. 2). It does not, however, fully abandon formal labels

and structures in language description. Rather, it views them as means of describing the range

of grammatical options (wordings) available to speakers who choose one or more of them to

fulfill a certain function in a particular socio-cultural context (Thompson, 1996, p.8). The

stratification in Figure (1) captures this interconnectedness of context, function and form.

Halliday (2004) suggests that, in every clause, three strands of meaning, or what he

terms the 'metafunctions' of language, are simultaneously at work: the ideational

metafunction, which "serves for the expression of content: that is, of the speakers experience of the real world, including the inner world of his own consciousness"; the

interpersonal metafunction, the function language has of establishing and maintaining

social relations; and the textual metafunction by means of which speakers/writers "construct

texts, or connected passages of discourse that is situationally relevant; and enables the listener or reader to distinguish a text from a random set of sentences" (p. 143). These three

metafunctions impinge on the surface-level structure of the language, and are thus invariably

realized by their corresponding lexicogrammatical means: transitivity, modality, thematic and

information structure, as well as cohesion (Munday, 2001, p. 90).

Figure (1) (adapted from Munday, 2001, p. 90)

1.1 Transitivity

Traditional grammarians define transitivity in terms of the number of objects that a

verb can take. Verbs are thus categorized into two groups: transitive verbs (verbs such as

play, kill, throw, see etc) and intransitive verbs (verbs like fall, sit, stand, travel, etc) (Lyons,

1968, p. 350). Halliday's theory of language, moving away from this syntactic distinction,

perceives transitivity as a representation of the experiential (ideational) meaning of language.

Socio-Cultural Context

Genre

Register

Discourse Semantics (Metafunctions)

Lexicogrammar

The conventional text type that is associated with a specific communicative function.

Field: What the text is about.

Tenor: The adresser and the adressee.

Mode: The form of communication, e.g. written.

Ideational

Interpersonal

Textual

Transtivity

Modality

Theme-rheme/Cohesion

ViSioNHighlight

ViSioNHighlight

ViSioNTypewriter

ViSioNTypewriter

ViSioNTypewriter

ViSioNTypewriter

3

Halliday (2004) maintains that the speaker's experience of the world "consists of a flow of

events or 'going-ons'" (p. 170). From the experiential angle, transitivity is a way of mapping

out the speaker's view of the world in terms of events (Verbs/Processes), entities

(Participants) involved in such events, and a background (Circumstance) against which

these events take place. Language provides speakers with a massive variety of verbs that

stand for different types of Processes. The roles partaken by Participants change according to

different choices of Processes. Every unique choice of Process and Participants represents a

different experience of the world unique to a certain speaker in a certain context.

1.1.1 Types of Processes

Material Processes

Material processes, according to Halliday (2004), are those processes that represent

an 'outer experience'they are physical actions that belong in the outside world (p. 170). Typically, material processes involve two participants: Actor and Goal. The Actor is the one

who undertakes an action, whereas the Goal is the equivalent of a direct object.

Jack Hit Mary

Actor Process: Material Goal

Material process can also adopt a single participant as in the case of intransitive clauses

where there is one Actor and no Goal.

Mary Walked out

Actor Process: Material

Moreover, some verbs result in processes with three participants. The third participant is

called Beneficiary (the equivalent of an indirect object). It occurs either in the form of a

Recipient (the one to whom something given) or a Client (the one for whom something is

done).

Jack Gave Mary A present

Actor Process: Material Recipient Goal

Mary Made Jack A dinner

Actor Process: Material Client Goal

Participants in material processes maintain their respective roles despite voice changes in the

clause. Passive constructs do minimize the Actor's agency via backgrounding or omission,

nonetheless.

Jack Killed Mary

Actor Process: Material Goal

Mary Was killed By Jack

Goal Process: Material Actor

Marry Was killed -

Goal Process: Material -

4

Mental Processes

Mental processes, when compared to material processes, fall on the other end of the

transitivity spectrum. They represent inner experiences of feelings, thoughts and perceptions.

Two participants are involved in such processes: a conscious participant known as Senser

(the one who thinks, perceives, feels, etc), and a Phenomenon (the thought, feeling,

perception experienced by the Senser).

Jack Hates Pasta

Senser Process: Mental Phenomenon

Halliday makes a distinction between two types of Phenomena: Acts and Facts.

Mary Saw The kids playing

Senser Process: Mental Phenomenon: Act

Jack Realized That he has been tough

on Mary

Senser Process: Mental Phenomenon: Fct

Relational Processes

Relational processes are not processes in the strict sense of the term because they do

not involve 'happenings'. Rather, they exist to set a relationship between two concepts.

Halliday distinguishes between two types of relational processes: Attributive relational

processes, which involve a Carrier (the entity that carries a certain attribute) and an

Attribute; and Identifying relational processes, which identify one entity in terms of

another, thus the labels Identified and Identifier.

Jack Is Cruel

Carrier Process: Attributive

Relational

Attribute

My name Is Jack

Identified Process: Identifying

Relational

Identifier

Identifying relational processes are reversible. Since the stress in these processes

falls on the Identified, alternate rewordings resulting from this reversing routine do not

"express quite the same experiential meaning as the original versions" (Thompson, 1996, p.

88). Furthermore, identification is not strictly a matter of defining equal categories in terms of

one another, but rather a process of "relating a specific realization and a more generalisable

category" (ibid, p. 89). Halliday uses the labels Value and Token to identify the more general

category and its specific embodiment, respectively.

Churchill Was The strongest leader

Token Process: Identifying

Relational

Value

5

This distinction between Attributive and Identifying relational processes is not the only one

made by Halliday. The two relationships, therefore, branch into three further relationships:

intensive, circumstantial, and possessive.

Other Types of Processes

There are instances where it is hard to set clear lines of demarcation among the three

types of processes outlined above. For this reason, Halliday suggests that, at the boundary

between each couple of processes, there is a new process type at work (see Figure (2)).

Verbal processes (processes about saying), for example, cut across the curve from

material to mental processes. They typically involve two or three participants: Sayer,

Verbiage and Receiver. Behavioral processes (process that have mental implications but

show physiological signs) fall at the boundary between mental and material processes. The

roles in a Behavioral process are mapped out as Behaver and Range. Existential processes

are intermediate between relational and material processes. They are propped by the empty

subject 'there' and usually comprise one role (Existent) besides the Circumstance.

1.1.2 Circumstance

Halliday suggests that some configurations of

transitivity structures may allow for the use of one or

more of these nine circumstantial elements: location,

extent, manner, cause, contingency, role, angle, and

accompaniment.

1.1.3 The Ideological Significance of Transitivity

Transitivity is ideologically significant

(Simpson, 1993, p. 96). The way speakers/writers

configure transitivity patterns to represent their unique

view of the world, although it might not be fully

conscious, is far from arbitrary. It is a product of the

speaker/writer's belief system, be it political, religious,

moral, philosophical or a combination of these.

Material processes, for example, raise questions about agency: "They are ways of designing

language to engage in actions like blaming, avoiding blame, or backgrounding certain things

against others" (Cope and Kalantzis, 2000, p, 28). Obfuscating conscious agents using

abstract or inanimate nouns or nominalizations in a text is, according to Fairclough,

"ideologically motivated" (1989, p. 124). It is for these reasons that critical discourse analysts

agree that useful generalizations about the discourse of single institutions or individuals can

be drawn from a full-fledged analysis of transitivity patterns on a textual scale. One area in

which transitivity has proved a most valuable tool is that of narrative analysis.

2. Narrative Theory

The classical view of narrative as a fictional construct comprising a series of linearly

arranged series of events dates back to Aristotle's famous definition of tragedy as an action

that has a beginning and an end (Herman, 2005, p. 20). Up until less than a century ago,

narrative was studied exclusively within the framework of this viewsomething which

resulted in a historical link between literary criticism and the term "narrative". It was not until

6

the dawn of French structuralism that narrative was emancipated from the literary realm to

evolve later into the kaleidoscopic concept known to us today (Herman, 2005, p.15). The

multidisciplinary study of narrative in the fields of history, anthropology, media,

communication, sociology and linguistics has culminated in a contemporary view that sees

narration as a basic mode of communication by means of which homo sapiens, who are story-

tellers by default, construct and relate their personal experience of the world as channeled

through concrete linguistic constructs (Labov and Waletzky, 1967; Fisher, 1978). A more

ideologically elaborate version of this view goes as far as arguing that narration is, in a

Foucauldian sense, an institutional discursive practice that uses narrative as a vehicle for

propagating a certain view of the world, i.e. an ideology (Herman, 2005, p. 539).

2.1. Linguistic Interest in Narrative

People experience the world around them in terms of events or happenings. These

events or happenings are not intrinsically meaningful on their own; they need to be organized

into a coherent whole. It is through narrative that a series of events is given such coherence.

We use narrative to imbue events with meaning. Through narrative, we name

protagonists, ascribe motivations, and produce explanations. In short, narrative is

a potent means for structuring and organizing our perceptual experience.

(Hodges, 2013, p, 50)

Linguistic interest in narrative began when Labov and Waletzky (1967) published their

influential article 'Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience'. Following the

footsteps of Vladimir Propp, their goal was to "describe the invariable deep semantic

structure of personal experience narrative with an eye to correlating surface differences with

the social characteristics of the narrator" (Johnstone, 2001, p. 635). The conclusion they drew

from their narrative analysis was that every narrative divided up to six phases: abstract,

orientation, complication action, resolution, evaluation and coda.

2.2. Presidential War Narrative

Labov and Waletzky's work, based as it is on personal narratives, offers little

guidance in the field of rehearsed or deliberate narratives such as those delivered by

politicians to promote certain beliefs or ideas (Hodges, 2011, p. 4). Adam Hodges (2013),

however, draws on their work to deduct the generic structure of the narrative reproduced by

American Presidents in war speeches throughout history. Justifying a crucial decision like

going to war with another nation to millions of anxious citizens is a test that many, if not all,

American presidents have overcome by adopting a uniform war narrative used by previous

presidents. Hodges divides this narrative to the following invariable phases (2013, p. 50-58):

7

These phases are semantic in nature, but they do impinge on surface-level elements such as

vocabulary and grammar. Hodges notes that transitivity plays a crucial role in mapping out

different phases of the war narrative. Presidents tend to use different transitivity patterns

configured to represent the message of every stage of the narrative.

3. Data

This study is based on Bush's Iraq war speech and its Arabic translation as published by Al-

Dostour newspaper. In March 18, 2003, G.W. Bush delivered his ultimatum speech from

Cross Hall warning Saddam Hussein that he must leave Iraq in 48 hours. This speech marked

the culmination of a historical feud between the U.S. and Saddam Hussein's regime. The

conflict dates back to the administrations of Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton. Most importantly,

however, it marks the beginning of a new turbulent phase in the history of America's

involvement in the Middle East. The speech sparked storms of conflict and mutual

accusations that continue to exist to this day. As the implications of the American occupation

of Iraq continues to affect America and the Middle East alike, it becomes clear that the

assured tone of the Cross Hall speech was nothing but a faade. Under that faade lied the

grand narrative which manipulated many American's into supporting Bush's decision. A

detailed analysis of how this narrative was erected will ravel interesting discursive insights.

4. Methodology

The analysis in this study is undertaken in two phases. The speech is divided according to the

semantic gradation proposed by Hodges. At every stage of that gradation, a full comparative

transitivity analysis is conducted on the speech and its translation. Conclusions are initially

drawn based on the frequency of pattern-forming process types. Deeper ideological

implications about the way the narrative is constructed and how it unfolds are inferred from

the distribution of participants and circumstantial elements. In the translation-oriented part of

the analysis, the study involves an assessment of the degree with which transitivity patterns in

the source text are replicated and the way this impinges on the narrative structure of the

speech. Given the fact that the translation used in this study is not full, the analysis will not

include the Coda stage of Hodges' gradation in the source or the target analysis.

Precipitating Event

An enemy has initiated an act of aggression

against America or one of her allies. The act is a

threat to freedom, democracy and

humanity as a whole.

Implication of and

Response to Precipitating

Event

America is thrust into war with no choice. The decision was the result of careful deliberation.

The intervention is purely defensive.

Motives and Objections

America is not alone in condemning that act of aggression. It thus has no private interests or territorial ambitions in the target country. The quarrel is not with the people of that country,

but rather with their leader and his government.

Identification of Us vs.

Them

The president casts America and the

civilized world as a symbol of freedom,

justice and humanity against the enemy who represents the opposite

values. (This phase is not a phase per se; it cuts across the entire

speech.)

Coda

The president concludes that the nation is being

faced with a major challenge that requires patience and sacrifice.

8

Analysis

Precipitating Event

Introducing the precipitating event is a crucial stage in constructing the war

narrative; it is this event that will set the keynote for the entire speech by providing a just

cause for the forthcoming declaration of war. The event is invariably introduced as a

threatening act of aggression initiated by an enemy against the U.S. or one of its allies. In

Bush's Iraq war speech, the precipitating event centers on the threat posed against the U.S.

and its allies in the Middle East and elsewhere by Saddam Hussein who continues to possess

and use WMD in spite of international law demanding disarmament. Transitivity patterns

reflect how Bush carefully stages this event to prop up the narrative.

1. Events In Iraq Have reached The final days

of decision

Actor Circ: location Process:

Material

Range

Process:

Material

Actor Circ: location Range

2. For more

than a

decade

The U.s.

and other

nations

Have

pursued

Patient and

honorable

efforts

To disarm

the Iraqi

regime

without

war

Circ:

Location

(time)

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Circ:

Purpose

Circ:

Location

(time)

Process:

Material

Actor Goal Circ:

Purpose

3. Since then The world Has engaged In 12 years of

diplomacy

Circ: Location

(time)

Actor Process:

Material

Range

9

21

Circ: Location

(time)

Process:

Material

Actor Range

4. We Have passed More than a

dozen

resolutions

In the United

Nations

Security

Council

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Circ:

Location

(space)

- - 21

Process:

Material

Actor Goal Circ:

Location

(space)

5. We Have sent Hundreds of

weapons

inspectors

To oversee the

disarmament

of Iraq

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Circ: Purpose

- -

Process:

Material

Actor Goal Circ: Purpose

6. The Iraqi

regime

Have used

[diplomacy]

as a ploy

Diplomacy To gain time

and

advantage

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Circ: Purpose

Process:

Material

Actor Goal Circ: Purpose

7. It Has defied Security Council

resolutions

11

Actor Process: Material Goal

[ ]

Process: Material Actor Goal

8. Peaceful efforts to

disarm the Iraqi

regime

Have failed Again and again

Actor Process: Material Circ: Location

(time)

Process: Material Actor Circ: Location

(time)

9. [intelligence

leaves no

doubt that]

The Iraqi

regime

Continues to

posses

And conceal Some of the

most lethal

weapons ever

devised

Actor Process:

Material

Process:

Material

Goal

(

)

Actor Process:

Material

Process:

Material

Goal

10. This regime Has already

used

Weapons of

mass

destruction

Against Iraq's

neighbors and

against Iraq's

people

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Recipient

[ ]

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Recipient

11

11. It [i.e. the

Iraqi

regime]

Has aided Trained And

harbored

Terrorists,

including

operatives

of Al-

Qaeda

Actor Process:

Material

Process:

Material

Process:

Material

Beneficiary

[

]

Process:

Material

Actor Process:

Material

Process:

Material

Beneficiary

12. The

terrorists

Could kill

Thousands

or hundred

thousands of

innocent

people

In our

country, or

any other

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Circ:

Location

(space)

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Circ:

Location

(space)

13. The regime Has A history of

reckless

aggression

In the

Middle East

Carrier Process:

Relational

Attributive

(Possessive)

Attribute Circ:

Location

(space)

Carrier Process:

Relational

Attribute Circ:

Location

12

Attributive

(Possessive)

(space)

14. It Has A deep hatred of

America and our

friends

Carrier Process: Relational

Attributive

(Possessive)

Attribute

Carrier Process: Relational

Attributive

(Possessive)

Attribute

15. Over

the

years

U.N.

weapon

inspectors

Have been

threatened

By

Iraqi

officials

Electronically

bugged

And

systematically

deceived

Circ:

temporal

Receiver

Goal

Target

Process:

Verbal

Sayer

Actor

Behaver

Process:

Material

Process:

Behavioral

[]

Detailed analysis shows that material processes are more frequently used than other

process types; there are nearly 18 material-process clauses in the Precipitating Event stage

alone. The frequency with which material processes are used is understandable given the

function and purpose of the Precipitating Event. Analysis also indicates that circumstances

indicating time and location are the most commonly used as they provide a setting and a point

of orientation for the event described by the narrative.

On the one hand, material processes provide a tool for Bush to criminalize the Iraqi

regime. He maps out the event in terms of Iraqi actors (aggressors) intentionally targeting

animate goals and/or recipients (victims). In example (10), for instance, the Iraqi regime is

involved in the intentional material process of targeting his own people and neighboring

countries with WMD. Equally demoralizing is the process in example (15) where the passive

form is used to foreground the goal/victim (U.N. weapon inspectors) while maintaining the

actor's agency (by Iraqi officials). The effect is amplified by the neighboring verbal and

behavioral processes that show the lengths the Iraqi regime has gone to in intimidating

inspectors. The Iraqi regime is also consistently and constantly aligned with terrorists

13

throughout the speech. Example (11) is a clear reference to this alliance. In a sharp contrast to

(10), the Iraqi regime is cast as an actor in a sequence of 3 intentional material processes in

which terrorists are the benefiting party. Example (12) asserts the message of (11). Moreover,

material processes with inanimate goals as in (6) and (7) highlight the lawlessness of

Saddam's regime by making concepts like "diplomacy" and "Security Council resolutions"

the concrete targets of his reckless behavior. The relational attributives in (13) and (14) evoke

a similar effect; the possessive configuration makes the attributes "aggressive" and "hateful"

more concrete, thus more threatening. The relational aspect is also instrumental in positioning

Saddam's regime in relation to his neighbors in the Middle East and to the U.S. and its allies.

Since the relation is obviously inimical in both cases, the two clauses visually isolate Saddam

in a separate plane from that of the rest of the world, east and west.

On the other hand, a slightly different configuration of material processes is used to

put the U.S. at the receiving end of the conflict. Almost all the material processes assigned to

the U.S. have inanimate goals as in (2) and (4), or range as in (3). This is meant to indicate

that all actions taken by the U.S. do not affect, target or hurt anyone, unlike Saddam's action.

Rather they are taken in response to the aggression initiated by Saddam as the contingency

circumstances indicate. Moreover, America's degree of complicity in the actions indicated by

these processes is brought to a minimum as the U.S. is not directly featured as the sole actor.

It is either aligned with or included in a larger acting entity ("other nations" in (2) and "the

world" in (3)) or relatively obfuscated with a vague "we". Bush advances the non-complicity

narrative through use of material processes featuring ergative verbs and inanimate actors in

(1) and (8).

Although these transitivity patterns appear to be configured differently in the Arabic

translation, they are nonetheless accurately replicated. Circumstantial elements aside, English

follows a strict participant-oriented SVO configuration as opposed to the process-oriented

VSO configuration which is regularly adopted in Arabic. In most of the examples above, the

translator renders the English SVO configuration to the Arabic VSO configuration. The

modification is linguistically justified given that the translator replaces an unmarked

configuration in English with an equally unmarked one in Arabic. Yet, Arabic has a relatively

freer word order that allows for toggling between the two configurations in some cases. There

are cases, for example, where the SVO configuration is used in Arabic to render an embedded

clause as in example (9). This is a linguistically sound choice since the particle ""

(equivalent of "that") calls for a nominal clause ( ) in Arabic. A sequence of SVO

clauses that feature the same entity as subject would not sound odd in English. On the

contrary, it is usually used emphatically. Things are not the same in Arabic which tends to

coordinate these clauses using continuative and additive conjunctions like "", "", etc. In so

doing, Arabic brings yet another transitivity configuration into view as in examples (7) and

(11). In this configuration, the actor is replaced by a hidden pronoun; it is orthographically

omitted and inferred instead from the previous clause. While this configuration is not fully

inaccurate, a better strategy that would have preserved the emphatic function of repeating the

actor in both clauses was for the translator to use the conjunction "". Coordinating (6) and

14

(7) with "" (as in: "

") is more emphatic and highlights the Iraqi regime's agency in line with the narrative.

Implications of and Response to the Precipitating Event

At this stage, Bush's war narrative seeks to advance the following claims:

The threat posed by Saddam Hussein (detailed in the previous stage)

leaves America with no choice but war; the military intervention is fully defensive.

The decision to go to war is the result of careful deliberation.

Transitivity patterns offer an insight into how these claims are integrated into the narrative.

16. The United

States and

other nations

Did Nothing to

deserve or

invite this

threat

Actor Process:

Material

Range

Actor Process:

Material

Range

17. But we Will do Everything To defeat it

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Circ: Purpose

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Circ: Purpose

18. We Will set A course Toward safety

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Circ: Location

(space)

Process:

Material

Goal Circ: Location

(space)

19. This danger Will be

removed

Goal Process:

15

Material

(passive)

Process:

Material

Goal

20. The United

States of

America

Has The sovereign

authority to

use force

In assuring its

own national

security

Carrier Process:

Relational

Attributive

(Possessive)

Attribute Circ: Purpose

Carrier Process:

Relational

Attributive

(Possessive)

Attribute Circ: Purpose

21. Recognizing

the threat

to our

country

The U.S.

Congress

Voted Last year To support

the use of

force

against Iraq

Actor Process:

Material

Circ:

Location

(time)

Circ:

Purpose

(

)

Process:

Material

Actor Circ:

Location

(time)

Circ:

Purpose

22. America Tried to work With the UN To address

this threat

Actor Process:

Material

Circ:

Accompaniment

Circ: Cause

( ) ()

16

Process:

Material

Actor Circ:

Accompaniment

Circ: Cause

23. Because we Wanted To resolve the

issue

Peacefully

Senser Process: Mental

(desideration)

Projected

clause

Circ: Manner

()

Senser Mental

(desideration)

Projected

clause

Circ: Manner

24. We Believe in The mission of the

UN

Senser Process: Mental Phenomenon

Process: Mental Phenomenon

25. Under

resolutions

678 and 687

The U.S.

and our

allies

Are Authorized

to use force

In ridding

Iraq of

weapons of

mass

destruction

Circ:

Contingency

Carrier Process:

Relational

Attributive

(Possessive)

Attribute Circ:

Purpose

876

867

Circ:

Contingency

Process:

Material

(passive)

Goal Circ:

Purpose

Analysis shows that material processes are the most prevalent process type at this

stage of the narrative. Even though America and its allies are invariably cast as the actor in

these processes, transitivity patterns are manipulated to propagate the idea that America is

being thrust into war. One example of this manipulation is seen in (16) where the goal-less

material process and the collective actor ("the U.S. and other nations") both serve to distance

17

the U.S. from the responsibility of war. Using the passive form to foreground "the danger" in

(19) also is another rhetorical move that serves to perpetuate the war-as-self-defense

narrative. That being established, Bush undertakes to assure Americans that, although

America is being pushed to respond against a threat, the response is not rash one. On the

contrary, it is the result of careful deliberation and collective decision-making as evident in

involving the Congress in (21) and the U.N. in (22). Mental processes of desideration and

cognition in (23) and (24) deliver the message that not only action but thought has gone into

the war decision. Furthermore, circumstantial elements play a crucial part at this age.

Circumstances of purpose and cause as in (20), (22) and (25) are directed toward justifying

America's military response, whereas circumstances of accompaniment and contingency in

(22) and (25) legitimize the American intervention by putting it within the framework of

international law.

As in the previous stage, transitivity patterns are accurately rendered. Unmarked

English SVO configurations are replaced with their equally unmarked Arabic VSO

counterparts, except in cases where linguistic constrains call for nominal clauses.

Motives and Objectives

At this point in the war narrative, Bush sorts out the motives and the objectives of

his military venture in Iraq. He argues that the U.S. has no territorial interests in Iraq, and that

the action is motivated by a genuine impulse to rescue the Iraqi people and protect America

and the world from the terrorist threat. The following analysis shows how these ideas are

propagated using transitivity patterns.

26. A broad coalition Is now gathering To enforce the

just demands of

the world

Actor Process: Material Circ: Purpose

Process: Material Actor Circ: Purpose

27. Some

governments

In the middle

east

Have been

doing

Their part

Actor Circ: location

(space)

Process:

Material

Range

Actor Process:

Material

Range

18

28. They Have

delivered

Public and

private

messages

urging the

dictator to

leave Iraq

Actor Process:

Material

Goal

Process: Material Goal

29. If we must

begin a

military

campaign

It Will be

directed

Against the

lawless

men who

rule your

country

And not

against you

Goal Process:

Material

Recipient Recipient

Goal Process:

Material

Recipient Recipient

30. As our coalition Takes away Their power

Actor Process: Material Goal

Process: Material Actor Goal

31. We Will deliver The food and

medicine you need

Actor Process: Material Goal

19

Process: Material Goal

32. We Will tear

down

The

apparatus of

terror

Actor Process:

Material

Goal

- ( )

Actor Process:

Material

Goal

33. And we Help You To build a

new Iraq that

is prosperous

and free

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Circ: Purpose

- () -

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Circ: Purpose

34. In a free

Iraq

There

will be

No more

wars of

aggression

against

your

neighbors

No more

poison

factories

No more

execution

of

dissidents

And no

more

torture

champers

and rape

rooms

Circ:

Location

(space)

Process:

Existential

Existent

Process:

Mental

(perception)

Senser Phenomenon

35. [Saddam] and

terrorists

Might try to

conduct

Terrorist

operations

Against the

American

21

groups people and

our friends

Actor Process:

Material

Goal Recipient

...

()

Process:

Material

Actor Goal Recipient

36. And this very fact Underscores The reason we

cannot live under

the threat of

blackmail

Token Process: Relational

Identifying

(Circumstantial:

causal)

Value

Token Process: Relational

Identifying

(Circumstantial:

causal)

Value

Except for two existential and identifying processes, this stage of the narrative is

fully represented in material processes. To refute claims about America's ulterior motives,

Bush puts other countries in the actor slot as seen in (26), (27) and (28). This is meant to

show that America is not alone in condemning the Iraqi threat and that even Saddam's

neighbors are joining forces to topple his regime. Moreover, the objectives of the war are

listed in the sequence from (29) to (34) with the coalition forces portrayed as warriors and

saviors simultaneously. For example, (29) asserts that the coalition has no quarrel with the

Iraqi people, and therefore the campaign will target "the lawless men" rather than civilians.

Positing (30) against (31) and (32) against (33) does the rhetorical trick of showing the two

faces of the coalition's force one time as it removes the regime from and caters for people's

needs and another as it demolishes "apparatus of terror" and erects the edifice of freedom.

The sequence is followed by a negated existential process in (34) that lists four "existents"

that supposedly will not exist anymore once Iraq is freed. There is, however, an underlying

message be drawn from putting the Iraqi people and the Iraqi regime in the equally helpless

position of goals to be rescued or targets to be demolished throughout this sequence. In all

four clauses the coalition (or America) is given the upper hand, thus reflecting the true face of

21

American dominance over weak nations. In example (35) Saddam is pulled back into the

actor slot as a threat to America to legitimize the motives behind this impending war. The

same idea is asserted with the identifying process in (36) that equates Saddam's threat with a

cause for war.

The translation accurately renders the transitivity patterns to Arabic following the

SVO > VSO formula as in (26), and the SVO one where linguistic constrains arise as in (27).

There is one case where the translator changes the process type in (34) from existential to

mental and also changes the configuration of "a free Iraq" from part of the circumstantial

element in English to a participant in Arabic. This modification is performed with no obvious

linguistic reason, except that " ... " would

sound stylistically weaker in Arabic than what the translator has opted for. The translator's

intervention does not significantly alter the ideological message of the narrative.

Identifying Us vs. Them

Although this self-other representation cuts through the entire narrative, it intensifies

toward the end of the speech. The sequence illustrated below sets a straight comparison

between the U.S. and the Iraqi regime. In (37) and (39), positive attributes of peacefulness

and strength are assigned to the U.S. (the self). The Iraqi regime (the other), however, is

ascribed negative attributes in (40) as it is described as a group of "thugs and killers". The

process choice in this example is ideologically significant. Bush uses a material process in

which "thugs and killers" are the actors; he is not merely ascribing these attributes to the Iraqi

regime and his terrorist allies, but is identifying them as such. When presented with a

material process, the audience tends to focus on the actions taken by participants and the roles

partaken by these participants, but they scarcely negotiate or debate the participants' identity.

Therefore, Bush depends on his audience to take it for granted that the Iraqi regime is a bunch

of thugs.

37. We Are Peaceful people

Carrier Process: relational

attributive

(intensive)

Attribute

Carrier Attribute

39. Yet we Are not Fragile people

Carrier Process: relational

attributive

(intensive)

Attribute

Carrier Attribute

22

40. And we Will not be

intimidated

By thugs and

killers

Goal Process: material Actor

-

Goal Process: material Actor

23

Findings and Conclusion

Detailed analysis indicates that Hodges' semantic gradation of the presidential war

narrative is extensively realized by transitivity patterns in the speech. Material processes are

the most prevalent process type in the speech with a frequency score of +30. They are used in

multifarious configurations to promote the blame game advanced by the narrative. They serve

as a tool for criminalizing the Iraqi regime and victimizing the US. The Iraqi side is assigned

a larger share of intentional processes that have animate goals, thus asserting its agency and

complicity in aggression. The American side, however, is mostly either cast as goal or

assigned processes with inanimate goals or range to minimize its agency in the conflict.

Moreover, a pattern of single entity actors is manifest in the speech. The U.S. is regularly

aligned with other acting parties such as the world or other countries to form a single bloc

against the Iraqi regime which is strategically aligned with Al-Qaeda terrorists. Other process

types are present in the speech, but they are not pattern-forming; they are mainly set up to

gear the narrative and boost the patterns generated by material processes.

The distribution of circumstantial elements is also crucial for developing the war

narrative. Location circumstances that position events at a certain point in time or space are

the most frequent as they equip the narrative with a setting and provide the temporal

progression necessary for relating the events leading up to the deceleration of war.

Circumstances of cause and purpose come second on the frequency scale their function being

to adjust the justificatory undertones of the speech.

The translation comes across as fairly accurate. Changes are made due to linguistic

constrains such as the VSO configuration of Arabic, but no serious alterations of meaning or

function has been made. One can thus safely assume that the narrative structure of the

English speech has been successfully maintained and replicated in the Arabic translation with

nary a trace of ideological bias.

24

Works Cited

Primary Sources

Source Text: Bush, G.W., (2003, March). War Ultimatum Speech. Speech presented at Cross

Hall, Washington, D.C. Retrieved May 20, 2014 from http://goo.gl/NpzFn.

Target Text: Retrieved May 27, 2014 from http://goo.gl/Q2m0D5.

Secondary Sources

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social

futures. London: Routledge.

Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter

Publishers ;.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

Fisher, W. R. (1978). Human communication as narration: toward a philosophy of reason,

value, and action. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press.

Halliday, M. A., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd

ed.). London: Arnold ;.

Herman, D., Jahn, M., & Ryan, M. (2005). Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory.

London: Routledge.

Hodges, A. (2011). The "War on terror" narrative discourse and intertextuality in the

construction and contestation of sociopolitical reality. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Hodges, A. (2013). Discourses of war and peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1976). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience.

In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 1244).

Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. London: Cambridge U.P..

Malmkjr, K., & Anderson, J. M. (2002). The Linguistics encyclopedia. London: Routledge.

Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies: theories and applications. London:

25

Routledge.

Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology, and point of view. London: Routledge.

Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold;.