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.

Theoretical Framework
1. Hallidayan SFG: An Overview
Unlike Transformational Grammar which views language as an abstract, selfcontained 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).

Socio-Cultural Context
Genre

The conventional text type that is associated

with a specific communicative function.

Register

Field: What the text is about.

Tenor: The adresser and the adressee.
Mode: The form of communication, e.g. written.

Discourse Semantics
(Metafunctions)

Ideational
Interpersonal
Textual

Lexicogrammar

Transtivity
Modality
Theme-rheme/Cohesion

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.

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
Actor

Hit
Process: Material

Mary
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
Actor

Walked out
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
Actor
Mary
Actor

Gave
Process: Material
Made
Process: Material

Mary
Recipient
Jack
Client

A present
Goal
A dinner
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
Actor
Mary
Goal
Marry
Goal

Killed
Process: Material
Was killed
Process: Material
Was killed
Process: Material

Mary
Goal
By Jack
Actor
-

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
Senser

Hates
Process: Mental

Pasta
Phenomenon

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

Saw
Process: Mental
Realized

Senser

Process: Mental

The kids playing

Phenomenon: Act
That he has been tough
on Mary
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
Carrier
My name
Identified

Is
Process: Attributive
Relational
Is
Process: Identifying
Relational

Cruel
Attribute
Jack
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
Token

Was
Process: Identifying
Relational

The strongest leader

Value

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

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 storytellers 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):

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

Motives and
Objections

Identification
of Us vs.
Them

Coda

America is thrust into

war with no choice. The
decision was the result
of careful deliberation.
The intervention is
purely defensive.

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.

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.)

The president concludes

that the nation is being
faced with a major
challenge that requires
patience and sacrifice.

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 AlDostour 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.

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

Actor

Circ: location

Process:
Material

Range

2.

Circ: location

Actor

Process:
Material

For more
than a
decade

The U.s.
and other
nations

Have
pursued

Patient and
honorable
efforts

Circ:
Location
(time)

Actor

Process:
Material

Goal

Circ:
Purpose

Goal

Actor

Since then

The world

Has engaged

Circ: Location
(time)

Actor

Process:
Material

3.

The final days

of decision
Range

To disarm
the Iraqi
regime
without
war
Circ:
Purpose

Process:
Material

Circ:
Location
(time)
In 12 years of
diplomacy
Range

21

Range

4.

Actor

Process:
Material

Circ: Location
(time)

We

Have passed

More than a
dozen
resolutions

Actor

Process:
Material

Goal

Circ:
Location
(space)
5.

Circ: Purpose

6.

21

Goal

Actor

Process:
Material

We

Have sent

Actor

Process:
Material

To oversee the
disarmament
of Iraq
Circ: Purpose

Goal

Actor

Process:
Material

Have used
[diplomacy]
as a ploy
Process:
Material

Actor

7.

Hundreds of
weapons
inspectors
Goal

The Iraqi
regime

Circ: Purpose

In the United
Nations
Security
Council
Circ:
Location
(space)

Goal

It

Diplomacy

Goal

Actor

Has defied

To gain time
and
advantage
Circ: Purpose

Process:
Material
Security Council
resolutions

11

Actor

[
]
Actor

Goal
8.

Peaceful efforts to
disarm the Iraqi
regime
Actor

9.

[intelligence
leaves no
doubt that]
The Iraqi
regime
Actor

Goal

Process: Material

Have failed

Again and again

Process: Material

Circ: Location
(time)

Actor

Circ: Location
(time)

10.

Process: Material

Process: Material

Continues to
posses

And conceal

Some of the
most lethal
weapons ever
devised

Process:
Material

Process:
Material

Goal

Goal

Process:
Material

Process:
Material

(

)
Actor

This regime

Has already
used

Weapons of
mass
destruction

Actor

Process:
Material

Goal

Recipient

Against Iraq's
neighbors and
against Iraq's
people
Recipient

[
]

Goal

Process:
Material

Actor

11

11.

It [i.e. the
Iraqi
regime]

Has aided

Trained

And
harbored

Actor

Process:
Material

Process:
Material

Process:
Material

Beneficiary

12.

Process:
Material

Process:
Material

The
terrorists

Could
kill

Actor

Process:
Material

Goal

Circ:
Location
(space)
13.

Thousands
or hundred
thousands of
innocent
people
Goal

Process:
Material

Actor

Has

Carrier

Process:
Relational
Attributive
(Possessive)

Attribute

Process:
Material

In our
country, or
any other

The regime

Circ:
Location

[

]
Actor

Terrorists,
including
operatives
of AlQaeda
Beneficiary

Circ:
Location
(space)

A history of
reckless
aggression
Attribute

Process:
Relational

Carrier

In the
Middle East
Circ:
Location
(space)

12

(space)

14.

Attribute

15.

Attributive
(Possessive)
It

Has

Carrier

Process: Relational
Attributive
(Possessive)

Process: Relational
Attributive
(Possessive)

Carrier

A deep hatred of
America and our
friends
Attribute

Over
U.N.
Have been
By
Electronically
And
the
weapon threatened
Iraqi
bugged
systematically
years
inspectors
officials
deceived
Circ:
Receiver
Process:
Sayer
Process:
Process:
temporal
Goal
Verbal
Actor
Material
Behavioral
Target
Behaver

[]

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

Actor

Process:
Material

Range

17.

But we
Actor

Circ: Purpose

18.

19.

Process:
Material

Will do
Process:
Material

Goal

We
Actor

Circ: Location
(space)

Process:
Material
Will set
Process:
Material

Goal

This danger
Goal

Nothing to
deserve or
invite this
threat
Range

Actor

Everything
Goal

To defeat it
Circ: Purpose

Actor

A course
Goal

Toward safety
Circ: Location
(space)

Process:
Material
Will be
removed
Process:

15

Material
(passive)

Goal

20.

The United
States of
America
Carrier

Circ: Purpose

21.

The sovereign
authority to
use force
Attribute

Process:
Relational
Attributive
(Possessive)

Attribute

Recognizing
the threat
to our
country

Process:
Relational
Attributive
(Possessive)

Carrier

Voted

Last year

Actor

Process:
Material

Circ:
Location
(time)

Circ:
Purpose

Circ:
Location
(time)

(

)
Actor

Process:
Material

Tried to work

With the UN

Actor

Process:
Material

Circ:
Accompaniment

()

To support
the use of
force
against Iraq
Circ:
Purpose

America

In assuring its
own national
security
Circ: Purpose

The U.S.
Congress

22.

Has

Process:
Material

To address
this threat
Circ: Cause

) (

16

Circ: Cause

23.

Circ:
Accompaniment

Actor

Because we

Wanted

Senser

Process: Mental
(desideration)

Circ: Manner

Projected
clause

24.

To resolve the
issue
Projected
clause

Mental
(desideration)
Believe in

Senser

Process: Mental

Process: Mental
The U.S.
and our
allies

Are

Authorized
to use force

Circ:
Contingency

Carrier

Process:
Relational
Attributive
(Possessive)

Attribute

Circ:
Purpose

Circ: Manner

The mission of the

UN
Phenomenon

Under
resolutions
678 and 687

Peacefully

) (
Senser

We

Phenomenon
25.

Process:
Material

Goal

Process:
Material
(passive)

In ridding
Iraq of
weapons of
mass
destruction
Circ:
Purpose

876
867
Circ:
Contingency

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

Actor

Process: Material

Circ: Purpose
27.

Actor

Process: Material

Some
governments
Actor

Range

To enforce the
just demands of
the world
Circ: Purpose

Process:
Material

In the middle
east
Circ: location
(space)

Have been
doing
Process:
Material

Their part

Actor

Range

18

28.

They

Have
delivered

Actor

Process:
Material

Public and
private
messages
urging the
dictator to
leave Iraq
Goal

Goal
29.

If we must
begin a
military
campaign

Recipient

30.

Process: Material

It

Will be
directed

Goal

Process:
Material

Recipient

Process:
Material

Goal

As our coalition
Actor

Goal

31.

Against the
lawless
men who
rule your
country
Recipient

Actor

Takes away
Process: Material

Recipient

Their power
Goal

Process: Material

We

Will deliver

Actor

Process: Material

And not
against you

The food and

medicine you need
Goal

19

Goal

Process: Material

32.

We

Will tear
down

Actor

Process:
Material

Goal

33.

You

Actor

Process:
Material

Goal

Goal

()
Process:
Material

In a free
Iraq

There
will be

Circ:
Location
(space)

Process:
Existential

No more
wars of
aggression
against
your
neighbors

[Saddam] and
terrorists

To build a
new Iraq that
is prosperous
and free
Circ: Purpose

-
Actor

No more
poison
factories

No more
And no
execution
more
of
torture
dissidents champers
and rape
rooms

Existent

Phenomenon

35.

-
Actor

Help

Circ: Purpose

()
Process:
Material

And we

34.

The
apparatus of
terror
Goal

Might try to
conduct

Senser

Process:
Mental
(perception)

Terrorist
operations

Against the
American

21

groups
Actor

Recipient

36.

Process:
Material

()

Goal

Goal

Actor

...
Process:
Material

And this very fact

Underscores

Token

Process: Relational
Identifying
(Circumstantial:
causal)

Value

people and
our friends
Recipient

Process: Relational
Identifying
(Circumstantial:
causal)

Token

The reason we
cannot live under
the threat of
blackmail
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
Carrier

Attribute
39.

Peaceful people
Attribute

Carrier
Yet we
Carrier

Attribute

Are
Process: relational
attributive
(intensive)

Are not
Process: relational
attributive
(intensive)

Carrier

Fragile people
Attribute

22

40.

And we
Goal

Actor

Will not be
intimidated
Process: material

Process: material

Goal

By thugs and
killers
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;.