War in Iraq

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ADOPTING A SYSTEMIC FUNCUTIONAL

APPROACH - A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Introduction

This paper attempts to compare Bushs and Obamas stances on war in

Iraq, to trace discourse of opposition compared to that of authority.

For this purpose, critical discourse analysis (CDA) is The theoretical

framework of this paper, focusing on the notion of self and other
representation.

Systemic- Functional Grammar, mainly the Ideational Metafunction and

textual organization, is used as the analytical tool to reveal the
underlying ideologies of the speakers.

Data

The data used in this paper includes two political speeches.

The first speech has been given by the then-Senator Barack Obama in Chicago on
October 2, 2002 during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. In his speech, he has
voiced out his fierce opposition to the impending war. His stance , back then, was
not
a
popular
one,
since
most
ofthepollsconfirmedthatthemajoritysupportedthemilitaryinvasion.

The second speech has been delivered by Bush on March 18, 2003; just a few
days before the military invasion of Iraq. It is known as Bushs war ultimatum
speech.

Agenda

Discussing the analysis and implications of Obamas speech.

Discussing the analysis and implications of Bush speech.

Highlighting similarities and differences.

Obama

Obamas use of The transitivity patterns, the textual organization and

the rhetorical devises reflects his ideologically charged message.

The analysis has helped to crystallize the intentionality of his discourse

in this particular speech and most importantly, the strategies he
pursues to persuade the audience through self and other
representation.

Ideational Metafunction: Transitivity

Processes
Process type

Total
number

Frequency

Percentage

Material

29

40.8 %

Mental

18

25.3%

17

23.9%

Causative

8.4 %

Verbal

1.4 %

Relational

71

Circumstance

Type

Frequency

Percentage

Cause

18

40.9%

Manner

12

27.2%

Location

10

22.7 %

6.8%

Contingency

2.2%

Role

2.2 %

accompaniment

Total

44

 Participants
Pronoun

Referent

Frequency

First Person (I)

Obama

14 times

We (First Person)

The American People

9 times

Second Person (you )

Audience \Americans

7 times
one explicit
6 (omitted) through the
causative process "Let
me "
4 times

Bush (vocative)

Logico-semantic Relations

Obama does not use logico-semantic relations extensively. He rather

uses repetition and parallelism to enhance the continuity and cohesion
of the text.

Total
number
of
relations
Hypotactic relations

logico-semantic 10 out of 16.39 %

61
3 out of 30 %
10
Paratactic relations
7 out of 70 %
10 %
Projection
1 out of
Expansion
9out of 10
10
10
Extension
7 out of 10

90 %
70 %

Enhancing

2 out of 10

20 %

Elaboration

0 out of 10

0 %

Implications and Commentary

Material Processes

They are used as a three-fold pattern: positive self representation and a two-side
negative other representation.
Example:
Positive self representation
My grandfather signed up for a warthe day after Pearl Harbor was bombed,
fought in Patton's army
Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we
vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current
allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material.

Material Processes

Negative Other representation

Sadam A man who butchers his own people to secure his own
power.

Bush
an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without
strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East,
and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab
world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida.

Mental Processes

They mainly show contrast.

Example:
You want a fight, President
Bush?

4 times in 3 successive
paragraphs.

I know\I also know

4 times

Relational Processes

It is used as a three-fold pattern: Civil War, war in Iraq and Saddam.

Negative other representation
Example:
Sadam
Bush

He is a brutal man. A ruthless man.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war.

Relational Processes

Positive self representation

Examples :

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, 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.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. The battles against ignorance and
intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

Causative Processes

A) familiarity

Example: Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I
stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

B) Refutation

Example : Now let me be clear I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal
man.

C) Engaging the audience in opposing dominant ideology

Example: So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us
send a clear message to the president today.

Participants

I -

individual identity.

We -

group identity.

You

challenge and negative representation

Textual Organization

Marked Themes

Marked Themes

Total number of Frequency

clauses

Percentage

Marked themes in
the text

61

15 %

Highly Marked
themes

66.6 %

Implication and Commentary

The Functions of marked themes:

a)

Change framework

b)

Emphasis

c)

Exclusiveness and contrast

Examples:

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.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.
What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt to shove their own ideological
agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

Repetition
Clause
number

Item traced

Number of occurrences

7,14,17,39

I don't oppose all wars

4 times in 3 successive
paragraphs .

19,20,21,22,2 What I am opposed to is

3
a dumb war
19,23,40

5 times

20,23
42,44,51,54

2 times

a rash war
You want a fight, President Bush?

3 times
4 times in 3 successive
paragraphs.

Commentary

The Functions of repetition

A) Cohesion

B) Focus on the crux of the message

Parallelism
Clause Parallel Structures
numbe
r

Grammatical
Construction

Function

12,15

in the name of a larger freedom x

in the name of intolerance
A war based not on reason x but on
passion, not on principle x but on
politics.

in +the name +of +noun

Contrast

not+on+noun,
but +on+noun

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

36

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

preposition +adjective+
noun

build-on
emphasis

24

The functions of parallelism

A) Rhythm and balance
B) contrast

C) Emphasis

Bush

Bushs use of transitivity patterns and the textual organization of his

speech reveal the intentionality of the discourse and his ideological
stance.

The analysis largely highlights his representation of reality, self and

other.

Ideational Metafunction: Transitivity

Processes
Total number of clauses

123

Process

Frequency

Percentage

Material

72

58.53 %

Mental

11

8.94 %

Relational

29

23.57 %

Verbal

7.32 %

Existential

0.81 %

Behavioural

0.81 %

Circumstance
Total
number
circumstances
Type of circumstance
Location
Manner
Cause
Accompaniment
Contingency
Role

of 91
Frequency

Percentage

35
22
26
5
1
2

38.46 %
24.17 %
28.57 %
5.49 %
1.09 %
2.19 %

Participants
Pronoun

Referent

Frequency

First person (I)

Bush

5 times

First person (We)

Americans

25 times

Second
(you)

person Iraqi

3 times

Logico-semantic Relations

In addition to contributing to the continuity of the text, logico-semantic

relations emphasize Bushs intentions and underlying ideology.
Total number of logico-semantic relations
Hypotactic relations

39 out of 31.70 %
123
24 out of 39
61.53 %

Paratactic relations

15 out of 39

Projectio 2 out of 39
n

5.13 %

38.46 %

Expansion

37 out of 39 94.87 %

Enhancing
Extension
Elaboration

19 out of 37
18 out of 37
0 out of 37

51.35 %
48.64 %
0 %

Implications and Commentary

Material Processes

The self is more dynamic and more actively participating in action.

Example:

We are the saviours.

Example:

We are united.

Example:

We are powerful, but peaceful and merciful.

Example:

They are dangerous, aggressive and deceitful.

Example:

No need for persuasion, intimidation will work.

Example:

Relational processes

A) positive self representation

Example:

B) negative other representation

Example:

C) The other is not positive until the self makes it positive

Example:

Mental Processes

Perception versus cognition and emotions

Example:

Participants

Logico-semantic Relations: Commentary

Enhancing relations:
a) Conditional
b) Spatio-temporal

No Elaboration

Textual Organization

Total number of clauses

123

Total number of marked 21

themes

Percentage

17.07 %

Type of marked theme

Frequency

Percentage

Time adjuncts

12 out of 21

57.14 %

Place and other types of 7 out of 21

adjuncts

33.33 %

Thematised comment

9.52 %

2 out of 21

Implication and Commentary

No highly marked themes

The functions of Time adjuncts

A) Chronological order

B) Cohesion: they conform to logico-semantic relations and

circumstances.

Conclusion

Quantitative analysis reflects both similarities and differences:

Processes:
Bush

40.8 %
- balanced
representatio
n
- persuasion
Obama

58.53 %
- very
material
representatio
n
- authority

Circumstance:

Obama
- cause:
40.9 %
persuasion

Bush
-location:
38.46 %
Authority

Logico-semantic relations
Obama

Bush

Poor use

Balanced use

Extension is the highest

Enhancing is the highest

Enhancing less used

Extension equally used

No elaboration

No elaboration

Persuasion

Authority

Marked

Obama

Bush

Highly marked themes

No highly marked themes

Pseudo-cleft
Cleft
Fronting

Time adjuncts as theme

Repetition and Parallelism

Obama

Bush

Outstanding use

Poor use

Cohesion

Logico-sematic relations

Oratory style

Informative style

Despite all those differences, one thing remains noticeably similar. Both
Obama and Bush represent America as the saviour responsible for the
security of the whole world, while others are always represented as either a
threat to the world which America has to defeat or as helpless passive
parties waiting for America to save them.

Thank
You