War in Iraq

War in IraqA 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.

DataThe 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.

AgendaDiscussing 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: TransitivityProcesses

Process type Total number Frequency Percentage Material 712940.8 %Mental 1825.3%Relational1723.9%Causative 68.4 %Verbal 11.4 %

Circumstance

Type Total Frequency Percentage Cause 441840.9%Manner 1227.2%Location1022.7 %accompaniment 36.8%Contingency 12.2%Role 12.2 %

Participants

Pronoun Referent Frequency First Person (I)Obama 14 times We (First Person)The American People 9 times Second Person (you ) Audience \Americans7 times one explicit 6 (omitted) through the causative process "Let me "Bush (vocative)4 times

Logico-semantic RelationsObama 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 logico-semantic relations10 out of 6116.39 %Hypotactic relations 3 out of 1030 %Paratactic relations 7 out of 1070 %

Projection 1 out of 1010 %Expansion9out of 1090 %Extension 7 out of 1070 %Enhancing 2 out of 1020 %

Elaboration 0 out of 100 %

Implications and CommentaryMaterial ProcessesThey are used as a three-fold pattern: positive self representation and a two-side negative other representation.Example: Positive self representationMy grandfather signed up for a warthe day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's armyLet'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 ProcessesThey mainly show contrast.

Example:

You want a fight, President Bush?4 times in 3 successive paragraphs.I know\I also know 4 times

Relational ProcessesIt is used as a three-fold pattern: Civil War, war in Iraq and Saddam.Negative other representation Example: Sadam He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. Bush 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) familiarityExample: 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 ideologyExample: 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 OrganizationMarked Themes

Marked Themes Total number of clauses Frequency Percentage Marked themes in the text 61 915 % Highly Marked themes 9666.6 %

Implication and CommentaryThe Functions of marked themes:Change frameworkEmphasis 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 7,14,17,39I don't oppose all wars4 times in 3 successive paragraphs .19,20,21,22,23What I am opposed to is5 times19,23,40a dumb war3 times20,23a rash war2 times42,44,51,54You want a fight, President Bush?4 times in 3 successive paragraphs.

CommentaryThe Functions of repetition A) Cohesion

B) Focus on the crux of the message

Parallelism

Clause numberParallel Structures Grammatical Construction Function12,15in the name of a larger freedom x in the name of intolerance in +the name +of +nounContrast24A war based not on reason x but on passion, not on principle x but on politics. not+on+noun, but +on+noun Contrast22a rise in the uninsured x a rise in the poverty rate x a drop in the median incomea (indefinite article)+noun+ preposition +noun build-on emphasis36of undetermined length x at undetermined cost x with undetermined consequences.preposition +adjective+ nounbuild-on emphasis

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: TransitivityProcesses

Total number of clauses 123Process Frequency Percentage Material 7258.53 %Mental 118.94 %Relational 2923.57 %Verbal 97.32 %Existential 10.81 %Behavioural 10.81 %

Circumstance

Total number of circumstances91 Type of circumstance Frequency Percentage Location 3538.46 %Manner 2224.17 %Cause 2628.57 %Accompaniment 55.49 %Contingency 11.09 %Role 22.19 %

ParticipantsPronoun Referent FrequencyFirst person (I)Bush5 timesFirst person (We)Americans25 timesSecond person (you)Iraqi 3 times

Logico-semantic RelationsIn addition to contributing to the continuity of the text, logico-semantic relations emphasize Bushs intentions and underlying ideology.

Total number of logico-semantic relations39 out of 12331.70 %Hypotactic relations24 out of 3961.53 %Paratactic relations 15 out of 3938.46 %

Projection 2 out of 395.13 %Expansion37 out of 3994.87 %Enhancing19 out of 3751.35 %Extension 18 out of 3748.64 %Elaboration 0 out of 370 %

Implications and CommentaryMaterial ProcessesThe 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 processesA) positive self representationExample:B) negative other representationExample:C) The other is not positive until the self makes it positiveExample:

Mental Processes

Perception versus cognition and emotions Example:

Participants

Logico-semantic Relations: CommentaryEnhancing relations: a) Conditional b) Spatio-temporal

No Elaboration

Textual OrganizationTotal number of clauses123Total number of marked themes21Percentage 17.07 %

Type of marked themeFrequency PercentageTime adjuncts12 out of 2157.14 %Place and other types of adjuncts7 out of 2133.33 %Thematised comment2 out of 219.52 %

Implication and CommentaryNo 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:

Circumstance:

Logico-semantic relationsObamaBushPoor use Balanced useExtension is the highestEnhancing is the highest

Enhancing less usedExtension equally usedNo elaborationNo elaborationPersuasion Authority

Marked ObamaBushHighly marked themesNo highly marked themesPseudo-cleftCleftFronting Time adjuncts as theme

Repetition and ParallelismObamaBushOutstanding usePoor useCohesion Logico-sematic relationsOratory styleInformative 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