A Transitivity Analysis Of George Bush’s And Tony Blair’s War Declaration Speeches Against Iraq

The earliest application of transitivity model in Systemic-Functional Grammar can be traced back to1970s. Halliday made a tentative step towards applying the transitivity model to William Golding’s The Inheritor in1971. Since then, the transitivity theory and its applications have received wide attention at home and abroad. However, the application of Halliday’s transitivity model to the study of war declaration speeches is relatively rare.This thesis will analyze George W. Bush’s and Tony Blair’s war declaration speeches against Iraq based on Halliday’s transitivity model. First, the thesis will identify the process type and main participant of each clause in the two war declaration speeches. Then, a qualitative approach will be adopted to reveal the distributions and functions of process types and main participants. Finally, the similarities and differences between the two speeches’transitivity systems will be pointed out.The analysis shows that the material processes and the coalition forces account for the largest proportion in George Bush’s speech, while relational processes and the enemies share the highest ratio in Tony Blair’s speech. No behavioural or existential processes occur in both speeches. Such a distribution is decided by the different domestic political situations the two speakers confront. Since the September11terrorist attacks, most Americans are concerned about the security status of their own and their country. However, President Bush proposes a series of anti-terrorism plans which are exactly in accord with Americans’ expectation and thus win him wide support. On the contrary, a majority of Britons are disgusted with Premier Blair’s role as a blind follower of the Bush administration. Moreover, they also worry about that the participation of the military operations in Iraq will make Britain in deep trouble. Therefore, most Britons are opposed to Britain’s participation of the joint military operations in Iraq before the war. Due to such a different political situations, the two speakers differ from each other at the choices of transitivity systems.Through the analysis, the author intends to offer a new perspective to the study of war declaration speeches, to widen the application of Halliday’s transitivity model, and to help readers grasp more oratory skills. Finally, to sharpen readers’konwledge and understanding of American and British politics and cultures through decoding the transitivity systems of the two speeches.