1.

Introduction
In this essay, I will examine a televised address that Prime Minister Blair gave on the eve of sending British troops to Iraq (see Appendix). This is a high-value text, in that Blair needed to convey a message of utmost seriousness to the nation. It was also, at the time, an unpopular message: a large percentage of the British nation were opposed to the war. Although the text was broadcast on television, and delivered as speech, it is, I believe, a carefully prepared and structured piece. Following Halliday and Matthiessen (2004), I will discuss how the choices that Blair made when preparing his speech realise the metafunctional options available at the semantic level. My first task was to identify the constituent parts of the text for analysis. Following Thompson (2004: 156) I broke the text down into T-units (each independent clause, along with any accompanying dependent clause). Following Faircloughs recommendations for critical discourse analysis (1989), I will first look at the Experiential metafunction, discussing how Blair represents his world view, and what types of process and participant dominate. I then explore the text from the view of the Interpersonal metafunction, to uncover the power differences between the author and audience, and to discuss how Blair intends his message to be received. Finally, the two metafunctional strands will be brought together, to create an understanding of how, and with what intent, Blair created the text.

c1143677

2. The Experiential metafunction

The way the author chooses to represent the worldactions, events and ideascan be uncovered by looking at the Experiential metafunction of a text. Through this, we can gain an understanding of how the author experiences the world, or wishes to represent that experience to the reader. Through six main process types, we may construe a version of the external world of things which happen and are said; and also the internal world of things which are sensed. We may also classify or identify items in ways which suit us. The table below shows us the dominance of Material and Relational process types in the Blair text. The text, as I will go on to discuss, is mostly concerned with identifying and characterising things, and representing actions. Material 26 Mental 9 Verbal 3 Behaviou ral 2 Relation al 38 Existenti al 1

2.1 Relational processes

Turning first to Relational processes, we can subdivide these into two principal types: Attributive and Identifying. In the Blair text, there are a high number (14 in total) of Identifying clauses, the basic function of which is to identify one entity in terms of another (Thompson, 2004: 96). This is perhaps unsurprising: this type of clause tends to dominate high-value discourse (especially political) where the meanings construed are symbolic ones (Halliday and

c1143677

Matthiessen 2004: 234). The two participant roles in Identifying clauses are Value and Token, the former categorising the latter. Thompson (2004: 98) highlights the importance of analyzing these two participants when uncovering a texts ideological values, since the choice of this process allows an author to assign values (a Value) to an idea or thing (a Token).

One of the key aims of this text is to identify (for the audience) the key participants in the war against Iraq. By the end of the speech, the audience will be clear about what the threat to Britain is and how it is best dealt with. By choosing Identifying processes, Blair presents this (unequivocally) as truth, rather than as actions, sensations, or beliefs. A selection is presented here. Processes are shown in bold.
the threat to Britain today [value] is not that of my fathers generation [token] the best way to deal with future threats [token] is to deal with present threats with resolve [value] the truth [value] is, all nations are targets [token] our enemy [value] is not you but your barbarous rulers [token] Saddam [token] is not the only threat [value] Iraq [token] is not our only concern [value]

In fact, there seems to be a preference for Identifying process clauses over other types. Compare the nominalised clause below, which appears in the text, with I fear that these threats will come together (which would focus more on Blairs worries than on representing a fact).
My fear is that these threats come together

c1143677

I will now describe the other type of Relational process in the text, and how Blair constructs his representation of how things are in the world. The two major participant roles in this text are Carrier and Attribute. Following from Francis and Kramer-Dahls notion of subjective and objective attributes (1992: 174), we can see that Blair chooses to represent things (Carriers) objectively and neutrally as facts rather than evaluations. A selection may be seen below.

So, our choice [carrier] is clear [attribute]. It [carrier] is true [attribute] Removing Saddam [carrier] will be a blessing [attribute]. Four million Iraqis [carrier] are in exile [attribute].

The repeated use of this Carrier + be + Attribute formula, where Carrier (the Subject) is in initial position in the clause, shows that the text aims to get its representation of reality across consistently and unambiguously. In fact, this representation has a static quality (Halliday and Mattheissen, 2004: 212), as the following example demonstrates.

their families and all of Britain [carrier] can have [process] great pride [attribute]

Blair has chosen to nominalise this clause, but not by use of the more congruent collocation take pride. Instead, he has chosen a static, possessive Relational process, using have pride. This can be compared with the more dynamic, Behavioural process choice (their families can pride themselves ). One further point to make about Blairs text is that by far the most common Carrier role can be categorised as belonging to the side of Britain in the war against terrorism (i.e. us,or those who are with

c1143677

us).

the British people will now be united Britain has never been a nation to hide at the back Bali was never in the front line Our commitment will be total.

Thus, the text, with its dominant proportion of Relational clauses, is concerned with representing matters that are true and timeless. Moreover, it is categorising us, the audience, in the same terms.

2.2 Material processes

I turn now to discuss the second-most common process type in the text, which is concerned with doing. The major participants here are Actor (the doer) and Goal (the object of the doing). Here, two dominant patterns emerge. In the first pattern, the Actor is us (Blair, the British, America) and the Goal is them (Saddam, Al-Qaida). Processes are in bold.
I gave the order [British forces] remove Saddam [British forces] disarm Iraq America didnt attack Al-Qaida the world tried to disarm Saddam [we] proceed to disarm him

c1143677

Here, these processes are all transformative: the Actors are operative instigators of change (Halliday and Mattheissen, 2004: 182185). In addition, the Goal is most often an animate one, and therefore, these processes would come at the top of Hasans dynamism cline (1985: 46). It can be noted, too, that Blair is assigning the same participant role to Iraq, Saddam and AlQaida. The text presents them, in this sense, as the same. In the second major pattern, the Actor is them and the Goal is an abstract concept or inanimate. [these threats] deliver catastrophe the terrorists delight in destroying [human life] terrorists obtain these weapons [of mass destruction] Dictators like Saddam, terrorist groups like Al-Qaida threaten the very existence of such a world Here, the Actors have a less dynamic role (in Hasans terms), although they are still operative. Again, Saddam, terrorists, threats and Al-Qaida all have the same participant role. In this text, the lack of nominalisation would lead us to conclude that the processes are congruent; meanings and agency are not obscured. However, the dominant use of the present simple with Material processes (threaten, deliver, proceed to disarm) is marked. Therefore, as with the Relational processes, the text aims to represent an unambiguous view of what is happening, but these actions, too, are often static, ongoing, and timeless.

2.3 Mental processes

The last group of processes I will turn to in this discussion is concerned with what people feel or think. The participant doing the thinking is the Senser; the thought or feeling is the Phenomenon.
c1143677

Notably, Blair himself is Senser on most occasions. Examples are presented below, with processes in bold.
I know this course of action has produced deep divisions of opinion in our country I know the British people will now be united I hope the Iraqi people hear this message

These Mental processes (be they cognitive or desiderative) are presented in clearly positive terms; Blair knows and hopes. The Phenomena are the British and Iraqi people (belonging to we in the text). In short, this is someone whose thoughts are clear, someone whose thoughts are benign and directed towards us.

On the only occasions where Blair is not Senser, we again turn to them.
[brutal states and terrorist groups] hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy These tyrannical states do not care for the sanctity of human life

Clearly, these emotional Mental processes are not positive. Moreover, the Phenomena are against us. In short, unlike Blair, they do not have our best interests at heart. Following the textual patterns described so far, the Mental processes are also static and timeless. Blair knows and hopes; they hate and do not care. The choice of language in the verb group expresses that this will not change.

c1143677

3. The Interpersonal Metafunction

The Interpersonal metafunction allows us to uncover the way a text establishes and maintains an interaction with an intended audience, and the various speech functions that can be adopted. Authors of texts can choose their mode of interaction with the audience, and as I will go on to show with the Blair text, this is enacted in, and revealed by, the grammar of the clause.

3.1 Mood
As I have outlined in the section on Experiential meaning, the Blair text seems concerned mostly with the exchange of information. Halliday and Mattheissen (2004: 110) point out that when language is used for this purpose, the clause takes on the form of a proposition. Blairs speech role is that of giving; the commodity being exchanged is that of information in the form of statements (Eggins 2004: 146).

In Blairs text, the declarative clause is by far the most dominant form. In the interpersonal metafunction, this is realised by Mood choices involving Subject and Finite used in each clause. Examples are given below.

Our enemy [subject] is [finite] not you, but your barbarous rulers. We [subject] are [finite] with you. Hundreds of thousands [subject] have [finite] been driven from their homes. I [subject] gave [fused finite and predicator] the order

Only three clauses in the whole text do not quite follow this pattern, and even these have the implied Subject of our choice is.
c1143677

back down and leave Saddam hugely strengthened or proceed to disarm him by force

The Mood pattern of Subject + Finite is used throughout the text. The effect is that of a consistent one-way dialogue between a giver and a receiver of information, which I would interpret as an asymmetrical status relation (Francis and Kramer-Dahl, 1992: 181). Within the Mood component, we can also assign temporality and polarity. Again, there are consistent patterns within the text. The dominant tense used in the finite is the present (is, have, gave, etc.). Similarly, the dominant polarity is a positive one. Blairs propositions, therefore, are concerned with arguing about what is (Eggins 2004: 172).

3.2 Modality
Eggins (2004: 172173) sees propositions of either it is or it is not as being two extreme ends of a cline, and identifies two methods in which an author may express a degree of probability or usuality, which I will now describe in Blairs text. Finite modal operators are used sparingly. Only on one occasion do we find something of a low or median classification.

c1143677

Retreat might give us a moment of respite.

Otherwise, high-value modality is used, giving a proposition with a high degree of certainty.

the British people will now be united it wouldnt avail us our commitment will be total Removing Saddam will be a blessing

Modal adjuncts are similarly uncommon. In the following, he expresses high usuality (never) and intensifies the notion of the threat (entirely).

Britain has never been a nation to hide at the back this threat is real, growing and of an entirely different nature

From these examples, therefore, we can identify in Blairs text, a series of absolute is or is not propositions. Where he uses modality, it is to express a firm commitment to notions of what the British can do, or what the threat is. On the one occasion he uses a low-value modal, it is in reference to retreat, thus presenting his lack of commitment to the idea.

3.3 Appraisal
Although I have described Blairs propositions as being factual and somewhat absolute, his authorial and ideological stance comes across clearly by his choice of language. Following Martins notions of judgement (2000: 142175), we may clearly see Blairs views on us (the British people and military):

c1143677

10

the courage and determination of British men and women They are the finest in the world

and them:
brutal states like Iraq These tyrannical states your barbarous rulers

In addition, following Thompsons notion of appraisal (Thompson, 2004: 75) we can identify how Blair indicates his sure stance towards key ideas.
this threat is real, growing the best way to deal with future threats peacefully is to deal with present threats with resolve Removing Saddam will be a blessing

3.4 Pronoun use

Bloor and Bloor (2004: 228) make the point that the use of pronouns such as my and our in relation to abstract concepts such as language or country (which in fact cannot be owned) can encourage group loyalty, or more negatively, nationalist sentiments. We may see examples of this type of pronoun use in Blairs text.
Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy deliver catastrophe to our country and world the carnage they could inflict to our economies, our security

This clearly positions the reader as belonging us, who they would like to destroy in some way. Furthermore, by the end of the text, Blair has involved the reader fully in his message.
Our enemy is not you, but your barbarous rulers

c1143677

11

We shall help Iraq move towards democracy I have asked our troops to go into action tonight

Thus, the reader is positioned as someone with a vested interest in the military action Blair is proposing, is involved in helping Iraq, and jointly owns the troops now going into action.

Concluding remarks
As regards what this text is about, it is helpful to list the ten most frequently repeated nouns. They are as follows: 1) threat, 2) world, 3) Iraq, 4) Saddam, 5) British, 6) Britain, 7) weapon, 8) action, 9) peace), 10) thousand In terms which are certain, fixed and factual, Blair presents the threat to his audience. He is declaring that the threat is. The high level of Relational clauses shows us that he is possessor of information. He defines the situation. We, the audience, are the receiver of information. In terms of possession of knowledge, the power relationship is asymmetrical. Blair is deliverer of information, and because his propositions are absolute, we may not respond to them. In terms of actions, we the British are dynamic and transformative. They are loosely defined: equally Saddam, terrorists, Al-Qaida or tyrannical states, Blair doesnt distinguish between them in terms of participant roles. In setting up a we versus them scenario, Blair seems to be referring to us (Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy). At other times, it is ambiguous who he is referring to (We will strive to see it done). This lack of clarity allows Blair to put across what we the government are doing, as what we the people are doing. In Faircloughs terms, it assimiliates the people to the

c1143677

12

leader, or the leadership (1989: 180). In short, Blair is represented by the text as the unflinching, sure leader, in total control of the information. We, the audience, are receivers of this information, and already involved in his actions. Whether or not this particular text is representative of such speeches would warrant further research. It would be interesting, for example, to compare this text with other serious, high-value messages to the nation. It would also be interesting to compare it with other texts which impart information as an unequivocal world view: religious texts, for example. Certainly there are a number of lexical choices within Blairs message which would seem appropriate in such texts (sanctity, repentance, blessing, resolve, avail).

c1143677

13

References
BBC NEWS, (20 March 2003) Full transcript of Blairs speech, available online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/2870581.stm Bloor T., & Bloor, M. (2004) The Functional Analysis of English, London: Hodder Arnold Eggins, S. (2004) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Francis Pinter, London Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power, Harlow: Longman Francis, G. & A. Kramer-Dahl 1992: "Grammaticalising the Medical Case History", in Toolan, M. (ed) Language, Text and Context. London: Routledge Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd edn.) Hodder Education Hasan, R. (1985) Linguistics, Language and Verbal Art, Deakin, NSW: Deakin University Pres Martin, J. R. (2000) Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English, in Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.), Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: OUP Thompson, G. (2004) Introducting Functional Grammar (2nd edn) London: Edward Arnold

c1143677

14

Word count: 2,778

Appendix
Story from BBC NEWS (2003)

On Tuesday night I gave the order for British forces to take part in military action in Iraq. Tonight British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea. Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from power and disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. I know that this course of action has produced deep divisions of opinion in our country but I know also the British people will now be united in sending our armed forces our thoughts and prayers - they are the finest in the world and their families and all of Britain can have great pride in them. The threat to Britain today is not that of my father's generation. War between the big powers is unlikely, Europe is at peace, the Cold War already a memory. But this new world faces a new threat of disorder and chaos born either of brutal states like Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction or of extreme terrorist groups. Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy. My fear, deeply held, based in part on the intelligence that I see is that these threats come together and deliver catastrophe to our country and our world. These tyrannical states do not care for the sanctity of human life - the terrorists delight in destroying it. Some say if we act we become a target the truth is all nations are targets. Bali was never in the frontline of action against terrorism, America didn't attack al-Qaeda - they attacked America. Britain has never been a nation to hide at the back but even if we were it
c1143677

15

wouldn't avail us. Should terrorists obtain these weapons now being manufactured and traded around the world the carnage they could inflict to our economies, to our security, to world peace would be beyond our most vivid imagination. My judgment as prime minister is that this threat is real, growing and of an entirely different nature to any conventional threat to our security that Britain has faced before. For 12 years the world tried to disarm Saddam after his wars in which hundreds of thousands died. UN weapons inspectors say vast amounts of chemical and biological poisons such as anthrax, VX nerve agent and mustard gas remain unaccounted for in Iraq. So our choice is clear: back down and leave Saddam hugely strengthened or proceed to disarm him by force. Retreat might give us a moment of respite but years of repentance at our weakness would, I believe, follow. It is true that Saddam is not the only threat but it is true also as we British know that the best way to deal with future threats peacefully is to deal with present threats with resolve. Removing Saddam will be a blessing to the Iraqi people: four million Iraqis are in exile, 60% of the population dependent on food aid, thousands of children die every year through malnutrition and disease, hundreds of thousands have been driven from their homes or murdered. I hope the Iraqi people hear this message. We are with you. Our enemy is not you but your barbarous rulers. Our commitment to the post-Saddam humanitarian effort will be total. We shall help Iraq move towards democracy and put the money from Iraqi oil in a UN trust fund so it benefits Iraq and no-one else. Neither should Iraq be our only concern. President Bush and I have committed ourselves to peace in the Middle East based on a secure state of Israel and a viable Palestinian state. We will strive to see it done. But these challenges and others that confront us: poverty, the environment, the ravages of disease require a world of order and stability. Dictators like Saddam. Terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, threaten the very

c1143677

16

existence of such a world. That is why I've asked our troops to go into action tonight. As so often before on the courage and determination of British men and women serving our country the fate of many nations rest. Thank you.

c1143677

17