Representing Conflict Through Transitivity: A Comparative SFL Analysis of USCENTCOM and Iranian MFA Official Statements During the US–Iran Conflict
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62978/2601mh8499Keywords:
Systemic Functional Linguistics, Transitivity, USCENTCOM, Iranian MFA, Conflict DiscourseAbstract
This study compares statements made during the U.S.-Iran conflict from April to June 2026 from the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) and the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) using SFL. It looks at the transitivity patterns that are used to signal military actions, social actors, agency, responsibility, legitimacy, and Self/Other relations in conflicting institutional discourses. The analysis is based on Halliday and Matthiessen’s Transitivity System, where the process types, participant roles and circumstances are taken into consideration. The corpus consists of 24 official documents, 12 being public releases from USCENTCOM, and 12 being statements released by the Iranian MFA, which results in 354 coded clauses. The results show that the material processes make up the bulk of the combined corpus with 200 clauses. USCENTCOM has 95 material processes with 127 clauses, with a focus on operational action, military capability, protection, threat interception, and defense response. The Iranian MFA includes 105 material processes in 227 clauses, relational processes in 59 clauses and the verbal processes in 55 clauses. These patterns suggest a wider legal/ diplomatic context in Iranian MFA discourse, with verbal processes denouncing and asserting diplomatic powers, and relational processes categorizing U.S. behaviors and/or their consequences by aggression, violation, sovereignty, and responsibility. Both institutions are responsible for building positive Self-presentation and negative Other-presentation in the way they act on the role of participants and their patterns of agency. The primary purpose of USCENTCOM is to advocate for the U.S. forces as active and defensive, with the Iranian MFA claiming Iran is a sovereign, defensive actor and the U.S. is the perpetrator of aggression and lawlessness. The study shows that official conflict discourse does not just represent events, but grammatically creates divergent narratives of legitimacy, agency, blame, and responsibility.
References
1. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
2. Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: A & C Black.
3. Thompson, G. (2013). Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.
4. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: SAGE Publications.
5. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
6. Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Matu, P. M., & Lubbe, H. J. (2007). Investigating language and ideology: A presentation of the ideological square and transitivity in the editorials of three Kenyan newspapers. Journal of Language and Politics, 6(3), 401–418.
8. Zhang, Y. (2017). Transitivity analysis of Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s first television debate. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(7), 65–72.
9. Adjei, A. A., Ewusi-Mensah, L., & Okoh, H. (2015). Transitivity in political discourse—A study of the major process types in the 2009 state-of-the-nation address in Ghana. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, 16, 23–32.
10. Ong’onda, N. A. (2016). Transitivity analysis of newspaper headlines on terrorism attack in Kenya: A case study of Westgate Mall, Nairobi. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(9), 77–85.
11. Kazemian, B., & Hashemi, S. (2014). Critical discourse analysis of Barack Obama’s 2012 speeches: Views from systemic functional linguistics and rhetoric. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(6), 1178–1187.
12. Adjei, A. A., & Ewusi-Mensah, L. (2016). Transitivity in Kufour’s 2008 farewell speech to the Ghanaian parliament. British Journal of English Linguistics, 4(1), 36–49.
13. Seo, S. (2013). Hallidayean transitivity analysis: The battle for Tripoli in the contrasting headlines of two national newspapers. Discourse & Society, 24(6), 774–791.
14. Wang, J. (2010). A critical discourse analysis of Barack Obama’s speeches. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 254–261.
15. Li, J. (2010). Transitivity and lexical cohesion: Press representations of a political disaster and its actors. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3444–3458.
16. Zakizadeh, H. (2024). A transitivity analysis of English newspapers headlines on the Ukraine-Russia war: A study with critical discourse analysis and systematic functional linguistics’ perspective. International Journal of Linguistics and Translation Studies, 5(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlts.v5i1.397
17. Sharififar, M., & Rahimi, E. (2015). Critical discourse analysis of political speeches: A case study of Obama’s and Rouhani’s speeches at UN. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(2), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0502.14
18. Butt, D. G., Lukin, A., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). Grammar—the first covert operation of war. Discourse & Society, 15(2–3), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504041020
19. Hampl, M. (2014). The system of transitivity in the war on terror discourse. Komunikácie-vedecké listy Žilinskej univerzity v Žiline, 16(3), 46–51.
20. Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ in four US presidential addresses. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 287–314.
21. Abid, R. Z., & Manan, S. A. (2016). Constructing the “self” and the “other” in Bush’s political discourse before and after the Iraq war (2002–2008). Journal of Language and Politics, 15(6), 710–726.
22. Achugar, M. (2008). What We Remember: The Construction of Memory in Military Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
23. Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and Power (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
24. Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
25. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
26. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Farhan, Professor He Li (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
