The role of language in advocacy: An SFL analysis of Hanan Ashrawi’s speech on Palestinian rights

Abstract The study aimed to examine the rhetorical and linguistic devices employed in one of Hanan Ashrawi’s speeches to support the Palestinian cause and promote her perspective. Based on the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) framework, this paper identified and analysed the thematic patterns in her speech qualitatively within the semiotic dimensions of text analysis, including contextual, semantic, and lexico-grammar features. The findings demonstrate the significance of rhetorical and linguistic devices in advocacy language, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The use of metaphors, repetition, parallelism, and nominalization is found to be particularly effective in enhancing the persuasiveness of advocacy language. Additionally, the findings reveal a clear connection between the thematic patterns identified in the speech and the dominant types of processes used, such as the Material process in discussing U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine and the Mental process in discussing hope and resilience amidst the oppression and injustice practiced against the Palestinians.


Language in advocacy
Advocacy is broadly defined as the endeavor to influence governmental decision-makers or shape public opinion while encouraging civic and political participation.It involves expressing a position and garnering support for it (Jenkins, 2006, p. 308, 309).This concept extends to social advocacy that seeks to influence various institutions, including private corporations, schools, universities, and non-profit organizations.In the realm of advocacy, language is often marked by the use of ABOUT THE AUTHORS Rima Jamil Malkawicandidate in linguistics and translation in the Department of Foreign Languages at the University of Sharjah.Her research interests include discourse analysis, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics.Shehdeh Fareh Linguistics from the University of Kansas in 1988.Taught at the University of Jordan from 1988-2001.Joined the University of Sharjah in 2001.Director of the Language Institute since 2013.His research interests include contrastive linguistics, discourse analysis, translation and TEFL.Authored a series of books for teaching English as a foreign language, a textbook for teaching English to students of medicine and health sciences, published more than 40 articles in prestigious journals and translated more than 20 books from English into Arabic and vice versa.Supervised more than 40 MA theses and presented in many international conferences.emotional and compelling rhetoric with the intention of persuading and motivating individuals and groups to rally behind a particular cause or perspective.

The Rhetoric of persuasiveness
The ultimate objective of debates, arguments, and various forms of communication often revolves around convincing the audience to alter their perspectives or take specific actions through the art of persuasion.Rooted in Aristotle's theory of rhetoric, these persuasive endeavors encompass three fundamental categories: ethos, pathos, and logos (Argyropoulou & Ypsilantis, 2017).These elements wield immense influence in harnessing the persuasive potential of language within the domain of advocacy, a topic we will delve into more deeply in the literature section.

Language and activism
Activism, as defined by Combs and Penfield (2012), involves "intentional, vigorous, or energetic actions that individuals and groups practice to achieve a desired goal" (p.461).Language serves as a potent tool within the realm of activism, allowing activists to strategically convey their messages and drive societal change.Nevertheless, the application of persuasive strategies varies depending on two main elements: the context and medium of communication.The adaptation of language to suit these two elements can be seen as a demonstration of the language user's awareness of the power of language-they understand that the effectiveness of their message may vary depending on where and how it is communicated.

Language and Power
Language is indeed a dynamic and context-dependent tool.It adapts to the ever-shifting landscapes of communication, reflecting the intricate interplay of power dynamics.Power, in this context, encompasses the privilege of accessing knowledge, wealth, or education, and its expression can take various forms, including control, dominance, coercion, or consensus-building.
The connection between language and power has been extensively explored within the field of Critical Discourse Analysis, with notable contributions from scholars such as Fairclough, Wodak, and Van Dijk.This connection reveals that individuals, social groups, and institutions actively employ language as a tool to exert power over less privileged groups.As Van Dijk (2015) aptly demonstrated, power can be conceptualized as a form of control.This control extends not only to the structures of context, text, or talk but also indirectly influences the thoughts and perceptions of individuals.

Language and ideology
Language is not only a vehicle of power, but also a medium for the dissemination and negotiation of ideologies that underpin societies and their discourse.Ideology, as Van Dijk (2013) articulates, extends beyond simple sociocultural knowledge or attitudes; it encompasses fundamental and axiomatic beliefs that exert control over and organize other shared beliefs within social groups.Drawing on Gramsci's (1971) concept of hegemony, when discursive practices become hegemonic, they acquire an unquestioned and natural quality, reflecting the power of ideology.In essence, linguistic manifestation emerges as a vital means of self-reflexivity, offering insight into the intricate dynamics that shape our beliefs and worldviews.

Language and conflict
Language plays a dual role within the context of conflict, serving to either escalate tension or facilitate conflict resolution.Evans et al. (2019) defined conflict as any situation or behavior that arises when parties, whether they are individuals or groups, perceive themselves as being in opposition, whether it be in terms of their goals, intellect, emotions, or a general sense of antagonism.
In the midst of conflict, language frequently mirrors power dynamics, either upholding the existing status quo and biased ideologies or challenging underlying beliefs and biases.It is important to recognize that the way language is used can significantly impact the course and resolution of conflicts.Language can be a powerful tool for both exacerbating and mitigating disputes, depending on how it is employed by the parties involved.

Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)
Recognizing the potent role of language in shaping conflict, SFL emerges to provide a unique perspective on how language functions and shapes communication in conflict situations.SFL is a theory that places the functional utilization of language within a specific context at its core.It perceives language as a resource for making meaning (Matthiessen, 2019).SFL provides a comprehensive exploration of the context parameters, including field, tenor, mode by delving into the three metafunctions of language: ideational, interpersonal, and textual.It encompasses elements of transitivity and conceives the function of linguistic choices as purposeful within a specific context rather than random symbols.

Hanan Ashrawi (contextualization)
Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian political figure and human rights activist, has been a leading advocate in the Palestinian struggle for independence and statehood for decades.The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a long-standing issue that has attracted considerable attention from experts, policymakers, and activists (Chomsky et al., 2015;Falah, 2021).In this context, the role of language in advocacy and policymaking is powerful, as it can impact public opinion and affect how decisions are made (Quigley & Silver, 2022).

Hanan Ashrawi's speech
Ashrawi delivered her recent speech titled "Keynote Dr. Hanan Ashrawi: What, If Any, Policies Have Changed Since the Trump Administration and New Hope for Palestine's Future" (Ashrawi, 2022, May 10) virtually from Jerusalem, Palestine.She presented the speech during the "Transcending the Israel Lobby at Home and Abroad" conference in Washington, USA, in May 2022.The target audience for this speech would likely include individuals and organizations interested in or involved with the Israel-Palestine conflict, including policymakers, scholars and activists.We retrieved the written speech, which consisted of approximately 6000 words, from the bimonthly online magazine Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA).The speech was published by the American Educational Trust, a non-profit organization that provides information on issues related to the Middle East.
Ashrawi, in her speech, continues to advocate for Palestinian rights and challenge the policies of the Trump administration.This written speech provides us with an opportunity to explore the effectiveness of using SFL to analyze the characteristics of advocacy language.We examined the semiotic dimensions of text analysis, including contextual, semantic, and lexico-grammar features within the thematic patterns of the text.This paper aims to answer the following questions: 1. How do the various types of transitivity processes in Ashrawi's speech reflect power dynamics and relationships between the U.S., Israel, and Palestine?
2. In what ways do certain transitivity processes used in Ashrawi's speech contribute to evoking emotions and creating a more vivid and relatable picture in the cognition of the audience?

Significance
The findings of this study can be of significance in several ways.First, policymakers can gain a better understanding of the persuasive power of advocacy language, its emotional impact, its role in shaping public opinion and how these elements interplay within the context of power dynamics.This knowledge can lead to more informed decisions that reflect the needs and desires of their constituents.Additionally, this analysis can increase awareness and understanding of complex issues, promote dialogue and discussion, and inspire people to act in support of important causes.Moreover, educators can use this analysis to teach students effective communication techniques, including strategies for constructing persuasive arguments that harness emotions and address power dynamics in various contexts, including political debates, essays, and public speaking.

Definition of advocacy language
Advocacy language can be defined as a form of communication that aims to persuade others to adopt a particular viewpoint or support a specific cause.Various scholars have approached advocacy from different perspectives emphasising different aspects such as strategic communication (Browning et al., 2020), persuasive discourse (Shaffer, 1978), language and speaking skills (Burke et al., 2019;Perloff, 2020;Spaulding & Pratt, 2015), historical context (Zald & McCarthy, 1979), and corporate political advocacy (You et al., 2023).However, despite the varied approaches, there is a consensus that advocacy is a fundamental aspect of communication and society, with the goal of influencing others to act in support of a particular cause or position.The goal of advocacy is to bring about societal transformation and challenge the existing status quo.To understand how advocacy language works, we analysed its characteristics and how they are employed in persuasive communication, as discussed in the following section.

Advocacy language and persuasion
Advocacy language is characterized by emotive and persuasive language that aims to convince and inspire individuals and groups to act in support of a specific cause or viewpoint.Aristotle suggested three major categories of persuasive strategies: ethos, logos, and pathos.Ethos relates to the credibility and trustworthiness of the speaker; logos relates to the logical appeal of the message; and pathos relates to the emotional appeal of the message (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003).Argyropoulou and Ypsilantis (2017, p. 9, 10) summarized the main strategies employed within Aristotle's persuasion categories.In terms of ethos, speakers can establish credibility, competency, and trustworthiness by sharing relevant credentials and personal experience, citing credible sources, using appropriate language, and being likeable.As for logos, speakers utilize objective and information as evidence to support their arguments, such as expert testimony, definitions, statistics, and analogies, to strengthen their arguments.For pathos, speakers trigger and evoke emotions by using descriptive and evocative language to create mental images for the audience, such as personal anecdotes, figurative language (metaphors and similes), and repetition to enhance the emotional impact of the speech.
In addition to Aristotle's concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos, other scholars have explored the nature of persuasive language and advocacy as a nonreciprocal attempt to change the behavior or viewpoint of another through communicative means.For instance, Lakoff (1982) defined persuasion as "the nonreciprocal attempt or intention of one party to change the behavior, feelings, intentions, or viewpoint of another by communicative means" (p.34).Similarly, Searle (1969) defined persuasion as a sort of directive speech act in which the speaker intends to induce the listeners to act.
Moreover, the use of metaphorical language and storytelling is also a significant aspect of advocacy language, as it can effectively convey complex ideas and evoke emotional responses in the audience (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996;Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
Metaphors have the capacity to resonate with deeply ingrained values and beliefs, evoking feelings of empathy or outrage.They possess the ability to simplify intricate matters and frame them in a particular light, influencing how individuals perceive and interpret those issues.Based on the conceptual metaphor theory by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), the construction of metaphors involves cognitive process through which one domain of experience (an abstract target domain) is understood based on a concert and tangible source domain (p.5).Lakoff and Johnson (1980) emphasized the significance of conceptual metaphors in shaping human cognition, behavior, and social interactions, highlighting the pervasive use of metaphors within the human conceptual framework.Metaphors are prevalent in various advocacy domains, including politics, environmental advocacy, social justice movements, and healthcare advocacy.Nartey (2019) analyzed a number of speeches delivered by Kwame Nkrumah, a pioneering Pan-African and Ghana's independence leader.He explored how he used metaphors and discourse strategies to resist colonialism and imperialism.Through critical metaphor analysis, their findings reveal that Nkrumah utilized metaphors related to war, conflict, religion, and other discursive tactics like labelling and sentimentality to create a persuasive discourse.These metaphors served to vilify, demonize, and frame the struggle for freedom and justice while illustrating the manipulative and ideological power of metaphors in political language and activism.In essence, critical metaphor analysis reveals the strategic use of language by leaders like Kwame Nkrumah to shape historical resistance against colonialism and imperialism.
Storytelling can help advocates to connect with their audience on a more personal level and create a sense of shared experience and understanding.Dessart and Standaert (2023) defined storytelling as a powerful mechanism for driving change in individuals, communities, organizations, and society at large.The use of storytelling in advocacy language has become increasingly significant in the contemporary political landscape, particularly with the emergence of online politics and social media platforms.According to Larrondo-Ureta and Meso-Ayerdi (2022, p. 43), advocacy language has shifted towards multi-platform political narratives that use storytelling, personalization, and emotionalization.In the same vein, Sampson and Bertrand (2021) highlighted the use of discursive strategies such as metaphors, counter-storytelling, and rhetorical questioning by community advocates to resist racism directed at Black students in a majority-white school district in the US Southwest.Therefore, effective advocacy requires not only a comprehensive understanding of language and rhetorical strategies but also a commitment to listening to and elevating the voices of marginalized communities.
The language of advocacy can be studied by examining the use of visual media and testimony as evidence to reinforce claims, especially in the realm of human rights violations.(Mclagan, 2006) focused on the role of visual images in shaping the public perception of human rights violations, particularly in Northern human rights activism.He examined how local actors' claims are transformed into human rights issues through a transnational communications infrastructure and how the use of visual media and testimony, such as mobilization of shame, can shape public perception.
In conclusion, effective advocacy language requires a range of persuasive techniques, from establishing credibility and using evidence-based arguments to triggering emotional responses and connecting with audiences on a personal level through storytelling and metaphors.It is crucial to consider the evolving nature of advocacy language, including the shift towards multi-platform political narratives that employ storytelling, personalization, and emotionalization in online politics and social media platforms.In the next section, we will explore the role of advocacy in a political context.

Advocacy and political activism
Advocacy strategies exhibit variation depending on the context and genre of language use.This section examines the existing literature on the use of language in political advocacy, especially in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Media plays a vital role in framing and shaping the public perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Fahmy and Eakin's (2014) analyzed the coverage of the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident in international news outlets.Their research revealed distinct frames employed to depict the conflict, with a focus on both peace-oriented and war-oriented journalism perspectives.They noted that peace versus war journalism frames were viewed as "two competing frames in covering conflicts and wars" (p.87).Their study found significant differences in the framing of the incident among the three news outlets analyzed, with Haaretz using more war journalism indicators than The Guardian and The New York Times.However, Haaretz also used more peace journalism indicators, indicating a more nuanced approach to framing the conflict.They observed the importance of such studies in shaping media coverage and public opinion in assessing "the effects of peace versus war journalism regarding policy formation and public opinion, specifically in relation to the Middle East" (p.98).Consequently, Fahmy and Eakin's (2014) study sheds light on how some news media outlets utilized specific advocacy indicators to promote peace through the Mavi Marmara incident, which elicits the need to be mindful of media framing and its impact on public perception.
Similarly, Sa'di and Abu-Lughod ( 2007) explored the use of language and memory in shaping the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.They analysed the ways in which the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) of 1948 is commemorated and how this memory is used as a tool for advocacy in the ongoing struggle for Palestinian rights.Furthermore, Leep (2010) investigated the affective production of Others in the United States policy towards the conflict.Leep focused on the use of emotional practices in US foreign policy towards the conflict, which means "discursively binding emotions to Others' identities and legitimizing foreign policy" (p.331) which involves employing emotional appeals within language.Leep examined congressional speeches from 1990-1991 on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.He aimed to illuminate how the Congress "contribute to the public's knowledge of the conflict, shape the public discourse and limit how the US President may approach the conflict" (p.340).The findings revealed that emotions were embedded in congressional discourse to advocate for a pro-Israel and anti-Palestine stance.He underscored the need for a greater critical examination of "the relationships between emotion, language, identity, and foreign policy" (p.331).
Furthermore, Friedman and Kampf (2014) examined the use of message gap strategies by Israeli political leaders within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the international negotiations between 1993-2000.Message gaps encompass the disparities in audience expectations that can influence the way leaders shape their messages, ultimately resulting in what is termed as "message gaps".These gaps arise due to the differences between the intended message of political leaders and the expectations or interpretations of their target audiences (p.707).Friedman and Kampf analyzed the strategies utilized to address the expectations of domestic and international audiences to advocate for solidarity and reduce the risk of credibility and maneuverability being threatened.They analyzed 368 political speeches and presented a typology of six message gap strategies used by Israeli officials.These strategies involved "altering the level of concreteness, specificity, and directness versus abstraction, equivocation, and open-mindedness with respect to time, space, and policy" (p.25).They concluded how Political leaders used these strategies to reduce message gaps and maintain credibility and maneuverability in the game of international negotiation.
The existing literature on political advocacy offers a wealth of knowledge on strategies used in persuasive and emotive language, visual media, and memory.While previous research has primarily focused on the role of media coverage and framing, as well as the effects of emotion and memory on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Fahmy & Eakin, 2014;Leep, 2010;Sa'di & Abu-Lughod, 2007), less attention has been accorded to the specific strategies used in political advocacy in the context of Palestinian rights.This gap in the literature provides an opportunity to further investigate the language and discourse used in the political advocacy of Palestinian rights and its effectiveness in bringing about societal transformation.In this study, we analyzed Ashrawi's speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestinian rights from an SFL perspective, focusing on the use of advocacy language and its potential for bringing about social and political change.We believe that this perspective can benefit both scholars and practitioners interested in advocacy, linguistics, and the broader field of political discourse.

Systemic functional linguistics
SFL is a theory centred around the functional use of language in a context.SFL views language as a resource for making meaning (Matthiessen, 2019).Based on the SFL framework, three contextual elements should be considered in analysing a text.First, the field (what is the topic about), then the tenor (the social roles and relationship between speaker and listener), and finally, the mode (medium of communication) (Matthiessen & Halliday, 1997).
As for the semantic level, all languages have three basic metafunctions: Ideational, interpersonal, and textual.Fowler et al. (2018) and Martin et al. (2019) conceptualized the ideational function as how speakers represent their experiences and understanding of the world and the phenomena within it.The analysis of the ideational function can be demonstrated by examining the concept of transitivity (Matthiessen & Halliday, 1997).The transitivity system is a key element that deals with the representation of participants, processes, and circumstances involved in the clause.Participants relate to the action-doers, while processes refer to the choice of verbs.As for circumstances, it relates to when, how, and where the processes take place (the adverbial and prepositional phrase) (Matthiessen & Halliday, 1997).Furthermore, transitivity refers to how the subject, verb, and object of a sentence are used to represent the process being described.
The interpersonal function refers to how language is used to create and negotiate social relationships and interpersonal meanings between speakers and listeners.
Finally, the textual function involves the analysis of the syntactic structure of utterances and their functions, i.e., Theme-rheme & given-new.The system of theme-rheme focuses on the thematic patterns that refer to how information is structured and organized within a text.In comparison, the system of information packaging refers to how new and given information is presented.Although they are two separate systems, they often overlap.By analysing the thematic patterns (theme-rheme) and given-new information, we could reveal instances of markedness and understand the purposeful choice of lexical and grammatical items.
Another major aspect of SFL is lexicogrammar which refers to the way language encodes meaning through both vocabulary (lexis) and grammar.It studies the selection of individual words or collocational patterns as functional items within a certain contextual situation.SFL incorporate the study of grammatical structures to illuminate its contribution to the contextual meaning.Ultimately, it is an analysis of the language choices and structures that convey specific meanings in a text.As Halliday (2009) aptly puts it, "language includes both the potential to mean and the act of meaning which brings that potential to life [so that] a general linguistic theory encompasses both" (p.60).

Contextual elements of Ashrawi's speech: Field, tenor, and mode
The field, in Ashrawi's speech, is concerned with the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine and the policies of different countries towards this conflict.There are several interconnected themes in the speech, including topics such as American policy towards Israel and Palestine, the Trump administration's policies towards Palestine, dehumanization of Palestinians, Palestinian resilience, Biden administration's policies towards Palestine and the Middle East, regional realignment and polarization, Israeli violations, pursuit of normalization of Israel's position in the region, and the hope for the future of Palestine.Overall, the Field is focused on the political, social, and cultural dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the actions and policies of different actors involved in the conflict.
Tenor is concerned with the participants in the speech, their relationships, roles, and attitudes towards the subject matter.Given that Ashrawi delivered the speech at the "Transcending the Israel Lobby at Home and Abroad" conference in May 2022, it is reasonable to assume that the target audience comprised individuals and organizations interested or involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict.In this speech, Ashrawi positioned herself as a political activist and a spokesperson for the Palestinian cause, advocating for the rights of the Palestinian people and criticizing the policies of the American and Israeli governments.
Mode is concerned with the medium of communication, as well as the genre and style of the speech.Ashrawi used political advocacy to effectively communicate her message and sway her audience towards her perspective.While political advocacy is not typically considered a genre in the traditional sense, it can be viewed as a specific type of discourse with its own conventions and expectations.Collin (2012) observed that Researchers could understand the reciprocal relationship between power dynamics and the way genres are performed by considering genre and Discourse as "mutually constitutive forms", and researchers "might conceive of genres as Discourse contact zones" (p.92).In this sense, the genre of Ashrawi's speech is political discourse, and the style is formal.
In essence, the context of Ashrawi's speech can be characterized as a political advocacy speech delivered by a Palestinian activist and spokesperson.The speaker aims to raise awareness about the ongoing conflict and advocate for the rights of the Palestinian people.Using a variety of persuasive rhetorical and linguistic strategies, the speaker seeks to engage the audience and win their support for her cause.

Methodology
In this study, we conducted a qualitative analysis of Ashrawi's speech in which she critiqued the policies of the Trump and Biden administrations towards Palestine and Israel.The study seeks to uncover how language is utilized to advocate for Palestinian rights and identify the rhetorical and linguistic devices that contribute to the persuasive power of the speech, including emotional appeals, persuasive language, and metaphorical language.
The use of the SFL framework in this study aligns with Creswell's (2007) definition of qualitative research as "an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions on inquiry that explore a social or human problem.The researcher builds a complex, holistic picture, analyses words, reports details of informants and conducts the study in a natural setting" (p.15).First, we identified three main themes through a thematic analysis approach that involved a close examination of the language, discourse, and rhetorical strategies employed in the speech.These themes emerged organically from our analysis process, and we did not preselect them but allowed them to surface.The themes, namely "the continuity of American policy towards Israel", "the shift in U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine during the Trump administration", and "hope and resilience amidst the oppression and injustice practiced against the Palestinians", are significant for understanding the persuasive and effective communication strategies within the speech.They aligned closely with our research objectives and emerged as central elements for comprehending the persuasive strategies employed.
We further narrowed down the analysis by selecting specific paragraphs and examining all clauses that were representative of each of the three identified themes.The sample size was based on the significant and relevant portions of the speech that contributed to the research objectives allowing for a comprehensive analysis of the language and discourse strategies.
The SFL framework, as described by Halliday (2009), employs four dimensions for text analysis: context, semantics, lexico-grammar, and phonology.Our analysis focused on the first three dimensions, starting with context analysis of the three basic contextual factors (field, tenor, and mode) to understand the meaning-making process.This was followed by a semantic analysis of the three metafunctions of language (ideational, interpersonal, and textual).In analyzing the ideational function of Ashrawi's speech-language, we analyzed the transitivity components of participants and types of processes (verbs) in the selected paragraphs that represent each theme.
Finally, we presented a lexico-grammatical analysis of both vocabulary and grammar under textual analysis.Phonology was excluded from the analysis since the speech was presented in a written medium.

Analysis and discussion
In this section, we conducted a semantic analysis of the three language metafunctions: Ideational, Interpersonal, and Textual for each of the selected themes.In analyzing the ideational function of Ashrawi's speech, we identified and analyzed the transitivity components of participants and types of processes (verbs).Second, we examined the Interpersonal function which contributes to the social roles among participants and determines the speaker's viewpoint.Finally, we discussed the textual function that is responsible for creating a coherent and cohesive text, such as themerheme, information packaging, cohesive devices, and rhetorical devices.

The ideational function
Table (1) below indicates that the most frequent process is the material type occurring in almost half of the analyzed clauses.The main participant who represents the actor of the material process is the US.This reflects that the use of the material process and the actor "U.S." with various goals such as "bill, know-how with Israel", and "cover for impunity" may suggest a strong belief in the U.S. role as a provider of resources and support for Israel's military and political agenda.In addition, the use of the term "impunity" in clause ( 14) "Again, the U.S. gives Israel a cover for impunity and protects it from accountability", may also indicate an assumption that Israel should not be held accountable for its actions, which may reflect a belief in Israel's right to self-defense and protection.
Moreover, the use of the relational process and the attributes "American policy and continuum" suggests an assumption that American policy towards Israel is consistent and unchanging over time.This may reflect a belief in the importance of maintaining strong relations with Israel, regardless of changing circumstances or events.
It is noteworthy that the passive voice "were granted" in clause (20) "Palestinians were granted autonomy or limited self-government or self-rule" is a material process that depicts the Palestinians as passive recipients of the goals "autonomy, limited self-government, and selfrule".This implies that the Palestinians are not active agents/actors in the process of achieving political autonomy and reflects a belief in the superiority of Israeli political and military power over the Palestinian self-determination.

The interpersonal function
The analysis reveals how language is used by Ashrawi to communicate her perspective on the power dynamics and political ideologies that shape the relationships between the U.S., Israel, and Palestine.These relationships can be seen as paternalistic and dominated by Israel and the U.S. For example, the passive voice "were granted" is a material process that depicts the Palestinians as passive recipients of the goals "autonomy, limited self-government, and self-rule".As a result, Ashrawi is creating an interpersonal meaning that emphasizes the passivity of the Palestinians in their own quest for self-rule, and the power and control held by Israel and the U.S. in determining the conditions of self-rule.
Besides the choice of grammatical structure that captures the power dynamics, modality is another form of language that indicates the speaker's attitudes and stance, expressing various shades of meaning like certainty, necessity, probability, and desirability.Modality can be expressed using modal verbs such as will, must, should, etc. or lexical choices of adverbs, adjectives and nouns that have modality functions.For example, modality is most apparent in clauses 8 and 9.In clause 8, "Israeli security being paramount," the phrase "being paramount" expresses a degree of importance, which is a form of modality.It indicates that Israeli security is not just important but of utmost importance, emphasizing its significance.This choice of language conveys a sense of necessity and high priority.In clause 9, "I keep repeating sacrosanct," modality is expressed in several ways.First, "I keep repeating" suggests an ongoing action, indicating that the speaker consistently emphasizes or underscores the concept.Second, "Sacrosanct" is a term that implies something is regarded as sacred, inviolable, or beyond criticism.It functions as a form of modality, indicating the strong belief or conviction of the speaker regarding the importance and sanctity of the subject.Consequently, both of these clauses use linguistic devices to convey modality, emphasizing the importance and strong belief associated with the concepts being discussed.
In essence, the speaker is positioning herself as an advocate for the rights and selfdetermination of the Palestinian people, and the listener is being invited to consider the ways in which power dynamics and political ideologies shape the relationships between different actors in the region.

The textual function
Clause (1) begins with a theme-rheme structure that establishes the main idea of the theme: "American policy is a continuum".American policy stands for the theme, and the rheme is "a continuum".The paragraph elaborates on the rheme by identifying several features of the continuity of the American policy, such as "standard approach of strategic alliance; our special ally; values; the Judeo-Christian traditions; unlimited economic; military support; the Qualitative Military Edge; the discussion of the two-state solution".This elaboration maintains the thematic progression of the features of American policy which presents a logical presentation for the information package of given-new, i.e., the thematic patterns are focused on establishing the continuity and coherence of American policy towards Israel.
Information in the paragraph is packaged in a way that presents the given information first, followed by new information.For example, the paragraph begins with the given, "Now, as you all know, American policy is a continuum" (clause 1).The given information is semantically reflected by "As you all know", i.e., an introductory phrase used to provide background information.Then, the given is followed by new information about the features that form this continuity, such as the Qualitative Military Edge and the discussion of the two-state solution.
The analysis of the theme "Continuity of American policy towards Israel" reveals several rhetorical devices that contribute to the textual metafunction of the paragraph such as repetition, emotive language, metaphor, and allusion.The repetition of the phrase "Qualitative Military Edge" creates a memorable and impactful message that emphasizes the importance of military superiority for Israel's security.It reinforces the idea that the U.S. is committed to supporting Israel's military strength and underlines the close relationship between the two countries.Also, the use of emotive languages, such as "sacrosanct" and "impunity" in the two examples: "Israeli security being paramount or, as I keep repeating, sacrosanct . . .Again, the U.S. gives Israel cover for its impunity" (clause 8, 9, 14), carries strong emotional connotations.The lexical choice of "sacrosanct" implies that Israeli security is something sacred which can evoke a sense of reverence and importance.Whereas "impunity" evokes a sense of injustice that Israel acts with lack of accountability for certain actions.Overall, such choices support the main theme and message of the paragraph.
In addition, the metaphoric expression in "American policy is a continuum" (clause 1) may suggest a powerful image of American policy as an unbroken and unchanging force.This metaphor reinforces the idea that continuity and stability are important in American policy towards Israel and creates a sense of coherence and relevance.
The rhetorical device of allusion is exemplified in clause 6: "We have shared values, the Judeo-Christian traditions".In this context, the reference to the Judeo-Christian traditions creates a connection between the audience and the message, emphasizing the shared values and beliefs of the U.S. and Israel within a sense of unity.
These rhetorical devices contribute to the textual metafunction of the paragraph by creating a persuasive and memorable message that supports the overall theme and message.

The ideational function
Table (2) shows that the material process is again the most frequently used type.The actor in most of the material processes is "he" referring to Trump, who is seen as the active agent driving the changes in U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine.For example, "He pursued systemic violations of the law" (clause 4), the use of the material process "pursued" and the actor "he" with the goal "systemic violations of the law" reflects the belief that the Trump administration pursued policies that violated international law and humanitarian law.The material process is also used with the repeated actor "they" which may refer to the U.S. government as a whole and with goals such as "abandoned the pretence of the two-state solution; closed the Palestinian office in Washington; recognized the Jewish state".All these goals indicate a broader change in U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine.
Furthermore, the relational process in clauses 12, and 13 "This is a Jewish territory, the settlements are not illegal", may suggest a belief in Israeli sovereignty over the disputed territories and a rejection of international legal norms.The verb "is" indicates a relational process to identify "a Jewish territory" as a fundamental aspect of Israeli identity.Also, the relational process "was" and the attribute "a great alliance with Netanyahu" in clause 31 "It was a great alliance with Netanyahu" implies a belief in the importance of a close relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders.
Finally, the verbal process, in clause 34, is used with the sayer "Israel's nation-state law" and the verbiage "there is no self-determination for anybody in historical Palestine, which they call Israel, except for the Jews", reflects a belief in the primacy of Jewish identity and rights over other groups in the region.
The table reveals that the material process is the most frequent type used in theme 2, occurring in 19 out of the 35 analyzed clauses.This indicates that this theme focuses on actions rather than mental or relational states.The actor in most of these clauses is "he" or "the Trump administration", suggesting a focus on the actions and policies of the Trump administration.The goals of these actions include "systemic violations of the law; annexation; Israeli impunity and aggression" which may highlight a negative assessment of the Trump administration's policies towards Israel and Palestine.Furthermore, the use of passive voice in clause 9, "Palestinians were admitted to the membership there" and clause 16 "annexation. ..was recognized and enforced", places the focus on the affected party rather than the actor.This suggests a lack of agency for the Palestinians and a critique of the Trump administration's actions.
Overall, the frequency of material process and passive voice usage in theme 2 contributes to the ideational function by emphasizing actions and events related to U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine.As a result, the analysis highlights power imbalances and lack of agency for Palestinians in these events.

The interpersonal metafunction
The analysis of Table 2 reveals how language is used to establish a relationship between the speaker, the listener, and the discussed topics.The use of personal pronouns such as "we", "I", and "you" create an interpersonal meaning that involves the audience in the discussion and invites them to share the speaker's perspective.In clause 30, "they closed the Palestinian office in Washington', the use of the material process "closed", the actor "they" and the goal of "the Palestinian office in Washington" emphasizes the negative impact of U.S. policies on the Palestinian people.It creates an interpersonal meaning that invites the audience to share in the speaker's outrage.Similarly, using the relational process and the attribute "a great alliance with Netanyahu" in clause (32) creates an interpersonal meaning that emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the U.S. and Israel and positions the speaker as a critic of this relationship.
When the speaker uses words such as "worst; total disdain; pretence; egregious", she expresses her own subjective opinions and judgments about the topic being discussed.For example, in clauses (2) and ( 4), "he accelerated and intensified the worst of them; he exhibited total disdain", she is expressing her opinion about the actions of the Trump administration.By using strong evaluative language, she is indicating that these actions are morally wrong and deserve condemnation.
In clauses 27 and 28, the speaker employs modality to convey her perspective on the likelihood of the Trump settlement materializing.Notably, the phrase "of course" in clause 27 "of course, I don't think that the Trump settlement will materialize" expresses explicit uncertainty regarding the settlement's realization.However, the repetition of the mental process "I think" in clause 28 ""but I think you still have the sign of Trump Heights or Trump Settlement in the Golan Heights", suggests doubt but also implies some consideration of its possibility.This reflects the speaker's nuanced perspective on the issue.
Positioning herself as a moral authority in this way, the speaker is inviting and persuading the audience to see things from her perspective and to accept her judgments.Such an approach creates a social relationship between the speaker and the listener, in which the speaker is seen as an expert on the topic and the listener is invited to embrace her perspective.

Textual metafunction
Clause (1) introduces the main idea of the paragraph and begins with a theme-rheme structure "Trump based many of his positions and policies on these principles".The theme is Trump, and the rheme is "many of his positions and policies on these principles".The theme-rheme structure proposes a strong connection between Trump's positions and the principles, indicating that they are deeply ingrained in his approach to governance.Furthermore, the subsequent clause (2) indicates that Trump "accelerated and intensified the worst of them while creating disruptions and diversions in other areas", suggesting that his adherence to these principles has had a significant impact on his policies and actions.
Moving forward, the speaker elaborates further on the rheme "positions and principles" by identifying various facets of the administration's policies, such as "exhibiting total disdain for international law" and "pursuing systemic violations of the law" (clauses 4,5).This elaboration sustains the chain of rhemes for a coherent representation of information.
As for the information packaging, the given information is "Trump based many of his positions and policies on these principles" (clause 1).The use of the definite article in the noun phrase "these principles" presents given information and assumes that the reader already has some knowledge of what they are, which was already discussed in the preceding paragraph.This information is presented at the beginning of the sentence and serves as the foundation for the new information that follows.Conjunctions such as "but" introduce the new information in clause (2) that Trump "accelerated and intensified the worst" of these principles "while creating disruptions and diversions in other areas", also pursued "some things that are not as harmful".This piece of information builds upon the given information and provides additional details about Trump's actions and policies based on the principles he adopted.The use of conjunctions creates a contrast between the potentially positive aspects of these principles and the negative consequences of Trump's implementation of them.
Moreover, there are certain rhetorical devices such as repetition, emotive language, metaphor, and allusion that contribute to the textual metafunction.The verb phrase "recognized the annexation" is repeated twice, first in reference to Jerusalem (clause 15) and then in reference to the Golan Heights (clause 26).This repetition emphasizes the severity of the Trump administration's actions, portraying them as intentional and forceful.Additionally, the repetition of the word "settlement" in reference to both Jerusalem and Pompeo's wine creates a link between the two, reinforcing the idea that the U.S. has taken a strong stance in favor of Israeli settlements.This persuasive advocacy language seeks to convince the audience of the unjust and harmful nature of the Trump administration's policies towards Palestine.
Using evaluative language, such as "abandoned; racist exclusive ideology; and quite" creates an emotional connection with the audience and reinforces the speaker's perspective on the negative impact of the Trump administration's policies.
The use of the metaphoric expression "Pompeo wine" sarcastically remarks that the Pompeo wine, named after the former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is now available in a settlement near Ramallah.The phrase "Pompeo wine" is a metaphor that refers to wine produced in the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which were expanded and supported by the Trump administration.Mike Pompeo was the U.S. Secretary of State during the Trump administration.He was known for his strong support of Israel and the settlements that are no longer considered illegal ("Pompeo expected to hand Israeli settlers' goodbye gift with trip to winery", 2020).So, the use of "Pompeo wine" is a way to link the production of wine in the settlements to the policies of the Trump administration and its officials, implying that they are complicit in supporting the illegal settlements.The speaker's reference to the wine being available "near my house, actually' (clause 14) emphasizes the personal nature of the situation, as they are directly affected by the illegal settlements and the Trump administration's policies.
In general, the analysis contributes to the theme by providing a deeper understanding of how language is used to discuss and interpret the shift in U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine during the Trump administration.It highlights the actions and events related to U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine and the power imbalances and lack of agency for Palestinians in these events.

Ideational metafunction
Table (3) represents the theme of 'hope and resilience amidst the oppression and injustice practiced against the Palestinians.The mental process is the most frequent process in the text, appearing in 8 out of 28 clauses.The participants in these processes are "I, You, We, or They", while the sensor "You" is the most repeated pronoun among all, indicating a focus on mental states and processes related to a collective understanding of the situation faced by the Palestinian people.This may suggest a call to action or a need to raise awareness about the situation.For example, clause (5), "I don't want to go through all that" and "You know what's happening . . .What happened in Gaza.You know Sheikh Jarrah.You know Silwan.You know the Old City and Al-Aqsa, and Issawiya, Jabel Mukaber" (clauses, 7-12), reveal mental states of avoidance and knowledge respectively.
The material process is used in the text to emphasize and highlight the actions taken by the oppressors of the Palestinian people, e.g., "An apartheid system and, worse carrying out a displacement/replacement paradigm" (clause 4) and "The settlers are wreaking havoc" (clause 13).These examples suggest a negative assessment of these actions and the need to resist them.Furthermore, the material process is also used to describe the Palestinian people's resilience in the face of violence and injustice, such as "they stood up along with their allies and partners" (clause 24) and "They defended the Palestinian cause" (clause 27).
Overall, the analysis reveals the speaker's perspective towards this specific theme.It emphasizes the actions taken by the Palestinian people to resist and fight against oppression.

The interpersonal metafunction
The use of relational processes, as in clause (1) "Israel is being exposed and named for what it is", and clause ( 5) "an exclusivist and exclusionary system which attempts to erase whole people, their history and their culture," reflects the speaker's perspective on the true nature of Israel and the negative impact of its system on the Palestinian people.In clause (1), the relational process of "is being exposed and named" is used to identify Israel as an occupier that is "becoming permanent, A brutal and illegal occupation.A settler colonial enterprise" (clause 2).The passive form "is being exposed" suggests that someone else is doing the exposing which positions the speaker and her audience as passive observers.However, by following it with "and named", the speaker implies that she and her audience have the power to name and reveal the truth about Israel's actions.This creates an interpersonal meaning that emphasizes the speaker as a truth-teller who is working to expose the injustices faced by her people.
In clause 5 "I don't want to go through all that", the mental process of "don't want" is used by the speaker to express her own reluctance to endure the violence and injustice faced by Palestinians.This creates an interpersonal meaning that casts the speaker as a vulnerable and relatable figure and invites her audience to empathize with her perspectives.
In clauses 7-12, the repetition of the mental process of "know" is used to address the audience directly and to highlight their knowledge of the events and conditions in Palestine.By using the second-person pronoun "you" in "You know what's happening . . .What happened in Gaza.You know Sheikh Jarrah.You know Silwan.You know the Old City and Al-Aqsa, and Issawiya, Jabel Mukaber" the speaker creates an interpersonal meaning that depicts her audience as active participants in the conversation and invites them to engage with her message.Using repetition, with different examples of specific places, creates a sense of urgency and emphasis as if the speaker is saying, "you need to know about these things".This reinforces the speaker's position as a knowledgeable and authoritative figure and encourages her audience to trust her perspective.
In clause 14 "there is now an emergence of the younger generation of activists in Palestine, connecting in cyberspace, and mobilizing with partners and counterparts in a common language of humanity and defiance", the relational process of "is" is used to identify an emergence of younger Palestinian activists who are connecting in cyberspace and mobilizing for a common cause.This presents the speaker as someone who is in touch with the current political and social landscape in Palestine and who can identify important developments.Furthermore, by using the present tense, the speaker suggests that it is relevant in the present moment and invites her audience to engage with and support this new generation of activists.In addition, the relational process of "is" in clauses 20-21 is used to identify the people's unity as a source of hope for Palestine which reflects the speaker as someone who is optimistic about the future and who can see the potential for positive change in the current situation.

Analysis of textual metafunction
In terms of theme-rheme and information packaging, the speaker uses various strategies to structure the information and highlight important points.In the first clause, the theme is "Israel" which is then followed by a rheme that provides additional information about Israel being "exposed and named for what it is".The theme "Israel" is the given information.This is because it is assumed that the listener or reader already knows about the existence of Israel.On the other hand, the rheme "being exposed and named for what it is" (clause 1) is the new information because it introduces a new perspective on Israel.The speaker suggests that Israel is not what it claims to be and is being exposed for its true nature.However, the following rhemes that describe Israel as an "occupation that's becoming permanent; a brutal and illegal occupation; a settler colonial enterprise; an apartheid system" all build upon the initial rheme and can be seen as preserving the chain of thematic patterns.The final rheme about Israel being a "rogue state based on an ethno-sectarian nationalism" (clause 4) can be seen as the culmination of the thematic pattern, as it provides a final, overarching judgment on Israel's actions and policies.
In addition, several cohesive devices are used in the text to create a sense of coherence and emphasis on this central idea, such as the repetition of the word "occupation" and the phrase "You know" multiple times.This repetition conveys the widespread nature of the violence to position the audience as knowledgeable and informed about the situation and highlight the numerous instances of violence and injustice committed by Israel.
Another cohesive device is parallel structures, such as "A brutal and illegal occupation.A settler colonial enterprise.An apartheid system and, worse, carrying out a displacement/replacement paradigm, and a rogue state based on an ethno-sectarian nationalism," (clause 2-4).The parallel structure helps to create a sense of coherence and emphasis on the critique of Israel's actions.
Nominalization is another linguistic device that involves turning verbs or adjectives into nouns, thereby shifting the focus from the action or quality itself to the thing that is being acted upon or described.Although nominalization is a feature of complexity in written language (Halliday, 2004(Halliday, , 2009)), nominalization is often employed to convey a wealth of information using as few words as possible (Jalilifar et al., 2014).In clause (4) "carrying out a displacement/replacement paradigm", the use of "displacement/replacement paradigm" as a nominalization turns the action of displacing and replacing people into a tangible concept that can be addressed and criticized which is no longer just a vague idea but a specific practice that can be identified and challenged.The same applies to the choice of "erasure" and "fragmentation" in ". ..that challenge erasure, fragmentation and intimidation attempts at silencing any criticism" (clause 18).
Finally, the use of the metaphor "authentic self-values" in "Empathy and solidarity, active solidarity, these are the authentic self-value.Not the Judeo-Christian tradition, that is really a manufactured construct" (clause 16) is highly functional.It shows how the speaker is using this metaphor to contrast their own values that they see as genuine and sincere, with what they perceive as "manufactured construct" values of the Judeo-Christian tradition.This metaphor helps the speaker to convey her belief in the importance of values that come from within the individual rather than being imposed from outside sources.As a result, this metaphor contributes to the speaker's advocacy language by helping to establish her perspective on the importance of genuine values in the struggle for justice and self-determination.

Findings
This study provides insight into the use of language in advocacy and its potential to influence public perception.Through SFL analysis of Ashrawi's speech on the American policy towards Israel and Palestine, this paper explores the semiotic dimensions of text analysis, including the rhetorical and linguistic devices used to construct persuasive arguments.
The semantic analysis reveals that the material process is the dominant one, followed by the relational process in the two themes of "Continuity of American Policy towards Israel and the shift in U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine during the Trump administration".First, the speaker mostly utilized the material process in an active form to refer to the U.S. (actor) such as "gives, protects, maintains" or to refer to Trump (actor) as "pursued, closed down, recognized" as both the dominant participants.This may suggest a strong belief in the U.S.'s role as the main provider of resources and support for Israel's military and political agenda which are the main goal for U.S. action.However, Palestinians were presented as passive participants (actors) in these themes such as "Palestinians were granted . . .were admitted".The passive form reflects the ideational metafunction within the speaker's experience and perspective in depicting the power imbalances, i.e., the lack of agency for Palestinians in their own quest for self-rule and the power and control held by Israel and the U.S. in determining the conditions of self-rule.The second most frequent process is the relational process that seems to be intentionally used to highlight the identity of Israel, e.g., "This is a Jewish territory" or "It was a great alliance with Netanyahu" to imply a belief in the significance of a close relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders.
While most of the frequent processes in the first two themes are the material and the relational ones, the most frequent processes in the third theme "Hope and resilience amidst the oppression and injustice practiced against the Palestinians" is the mental process followed by the material process.Through the mental process, the speaker evokes emotions and creates a more vivid and relatable picture in the cognition of the audience.For example, the repeated phrase "You know" indicates a focus on mental states to a collective understanding of the situation faced by the Palestinian people.The speaker builds an interpersonal relationship with the target audience as active participants in the conversation which encourages her audience to trust her perspective.The repetition of the phrase "You know" is an emotional appeal to invite the audience to engage with her message to raise awareness of the situation.As for the material process in this theme, the speaker utilized it to emphasize actions taken by the oppressors towards the Palestinian people.This indicates a potential negative evaluation of these actions and highlights the necessity of opposing them.Accordingly, these choices support the main theme of 'Hope and resilience amidst the oppression and injustice practiced against the Palestinians and serve the speaker's advocacy of the Palestinian Cause.However, it is worth noting that the classification of processes in this study was based solely on the contextual analysis of the thematic patterns in Ashrawi's speech, and therefore, it is possible that some processes may have been classified differently in another context or in a different text.
In all three themes, the textual analysis reveals the thematic progression and perseverance of the identity chain of each participant (U.S., Israel, Palestinian).The speaker used certain rhetorical and linguistic devices to link information in the text and maintain coherence within the discourse.These devices are communicative strategies that characterize the advocacy language as an effective and persuasive tool for supporting the speaker's cause.These devices, such as reference, metaphors, repetition, nominalization, and parallel structure are part of a broader set of techniques, such as emotional appeals, persuasive language, and metaphorical language that contribute to the persuasive power of the speech.

Conclusion
Recognizing the potent role of language in shaping conflict, SFL emerges to provide a unique perspective on how language functions and shapes communication in conflict situations.
This study provides pivotal insights into the nuanced interplay of advocacy language, emotional resonance, and its influence on public sentiment, especially amidst power dynamics.Such insights empower policymakers to craft decisions that more deeply resonate with their constituents.The analysis acts as a catalyst for enriched dialogue on complex matters, prompting proactive engagement.Moreover, this understanding can heighten awareness of intricate issues, encourage discourse, and motivate individuals to champion important causes.
Educators, too, stand to benefit, as they can weave these findings into curricula, enhancing communication techniques for students across varied contexts like political debates, essays, and public speaking.