La Cohesion en La Retorica Politica Amer

Cohesion in American political rhetoric:
The Gettysburg Address, I have a dream

and Obama’s Inaugural Address
Mercedes DÍEZ PRADOS
Universidad de Alcalá
[email protected]
Ana Belén CABREJAS PEÑUELAS
Universidad de Valencia
[email protected]
Recibido: 01/03/2011
Aceptado: 25/06/2012
ABSTRACT
The present study attempts to add to the existing body of literature on political rhetoric by analyzing in
detail the cohesive devices used in three political texts - The Gettysburg Address, I have a dream and
Obama’s Inaugural Address – and their potential persuasive function. We first carry out an analysis of
cohesion in these three masterpieces of political writing, applying our own model based on the
combination and adaptation of those found in Halliday & Hasan’s (1976) and Beaugrande & Dressler’s
(1981), in order to cover a wider range of devices and, at the same time, ameliorate some flaws ascribed
by critics to Halliday & Hasan’s (1976). The results reveal that, although they share similarities, the texts
also showed differences in the cohesive devices employed. We then suggest a new dimension for the
analysis of cohesion: what we have termed intertextual cohesion, a device to extend the scope of
cohesion beyond the limits of the text. This tool has proved to be very effective to show the resonance of
content and form among the three speeches analyzed.
Keywords: political speech, rhetoric, persuasion, cohesion, intertextuality.
La cohesión en la retórica política americana:

Los discursos Gettysburg Address, I have a dream
y el de la Investidura de Obama
RESUMEN
El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo contribuir a la literatura existente sobre retórica política
analizando en profundidad los mecanismos de cohesión utilizados en tres textos políticos – los discursos
Gettysburg Address, I have a dream y el de la Investidura de Obama –y su potencial función persuasiva.
En primer lugar, llevamos a cabo el análisis de la cohesión en estas tres obras maestras de la retórica
Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 37 ISSN: 1133-0392

2012, vol. 20, 37-60 http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_EIUC.2012.v20.39994
Mercedes Díez y Ana Belén Cabrejas Cohesion in American political rhetoric…
política, aplicando para ello nuestro propio modelo, que combina y adapta los de Beaugrande y Dressler
(1981) y Halliday y Hasan (1976) con el fin de cubrir un abanico más amplio de mecanismos de
cohesión y, a la vez, mitigar los fallos encontrados por diversos críticos en este último. Los resultados
revelan que, a pesar de las similitudes, los textos se diferencian en la utilización de ciertos tipos de
cohesión. Sugerimos, además, una nueva dimensión para el análisis de cohesión, acuñada con el término
de cohesión intertextual, para hacer referencia a un mecanismo que amplía la esfera de acción de la
cohesión más allá de los límites del texto. Esta herramienta ha resultado muy eficaz a la hora de poner de
manifiesto la resonancia de contenido y forma que se da entre los tres textos.
Palabras clave: discurso político, retórica, persuasión, cohesión, intertextualidad.
SUMMARY: 1. Introduction 2. Historical background of the speeches 3. The analysis of cohesion in

texts 4. Towards an integrated model for the analysis of cohesion 5. Experimental study of cohesion
6. Analysis and results 6.1. Cohesion density 6.2. Analysis of intertextual cohesion 7. Conclusions.
1. INTRODUCTION
Since antiquity the genre of political speech has been considered as a means of
influencing audiences through rhetoric, which aims at persuading, claiming leadership
and moving audiences to action with arguments. In recent years, political texts have
been analyzed to track legislative agendas and political topics (Quinn et al. 2006) and
to estimate ideological positioning (Laver et al. 2003, Monroe and Maeda 2004,
Diermeier et al. 2007, Klebanov et al. 2008) often using natural language processing.
Political documents such as party manifestos or political speech are expressions of the
underlying ideology. Political rhetoric has been examined to understand the internal
structure of political ideologies, such as Klebanov et al. (2008), who studied the
lexical cohesion of Margaret Thatcher’s 1977 speech to the Conservative Party
Conference. They identified some groupings, including those related to the British
political system and parties and to Britain and its major locations. A number of other
domains were also found that illustrate Margaret Thatcher’s rhetorical tools that shape
how audiences perceive her, such as the fishing and sea domain, which is used
figuratively; the bills, payments and mortgage domain; the truths, promises and
falsehoods domain; the journey domain; and the conflict domain.
Our first incursions on the analysis of cohesive devices in texts focused on how
novel writers (both native and non-native speakers of English) used these devices in
argumentative texts (Díez 2003, Cabrejas 2005). We eventually came across a text,
The Gettysburg Address, which –despite its brevity (239 words)– displayed a great
amount of cohesive devices beautifully managed to convey a truly powerful message.
This revelation made us wonder how this tool could be used as a rhetorical device by
expert writers or orators in political texts, one of the most prominent types of
persuasive discourse, because it is used to move large audiences. As a means of
comparison, we then selected two other texts that showed some intertextual
38 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
connections with Lincoln’s, as will be justified below: I have a dream by Martin

Luther King Jr. and Barak Obama’s Inaugural Address.
The connection between the three texts was the main reason to select them for
comparison with the final aim of finding out the cohesive relations existing in the
three pieces of political writing in order to discover what the three speeches have in
common and what distinguishes them. All three politicians were reputed speakers at
their own time with ample oratory abilities and the speeches selected have been often
regarded as memorable. All three texts have an enormous significance in American
history and have received the attention of numerous scholars. Nevertheless, and
despite the numerous and different types of analyses that can be found in the
literature, no one, as far as we know, has undergone a thorough and comparative
analysis of the cohesive devices used in them; Morgan (2009), for instance, points out
the power of repetition in Lincoln’s speech, but he does not mention the varied types
of repetition that can be found in this text.
Our aim in the present study is twofold: on the one hand, we carry out an analysis
of the cohesive relations existing in these three masterpieces of political writing in
order to discover what similarities and differences exist in the use of these devices by
each politician, and, on the other, we pursue to examine the potential persuasive
function these devices may fulfill (Foz Gil & Vazquez Orta 1995). We believe that
the use of cohesive devices can contribute to persuade the audience of the producer’s
communicative intention, since cohesive devices produce an intrinsic effect of
repeating and, thus, insisting, on the main issues stated in the text. Beaugrande &
Dressler (1981) categorize cohesive devices, depending on their discursive function,
into those that contribute to the internal stability of the text and those that contribute
to its economy; the former imply repetition of either form or content, whereas the
latter consist in substituting a lexical element by a function word. Notwithstanding,
this second type of devices, to our mind, is also a kind of repetition because it restates
the same textual entities by means of grammatical replacement of lexical meanings.
Thus, we might say, that all cohesive devices can potentially fulfill an echoic
function, creating a resonance of form and content through the text.
On what follows, we will provide a brief historical account of the circumstances
that contextualize each of the texts selected and then proceed to explain the
theoretical framework that supports the present study.
2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SPEECHES
The Gettysburg Address was a speech delivered by US President Abraham Lincoln

during the American Civil War on November 19th, 1863 at the dedication of the
Soldiers’ National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The Battle of Gettysburg,
which happened four months earlier, was the bloodiest battle of the Civil War and
was also the turning point of the war. Some acres of pasture were bought and turned
Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 39

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
into a cemetery for the Gettysburg dead. Both Edward Everett, a famous orator of the
time, and Abraham Lincoln delivered a speech at the cemetery’s dedication. In his
speech, Lincoln invoked the principles of human equality present in the Declaration
of Independence and exhorted listeners to ensure the survival of democracy in
America. Lincoln’s speech, which lasted just over two minutes, has been regarded as
one of the most well-known speeches in the history of the United States. Despite the
importance of the speech for American History, the exact location of the speech and
wording, punctuation and structure of the text remain unclear. There are five known
manuscripts of The Gettysburg Address: the Nicolay copy, Hay copy, Everett copy,
Bancroft copy, and Bliss copy. The copy used in this study is the earliest of all, the
Nicolay copy.
In the same way that many historians have considered the Gettysburg Battle as the
turning point in the civil war (i.e. the South surrendered not long after that), The
Gettysburg Address might be regarded as a turning point in American political
rhetoric, since Lincoln departed from the expected norm of long, complex and even
cumbersome speeches, such as the two-hour speech orator Everett11 delivered right
before Lincoln’s words as part of the funeral oration at Gettysburg cemetery (Wills
1992). According to McPherson (1991: 93), “[w]e [Americans] have not had another
president –except perhaps Franklin D. Roosvelt –who expressed himself in such a
clear, forceful, logical manner as Lincoln”. And he adds that The Gettysburg Address
is “the most famous of his poems [emphasis added]” (McPherson 1991: 110).
I have a dream was delivered by Martin Luther King, Jr. on August 28th, 1963 on
the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington for Jobs and
Freedom in a moment when segregationist practices were common in the southern
states of America and African-Americans were denied the right to vote, while the
federal government and the leading politicians of the time did little to enforce the
Constitution. In the speech, King called for racial equality and the end of
discrimination by invoking the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation
Proclamation and the United States Constitution. The speech, which was considered a
masterpiece of rhetoric, also includes multiple allusions to Lincoln’s Gettysburg
Address, the Bible and Shakespeare’s Richard III. King’s speech does not have a
single version but, instead, is a combination of several drafts and had an earlier title:
“Normalcy, Never Again”.
The Inaugural Address by Barack Obama was delivered on January 20th, 2009
after his presidential election on November 4th, 2008. He was widely celebrated as the
first African American President of the United States and a symbol of change and
hope for the country after George W. Bush. Obama had demonstrated excellent
oratory skills and, thus, he raised high expectations for his Inaugural Address. By
__________
1
Everett himself recognizes that “I should be glad, if I could flatter myself, that I came as near to the
central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes” (McPherson 1991: 112).

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
using references to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and his ideas of national unity in
times of crisis and to King’s ideal for equality set forth in I have a dream, he
managed to make his audience believe in a new era of hope.
3. THE ANALYSIS OF COHESION IN TEXTS
Although Gutwinski’s (1976) volume on textual cohesion was released a few months
before Halliday and Hasan’s (1976), theirs has been considered the seminal work on
the topic. Since then, the phenomenon of cohesion has been of interest until recent
times with the identification of those elements contributing to the coherence of a text,
including lexical repetition (Hoey 1991), patterns of entity realization and rhetorical
organization (Marcu 2000, Siddharthan & Copestake 2004, Barzilay & Lapata 2005).
Current studies of cohesion include analyses of the anaphoric relations found in
Spanish and English conversations (Taboada 2000) or EFL texts (e.g. Díez 2003,
Cabrejas 2007).
Cohesion is defined as “a semantic relation between an element in the text and
some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it” (Halliday & Hasan 1976:
8). It involves the recourse of one element to another in the text for its interpretation:
“the one PRESUPPOSES the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded
except by recourse to it” (1976: 4). Cohesion in the text points out to the possibility
that the speaker or writer has to “[make] text hang together” if one of the elements
points to something else anaphorically or cataphorically. Cohesion is created through
grammar, such as pronouns and conjunctions, but also through lexis by the repetition
of lexical items and semantically related items. This is called lexical cohesion, which
is a component of a coherent text.
Hoey (1991: 12) claims that “cohesion is objective, capable in principle of
automatic recognition, while coherence is subjective and judgments concerning it
may vary from reader to reader.” From a broader perspective, Stoddard (1991)
defines cohesion taking into account the different perspectives of theoretical
linguistics, philosophy, psychology and pragmatics and their common elements. For
Stoddard, a cohesive element stands in a meaning relationship with another element
called cohesion node. The association is called a cohesive tie, which can be signaled
either implicitly or explicitly by linguistic devices. However, cohesion cannot be said
to exist only in the physical text, but rather, it is “a mental construct from reader
processing” (1991: 17). The presence of linguistic signals indicates the potential for
cohesion that can only be realized when the reader recognizes the cohesive ties.
Therefore, for Stoddard, cohesion may rely on the reader, rather than on the text, like
most authors affirm of coherence, which is “the connection that is brought about by
something outside the text. This ‘something’ is usually knowledge which a listener or
reader is assumed to have” (Renkema 2004: 49).

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
The view of coherence as less dependent on the language of the text but rather
viewed as “more user- and context-oriented” is the position taken by an increasing
number of recent analyses. Bublitz (1999: 2) claims that:
... it is not texts but rather people that cohere when understanding texts (be it as the
producing, receiving or, indeed, analysing side), [then] it can be said that for one and
the same text there exist a speaker’s (or writer’s), a hearer’s (or reader’s) and an
analyst’s coherence, which may or may not match.
That view of cohesion as reader-dependent has also been supported by other

authors, like Klebanov & Shamir (2007: 28), who studied how lexical cohesion is
represented in the text. These authors point out that, in contrast with referential
cohesion and rhetorical structure signalled by specific cue phrases, lexical repetition
is not inherently cohesive. Instead, lexical items are cohesive with respect to other
lexical elements. Although lexical cohesion may be achieved by relations such as
synonymy and antonymy, for different researchers, lexical cohesion is achieved by
relations felt by the reader that are difficult to classify, such as the examples given by
Halliday & Hasan (1976): dig/garden, ill/doctor, laugh/joke. If there is a good
proportion of agreement between readers, then it may be possible to develop reader-
based identification procedures (Morris & Hirst 2005, Klebanov & Shamir 2007). The
notion of anchoring is used to refer to the connections made by the reader between
two pieces of writing: “Once any normal direction is actually taken up by the
following text, there is a connection back to whatever makes this a normal direction,
according to the reader’s commonsense knowledge” (Klebanov & Shamirl 2007: 29).
For example, according to Klebanov & Shamir (2007: 29-30), a text starting with the
sentence Mother died today can take many different directions: a description of an
accident, of a long illness, what happened to the family afterwards, the speaker’s
feeling of loneliness, and so on. If the text takes the illness side, this can be better
anchored by died (illness  died), existing a cohesive relation between them. A

explained by the previous mention of the mother’s death. Therefore, illness is
debate that seems to be still open is the relation between cohesion and coherence2,
that is, whether they are intrinsically linked or whether they can exist autonomously.
Grabe & Kaplan (1996: 67) point out the lack of consensus among scholars regarding
the relative contribution of both phenomena in text construction. Whereas Halliday &
Hasan (1976) think cohesion decisively contributes to the coherence of a text, other
__________
2
This debate was in the limelight in the 1980s (Reinhart 1980, Bernárdez 1982, Nuttall 1982, Carrell
1982 and 1983, Brown and Yule 1983, Urquhart 1983, Connor 1984, Giora 1985, among others).
Following the same line of argument, Carrell (1983: 690) points out that "cohesion does not create
coherence, or texture. Cohesion can be a meaningful concept only if we assume that coherence is a
logically prior concept; we cannot speak sensibly of linguistic cohesion unless we can assume
psychological coherence.” In an earlier article, Carrell (1982) argues that there is no relationship between
the proportion of cohesive ties and the grade of coherence in a text.

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
authors (e.g., Widdowson 1978, Brown & Yule 1983, Urquhart 1983, Connor 1984,
Hoey 1991) affirm these two phenomena can exist independently, and provide
examples of cohesive texts which lack coherence and coherent texts which do not
display any cohesive device. Although Hasan (1989: 78) admits such possibility, she
argues that:
whenever scholars have attempted to prove that it is possible to have texts without
cohesion, in order to demonstrate their point they have normally created [...] ‘minimal
texts’ consisting of either a single message by one participant, or one message per
participant.
That cohesive devices contribute to the coherence of texts is also asserted in

rhetoric guides such as The Little, Brown Handbook: “Coherent paragraphs convey
the relations among sentences in many ways” (Fowler 1983: 67), and, among the
relations mentioned in the handbook that writers can establish are transitional words
(i.e. conjunctions or conjunctives), parallelism, repetitions or restatements, and
pronouns (i.e. reference). As a way of conclusion, then, even if cohesion and
coherence can take place independently, it seems widely accepted that these two
textual phenomena (text-centred notions in Beaugrande & Dressler’s 1981 terms)
frequently co-exist and co-operate in the effective transmission of messages.
Next, we will explain the cohesion model applied for analysis in the present paper,
which is based on the combination and adaptation of two widely recognized
categorizations of cohesive devices: those of Halliday & Hasan (1976, taking into
account later modifications of the model included in Halliday & Hasan 1985, 1989)
and Beaugrande & Dressler (1981).
4. TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED MODEL FOR THE ANALYSIS OF

COHESION
Although Halliday & Hasan’s Cohesion in English has been widely accepted among
the linguistic community, who considered the notion of cohesion as a well-defined
and useful category, their model has also received considerable criticism on the part
of linguists, such as Huddleston (1978), Green & Morgan (1981) and Brown & Yule
(1983), among others.
In a review article of Halliday & Hasan’s Cohesion in English, Huddleston
considers Halliday & Hasan’s taxonomy of phoric relations, which they had
subdivided in “endophora” (i.e. a cohesive relation between to elements inside the
same text) and “exophora” (i.e. when the relation is established between an element in
the text with one in the situation) as two cases of the same phenomenon. According to
him, no distinction should be made between endophoric and exophoric references,
since, in both cases, the antecedent is identified with the referent. Huddleston (1978:

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
304) also disagrees with Halliday & Hasan’s notion of replaceability (i.e. in
substitution and ellipsis it is always possible to ‘restore’ the presupposed item) and
with their total identification between a referential anaphor and its antecedent.
Moreover, Huddleston further criticizes Halliday & Hasan’s opposition between
referential anaphora and substitution based on the fact that the former involves
identity of reference between anaphor and antecedent and the latter does not, since he
claims that co-referenciality can be found in both.
In turn, Brown & Yule (1983: 195-6) disapprove of Halliday & Hasan’s notion of
texture as the element that contributes to the identification of texts through the
explicit expression of the semantic relationships that hold between items in a text. For
the former, even when no explicit links are used marking the relationships between
sentences, it is possible to affirm that they constitute a text because there exist
underlying semantic relations that hold the sentences together. They further criticize
Halliday & Hasan’s distinction of endophoric relations. According to Brown and
Yule (1983: 200-1), it is more likely to occur that “the processor establishes a referent
in his mental representation of the discourse and relates subsequent references to that
referent back to his mental representation, rather than to the original verbal expression
in the text.” That way the reader would not need two kinds of representation of the
world: a mental representation of the real world for endophoric relations and a mental
representation of the world created by the discourse of the text for exophoric
relations.
Both Huddleston and Brown and Yule point out that Halliday & Hasan’s view of
substitution as an element that can be substituted by another one in the text is far too
narrow to cover all cases. While Halliday & Hasan’s model serves to explain those
examples where there is total identification between antecedent and pronoun, it
cannot explain those where the referent has undergone changes.
Finally, Halliday & Hasan’s view of lexical cohesion has also received profuse
criticism by different authors (e.g. Morgan & Sellner 1980, Green & Morgan 1981,
Stotsky 1983, Carrel 1982, Green 1989, Tyler 1994) and, in more general terms, they
claim that Halliday & Hasan’s model is text-based rather than founded on principles
of pragmatic interpretation, attaching excessive weight to the contribution of cohesion
to coherence and disregarding the processor’s contribution to the interpretation of a
text. Notwithstanding, for Tyler lexical repetition makes contributions to the overall
discourse comprehensibility “because [it] cuts down on the risk of the listener
assigning a different interpretation to the lexical item than that intended by the
speaker (...) and reduces the amount of processing the listener has to engage in”
(1994: 686). Another criticism on lexical cohesion was Hoey’s (1991), who
disapproves of the term "collocation", which Halliday & Hasan used to name an
heterogeneous group of lexical relations that appear at random in a text.
In spite of the criticisms that Halliday & Hasan’s work has been subjected to,
Cohesion in English has given invaluable insights into the study of analysis of
discourse and has been the basis of later studies that have complemented it. Besides,

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
Halliday & Hasan’s later contributions (Hasan 1984, Halliday & Hasan 1985/1989)
improve some of the previous criticisms, particularly with regards to lexical cohesion.
For the analysis of cohesion, we propose a coding scheme model that includes all
the types of cohesion that Halliday & Hasan distinguished with changes to ameliorate
some of the most important criticisms and one that includes other devices to
complement it taken from Beaugrande & Dressler (1981), since they can be
pervasively found in rhetoric. These latter authors distinguish two types of cohesive
devices: those that contribute to text stability (or equivalence) and those which
contribute to economy. These are two somehow contradictory linguistic principles,
since the first set implies some sort of repetition (either of content and/or form),
whereas the second one conforms with the general linguistic principle of economizing
resources in communication, avoiding to repeat those references or concepts known
by the addressee of the message.
The cohesive devices contributing to stability are, according to Beaugrande &
Dressler: Recurrence (i.e. the same as Repetition in Halliday & Hasan’s taxonomy),
Partial Recurrence (i.e. repetition of a word but shifting the word class, for instance,
from a noun to a verb, e.g. discovery-discover), Parallelism (i.e. repetition of the
structure but filling it in with different elements, e.g. “Our nation is at war… Our
economy is badly weakened… Our health care is too costly…”, taken from Obama’s
Inaugural Address), Paraphrase (i.e. repeating content but conveying it with different
expressions; this subsumes both traditional synonymy (e.g. freedom-liberty) and
paraphrase (e.g. bankrupt- insufficient funds). Regarding the devices that contribute to
economy are Pro-form, which is equivalent to Halliday & Hasan’s Reference and
Substitution (it consists in the replacement of lexical words by grammatical words,
i.e. nouns by pronouns like him or one, verbs by pro-verbs like do, and clauses by
adverbs like so), Ellipsis, and other resources such as tense and aspect maintenance,
functional sentence perspective (i.e. distribution of old and new information
throughout the text) and intonation.
Thus, for the present paper, we have followed a model initially proposed in Díez
(2001), which adopted Beaugrande & Dressler’s dichotomy of stability and economy
devices and comprehended the devices proposed in their classification and those of
Halliday & Hasan’s, taking into account the equivalences in both. Furthermore, we
have also adapted the aforementioned taxonomy to ameliorate the major flaws in
Halliday & Hasan’s classification, as previously proposed in Cabrejas (2005).
Following Huddleston’s (1978) suggestion, for referential cohesion, we distinguish
between identity and non-identity of reference between the anaphor and its
antecedent. For the substitution type of cohesion, we include Huddleston’s (1978) and
Brown & Yule’s (1983) distinction between non-identity of reference and implicit
reference for those elements whose referent had undergone some kind of change.
Finally, Hasan’s (Halliday & Hasan 1985/1989) modification of lexical cohesion was
adopted. Thus, the classification developed has been established as follows:

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
A. Mechanisms that contribute to stability: Repetition, subsuming the following

types:
1. Total repetition (repetition of the exact same word or expression).
2. Partial repetition (repetition with word class change).
3. Parallelism (repetition of structure).
B. Mechanisms that contribute to economy:
B. Reference (pronominal, demonstrative and comparative)
B1. Identity of reference:
B1.1. Ponominals.
B1.2. Dmonstratives and definite article.
B2. Non-identity of reference: comparatives
C. Substitution (nominal, verbal and clausal):
C1. Non-co-referential.
C2. Implicit reference.
D. Ellipsis (nominal, verbal and clausal)
E. Lexical replacement: synonym, superordinate and general word.
F. Other lexico-semantic relations: antonymy, hyponymy (including co-
hyponyms), and meronymy (including co-meronyms).
G. Linking devices: conjunctives.
5. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON COHESION
The politicians and texts selected for analysis are The Gettysburg Address by
Abraham Lincoln, I have a dream by Martin Luther King and Obama’s Inaugural
Address by Barak Obama3. Apart from comparing the types of cohesive devices used
in these three political speeches delivered by three widely considered charismatic
leaders, a further objective of the present study is to prove that these texts echo each
other through intertextual connections. This echoing of ideas can be considered as a
means to establish cohesion among different texts (i.e. a sort of intertextual cohesion),
since the same entities and concepts are repeated in the three speeches. The meaning
of these intertextual cohesive ties cannot be fully understood (or, at least, to its richest
interpretation), without resource to the presupposed items (as Halliday & Hasan 1976
__________
3
For ease of reference, we will refer to the texts analyzed as GA (Gettysburg Address), Dream (I
have a Dream) and IA (Inaugural Address), respectively. As a historical contextualization of the three
speeches, let us recall that the GA was delivered the 19th of November, 1863, at the consecration
ceremony of the Gettysburg Cemetery for soldiers killed in one the most bloody battles in the American
Civil War; King’s speech was addressed on 28th August, 1963, just one hundred years later, during one
of the largest demonstrations in history against racial segregation. Lastly, Obama’s speech was delivered
on the 20th of January, 2009 (46 years after Dream and 146 after the GA) as his inaugural address after
taking the presidential oath. The last two speeches took place in Washington D.C., the Capital of the
United States

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
call the element with which the cohesive item is connected forming a cohesive tie).
Recalling Renkema’s definition of cohesion as “the connection which results when
the interpretation of a textual element is dependent on another element in the text”
(Renkema 2004: 49), we define intertextual cohesion as “the connection that results
when the interpretation of a textual element depends on an element from another
text”. This intertextual cohesion, in turn, contributes to the coherence of texts by
activating a series of common values shared, or, at least, well-known, by (a majority
of) the American public. Schemata, the theory we have of the world (Rumelhart 1981:
37), contribute to the coherence of texts (Downing 1998) because, in the process of
interpretation we activate the necessary schemata (or shared knowledge) to be able to
make sense of them. Shared values are schematic conventions that people acquire by
means “of being socialized into the accepted ways of behaving in the social groups
they belong to” (Widdowson 2007: 34). Thus, in line with the aforementioned
objectives, the research questions that guide the present study are:
1. What cohesive elements predominate in the texts The Gettysburg Address, I
have a dream and Obama’s Inaugural Address?
2. Do they differ in terms of cohesive devices?
3. How are the texts connected by means of intertextual cohesion?
4. What effect does the use of cohesive devices have on the text persuasion?
As mentioned above, the data chosen for analysis were the three speeches: The
Gettysburg Address (239 words, 9 sentences and an average sentence length of 26.5
words), I Have a Dream (1,666 words, 80 sentences and 20.8 of average sentence
length) and Obama’s Inaugural Address (The text has 2,413 words, 113 sentences
and 21.3 of average sentence length). The evaluation of cohesion was carried out by
analyzing the texts in terms of their cohesive elements, classifying them per number
and type and calculating the cohesive density and the number of cohesive ties per T-
unit (Hunt1965). Further examination included calculating the percentages of
cohesive ties and calculating whether or not the differences between all three texts
were significant. For that purpose, the logistic regression analysis4 was carried out by
means of the SAS 9.0 statistical package. Since the length of each text is different, the
calculations to compare the use of cohesive devices among them must be based on
ratios and means and the differences tested by inferential statistics to check whether
they are significant or not.
In the following table, we include the coding scheme we used to analyze the
different types of cohesion mentioned above in the proposed framework, with an
example of each type and the coding system developed to tag each instance.
__________
4
The logistic regression analysis measures the relationship between a dependent variable and one or
more independent variables. It helps understand how the value of the dependent variable changes when
one of the independent variables is varied and the rest are kept fixed (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000: 1).

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
TYPE OF COHESION Examples CODING

Reference R
a. Identity of Reference a
I. Pronominals he, him, her Ia
II. Non-referential pronouns this, these, that II
b. Non-identity of Reference same, identical Ib
Substitution S
Non-co-referential
I. Nominal substitutes one, ones I
II. Verbal substitutes do, be, have II
III. Implicit reference III
IV. Clausal substitutes so, not IV
Ellipsis E
I. Nominal ellipsis I
II. Verbal ellipsis II
III. Clausal ellipsis III
Conjunctives C
I. Additive I
II. Adversative and, and also II
III. Causal yet, though III
IV. Temporal so, then IV
V. Other then, next V
now, of course
Lexical L
Replacement
I. Synonymy LI
II. Superordinate LII
III. General word LIII
Repetition R
I. Total repetition RI
II. Partial repetition RII
RIII
III. Parallelism
RIV
IV. Paraphrase
Table 1. Classification of cohesive ties

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
6. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
6.1. COHESION DENSITY
The results on cohesion density suggest that GA has a higher cohesion density than the
other two texts: a cohesive tie of some type occur once every .21 words of Lincoln’s
speech, .15 words of King’s speech and .13 words of Obama’s speech5 (see Table 2
below). The greatest difference is between Lincoln and Obama, which accounts for .08
words. The results of the logistic regression analysis reveal that the differences are
significant (p=.0012, p<0.01). It seems, however, that while GA is significantly different
from Obama (p=.0022), Dream is not (p=.2711).
The Gettysburg I have a dream Obama’s

Address Inaugural
Address
Total ties 50 247 307
Total words 239 1,666 2,413
Total t-units 10 85 138
Cohesion density: 0.21 0.15 0.13
Ratio: tie to word count
Tie / T-unit 5.0 2.91 2.22
Ties N % of N % of N % of ties
ties ties
Lexical 29 58 184 74.49 192 62.54
Reference 17 34 39 15.79 76 24.76
Substitution 2 4 0 0 2 0.65
Conjunction 2 4 24 9.72 37 12.05
Ellipsis 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lexical ties
L1 (Synonymy) 4 13.79 23 12.5 34 17.71
L2 (Superordinate) 1 3.45 19 11.33 9 4.69
L3 (General word) 5 17.24 2 1.09 1 0.52
L4 (Antonymy) 3 10.34 16 8.70 8 4.17
L5 (Hyponymy) 1 3.45 17 9.24 14 7.29
L6 (Meronymy) 0 0 9 4.89 18 9.37
LR1 (total repetition) 12 41.38 89 48.37 68 35.42
LR2 (partial repetition) 2 6.90 8 4.35 31 16.14
LR3 (parallelism) 3 10.34 1 0.54 9 4.69
Tabla 2. Cohesion analysis of Lincoln’s, King’s and Obama’s speeches
__________
5
The analysis of cohesive density does not include the first cohesive item of each chain.

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
Analyses of the number of ties per T-unit also reveal that King and Obama make
similar numbers (2.91 and 2.22 ties), whereas Lincoln employs 5.0 ties per T-unit, a
difference of 2.09 and 2.78 words, respectively. The reason for this difference lies on
the fact that Lincoln’s speech contains longer T-units, which makes these figures not
comparable: 23.9 words per T-unit versus 19.6 and 17.49 words for King and Obama,
respectively.
Comparisons of uses of the different types of cohesion in the three speeches reveal
that Lincoln outstands in the use of reference (34%) and substitution (4%), King in
the use of lexical devices (74.49%) and Obama in the use of conjunctions (12.05%).
None of them use any ellipsis, which is not rare taking into account that this device,
together with substitution, is more typical of the oral language (Díez 2003: 218).
However, Lincoln uses much more substitution than the other two politicians.
Contrariwise, King and Obama employ higher proportions of conjunctions than
Lincoln, which implies that these speeches express logical relationships between
sentences more explicitly. By looking at the percentages of the different types of
cohesive devices, it is possible to conclude that, of all three politicians, Obama makes
the most balanced use of the different devices, whereas Lincoln relies heavily on
reference and lexical cohesion and King on lexical cohesion. The ratio of total lexical
ties to total words in each text reveals that Lincoln, with a ratio of .12, uses a greater
number of lexical ties than either King or Obama, with ratios of .11 and .08,
respectively (see Table 3). The pattern follows the trend of ratios in Table 2. The
results for lexical ties among the three texts are statistically significant (p=.0047,
p<0.01), although the regression analysis shows that Dream is significantly different
from Obama for lexical ties (p=.0021), while GA is not (p=.1195).
The I have a dream Obama’s

Gettysburg Inaugural
Address Address
Total words 239 1,666 2,413
Lexical ties 29 184 192
Lexical density (ratio lexical 0.12 0.11 0.08
ties to total words)
Table 3. Summary of lexical ties in the three political texts
Despite the differences, this study also finds that all speakers rely primarily on lexical
ties, of which total lexical repetition is the most important way of achieving cohesion
in text and less on partial repetition of words, as in “have died” and “dead” in
Lincoln’s speech, “promise” and “promissory” in King’s speech and “Americans”
and “America” in Obama’s speech, where the words share a stem but vary in the use
of prefixes or suffixes. Repetition is so important for all three speakers that their total
proportion of total and partial repetition amounted to 50% or over (see Table 2).

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
Repetition was used with the purpose of emphasizing the ideas expressed by the
speaker and of convincing the audience of the truth of the ideas expressed.
Lincoln, Obama and especially King used repetition of a word or phrase at the
beginning of two or more successive clauses, thus contributing to create a speech very
strong in passion. This figure of speech is called anaphora6, which in some of the
following examples works together with parallelism, resulting in a strong cohesive
effect:
SPEAKER Examples
Lincoln (1) We are met
We have come to (anaphora and parallelism)
(2) It is for the living
It is rather for us (anaphora and parallelism)
King (3) I have a dream that one day …
I have a dream that one day …
I have a dream that …
I have a dream today!
I have a dream today!
(4) Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.
Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley …
Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity …
Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands …
(anaphora and parallelism)
Obama (5) So it has been …
So it must be … (anaphora and parallelism)
(6) On this day, we gather
On this day, we come (repetition + parallelism)
(7) Our nation …
Our economy …
Our health care … (repetition + parallelism)
Lincoln also repeats the same word at the end of a series of clauses or phrases, which
has a rhythmic effect that may also stir the emotions of the audience7. This rhetorical
__________
6
Anaphora this time does not refer to its meaning as a cohesive device, but as a rhetorical device
that consists of repeating a sequence of words at the beginnings of neighboring clauses, thereby lending
them emphasis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphora_(rhetoric).
7
As signalled in the transcript of the GA included in Grimes (1982), the audience reacted to
Lincoln’s words with applause a total of six times. The longest prolonged applause was at the end of his

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
figure is called epiphora. In the previous examples, the repetition at the end of the
expression is also accompanied by parallelism (repetition of structure). All this
repetition seems imbued of a discursive persuasive force. As Johnstone (1987: 208)
puts it: “repetition serves to create rhetorical presence, the linguistic foregrounding of
an idea which can serve to make it persuasive even without logical support” (italics in
original):
(8) what we say here, but … what they did here (epiphora and parallelism)
(9) government of the people, by the people, for the people (epiphora and
parallelism)
Words are also repeated throughout the speeches to create a sense of topic
maintenance that contributes to the coherence of the text, where all parts are linked.
For example, Lincoln repeated “nation” 4 times, “dedicate” 5 times, “hallow” twice,
“here” 7 times, “dead” 3 times, “war” twice, “consecrate” twice and “great” 3 times.
There are few examples of parallelism as a source of cohesion in text, although the
parallel structures found draw the audiences’ attention to the meaning of words,
“mak[ing] things believable by forcing them into the affective field of the hearer and
keeping them there” (Johnstone 1987: 208). This effect can be seen in the examples
below:
Obama (10) For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and travelled
across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash
of the whip and ploughed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg;
Normandy and Khe Sahn. (parallelism and anaphora)
King (11) […] have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.
And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound
to our freedom.
Lincoln (12) we can not dedicate
we can not consecrate
we can not hallow, this ground (parallelism and anaphora)
Finally, a variety of lexical ties, which include synonyms, superordinates, general

words, antonyms, hyponyms, and meronyms, are used throughout all three texts.
However, they differ in the types selected: Lincoln and King are proportionately very
speech, when he makes the audience a direct protagonist of their own destiny using the words: “[…] and
that government of the people by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”. The points
of audience reaction were taken by Grimes from a New York Tribune account reproduced in Everett
(1863, in Grimes 1982: 165).

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
similar in their use of synonymy, antonymy, and repetition; however, they are
different from Obama’s speech in the numbers of these ties. Obama’s text displays
proportionately fewer antonyms and more synonyms, meronyms and repetitions.
Synonymy is common in all three speeches, such as God and Lord, country and
nation, liberty and freedom in King’s speech; land and nation, America and nation,
struggled and fought, worked and toiled in Obama’s speech, all of which are semantic
and syntactic substitutes. There are however semantic substitutes that are not
necessarily syntactic, such as battlefield and here in Lincoln’s speech. Antonymy is
used to express contrast between words and serves the purpose of emphasizing ideas:
for example, the antonyms today and tomorrow, justice and injustice, segregation and
freedom, white people and the Negro in King’s text express the main ideas of the
speech, that is, inequality of black people in the society of his age and the change of
mentality that America must undergo for the near future. Other semantic relations,
such as superordinates, general words, hyponyms and meronyms add lexical variety
and word relations to the speeches, other than equivalence for synonymy and
opposition for antonymy. Each speech favors a type of these lexical devices: general
words in GA, such as do and dedicate a portion; synonyms and superordinates in
Dream, such as decree and Emancipation proclamation; and synonyms and
meronyms in IA, such as nuclear threat and threats.
Once the cohesive analysis has been addressed, we will now tackle the intertextual
connections between the three texts to show that, not only do the three texts display
the same types of cohesive devices with the same presupposed intended persuasive
function, but they also echo one another in terms of the subjects addressed in them.
6.2. ANALYSIS OF INTEXTEXTUAL COHESION
These days, Barack Obama’s speeches are of interest, not only for journalists or the
general public, but also for scholars from different disciplines. This is the case of
Capone (2010), who has recently published a study on one of Obama’s speeches
addressing issues of personification, footing and polyphony in Obama’s speech. He
points out the intertextual character of his speeches, which echo, not only himself, but
also others such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s I Have a Dream. Intertextuality
among the three texts analyzed in the present paper was the main reason to choose
them for a comparative analysis on the cohesive devices used by the three politicians.
In this section further evidence of such echoing from the texts is offered.
The first and most evident link between the Dream and the GA is the way both
texts start: “Four score and seven years ago…” (GA) and “Four score years ago…”
(Dream); by the time reference, Lincoln is recalling the Declaration of Independence,
signed by the Fathers of the Nation (itself an intertextual device between the GA and
that legal document). Also, King remembers Lincoln (“a great American, in whose
symbolic shadow we stand today”) and his signing of a document that was issued to

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
(supposedly) meliorate racist segregation: the Emancipation Proclamation, issued in

the same year as The Gettysburg Address. In fact, GA, Dream and IA dedicate some
commemorative words to their ancestors, who designed the legal documents that
established America as a free nation: “Our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a
new nation, conceived in Liberty” (GA), “When the architects of our republic wrote
the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence”
(Dream), and “Our Founding Fathers (…) drafted a charter to assure the rule of law
and the rights of man” (IA). All three politicians seem to recall this collective
memory to move the audience into believing they are part of a historical chain.
These politicians also remind the American public that their predecessors fought
for a common cause in order to build a better future for the nation which they are now
enjoying: “The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here” (GA), “With this
faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together”
(Dream), and “Time and again these men and women struggled (…) so that we might
live a better life” (IA). Remembering these deeds, the speakers are implying that the
inheritors should be thankful to those who fought for them and should continue their
task, so that their sacrifice is not wasted: “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the
great task remaining before us” (GA), “We must forever conduct our struggle on the
high plane of dignity and discipline” (Dream), and, even more elaborately, in the IA:
What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of

every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that
we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is
nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a
difficult task (IA).
This remembrance of a shared past and a present duty contributes to the coherence of
the texts –since shared schemata are activated- and, at the same time, it has a strong
persuasive effect, since a feeling of gratitude and responsibility is instilled in the
audience in order to move them. This aptitude of mobilizing audiences to make the
necessary sacrifices for victory, is a faculty recognized in McPherson (1991: 93) as a
pre-eminent quality of leaders in times of war, but, it certainly works as well at other
difficult times in history.
The three speakers make reference to the spatial and temporal context of the
historical moment when the address is taking place, as well as the cause for their
gathering: “We are met on a great battlefield of that war (…) Now we are engaged in
a great civil war (…) We have come to dedicate” (GA), “We have also come to this
hallowed spot (…) the fierce urgency of now” (Dream), and “I stand here today …
On this day, we gather because (…) On this day, we come to proclaim (…) That we
are in the midst of crisis is now well understood” (IA). And they all invoke that,
according to their democratic principles, all men are equal, they are all free: “the
proposition that all men are created equal (GA), “We hold these truths [unalienable

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness] to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal” (Dream), and “the God-given promise that all men are equal, all
are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness” (IA).
Elmore (2009: x) points out that Obama’s Inaugural Address also echoes GA in his
use of “new”, including “a new age” and “a new life”, which reminds of “a new
nation” and “a new birth of freedom” from GA. Indeed, “new” was used not fewer
than eleven times, which testifies for its importance in the overall meaning of the text.
He also mentions that Lincoln invoked the name of God throughout their speeches,
and so does Obama in the IA, who used it up to five times (ibid.). As Lincoln and
Obama, in I have a dream King also invoked the name of God and he did so four
times as “God” and once as “Lord”.
Dunne (2009), in his article ‘Passing the Torch’ (a title that echoes the well-known
phrase by Kennedy, used in 1961 in his Inaugural Address “The torch has been
passed to a new generation of Americans”, Dunne 2009: 14), tries to anticipate what
Obama will say in his Inaugural Address by analyzing the resonance of this type of
speeches addressed by previous Presidents of the United States. His reflection is, thus,
in line with the analysis being carried here: intertextuality in American political
rhetoric. According to him, three topics are recurrent in Inaugural Addresses: “the
essential unity of the American people, their shared values and their common though
vicarious history as a nation of immigrants” (Dunne 2009: 15). The first two topics
are present in the three texts analyzed in the present study with different degrees of
explicitness (the IA, being the longest one, resorts to them in several occasions); the
third topic, that of the immigrant origin, is treated subtlety in GA (“Four score and
seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation…”),
more explicitly in the IA:
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation
of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by
every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth).
However, it is not really present in the Dream (the African Americans as being slaves
are recalled, but no mention to their African origin is made. King also says that “one
hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and
finds himself an exile in his own land”. In any case, those three themes have the
function to unite and uplift a diverse nation and different politicians contribute to this
resonating effect by using what we have termed intertextual cohesive devices: they
repeat each others’ words (score, ago, struggle, our fathers, promise, equal, freedom),
use synonyms (architects of our republic-fathers-ancestors, promissory note-charter)
and parallel structures (the proposition that all men are created equal-the God-given
promise that all men are equal), all of them devices that contribute to the stability of
texts (Beaugrande & Dressler 1981). Each of these politicians paraphrases his
predecessors’ words: Obama’s Inaugural Address celebrates King’s dream has come

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
true (“and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served
at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath”, IA), King
borrows Lincoln’s words to initiate his speech by using his very words and praising his
deeds (“Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand
today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation”), and both Obama and King are inspired
by Lincoln’s sentences in The Gettysburg Address (Dunne 2009: 16).
7. CONCLUSIONS
The cohesion analysis carried out in three political speeches – The Gettysburg
Address, I have a dream and Obama’s Inaugural Address – reveals that all three texts
were cohesive and, although they share similarities, they also show differences in
terms of which cohesive devices are favored. The analysis of cohesion density reveals
that Lincoln’s speech has a higher cohesive density than Obama’s and King’s
speeches, as the number of ties per word and the number of ties per T-unit
demonstrate. The cohesive analysis further shows that the three speakers rely
primarily on lexical and referential cohesion to achieve cohesion in text and these are
followed by the rest of the cohesive ties, of which conjunctive cohesion was the most
important to express relations between sentences or parts of sentences. Repetition is
the most important lexical tie in all three speeches. Anaphora, simple repetition and
parallelism are employed in Lincoln’s, King’s and Obama’s speeches, which
contributed to emphasize the speakers’ ideas by making the words echo in the
addressees’ ears. Also, parallel structures help to get a rhythmical and sonorous
sentence structure, which leads the audience to think of the speakers’ meaning.
Finally, lexical variety is expressed through other semantic relations, such as general
words, hyponymy, meronymy and superordinates, which added different meaning
relationships. We are aware of the fact that a more extensive analysis of speeches by
the same authors or even by other politicians would have been desirable to draw more
conclusive results on the use of cohesion as a rhetorical device of persuasion.
Therefore, the present study could be considered as a first attempt to carry out an
analysis that opens avenues of research that may provide fruitful results. The scope of
the present paper and the meticulous analytical framework used did not allow us to
cover a wider ground.
In the same vein, the analysis of intertextual cohesion reveals that all three
speeches can be recognized as examples of a common American rhetoric: the use of
some of the same contents (i.e. repetition, synonymy and more complex types of
paraphrase) and some of the same structures (i.e. parallelism) demonstrate that
politicians pass the torch to one another in their desire to uplift American people by
believing they are a free nation and they should contribute with their work so that
freedom survives and succeeds. Whether this is reality or just a dream may not be

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
clear, but we agree with Dunne when he claims that everybody can recognize the
force of these words:
In the English-speaking world, American political rhetoric is unsurpassed (…) Later

generations [of Americans] know just how problematic this picture of [a free] American
history can be; they know how these fine words [Lincoln’s words in The Gettysburg
Address] need to be decoded and contextualised, racialised and gendered; they know that
they cannot be used as simple shorthand for the complex narrative of the American past.
Equally, we can recognize their force; and –as shown by Martin Luther King- we can
realise that words may still be used to change the direction of American history (Dunne
2009: 16).
REFERENCES
Barzilay, Regina and Mirella Lapata (2005). Modeling local coherence: An entity-
based approach. In Proceedings of 43rd Annual Meeting of the ACL. Ann Arbor,
USA. 141-148.
Beaugrande, Robert de and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler (1981). Introduction to Text
Linguistics. London: Longman.
Bernárdez, Enrique (1982). Introducción a la Lingüística del Texto. Madrid: Espasa
Calpe.
Brown, Gillian and George Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bublitz, Wolfram (1999). Introduction: views of coherence. In Bublitz Wolfram, Uta
Lenk, and Eija Ventola, eds. 1-7.
Bublitz, Wolfram, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventola, eds. (1999). Coherence in Spoken and
Written Discourse: How to Create it and How to Describe it. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Pub. Co.
Cabrejas Peñuelas, Ana Belén (2005). A Comparison of the Revising Processes of
Spanish Speakers and English Native Writers: Similarities and Differences.
Valencia: Universidad de Valencia.
Capone, Alessandro (2010). Barack Obama’s South Carolina speech. Journal of
Pragmatics 42: 2964-2977.
Carrell, Patricia L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly 16 (4): 479-488.
Carrell, Patricia L. (1983). The author responds.... TESOL Quarterly 17: 687-691.
Cole, Peter, ed. (1981). Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
Connor, Ulla (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second
language students’ writing. International Journal of Human Communication 17:
301-316.
Duermeier, Daniel, Stefan Kaufmann, Bei Yu, and Jean-François GODBOUT (2007).
‘Language and ideology in Congress’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 12-15, 2007.
2012, vol. 20, 37-60
Díez Prados, Mercedes (2001). Hacia una integración de enfoques para el estudio del
discurso. Estudios de Filología Moderna 2: 71-85.
Díez Prados, Mercedes (2003). Coherencia y Cohesión en Textos Escritos en Inglés
por Alumnos de Filología Inglesa (Estudio Empírico). Alcalá de Henares: Servicio
de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá de Henares.
Downing Rothwell, Angela (1998). Organisational frameworks of coherence in
discourse and text. In Downing Rothwell, Angela, A. Jesús Moya Guijarro y José
Ignacio Alabentosa Hernández, eds., 13-30.
Downing Rothwell, Angela; Antonio Jesús Moya Guijarro y José Ignacio Alabentosa
Hernández, eds. (1998). Patterns in Discourse and Text. Ensayos de Análisis del
Discurso en Lengua Inglesa. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La
Mancha.
Dunne, Michael (2009). Passing the torch. History Today 59 (1): 14-16.
Elmore, A. E. (2009). Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Echoes of the Bible and Book of
Common Prayer. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
Flood, J., ed. (1984). Understanding Reading Comprehension, Delaware:
International Reading Association.
Fowler, H. Ramsey (1983). The Little, Brown Handbook. 2nd ed. Boston: Little,
Brown and Co.
Foz Gil, M. Carmen and Ignacio Vázquez Orta (1995). The persuasive function of
lexical cohesion in English: A pragmatic approach to the study of Chairmen’s
Statements. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 17: 87-100.
Giora, Rachel (1985). Notes towards a theory of text coherence. Poetics Today, 6 (4):
699-715.
Grabe, William and Robert B. Kaplan (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An
applied linguistic perspective. London: Longman.
Green, Georgia M. (1989). Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Green, Georgia M. and Jerry L. Morgan (1981). Pragmatics, Grammar, and
Discourse. In COLE, Peter, ed., 167-181.
Grimes, Joseph E. (1982). Topics within topics. In Tannen, Deborah, ed., 164-176.
Guthrie, John T., ed. (1981). Comprehension and Teaching Reviews. Newark, Del.:
International Reading Association.
Gitwinski, Waldemar (1976). Cohesion in Literary Texts: A study of some
Grammatical and Lexical Features of English Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London:
Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan (1985/1989). Language, Context, and Text:
Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. 1st and 2nd editions. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hasan, Ruqaiya (1984). Coherence and Cohesive Harmony. In FLOOD, J., ed., 181-219.
Hoey, Michael (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
Hosmer, David W. and Stanley Lemeshow (2000). Applied Logistic Regression.

Canada: Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics
Huddleston, Rodney (1978). On classifying anaphoric relation. Lingua 45: 333-354.
Hunt, Kellogg (1965). Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Johnstone, Barbara (1987). Introduction: Perspectives on repetition. Text 7: 205-214.
Klebanov, Beata Beigman, Daniel Diermeier and Eyal Beigman (2008). Lexical
cohesion analysis of political speech. Political Analysis 16: 447-463.
Klebanov, Beata Beigman and Eli SHAMIR (2007). Reader-based exploration of
lexical cohesion. Language Resources and Evaluation 41: 27-44.
Laver, Michael, Kenneth Benoit and John Garry (2003). ‘Extracting policy positions
from political texts using words as data’. American Political Science Review 97
(2): 311-331.
Marcu, Daniel (2000). The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and
Summarization. Cambridge: Mass MIT Press.
McPherson, James M. (1991). Abraham Lincoln and the Second American
Revolution. Oxford: oxford University Press.
Monroe, Burt L. and Ko Maeda (2004). ‘Talk’s cheap: Text-based estimation of
rhetorical ideal points’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
Political Methodology. Stanford University, July 29-31, 2004.
Morgan, Jerry L. and Manfred B. Sellner (1980). Discourse and linguistic theory. In
SPIRO, Rand J., Bertram C. BRUCE and William F. BREWER, eds., 165-200.
Morgan, Nick (2009). The greatest 250-word speech ever written. Public Words:
Helping People Tell their Stories.
<http://publicwords.typepad.com/nickmorgan/2009/04/the-greatest-250word-
speech-ever-written.html> (Accessed 9 July 2012).
Morris, Jane and Graeme Hirst (2005). ‘The subjectivity of lexical cohesion in text’.
J. C. Shanahan, Y. Qu, and J. Wiebe (eds.) Springer, Dodrecht, The Netherlands.
Nuttall, Christine (1982). Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London:
Heinemann.
Quinn, Kevin M., Burt L. Monroe, Michael Colaresi, Michael H. CrespingN, and
Dragomir R. Radev (2006). ‘An automated method of topic-coding legislative
speech over time with application to the 105th-108th US Senate’. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association Chicago, April
20-23, 2006.
Reihart, Tanya (1980). Conditions for text coherence. Poetics Today, 1 (4): 161-180.
Renkema, Jan (2004). Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Rumelhart, David E. (1981). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Guthrie,
John T., ed., 5-26.
Shanahan, James G., Yan Qu and Janyce Wiebe (2005) (eds.). Computing Attitude
and Affect in Text. Dordrecht: Springer.

2012, vol. 20, 37-60
Siddharthan, Advaith and Ann Copestake (2004). ‘Generating referring expressions in

open domains’. Proceedings of ACL 04. Barcelona, Spain. 407-414.
Spiro, Rand J., Bertram C. Bruce and William F. Brewer, eds. (1980). Theoretical
Issues in Reading Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology,
Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, and Education. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Stoddard, Sally (1991). Text and Texture: Patterns of Cohesion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
Pub. Corp.
Stotsky, Sandra (1983). Types of lexical cohesion in expository writing: implications
for developing vocabulary of academic discourse. College Composition and
Communication 34 (4): 430-446.
Taboada, Maite (2000). Cohesion as a Measure in Generic Analysis. Círculo de
Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación/Circle of Linguistics Applied to
Communication, accessible online
http://www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no3/taboada.pdf.
Tannen, Deborah, ed. (1982). Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Tyler, Andrea (1994). The role of repetition in perceptions of discourse coherence.
Journal of Pragmatics 21 (6): 671-687.
Urquhart, Alasdair (1983). Sticky aspects of cohesion. MALS Journal 8: 86-104.
Widdowson, Henry G. (2007). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wills, Gary (1992). Lincoln at Gettysburg. The Words that Remade America. New
York: Touchstone.

2012, vol. 20, 37-60

La Cohesion en La Retorica Politica Amer

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

La Cohesion en La Retorica Politica Amer

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

La Cohesion en La Retorica Politica Amer

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Cohesion in American political rhetoric:

The Gettysburg Address, I have a dream

Ana Belén CABREJAS PEÑUELAS

Keywords: political speech, rhetoric, persuasion, cohesion, intertextuality.

La cohesión en la retórica política americana:

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 37 ISSN: 1133-0392

Palabras clave: discurso político, retórica, persuasión, cohesión, intertextualidad.

SUMMARY: 1. Introduction 2. Historical background of the speeches 3. The analysis of cohesion in

38 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

connections with Lincoln’s, as will be justified below: I have a dream by Martin

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SPEECHES

The Gettysburg Address was a speech delivered by US President Abraham Lincoln

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 39

40 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

3. THE ANALYSIS OF COHESION IN TEXTS

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 41

That view of cohesion as reader-dependent has also been supported by other

anchored by died (illness  died), existing a cohesive relation between them. A

42 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

That cohesive devices contribute to the coherence of texts is also asserted in

4. TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED MODEL FOR THE ANALYSIS OF

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 43

44 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 45

A. Mechanisms that contribute to stability: Repetition, subsuming the following

5. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON COHESION

46 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 47

TYPE OF COHESION Examples CODING

48 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

6. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

6.1. COHESION DENSITY

The Gettysburg I have a dream Obama’s

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 49

The I have a dream Obama’s

50 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 51

Finally, a variety of lexical ties, which include synonyms, superordinates, general

52 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

6.2. ANALYSIS OF INTEXTEXTUAL COHESION

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 53

(supposedly) meliorate racist segregation: the Emancipation Proclamation, issued in

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of

54 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 55

56 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

In the English-speaking world, American political rhetoric is unsurpassed (…) Later

58 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

Hosmer, David W. and Stanley Lemeshow (2000). Applied Logistic Regression.

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 59

Siddharthan, Advaith and Ann Copestake (2004). ‘Generating referring expressions in

60 Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

También podría gustarte