A PRAGMATIC CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN SPEECHES BY BARRACK OBAMA AND MITT ROMNEY IN UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2012

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ HUỆ
A PRAGMATIC CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF
COHESIVE DEVICES IN SPEECHES BY BARRACK
OBAMA AND MITT ROMNEY IN UNITED STATES
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2012
(Phân tích tính dụng học-văn hóa của các phương tiện liên kết trong các
bài phát biểu của Barrack Obama và Mitt Romney trong cuộc tranh cử
tổng thống Mỹ, 2012)
M.A.MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
HANOI, 2014
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ HUỆ
A PRAGMATIC-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF
COHESIVE DEVICES IN SPEECHES BY BARRACK
OBAMA AND MITT ROMNEY IN UNITED STATES
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 2012
(Phân tích tính dụng học-văn hóa của các phương tiện liên kết trong các
bài phát biểu của Barrack Obama và Mitt Romney trong cuộc tranh cử
tổng thống Mỹ, 2012)
M.A.MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111

Supervisor: Dr. Đỗ Thị Thanh Hà,
HANOI, 2014
DECLARATION
I certify that this thesis is the result of my own research and the substance of
this thesis has not been submitted for a degree to any other universities or
institutions.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance and support
of many individuals. I wish to acknowledge and express my appreciation of these
people for their invaluable contributions.
Firstly and foremost, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my
supervisor, Dr. Do Thi Thanh Ha , University of Languages and International
Studies – Vietnam National University, Hanoi, for her valuable guidance and
suggestions, encouragement and enthusiasm throughout my study.
Secondly, I take this opportunity to show my sincere thanks to all my
teachers during my M.A course at University of Languages and International
Studies – Vietnam National University, Hanoi for their informative and interesting
lectures, which laid the foundation for my study.
On the completion of this paper, I must acknowledge my debt to the authors
whose work I used for my reference.
Last but not least, I wish to convey my thanks to my family for their
understanding and support.
Hanoi, 2014
Nguyen Thi Hue
ii
ABSTRACT
This thesis investigates the cohesive devices used in the third debate by
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in Unites States presidential election, 2012. It
offers theoretical knowledge of Cohesive Devices in English as well as background

information about the third debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in
Unites States presidential election, 2012. The thesis then focuses on analyzing the
cohesive devices employed in that debate. Three main parts included in this thesis
are introduction, development and conclusion. Chapter I provides a review of
relevant theories based on which the theoretical background is laid. Chapter II deals
with some information about the third debate by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney
in Unites States presidential election, 2012. Chapter III, also the major one,
analyzes in detail the cohesive devices used by the two candidates. To sum up, the
paper claims the results obtained and offers suggestions for further researches.
iii
ABBREVIATION
Adj: Adjective
N: Noun
Quant: Quantifier
V : Verb
Adv : Adverd
Prep : Preposition
iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
ABBREVIATION iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES v
TABLE OF CONTENS vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 4
Table 1: Grammatical and lexical cohesion 8
CHAPTER 2: AN OVERVIEW ON “UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 2012”

AND “THE THIRD PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE” 16
CHAPTER 3: AN ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN THE THIRD DEBATE BY
BARACK OBAMA AND MITT ROMNEY IN UNITED STATES PRESIENTIAL ELECTION,
2012 19
Table 2: The frequency of occurrence of reference used by Obama and Romney 19
Table 3: The frequency of occurrence of substitution used by Obama and Romney 21
Table 4: The frequency of occurrence of ellipsis used by Obama and Romney 23
Table 5: The frequency of occurrence of conjuction used by Obama and Romney 25
Table 6: The frequency of occurrence of reiteration used by Obama and Romney 29
Table 7: The frequency of occurrence of collocation used by Obama and Romney 31
CHAPTER 4: MAJOR FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
COHESION 35
PART C: CONCLUSION 39
REFERENCES 41
SOURCES OF DATA 43
v
APPENDIX 1 I
TABLE OF CONTENS
DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
ABBREVIATION iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES v
TABLE OF CONTENS vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study 1
2. Aims of the study 1
3. The research questions of the study 2
4. Scope of the study 2
5. Methods of the study 2

6. Design of the study 2
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4
vi
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 4
1.1. Discourse and Discourse analysis 4
1.1.1. Discourse analysis 4
1.1.2. Discourse context 5
1.2. Cohesion 6
1.2.1. The concept of cohesion 6
1.2.2. Cohesion and Coherence 6
1.2.3. Types of cohesion 7
Table 1: Grammatical and lexical cohesion 8
1.3. Persuasion in political speeches 14
CHAPTER 2: AN OVERVIEW ON “UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 2012”
AND “THE THIRD PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE” 16
2.1. An overview on United States presidential election, 2012 16
2.2. United States presidential election debates, 2012 and the third presidential debate
17
CHAPTER 3: AN ANALYSIS OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN THE THIRD DEBATE BY
BARACK OBAMA AND MITT ROMNEY IN UNITED STATES PRESIENTIAL ELECTION,
2012 19
3.1. Grammatical cohesion 19
3.1.1. Reference 19
Table 2: The frequency of occurrence of reference used by Obama and Romney 19
3.1.2. Substitution 21
Table 3: The frequency of occurrence of substitution used by Obama and Romney 21
3.1.3. Ellipsis 23
Table 4: The frequency of occurrence of ellipsis used by Obama and Romney 23
3.1.4. Conjunction 24
Table 5: The frequency of occurrence of conjuction used by Obama and Romney 25

Table 6: The frequency of occurrence of reiteration used by Obama and Romney 29
vii
3.2.2. Collocation 31
Table 7: The frequency of occurrence of collocation used by Obama and Romney 31
CHAPTER 4: MAJOR FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
COHESION 35
4.1. Major findings 35
4.2. Implications for the teaching and learning cohesion 37
4.2.1. Implications for teachers 37
4.2.2. Implications for learners 38
PART C: CONCLUSION 39
1. Recapitulation 39
2. Conclusion 39
3. Limitations of the study 40
4. Suggestions for further studies 40
REFERENCES 41
SOURCES OF DATA 43
APPENDIX 1 I
viii
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study
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 and to
estimate ideological positioning often using natural language processing.
We know that every four years, hundreds of thousands of Americans
will welcome the glory moment of electing a new president. They will canvass
for their favorite candidates willingly. And every candidate will apply his or her
rich language expressions, impassioned speeches and wholehearted attitudes to

try to win more votes. In 2012, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney captured the
world’s attention. Speeches by them have not only attracted the interests of
political scientists and historians, but also attained the attention of linguists.
Many researches focused on the use cohesive devices in their speeches. However,
the question is whether these devices can contribute to the success of the producers
in persuading the audience. It is this question that inspires me the idea of carrying
out the research.
2. Aims of the study
The study serves the following main aims:
- to give a brief overview on discourse and discourse analysis with the two related
aspects: cohesion and coherence
- to investigate and describe the employment of cohesive devices in the debate to
work out their cohesive functions as well as their roles in creating the success of the
users.
1
3. The research questions of the study
The study tries to answer the following questions:
1. What are the cohesive devices used in the third debate by Barack Obama
and Mitt Romney in Unites States presidential election, 2012?
2. What are the frequencies of occurrence of these cohesive devices?
3. How do cohesive devices contribute to the success of the speeches?
4. Scope of the study
This study focuses solely on speeches by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in
the third debate in Unites States presidential election, 2012, mainly based on
linguistic views of Halliday and Hasan.
5. Methods of the study
To attain the aims of the study, the author has employed the Quantitative
Method. It means that the thesis focuses more on the collection and analysis of
numerical data and statistics. Counting and measuring are common form of
quantitative method. The result of the study is a number or a series of numbers.

These are often presented in tables, graphs or other forms of statistics.
6. Design of the study
Within the scope mentioned above, the study has three main parts.
Part A is “ INTRODUCTION” which consists of the rationale, aims, research
questions, scope, method and design of the study.
Part B is “ DEVELOPMENT” includes three chapters. Chapter I provides a review
of relevant theories based on which the theoretical background is laid. Chapter II
deals with some information about the third debate by Barack Obama and Mitt
Romney in Unites States presidential election, 2012. Chapter III, also the major one,
analyzes in detail the cohesive devices used by the two candidates.
2
Part C is “CONCLUSION” in which the author summarizes the main points
introduced in the study.
The study ends with the “REFERENCES” which list all the materials and sources
of information used in this study.
3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Discourse and Discourse analysis
1.1.1. Discourse analysis
Discourse analysis (DA) is concerned with the relationship between language
and the context in which it is used. According to Nguyen Hoa (2000), discourse
analysis can be considered as “a study of how and for what purposes language is
used in certain of context of situation and the linguistic means to carry out these
purposes”. This means that analysis of discourse looks not only at the basic level of
what is said, but takes into consideration the surrounding social and historical
contexts.
Discourse analysis has been developed from the work of different disciplines
in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, psychology,
anthropology and sociology. There have been many interpretations to what is meant

by Discourse analysis. British discourse analysis was influenced by M.A.K
Halliday’s functional approach of language. His framework emphasizes the social
function of language and the thematic and information structure of speech and
writing. Halliday and Hasan (1976) and De Beaugrande (1980) have made
contribution to this branch of linguistics in pointing out the links between grammar
and discourse.
Yule (1996) states:
“In the study of language, some of the most interesting questions arise in connection with the way
language is ‘used’, rather than what its components are ( ) we were, in effect, asking how it is that
language-users interpret what other language users intend to convey. When we carry this
investigation further and ask how it is that we, language-users, make sense of what we read in texts,
understand what speakers mean despite what they say, recognized connected as opposed to jumbled
or incoherent discourse and successfully take part in that activity called conversation, we are
undertaking what is known as discourse analysis.”
4
Therefore, discourse analysis is very important to understand a text and one
of the key technical terms in discourse analysis is cohesion.
1.1.2. Discourse context
The term “context” has been received various views from various scholars.
Nunan (1993) defines: “Context refers to the situation giving rise to the discourse,
and within which the discourse is embedded”. He claims that context consists of
two types: linguistic and non-linguistic. Linguistic context is referred to as co-text.
It surrounds the piece of discourse under analysis. Non-linguistic context was taken
up by Firth (1957) who placed great emphasis on the “social context”. He saw
context of situation as crucial determinants of utterance meaning. Lately, Halliday
and Hasan (1976) focus on the context of situation. They suggest a three-component
model of context: field, tenor and mode which can be represented as follows:
- Field: it refers to the subject matter and it may be similar to certain uses of the
term domain in computational linguistics: what is happening, to whom, where and
when, why it is happening, and so on…

- Tenor: it refers to the social relation existing between the interactants in a speech
situation. It includes relations of formality, power, and affect (manager/clerk,
father/son). Tenor influences interpersonal choices in the linguistic system, and
thereby it affects role the structures and the strategies chosen to activate the
linguistic exchange.
- Mode: it describes the way the language is being used in the speech interaction,
including the medium (spoken, written, written to be spoken, etc.) as well as the
rhetorical mode (expository, instructive, persuasive, etc.).
Field, tenor and mode of discourse are in a dialectical relationship. The
collectively define the context of situation of a text. They are contextual variables of
what is called a register. In linguistics, a register is a variety of a language used for
a particular purpose or in a particular social setting. Halliday and Hasan (1976)
5
interpret 'register' as “the set of meanings, the configuration of semantic patterns,
that are typically drawn upon under the specified conditions, along with the words
and structures that are used in the realization of these meanings”.
This study is concentrating on the concept of cohesion, which is usefully
supplemented by that of register.
1.2. Cohesion
1.2.1. The concept of cohesion
The concept of cohesion is closely connected with text. It is defined as
grammatical and lexical relationship between different elements of a text. Yule
(1996) states that a text is usually considered to have a certain structure which
depends on factors quite different from those required in the structure of single
sentence. Some of them are described in terms of cohesion, or the ties and
connection which exist within a text.
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), cohesion refers to the “non-
structural text-forming relations”. They claim that “the concept of cohesion is a
semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that
define the text”.

1.2.2. Cohesion and Coherence
The distinction between cohesion and coherence has not always been
clarified partly because both terms come from the same verb cohere which
means sticking together. In fact, cohesion is the network of different kinds of
formal relations that provide links between or among various parts of a text,
and is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the
vocabulary. Coherence, on the other hand, is understood as the quality of being
meaningful and unified. As for Nunan (1993), coherence is “the feeling that
sequences of sentences or utterances seem to hang together”.
6
Coherence refers to the type of semantic and rhetorical relationship that
underlines texts. Coherence refers to the type of semantic of rhetorical
relationships that under texts. Richards, Platt, Webster (1985) stated that:
“Coherence refers to the rhetorical devices, to ways of writing and speaking that
bring about order and unity and emphasis. Coherence can obtain on the basis of
relevance, the co-operative principle, the common shared background
knowledge between participants in a speech event, and how discourse is
structured, as well”. Moreover, they also add that coherence is the relationships
which link the meanings of utterances in discourse or of the sentences in a
text. In addition, Nguyen Hoa (2000) states that coherence is built upon
semantic ties in discourse. Therefore, if cohesion refers to the linguistic elements
that make a discourse semantically coherent, then coherence involves with what
makes a text semantically meaningful. In short, coherence is embodied by a
system of cohesive devices and cohesion is mainly used to ensure coherence.
1.2.3. Types of cohesion
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), Halliday and Hasan recognize
five types of cohesive devices in English and in the lexicogrammatical system
of the language. They are reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and
lexical cohesion. Reference, substitution, and ellipsis are grammatical; lexical
cohesion is lexical; conjunction stands on the border line between the two

categories. However, it can be better to put it into the group of grammatical
cohesion because it is mainly grammatical but sometimes involves lexical
selection. The two types of cohesion, grammatical and lexical, can be classified as
follows:
Grammatical cohesion Lexical cohesion
Reference
• Exophoric
• Endophoric
Conjunction
• Additive
• Adversative
Reiteration
• Same word/repetition
• Synonym/near-synonym
7
- Personal
- Demonstrative
- Comparative
Substitution
• Nominal substitution
• Verbal substitution
• Clausal substitution
Ellipsis
• Nominal ellipsis
• Verbal ellipsis
• Clausal ellipsis
• Causal
• Temporal
• Others
• Superordinate

• General words
Collocation
• Noun + Noun
• Adjective + Noun
• Verb + Noun
• Noun + Preposition
• Adjective + Preposition
• Adverb + Adjective
• Verb + Preposition
Table 1: Grammatical and lexical cohesion
1.2.3.1. Grammatical cohesion
Reference
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), reference is a semantic relation
and “since the relationship is on the semantic level, the reference item is in no way
constrained to match the grammatical class of the item it refers to”. They
distinguish situational and textual reference very clearly by contrasting exophora (or
exophoric reference) and endophora (or endophoric reference) as follows:
8
McCarthy (1991) states: “Exophoric reference directs the receiver ‘out of’
the text and into an assumed shared world”. On the other hand, endophoric function
refers to the text itself in its interpretation (Brown and Yule, 1983). Endophoric
reference is divided into two classes: anaphoric relations which involve looking
back in texts to find the referent and cataphoric relation which looks forward for
their interpretation.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) also classify reference into three types:
personal reference, demonstrative reference and comparative reference.
- Personal reference track of function through the speech situation using noun
pronouns like “he, him, she, her”, etc. and possessive determiners like “mine, yours,
his, hers”, etc.
Prime minister has resigned. He announced his decision this morning.

- Demonstrative reference keeps track of information through location using
proximity references like “this, these, that, those, here, there, then, and the”.
I always drink a lot of beer when I am in England. There are many lovely pubs there.
9
This is not acceptable.
- Comparative reference

keeps track of identity and similarity through indirect
references using adjectives like “same, equal, similar, different, else, better, more”,
etc. and adverbs like “so, such, similarly, otherwise, so, more”, etc.
A similar view is not acceptable.
We did the same.
Substitution
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), substitution is “a relation on the
lexico-grammatical level, the level of grammar and vocabulary, or linguistic form”.
There are three general ways of substituting in a sentence: nominal, verbal, and
clausal. In nominal substitution, the most typical substitution words are “one and
ones”. In verbal substitution, the most common substitute is the verb “do”. In
clausal substitution, an entire clause is substituted by “so” or “not”. The following
are some examples of substitution.
 Nominal substitution:
Let's go and see the bears. The polar ones are over on that rock.
In the second sentence, “ones” refers to the noun “bears” appearing before. It is,
therefore, called nominal substitution.
 Verbal substitution
A: Did Peter finish his report?
B: He might have done.
The verb “done” in B’s answer is a substitute of the verb phrase “finish his report”.
In this case, “done” is an example of verbal substitution.
 Clausal substitution

Everyone thinks he’s guilty. If so, no doubt he’ll resign.
10
In this example, “so” institutes the clause “he’s guilty”.
Ellipsis
Ellipsis, as for Halliday and Hasan (1976) is an omission of certain elements
from a sentence or a clause and can only be recovered by referring to an element in
the proceeding text. If substitution is replacing one word with another, ellipsis is the
absence of that word, "something left unsaid". Ellipsis requires retrieving specific
information that can be found in the preceding text.
There are three types of ellipsis too: nominal, verbal, and clausal.
 Nominal ellipsis
My roommates come from Japanese. Both [ ] can speak English fluently.
In this instance, the sentence must be filled with “my roommates” in the gap so as
to be fully interpreted. However, these are omitted as it is not necessary for readers
to understand the meaning of the sentence.
 Verbal ellipsis
Mary ate some chocolate chip cookies, and Robert [ ] some pudding.
In the given example the predicator “ate” is left out in the second half of the
sentence and is presupposed because it already occurred before. It would, of course,
also be possible to repeat the predicator again at the position where it has been left out.
 Clausal ellipsis
A: Mary’s getting married, isn’t she?
B: Is she? She didn’t tell me [ ].
B’s answer in this case can be understood as “She didn’t tell me she’s getting
married”. As this clause is omitted, this sentence is considered as an example of
clausal ellipsis.
Conjunction
11
Conjunction acts as a cohesive tie between clauses or sections of text in
such a way as to demonstrate a meaningful pattern between them, though

conjunctive relations are not tied to any particular sequence in the expression.
Therefore, amongst the cohesion forming devices within text, conjunction is the
least directly identifiable relation.
Conjunctions can be classified according to four main categories: additive,
adversative, causal and temporal.
- Additive conjunctions act to structurally coordinate or link by adding to the
presupposed item and are signalled through “and, also, too, furthermore,
additionally”, etc. Additive conjunctions may also act to negate the presupposed
item and are signalled by “nor, and not, either, neither”, etc.
She is beautiful. And she is also intelligent.
- Adversative conjunctions act to indicate “contrary to expectation” and are
signalled by “yet, though, only, but, in fact, rather”, etc.
They live near their aunt; however, they have never visited them.
- Causal conjunctions express “result, reason and purpose” and is signalled by “so,
then, for, because, for this reason, as a result, in this respect, etc.”
He ate so much. Consequently, he became overweight.
- Temporal conjunctions link by signalling sequence or time. Some sample
temporal conjunctive signals are “then, next, after that, next day, until then, at the
same time, at this point”, etc.
They have been building that bridge for 4 months. Finally, they finish.
1.2.3.2. Lexical cohesion
Lexical cohesion differs from the other cohesive elements in text in that it is
non-grammatical. Lexical cohesion refers to the “cohesive effect achieved by the
12
selection of vocabulary”. We could say that it covers any instance in which the use
of a lexical item recalls the sense of an earlier one.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) classify lexical cohesion into two main
categories: reiteration and collocation
Reiteration
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976) is “the repetition of a lexical item,

or the occurrence of a synonym of some kind, in the context of reference; that is,
where the two occurrences have the same referent.” Reiteration is the repetition of
an earlier item, a synonym, a near synonym, a superordinate or a general word, but
it is not the same as personal reference, because it does not necessarily involve the
same identity.
After the sequence:
I saw a boy in the garden. The boy (repetition) was climbing a tree. I was worried about the
child (superordinate).The poor lad (synonym) was obviously not up to it. The idiot (general word)
was going to fall if he (pronoun) didn’t take care.
We could conclude by saying: “Boys can be so silly”. This would be an
instance of reiteration, even though the two items would not be referring to the
same individual(s)
Collocation
Collocation pertains to lexical items that are likely to be found together
within the same text. It occurs when a pair of words are not necessarily dependent
upon the same semantic relationship but rather they tend to occur within the same
lexical environment. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), collocation is
“cohesion that is achieved through the association of lexical items that regularly co-
occur”. In short, collocation refers to words that keep company with each other. In
13
terms of structure, there are two types of collocation: grammatical collocation and
lexical collocation (Halliday and Hasan, 1976).
- Grammatical collocation often contains a lexical content word and grammar
function words, i.e. a noun, an adjective, a verb plus a preposition. Some main kinds
of grammatical collocation include V + Prep, Adj + Prep, N + Prep, Prep + N.
- Lexical collocation is lexically restricted word pairs where only a subset of the
synonyms of the collocators can be used in the same lexical content. Lexical
collocation does not contain prepositions but consist of various combinations of
nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs. The following common patterns are involved:
Adj + N, Quant + N, V + N, N + V, V + Adv, V + V, Adv + Adj, N + N.

1.3. Persuasion in political speeches
Political speeches, the purpose of which is “primarily persuasion rather
than information or entertainment” (Dedaić 2006: 700), can be seen as a
purposeful interaction between the speaker and the audience, in which the
communicative intention of the speaker is to manipulate the audience to accept
the speaker’s views and support his/her suggestions. In order to achieve his/her
communicative purpose, the speaker uses discourse strategies and a variety of
related linguistic resources aimed at creating a credible representation of
him/herself, aligning him/herself with the views of others, claiming solidarity with
the audience, modulating power relations and legitimising the proposed ideology
and course of action.
Persuasion is an integral part of politics and a necessary component of the
pursuit and exercise of power. Political persuasion is a process in which
communicators try to convince other people to change their attitudes or behavior
regarding a political issue through messages, in an atmosphere of free choice
( Perloff 2003 , 34). As the field of political communication has grown, so too has
the number of studies exploring the processes and effects of political persuasive
14
communication (→ Persuasion ). Political persuasion involves the application of
persuasion principles to a context in which most individuals possess the seemingly
incompatible characteristics of harboring strong feelings about a host of issues, yet
caring precious little about the context in which these issues are played out.
To sum up, the first chapter of this study just provides some background
knowledge about Discourse and Cohesion in general. All these will be discussed in
more detail at chapter three of this thesis.
15