Coherence and Cohesion in English Discourse

NOW we are on course for budget surpluses for the next 25 years. 
Thanks to the pioneering leadership of all of you, we have the lowest 
violent crime rate in a quarter century and the cleanest environment in a 
quarter century.
(Clinton, State of the Union address, 1999)
The temporal frame in which the passage is coherently anchored in the 
moment of speaking (
tonight
) allows the speaker to assess retrospectively the 
progress from the past to the present situation. While making part of cohesive 
chains referring to economical, financial and social issues, the superlatives 
the 
longest peacetime economic expansion 
and
the highest homeownership 
are 
accentuated by the general temporal indicator
 in history
, while
 the smallest 
welfare rolls
, 
the lowest peacetime unemployment, the lowest violent crime rate
and 
the cleanest environment 
are accentuated by the more specific temporal 
phrases 
in 30 years
, 
since 1957 
and
 in a quarter century.
Numbers are also used 
to specify the economic expansion and the budget – 
deficit of $290 billion in 
1992
and 
surplus of $70 billion last year.
The use of factual data improves the 
credibility of the speaker, while the superlatives highlight positively evaluated 
achievements and assign the credit for them to the orator and his party.

---

148
4. ‘Us’ against ‘Them’
One of the most effective 
persuasion strategies used by political speakers 
is the 
unification of the in-group in opposition to an out-group perceived as an 
opponent or threat. This strategy is typically used in introducing and evaluating 
the situation and indicating the problems moves of a political speech. The 
speech delivered by David Cameron at the Conservative Party conference in 
2011 (7) exploits this strategy to represent his evaluation of the situation after 
the Conservatives won the elections in 2010 and to outline the priorities of his 
policy.
(7)
The new economy we’re building must work for everyone. You know the 
real tragedy of New Labour’s economy? Not just that it was unsustainable, 
unbalanced, overwhelmed with debt. But that it left so many behind.
 Labour talked opportunity but ripped the ladders of opportunity away. 
We had an education system that left hundreds of thousands unprepared 
for work. A welfare system that trapped millions in dependency. An 
immigration system that brought in migrant workers to do the jobs that 
those on welfare were being paid not to do.
We had a housing system that failed to meet demand, so prices shot up and 
fuelled an unsustainable boom. And we had a government that creamed 
the taxes off the boom to splurge back into benefits – redoubling the failure 
all over again. Labour: who tell us they care so much about fairness, 
about justice, who say they want to hit the rich and help the poor – it was 
Labour gave us the casino economy and the welfare society.
So who’s going to lift the poorest up? Who’s going to get our young 
people back to work? Who’s going to create a more equal society? No, 
not you, the self-righteous Labour Party. It will be us, the Conservatives 
who finally build an economy that works for everyone and gives hope to 
everyone in our country.[…]
 Let’s turn this time of challenge into a time of opportunity. Not sitting 
around, watching things happen and wondering why. But standing up, 
making things happen and asking why not.
We have the people, we have the ideas, and now we have a government 
that’s freeing those people, backing those ideas.
So let’s see an optimistic future. Let’s show the world some fight. Let’s pull 
together, work together. And together lead Britain to better days.
(Cameron, leader’s speech, Conservative Party conference, Manchester 
2011)
While using the inclusive 
we
to position himself as the leader the party (
It will 
be us, the Conservatives
) and the nation (
We have the people, we have the ideas, 

---

149
and now we have a government
), Cameron evaluates negatively the New Labour 
economy by qualifying it as 
unsustainable, unbalanced, overwhelmed with debt.
He thus holds his political opponent – ‘them’, the Labour Party – responsible 
for problems related to the education system, prices, taxes and what he calls 
the 
casino economy and the welfare society
. In order to strengthen support for his 
policy he strives to engage the audience at the Conservative Party conference 
by using a series of rhetorical questions to which the speaker himself provides 
the answer. This essentially interpersonal persuasion strategy aims at decreasing 
the distance between the orator and the audience and inducing agreement by 
involving the audience in the thinking process and presenting the answer provided 
by the speaker as the product of a mutual agreement between the orator and the 
audience (Halmari 2005: 117). The answer provided by Cameron is that it is 
‘us’, his party, 
the Conservatives who finally build an economy that works for 
everyone and gives hope to everyone in our country
. This allows him to address 
the audience by the anaphorical repetition of the imperative 
Let’s
in a direct appeal 
to unite under his leadership and support the solution to problems and the action 
plan suggested by him. The construal of a coherent representation of ‘us’ against 
‘them’ is facilitated by assigning to ‘them’ the agency of actions evaluated by use 
of negative lexis, such as 
unprepared
, 
trapped
, 
dependency
, 
failure
, while the 
agency of positively evaluated actions is assigned to ‘us’ and indicated by lexical 
items expressing positive attitude, e.g. 
optimistic future
, 
hope
, 
better days
.
Persuasion strategies associated primarily with the construal of ideational 
coherence are inherently related to the perception of coherence of the interpersonal 
plane of discourse, as the situation described as well as problems and solutions 
suggested by the speaker are presented and evaluated from his/her ideologically 
biased point of view and are affected by the relationships established between the 
speaker and the audience.