Methods

Dual Method Approach

The hypothesis of this research is primarily that biblical language augments cultural meaning by
constructing or deconstructing it through three interpretive frames: inclusive (promoting equality
and internal diversity), exclusive (reinforcing hierarchy and in/out-group dynamics), and
metamorphic (reconceiving relationships in light of collective understanding). To address this claim,
my method employs a qualitative design, combining content analysis of biblical passages and
discourse analysis of political rhetoric. These complementary methods enable a thorough
investigation of how language operates within both sacred and secular contexts.

As Johnson (2018) mentioned in The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy, “a method is also an
argument”, and as such, I will outline both the reasoning and justification for my selected
methodology to best argue in favor of the accuracy found employing a dual method approach.

According to Riffe, Lacy, Watson, and Lovejoy (2023) in Analyzing Media Messages, a good content
analysis should be systematic, to best ensure the reproducibility, precision, and consistency of
results. The design of my research follows suit, by the intentional inclusion of sampling, coding, and
statistical analysis, meriting I yield both rigorous and meaningful conclusions.

With respect to this level of attentiveness, my content analysis applies to a corpus of 15 scriptural
passages drawn from five different Bible translations: King James, American Standard, New
International, The Message, and The Passion Translation. I use digital tools like YoshiKoder to ensure
reliability, along with universal data aggregators like Microsoft Excel to maximize replicability. This
approach helped me highlight areas of convergence and divergence between translations, offering
insight into how different interpretive traditions shape cultural meaning.

As an additional dimension of exploration, I also use discourse analysis to further supplement my

findings, offering a pragmatic look into the pollical rhetoric of two modern figures. Norman
Fairclough's research in discourse analysis, particularly as presented in his works like Critical
Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, helped fuel my understanding of how language
interacts with social structures to produce predictable outcomes. Fairclough emphasizes the role of
discourse in shaping and reshaping societal norms, and his methodology, known as Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA), is rooted in examining the connections between linguistic practice and social context.

His journal article on CDA was instrumental in the direction of my analyses, as his framework orients
itself toward the intersection of language and power, examination of discourse and social change,
together with an awareness of globalization, policy, and practical application (Fairclough, 2013).

Adapting his outline to fit my objectives, while still maintaining the major thematic elements
comprising a comprehensive analysis, I follow his general framework by opting to conduct a more
qualitative comparison between Donald Trump, and Barack Obama. My discourse analysis examines
six political speeches, three by each political figure, in order to identify the rhetorical function of
religion and its alignment with my three linguistic frames.

Together, these analyses combine to produce a compelling piece of research that reveals patterns of
usage which correspondingly construct, deconstruct, or challenge cultural narratives. My dual-
method approach is justified by the strengths of each technique individually, and further supported
by the combination of the two, gaining deeper insight as to the nature of religious speech in socio-
political environments.

Content analysis provides the systematic and objective means of identifying frequency and relational
patterns within my source texts, while discourse analysis captures the social perspective necessary
to acquire fuller comprehension.

Alternatively, acknowledging the limitations of each method—such as the potential reductive quality
of content analysis, or the interpretive variability of discourse—will ensure this study employs a
balanced strategy to ensure depth.

By integrating these methods, this research aims to uncover the myriad ways in which biblical
language shapes cultural meaning across sacred and political domains, offering a comprehensive
exploration of its transformative potential.

Research Design

This study employs a qualitative research design to examine how biblical language constructs or
deconstructs cultural meaning through three interpretive frameworks. By integrating content and
discourse analyses, the research captures both the systematic patterns of language use and the
contextual significance of its application in sacred and secular contexts.

The combined use of content and discourse analysis provides a full-bodied framework for exploring
the intersection of religious language and cultural meaning. This design enables the study to bridge
textual analysis with broader sociocultural implications, offering an explored understanding of how
language informs identity, belonging, and renewal.

Data Collection

Frame Terms
Inclusive believer, bible, biblical, Christian, church, churches, communion,
congregation, consecrate, covenant, devotion, devout, disciple, faith,
fellowship, gospel, piety, pious, peacemaker, proverb, reap, sacrament,
salvation, sanctify, sermon, sow, sowed, sown, sows, testament, theology

Exclusive apostle, backslid, cathedral, clergy, commandment, confession, creed,

crusade, denomination, epistle, evil, hallow, hymn, martyr, mission,
orthodox, pastor, penance, pope, priest, pulpit, rabbi, religion, repent,
reverend, sacred, servant, sin, sinned, sinner, sinners, sinning, sins, solemn

Metamorphic amen, angel, angelic, angels, baptism, baptize, bless, fruits, genesis, grace,
heaven, holy, immortal, lamp, miracle, parable, pray, prophet, psalm,
rebirth, reborn, redeem, redemption, restore, resurrect, sabbath, saint,
sanctity, sanctuary, scripture, shrine, soul, spirit, temple, trinity, worship

Figure 4a. Table of Faith Terms and respective frame (Adapted from Domke & Coe, 2008).

Note: Underlines indicate potential framing bias (See: Appendix. Fig 4b-e)
Corpus Size

This study analyses two primary data sets:

15 sections of scripture, totaling approximately 10,000 words across translations, and six political
speeches from 2006 to 2024, for roughly 15,000 words.

The biblical collection includes passages from five Bible translations (KJV, ASV, NIV, MSG, and TPT),
with the following passages being categorized into three interpretive frames.

 Inclusive: Genesis 1:26-27; Isaiah 56:3-8; Romans 15:5-12; Galatians 3:23-29; 1 John 4:7, 13-
16.
 Exclusive.: Deuteronomy 4:41-44; Matthew 25:31-34, 41, 46; Colossians 2:10; 2 Corinthians
6:14-17; 1 Peter 2:7-12.
 Metamorphic: Daniel 12:2-4; Colossians 3:2-4, 10; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18; Ephesians 2:14-22;
Revelation 21:1-3.

For the political rhetoric, I selected three speeches by Barack Obama, which include:

 Call to Renewal (2006) – This represents a keynote address at the ‘Call to Renewal: Building a
Covenant for a New America’ conference in Washington, D.C.
 Victory Speech (2008) – President-Elect Obama fosters the spirit of “yes we can” in the
famous address thanking his campaign and encouraging supporters to self-determination.
 Eulogy for Reverend Clementa Pinckney (2015) – A symbolically rich address, based in a black
church, where Obama delivers the eulogy for a respected reverend killed in shooting.

And for contrast, I also selected three speeches by his ideological opposite in Donald Trump

 Inauguration Speech (2017) – This represented Trumps first foray into the world of political
rhetoric, offering an interesting departure in tone, decorum, and ferocity.
 March for Life Rally (2020) –Trump became the first (and only) US president to address
March for Life, an annual rally in support of the pro-life movement.
 Victory Speech (2024) – The most recent of the six speeches, this Trump address came after
a rare post term-gap win, bolstering his status as an antihero and political outsider.

These discourses were selected for their use of religious terminology, in addition to their cultural
significance. They are then analyzed from a 21st century ‘metamodern’ perspective (Vermeulen &
Akker, 2009), allowing for the oscillation between modernist assumptions of narrative cohesion, and
postmodern sentiments of cynicism and fragmentation. This is while remaining tethered to the
primary study of framing and ideological development (Wendland, 2010).

Key Attributes

The Biblical passages were chosen to represent diverse genres, among which are poetic, prophetic,
narrative, legal and apocalyptic styles of expression, each with themes that align to a dimension of
the three interpretive frames (Appendix: Fig. 7b)

Political speeches were selected for their prominent use of religious language, cultural significance,
and contrasting perspectives, comparing a mainstream Democratic progressive in President Obama,
against an anti-establishment political outsider in President Trump.
Selection Method

Scriptural passages were systematically sampled based on their cultural and theological relevance to
the tri-part frames of analysis.

For speeches, purposeful sampling was also employed, focusing on significance and religious
rhetoric. This sampling strategy ensured a balanced exploration of how religious language is used to
shape cultural meaning across both sacred and political domains.

Research Instruments

‘YoshiKoder’ is the primary online concordance tool employed in this study to facilitate my
examination of religious language. The software is particularly valuable for its ability to process large
corpora systematically and consistently. Using YoshiKoder, the texts were uploaded and analyzed
against a predefined lexicon of 100 religious terms (Domke & Coe, 2008).

This lexis included key words commonly associated with religious discourse, providing a reliable
framework for identifying and categorizing instances of biblical language (Appendix: Fig 4b).

The software’s functionality allowed for mass quantification, enabling my study to assess the
frequency of terms within the three interpretive frameworks being investigated: inclusive, exclusive,
and metamorphic/transformative.

By assigning each term to one of these frames, YoshiKoder helped identify overarching patterns and
relational trends across the data. This analysis was instrumental in distinguishing areas where
language constructs shared meaning through inclusion, reinforces social hierarchies through
exclusion, or redefines collective identity through transformation.

Microsoft Excel was also used to complement and extend the quantitative analysis conducted in
YoshiKoder. Frequency data extracted from the software was organized into spreadsheets that
allowed further examination and trend spotting.

My use of Excel facilitated the manual validation of automated coding, ensuring the accuracy and
reliability of frame categorization. This step also involved cross-referencing terms with their
contextual usage to confirm alignment with the intended interpretive frame.

Manual Evaluation

While YoshiKoder and Excel provided essential tools for systematic analysis, manual reading was
crucial for capturing thematic nuances in the source texts, particularly the scriptures.

Automated tools often struggle with the varied thematic and contextual uses of certain terms. For
instance, the pronouns “you”, “your”, and “you're”, could indicate individual address, collective
responsibility, or divine relationship depending on the surrounding context.

A careful, intentional reading of the passages allowed for deeper insights into the interpretive
frames and ensured that subtleties of meaning—often missed in software analysis—were accounted
for.

This combined approach of automated methods enhanced the empirical accuracy while maintaining
thematic richness for this analysis.
 Procedures

Content Analysis for Biblical Passages

Preparation - The selected passages were copied and pasted from either BibleGateway or Bible.com,
and from there were converted to .txt documents using freeconvert.com. These documents were
then uploaded into YoshiKoder for initial processing.

The religious lexicon, containing 100 terms as derived from Domke & Coe (2008), was applied to
identify key words frequency within each passage. An additional layer of manual analysis was
employed to identify key terms that implied association with one of the three frames. This provided
a foundational dataset, highlighting the frequency and distribution of religious language across these
bodies of texts.

Coding - Following the automated analysis, terms were further categorized manually into inclusive,
exclusive, or metamorphic frames. This involved examining surrounding textual context to
determine how each term functioned within the passage. Particular attention was given to areas of
convergence and divergence between translations, identifying how linguistic choices shape
theological and cultural interpretations across time.

Iteration - The analysis involved multiple readings of each passage to refine categorizations and
ensure consistency. Iterative review allowed for deeper engagement with thematic elements,
helping resolve ambiguities and validate the placement of terms within their respective frames.

Discourse Analysis for Political Speeches

Preparation - The six political speeches were uploaded into YoshiKoder for linguistic analysis, with
the lexicon applied to detect religious language. To complement this, open readings were performed
to identify recurring themes, rhetorical strategies, and moments where religious language served as
a focal point.

Coding - Instances of religious language were annotated and categorized within the three
interpretive frames. This process required contextualizing each instance within its broader
sociohistorical and political context, ensuring that interpretations accounted for the speakers’
intended rhetorical effects and audience reception. In transcripts that included audience response,
an asterisk was used to connotate spaces of positive response (e.g. applause), and double asterisks
were used to connote areas of negative response (e.g. “boos”).

Iteration - To strengthen the discourse analysis, thematic patterns were compared within and across
speakers, highlighting similarities and contrasts in their use of religious language. Multiple readings
were conducted to validate these interpretations, ensuring that findings were grounded in both
linguistic evidence and contextual understanding.

By employing these systematic and iterative procedures, the overall study integrated empirics with a
nuanced analysis, providing a comprehensive understanding of how religious language choices
construct and deconstruct cultural meaning.

Analytical Strategy

The analytical strategy for this study integrates content analysis and discourse analysis to examine
how biblical language constructs or deconstructs cultural meaning through three interpretive
frames. These complementary methods provide a balance between quantitative consistency and
contextual depth.

As mentioned, the content analysis focused on 15 passages of scripture across five Bible translations
from varying eras of interpretation. The initial step involved processing these passages in the
selected online concordance tool, helping identify frequently occurring terms and preliminary
patterns.

For the political speeches, discourse analysis was employed to explore the sociohistorical and
rhetorical contexts of religious language. After processing the speeches to identify religious terms,
open readings were conducted, and each instance of religious language was annotated and mapped
onto the three interpretive frames.

Comparison between the speeches enabled the identification of contrary rhetorical approaches to
the use of religious language, reflecting their respective ideologies and audiences.

This dual analytical strategy provided a comprehensive framework for understanding how religious
language operates across sacred and secular domains, linking linguistic patterns to cultural meaning-
making processes.

Boundaries of the Research

This is not a comparative analysis of the Bible against other religious texts, such as the Qur’an,
though ‘religio-lingustics’ presents another tempting angle for future research (Hary & Wein, 2013).

Similarly, though this dissertation will include political reference materials, my primary research will
remain within the domain of Scripture, understanding religious language as a media object.

I will avoid diving too deeply into strictly partisan implications (Brinkerhoff, 2011), sticking to an
observation of phenomena as they appear, and their impact on the study of language.

I will also refrain from exploring the implications of scripture on sociological disputes such as gender
roles, cognitive utility, or mental well-being, though I may reference research that make claims to
the potential impact of biblical language in this area in my discussion chapter (Soskice 2007).

As a final point of demarcation, I will not use this research to explore claims to legitimacy found in
Scripture, but will simply observe the claims as they appear, as this avenue of research is one already
immersed by a bevy of scholars far more qualified and equipped (Williams, 2018).

Justification of the Methodology

The methodological framework of this study is justified by its capacity to address the main research
question, being: How does biblical language augment (construct or deconstruct) cultural meaning?

By employing both content analysis and discourse analysis, the study combines systematic
quantitative methods with qualitative interpretive depth, offering a robust and multidimensional
approach.

Content analysis is well-suited for examining biblical passages due to its ability to systematically
quantify and categorize language use across a large corpus. This method is ideal for capturing
objective measures such as the frequency of terms within the three interpretive frames, providing
empirical insights into how language constructs meaning.

Additionally, manual coding enriches this analysis by addressing limitations of automation, such as
the inability to interpret context and intertextual relationship. This dual approach ensures a balance
between systematic rigor and thematic nuance, which is particularly important given the complex
and layered nature of Scripture.

Discourse analysis is an equally critical component, offering the means to understand how religious
language functions in pragmatic contexts, namely the arena of politics speeches.

This method is justified by its suitability for exploring how language operates within specific
sociohistorical and rhetorical settings. The open readings and manual annotation allow for the
identification of recurring themes and the strategic use of religious language to shape audience
perception.

Comparing the speeches of Barack Obama and Donald Trump underscores the value of discourse
analysis by revealing how ideological and cultural frameworks influence the use of biblical language
in public discourse.

The integration of these methods provides a broad lens through which to study religious language.
While content analysis ensures empirical consistency, discourse analysis captures the dynamic
interplay between language and context. This methodological synergy allows the study to explore
not only the presence of religious language but also its role in shaping cultural meaning, making this
approach uniquely suited to the research aims.

Limitations of the Methodology

While this study employs dynamic methodologies to analyze how biblical language augments
cultural meaning, it is essential to acknowledge its limitations. These constraints arise from the
inherent complexities of content and discourse analysis, as well as the challenges posed by the
chosen corpus and methodological tools.

Content analysis, while systematic and quantifiable, may oversimplify the nuances of language.
Automated tools like YoshiKoder rely on predefined lexicons, which may fail to capture contextual
meanings or thematic subtleties. For example, terms such as “he”, or “his” can carry vastly different
implications depending on whether they reference individual persons, or Divine Being itself.
Although manual coding mitigates this limitation, it also introduces the potential for subjectivity and
interpretive bias.

Discourse analysis, despite its strength in contextual interpretation, can suffer from a lack of
standardization, making replicability challenging. The method’s focus on language may not fully
account for non-linguistic factors—such as tone, delivery, or audience dynamics—all being elements
that influence meaning in public discourse.

Furthermore, the myriad sociohistorical, economic, and cultural contexts informing the addresses of
Barack Obama and Donald Trump are fundamentally complex and, in some cases, undiscernible,
further limiting the generalizability of findings beyond their specific contexts.

The selection of texts and speeches, while intentionally diverse, are constrained by the scope and
length of this study. My inclusion of 15 Bible verses and six political speeches, totaling just 21
passages, limits the breadth of potential analysis, while overlooking other relevant instances of
religious language.

Additionally, my focus on English-language texts further narrows the study’s applicability, excluding
non-English translations or culturally distinct religious rhetoric.

The study’s reliance on the three interpretive frames—inclusive, exclusive, and metamorphic—offers
a useful lens but may oversimplify the multifaceted ways in which language shapes cultural meaning.
These frames, while conceptually perceptive, cannot fully encapsulate all dimensions of biblical or
political rhetoric.

By including other theoretical frameworks laid out in the literature review, such as Baudrillard’s
notion of ‘hyperreality’ (1981), a hierarchy of influences model (Reese & Shoemaker, 2016),
alongside relevance theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1995) and the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis (Gerrig &
Banaji, 1994) contribute additional theoretical weight to the wider academic discussion.

Recognizing these limitations highlights the need for future research that can expand upon the
selected corpus, explore additional methodologies, and deepen the theoretical frameworks of
reasoning used to draw salient conclusions.

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

My study employs a dual-methodological approach, integrating content and discourse analysis to

explore how biblical language constructs and deconstructs cultural meaning. The corpus comprises
of 15 carefully selected biblical passages from five translations, and six political speeches.

This selection was guided by thematic relevance, genre diversity, and the prominence of religious
language, ensuring a representative sample for addressing the research question.

Content analysis enabled a systematic examination of linguistic patterns across the biblical texts.
Using YoshiKoder and a predefined lexicon of 100 religious terms, the study quantified the frequency
and contextual placement of key terms. Manual coding added interpretive depth by further
contextualizing language within the three analytical frames—inclusive, exclusive, and metamorphic.

Discourse analysis revealed how religious language in political speeches functions within
sociohistorical contexts to shape audience perceptions, and the resultant comparative analysis
highlighted rhetorical convergences, divergences, and their broader cultural implications.

This integrated approach provides valuable insights into the interplay between religion, language,
and culture. Content analysis offers empirical objectivity, identifying linguistic patterns and
relationships, while discourse analysis annotates these findings within the dynamic of political and
cultural narratives. Together, these methods illuminated how religious language reinforces,
challenges, or reimagines cultural frameworks, fulfilling the study's aim to understand its role in
meaning-making.

However, the study is not without limitations. The scope, while diverse, is inherently constrained,
potentially excluding other significant uses of religious language. Methodological tools like
YoshiKoder, while systematic, are limited in capturing thematic subtleties, necessitating manual
interpretation that risks introducing bias.
Additionally, my analytical frames, while conceptually robust, may oversimplify the multifaceted
dynamics of religious rhetoric.

Despite these limitations, this study underscores the importance of examining the intersection of
religion, language, and culture, as religious language remains a potent force in shaping collective
identities, mediating social hierarchies, and fostering shared understanding.

In the future, studies might build on this foundation by expanding the corpus of source materials,
incorporating multilingual perspectives, or exploring additional interpretive frameworks to better
capture and explain the evolving role of religious language in globalized culture.

But by analyzing its manifestations in both sacred and secular contexts, I hope to contribute a
deeper appreciation of Scriptures enduring influence and relevance on society.