Will  Benson  

Speeches  that  Changed  the  World  

 I.  Introduction  

 The  game  of  baseball  has  seen  two  men  intertwined  by  more  than  just  the  

game.  One  man  idolized  the  other  in  the  midst  of  breaking  his  record  of  consecutive  

games  played.    The  other  became  a  symbol  of  hope  and  a  face  for  a  then  unknown  

horrible  disease  that  now  bears  his  name.    Cal  Ripken  Jr.  and  Lou  Gehrig  share  

similarities  not  only  with  on-­‐field  successes,  but  connections  within  each  man’s  

farewell  to  baseball  speeches.  The  former  Baltimore  Orioles  slugger  Ripken  Jr.  

worked  with  his  team  to  create  the  Cal  Ripken/Lou  Gehrig  Fund  to  support  

amyotrophic  lateral  sclerosis  (ALS)  research  more  than  half  a  century  after  the  late  

great’s  death  (Shurkin,  2000).    Both  Ripken  and  Gehrig  left  the  game  in  memorable  

fashion,  delivering  iconic  farewell  to  baseball  speeches.    

I  chose  to  analyze  these  two  speeches  because  sports  play  a  constant  role  in  

life.  I  appreciate  the  athletes  that  provide  dazzling  play  on  the  field,  and  honor  our  

support  by  representing  what  good  men  stand  for.  I  grew  up  watching  Ripken  Jr.  

when  he  broke  Gehrig’s  consecutive  game  streak,  and  the  progression  of  America’s  

pastime  as  a  game  once  divided  by  oppression  and  prejudice.  These  speeches  

transcend  their  times,  and  offer  audience  virtues  that  extend  past  the  baseball  field.    

The  first  stage  of  the  analysis  is  a  description  of  the  artifacts,  followed  by  an  

artifact  justification.  The  three  chosen  methodologies  will  then  be  described  and  

justified.  A  complete  analysis  will  be  given  as  an  application  of  the  chosen  

methodologies  to  the  artifacts.  Findings  for  the  artifacts  and  methodologies  will  be  

provided,  closing  with  a  conclusion  that  recapitulates  the  introduction’s  main  thesis.  

II.  Artifact  Description  

This  paper  will  analyze  the  two  speeches:  Lou  Gehrig’s  Farewell  Speech  and  

Cal  Ripken  Jr.’s  Farewell  to  Baseball  Address.  The  rhetorical  criticism  uses  three  

methods:  Lloyd  Bitzer’s  Rhetorical  Situation,  Aristotle’s  neo-­‐Aristotelian,  and  

Kenneth  Burke’s  Cluster  Criticism.  The  criticism  will  examine  both  speeches  

rhetorically,  and  how  they  both  function  and  relate  to  find  common  themes.  After  

justifying  the  three  methodologies,  a  comprehensive  analysis  will  be  given  to  

illustrate  the  importance  of  the  used  rhetorical  devices.  In  conclusion,  my  

interpretation  of  the  two  artifacts  and  three  methods  will  be  provided.    

Lou  Gehrig’s  personal  life  was  historically  rich.  The  1930’s  were  a  time  when  

Gehrig  excelled  on  the  baseball  field.  The  New  York  Yankees  mainstay  had  a  lifetime  

batting  average  of  .340  and  played  in  over  2000  consecutive  games  (Shurkin,  2000).    

Gehrig’s  early  diagnosis  of  the  mysterious  ALS  or  what  is  now  known  as  Lou  

Gehrig’s  Disease  at  the  age  of  36  ended  the  stars  on  field  success  with  sobering  news  

that  his  motor  neurons  and  brain  cells  throughout  his  body  would  begin  to  

deteriorate.  He  was  given  the  news  that  the  disease  was  terminal.  His  central  

nervous  system  would  begin  to  shut  down,  but  his  mind  would  remain  healthy  until  

his  death.  In  spite  of  what  could  be  personal  despair  and  pain,  Gehrig  spoke  to  the  

world  as  he  left  the  game  of  baseball  with  a  calm  demeanor,  and  offered  an  

unparalleled  sense  of  grace  and  dignity.    

Gehrig’s  “Farewell  Address  to  Baseball”  was  brief,  lasting  under  two  minutes,  

but  his  words  echoed  long  after  July  4,  1939  as  a  testimony  of  true  courage.    He  

spoke  to  not  only  Yankee  fans,  but  to  baseball  fans  in  general  with  a  sense  of  stoic  

confidence  in  a  positive  and  optimistic  tone.    The  purpose  of  Gehrig’s  speech  was  

not  to  simply  say  good-­‐bye,  but  to  express  that  his  illustrious  life  and  baseball  career  

were  not  to  be  eclipsed  by  the  recent  setback.  His  farewell  speech  recorded  a  6.6  on  

the  Flesch-­‐Kincaid  Grade  Level  readability  score,  demonstrating  that  the  speech  

could  be  understood  and  comprehended  by  his  entire  audience:  the  general  public.    

Cal  Ripken  Jr.’s  farewell  to  baseball  speech  was  similar  in  its  readability  score  

of  4.8  on  the  Flesch-­‐Kincaid  Grade  Level.  Both  speeches  were  effective  rhetorically,  

not  by  the  complication  and  elaboration  of  the  message,  but  the  honest  sincerity  of  

the  spoken  words.  In  these  instances,  the  appeal  to  emotion  strengthens  the  pathos  

of  each  speaker.  Ripken  depicts  the  transition  of  “living  his  dream”  throughout  his  

lifetime  and  playing  career  and  how  the  dream  has  progressed.    He  spoke  to  his  

baseball  audience,  in  the  same  spot  where  Gehrig  had  once  spoken,  with  the  

purpose  of  appreciation,  focusing  not  on  the  recognition  of  his  accomplishments.      

Gehrig  manages  to  spin  his  horrible  break  in  an  optimistic  and  positive  light  

despite  the  dire  circumstances.  Ripken  emulated  Gehrig  with  the  positive  tone  in  the  

progression  of  a  boy’s  dream,  and  honored  the  late  great  with  a  fund  in  his  name.  

Both  men’s  farewell  speeches  paint  imagery  in  the  audiences’  mind  of  hope,  

promise,  and  thankfulness.    

III.  Artifact(s)  Justification  

Lou  Gehrig  delivered  an  iconic  speech  that  changed  the  world.  He  gave  a  

personal  testimony  to  the  consequences  of  a  disease  the  world  knew  little  to  

nothing  about.  Gehrig  gave  this  disease  a  face,  and  with  that  face,  a  heroic  example  

of  staring  death  in  the  eyes  with  a  calming  and  reflective  presence.  Gehrig’s  speech  

transcended  that  day.  Over  sixty  years  later,  on  October  6,  2001,  Cal  Ripken  Jr.  

shared  a  common  theme  of  thankfulness  and  gratitude  for  his  time  he  was  apart  of  

America’s  pastime  in  his  farewell  address.    

By  creating  the  Cal  Ripken/Lou  Gehrig  fund,  a  link  existed  beyond  the  game  

of  baseball.  Justifying  that  these  speeches  changed  the  world  can  be  emphasized  by  

the  personal  accounts  of  American  citizens,  seeking  guidance  and  lessons  of  hope  

and  honor  throughout  life’s  many  challenges.  After  describing  and  highlighting  the  

importance  of  the  two  farewell  speeches,  the  rhetorical  criticism  methodologies  will  

now  be  defined  and  justified.  

 

IV.  Method(s)  Description  

The  first  methodology  used  is  Lloyd  Bitzer’s  Rhetorical  Situation.  Bitzer  

states  that  rhetorical  speech  occurs  in  a  response  to  a  rhetorical  situation  (Bitzer,  

1968).  A  rhetorical  situation  exists  when  an  orator,  an  audience,  a  medium,  and  a  

context  combine  to  create  rhetorical  act  of  writing  or  speaking  (Nordquist,  2014).  

Bitzer’s  rhetorical  situation  methodology  consists  of  three  key  constituent  

components:  the  exigence,  audience,  and  constraints.  Exigence  is  defined  as  "an  

imperfection  marked  by  urgency.  It  is  a  defect,  an  obstacle,  something  waiting  to  be  

done,  a  thing  which  is  other  than  it  should  be"  (Bitzer,  1968).    The  exigence  is  only  

rhetorical  if  the  discourse  can  alter  or  modify.  

Audience  “consists  only  of  those  persons  who  are  capable  of  being  influenced  

by  discourse  and  of  being  mediators  of  change”  (Bitzer,  1968).  Simply  hearing  the  

speech  in  the  audience  does  not  fulfill  the  requirement;  they  must  be  able  to  modify  

the  exigence.  The  third  constituent  of  a  rhetorical  situation  is  the  set  of  constraints.  

Constraints  are  “made  up  of  persons,  events,  objects  and  relations  which  are  parts  of  

the  situation  because  they  have  the  power  to  constrain  decision  and  action  needed  

to  modify  the  exigence"  (Bitzer,  1968).  Constraints  are  made  up  of  persons,  events,  

objects,  and  relations  that  shape  decisions  and  actions.  Once  recognized,  these  three  

components  make  up  the  rhetorical  situation  for  discourse.    

Following  Bitzer’s  methodology,  the  neo-­‐Aristotelian  method  for  rhetorical  

criticism  will  be  used  to  examine  the  two  rhetorical  discourses.  The  neo-­‐Aristotelian  

method  of  criticism  provided  close  textual  analysis  and  direction  to  a  study  that  

previously  was  formless,  literally  creating  the  modern  discipline  of  rhetorical  

criticism  (Foss,  2004).    After  selecting  an  artifact,  the  next  step  is  the  analysis  of  the  

artifact  using  the  five  cannons  of  classical  rhetoric  (Foss,  2004).  The  five  cannons  

are:  invention,  arrangement,  style,  memory,  and  delivery.  

Invention  is  “finding  stuff  to  say;”  the  location  and  creation  of  ideas  and  

materials  for  the  speech.  Aristotle  talks  of  a  logical  way  to  be  an  effective  speaker,  

and  the  necessity  of  artistic  and  inartistic  proofs  (Foss,  2004).  Artistic  proofs  are  

things  the  orator  creates  in  the  audience.  The  three  artistic  proofs  are  ethos,  pathos,  

and  logos  (Foss,  2004).  Ethos  is  a  credibility  proof,  pathos  is  an  emotional  proof,  and  

logos  is  a  logical  proof.  Inartistic  proofs  deal  with  concrete  components  of  

quantifiable  information,  such  as  facts,  statistics,  oaths,  documents,  and  contracts  

(Foss,  2004).  

Arrangement  or  organization  is  the  cannon  consisting  of  the  structure  of  the  

speech.  The  organization  is  determined  by  what  provides  the  greatest  effect.  The  

standard  arrangement  of  a  classical  oration  consists  of  an  introduction,  the  

statement  of  the  facts  or  narration,  the  division  or  partition,  the  proof  or  

confirmation  followed  by  the  refutation,  and  a  conclusion.    

The  third  cannon  of  rhetoric  is  style.  Style  is  the  language  of  the  speech.  An  

effective  orator  uses  style  as  the  artful  expression  of  ideas  (Silva  Rhetoricae,  2014).  

Following  style,  memory  is  the  fourth  cannon.  Memory  is  the  mastery  of  the  subject  

matter,  which  may  include  the  actual  memorization  of  the  speech.  The  final  cannon  

of  the  neo-­‐Aristotelian  method  is  delivery.  Delivery  is  the  management  of  the  voice  

and  gestures  in  the  presentation  of  the  speech  (Foss,  2004).  After  analyzing  the  

speech  using  the  five  cannons  of  classical  rhetoric,  a  critic  judges  the  effects  of  the  

rhetoric.  The  effectiveness  of  a  speech  is  commonly  judged  by  the  short  and/or  long-­‐

term  response  of  the  audience.  

  The  third  methodology  used  to  analyze  the  discourse  is  Burke’s  Cluster  

Criticism.  Burke  defines  rhetoric  as  “the  use  of  words  by  human  agents  to  form  

attitudes  or  to  induce  actions  in  other  human  agents”  (Foss,  2004).  Burke  proposes  

this  persuasion  occurs  through  a  process  of  identification,  with  a  consubstantial  

association  of  individual  identities  and  allied  properties  or  substances  (Foss,  2004).  

The  two  entities  are  united  with  this  connection  of  shared  substances.  Burke  argues  

artifacts  reveal  an  orator’s  worldview  through  terministic  screens.  These  terms  

used  work  as  a  kind  of  screen  that  focuses  attention  to  particular  aspects  and  can  

alter  perspective  (Foss,  2004).    

  In  Cluster  Criticism,  meanings  of  key  symbols  are  found  by  charting  the  

symbols  that  cluster  around  those  key  symbols  in  an  artifact  (Foss,  2004).  The  

clusters  are  formed  with  associations  to  find  what  goes  with  what.  The  diagram  

shows  what  subjects  cluster  about  other  subjects.  The  criticism  focuses  around  

frequency  and  intensity.  Frequency  is  shown  with  the  amount  the  terms  are  used,  

and  intensity  gauges  what  is  of  key  importance,  regardless  of  the  amount  repeated.  

Key  relationships  and  connecting  themes  are  expressed  by  creating  a  visual  

diagram,  with  the  connecting  lines  having  increased  similarity  of  a  term  with  a  

shorter  length  of  line  (Foss,  2004).  

V.  Method(s)  Justification  

The  chosen  methods  work  effectively  with  the  two  farewells  to  baseball  

speeches.  Both  speeches  do  not  have  heavy  metaphor  usage  or  reflect  an  ideological  

or  Marxist  core  value.    A  common  feature,  however,  is  the  repeated  usage  of  stylistic  

devices  in  order  to  have  an  effect  on  the  audience  and  demonstrates  that  word  

choice  works  for  the  given  orator.  Figures  of  speech  are  utilized  throughout  the  

speeches.  Schemes  are  relied  on,  as  well  as  tropes  to  determine  a  deviated  pattern  

or  meaning  of  a  given  text  to  the  audience.  Neo-­‐Aristotelian  criticism  envelops  the  

style  cannon  of  classical  rhetoric,  therefore  deeming  the  methodology  useful  and  

effective  for  analysis.    

Cluster  Criticism  focuses  on  the  key  terms  that  emerge  from  the  discourse.  

Common  themes  of  hope  and  positive  messages  are  evident  in  both  speeches,  with  

varying  levels  of  importance  and  connection.  Burke’s  criticism  aptly  demonstrates  

what  are  the  central  ideas  expressed,  and  how  closely  they  relate  to  each  other  

within  the  discourse.  After  justifying  the  two  methodologies,  a  comprehensive  

analysis  of  both  speeches  will  be  given.  

VI.  Analysis  

In  order  to  use  Bitzer’s  rhetorical  situation  methodology,  it  is  essential  to  find  

the  three  components:  the  exigence,  audience,  and  constraints  of  the  rhetorical  

discourses.  The  exigence  in  Lou  Gehrig’s  speech  was  his  announcement  that  he  will  

be  retiring  from  the  game  of  baseball  due  to  his  diagnosis  of  ALS.  This  central  issue  

is  integral  to  the  audience’s  understanding  before  moving  forward  in  the  speech.  

Individuals  announce  retirements  as  a  testament  to  a  significant  milestone.  Lou  

Gehrig’s  farewell  from  baseball  takes  that  to  the  extreme.  The  weight  of  his  spoken  

words  were  so  impactful,  that  the  public’s  feelings  about  him  were  altered.  Gehrig’s  

retirement  pinpoints  the  central  issue  marked  by  urgency  as  the  inevitable  end  of  

his  life  approached.  The  exigence  is  rhetorical,  because  although  Gehrig  cannot  alter  

or  modify  the  situation  ALS  has  put  him,  his  words  and  the  gravity  of  his  situation  

can  modify  or  alter  the  audience’s  feelings.  Gehrig’s  farewell  satisfies  a  rhetorical  

objective  with  his  courageous  positive  nature  and  optimism.  

Identifying  the  audience  is  more  clear-­‐cut,  as  Gehrig  spoke  to  a  stadium  filled  

with  Yankee  fans  and  baseball  fans  alike.  All  fans  have  the  ability  to  be  influenced  by  

Gehrig’s  gripping  discourse.  The  synapsis  from  the  speech  is  that  the  audience  

cannot  truly  alter  the  situation  Gehrig  is  in,  but  the  discourse  provided  a  profound  

impact  on  any  listener  that  applied  Gehrig’s  message  to  their  own  life.  Personal  

connection  to  Gehrig’s  fight  makes  the  oration  much  more  powerful.    

Fans  saw  what  Gehrig  could  do  on  the  baseball  diamond.  He  had  more  than  

150  RBI’s  in  seven  different  seasons.  He  has  a  6-­‐1  World  Series  record,  compared  to  

Babe  Ruth’s  4-­‐3  records  as  a  Yankee  (Misc.  Baseball,  2011).    His  illustrious  playing  

career  garnered  admiration  and  respect,  but  that  ability  to  find  a  connection  with  

any  member  of  the  audience  is  the  principle  reason  the  speech  is  regarded  as  

rhetorical  literature.  Applying  Gehrig’s  message  to  more  than  just  the  end  of  a  

baseball  player’s  career  evokes  feelings  of  connection.  

The  actual  disease  of  ALS  headlined  the  constraints  of  Gehrig’s  speech.  

Gehrig  had  no  control  over  acquiring  or  removing  the  terminal  disease,  therefore,  

limiting  the  ability  for  the  speaker  to  make  influential  actions  beyond  the  speech.  

The  urgency  of  Gehrig’s  disease  is  another  constraint,  limiting  the  time  of  which  

Gehrig  could  continue  playing.  After  examining  the  rhetorical  situation  of  Lou  

Gehrig’s  farewell  speech,  Cal  Ripken  Jr.’s  retirement  speech  will  be  similarly  

analyzed.  

In  the  Cal  Ripken  Jr.  retirement  speech,  the  exigence  is  Ripken’s  ability  to  

make  a  difference  beyond  his  baseball  career.  Ripken  speaks  of  the  camaraderie  of  

teammates  and  the  fruits  of  family.  He  stays  humble,  but  stresses  his  appreciation  of  

those  surrounding  him.  This  deviates  from  the  norm,  as  most  players  retire  and  

internally  reflect  on  their  lives  and  careers.  Ripken  emphasizes  the  importance,  that  

by  “living  my  dream,  I  was  able  to  make  a  difference”  (Ripken  Jr.,  12).    

Ripken  did  not  simply  enhance  his  reputation,  but  connected  all  of  the  

important  aspects  of  his  life  with  living  his  dream  of  striving  to  be  a  good  man.  In  

this  sense,  Ripken’s  dream  was  influential.  The  audience  is  more  than  baseball  fans  

everywhere,  as  his  speech  transcended  beyond  the  day  at  Yankee  Stadium.  

Constraints  on  Ripken’s  speech  would  be  the  discourse’s  ability  to  extend  beyond  

baseball.  He  spoke  of  making  a  difference,  but  it  is  on  the  audience’s  interpretation  

to  whether  it  transcends  to  a  sweeping  general  message.  Both  men  did  not  settle  for  

simply  leaving  baseball  fans  with  high  profile  statistics  and  percentages.  They  

sought  to  make  a  difference.  

In  order  to  analyze  both  baseball  speeches  using  the  neo-­‐Aristotelian  

methodology,  the  five  cannons  of  rhetoric  need  to  be  examined  and  addressed.    For  

Lou  Gehrig,  the  invention  of  his  discourse  stems  from  his  horrible  surprise  from  the  

onset  of  a  terminal  disease.  Gehrig’s  inability  to  change  this  reality  is  an  example  of  

an  inartistic  proof.  The  fact  that  Gehrig  has  ALS  is  unchanging  and  concrete.  Gehrig’s  

lines  of  argument,  however,  are  not  shown  in  a  typical  pessimistic  light.  Artistic  

proofs  are  also  used  when  Gehrig  uses  ethos,  or  the  establishment  of  credibility.  

Ethos  is  shown  when  he  says  “I  have  been  in  ballparks  for  seventeen  years…”  

(Gehrig,  1).  He  also  establishes  emotional  appeal,  or  pathos,  by  the  speech’s  general  

emphasis  on  family,  despite  not  using  language  of  emotion.  He  says,  “When  you  have  

a  father  and  a  mother  who  work  all  their  lives  so  you  can  have  an  education  and  

build  your  body  –  it’s  a  blessing”  (Gehrig,  3).  Speaking  with  gratitude  of  his  parent’s  

hard  work  draws  a  positive  reaction  from  listeners  relating  Gehrig’s  message  to  

their  own  lives.    

  The  arrangement  of  Gehrig’s  speech  is  also  important  in  the  speech’s  target  

direction.  The  most  glaring  characteristic  is  the  presence  of  an  introduction  and  

conclusion.  Gehrig  puts  his  strongest  statements  at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  

discourse,  saying,  “Fans,  for  the  past  two  weeks  you  have  been  reading  about  the  

bad  break  I  got.  Yet  today  I  consider  myself  the  luckiest  man  on  the  face  of  this  

earth”  (Gehrig,  1)  and  “So  I  close  in  saying  that  I  may  have  had  a  tough  break,  but  I  

have  an  awful  lot  to  live  for”  (Gehrig,  4).  Gehrig  uses  a  conclusion  that  recapitulates  

the  essence  of  the  argument  from  the  introduction.    

  The  style  used  throughout  Gehrig’s  speech  is  instrumental  to  its  rhetorical  

effectiveness.  Starting  with  the  first  sentence,  Gehrig  uses  a  euphemism  or  

understatement  when  he  says,  “bad  break”  (Gehrig,  1).  “Bad  break”  is  also  

alliteration,  using  the  same  beginning  letter  of  the  connected  words.  He  relies  on  

diction,  using  words  such  as  “lucky”  (Gehrig,  1,2)  and  keeps  a  positive  tone.  Schemes  

and  tropes  also  occur  frequently  to  determine  a  significant  pattern  or  meaning  of  a  

word  or  phrase.    For  example,  in  reference  to  schemes,  Gehrig  uses  an  anaphora  by  

repeating  the  beginning  clauses  with  the  phrase  “When  you  […]”  (Gehrig,  3)  to  focus  

a  state  of  mind,  while  maintaining  the  speech’s  positive  focus.    

  Additionally,  there  are  several  examples  of  tropes.  There  is  an  erotema  

present  when  he  asks  the  rhetorical  question  “Which  of  you  wouldn’t…?”  (Gehrig,  2)  

as  a  thought  provoking  tool  or  transition.  Hyperboles  are  used  when  he  says,  “…you  

would  give  your  right  arm  to  beat…”  (Gehrig,  3)  as  an  exaggeration  to  bolster  his  

central  argument  and  emphasize  the  positives.  Repetition  is  present,  as  he  states  

three  times  “that’s  something”  (Gehrig,  3).  These  figures  of  speech  function  under  

the  radar  to  give  the  speaker  much  more  influence  and  resonance  among  the  

audience.  

  The  fourth  cannon  in  classical  rhetoric  is  memory.  The  Lou  Gehrig  speech  

could  have  been  memorized,  as  he  had  some  time  to  prepare  and  think  over  how  he  

wanted  to  make  the  startling  and  emotional  announcement.  Several  accounts  state,  

however,  that  Gehrig  did  not  prepare  extensively  (McCullough,  2009).  His  wife  

believed  that  he  thought  out  his  sentiments,  but  did  not  memorize  them.  

(McCullough,  2009).  Not  speaking  from  a  script  increased  the  authenticity  and  

credibility  of  Gehrig’s  message,  as  he  spoke  from  the  heart.  

The  final  cannon,  delivery,  was  consistent  and  steady,  with  pauses  for  

emphasis.  The  caesuras  are  stress  points  in  the  speech,  and  Gehrig  allows  these  

pauses  for  the  message  to  be  absorbed.  The  discourse  is  not  heavy  on  the  emotional  

side  of  his  announcement,  but  after  the  game  as  others  spoke  on  the  historic  day,  

Gehrig  wept  (McCullough,  2009).  But  Gehrig  does  not  allow  his  composure  on  the  

podium  to  distract  listeners  from  the  overall  intention  of  hope  in  his  message.  

  Cal  Ripken  Jr.’s  farewell  speech  functions  similarly  in  its  invention  phase  of  

rhetoric.  Ripken  finds  his  speech’s  direction  by  reflecting  on  his  baseball  career,  and  

how  he  viewed  a  hope  that  his  legacy  extended  beyond  baseball  and  his  playing  

days.  He  uses  ethos  when  asked  how  he  would  like  to  be  remembered  by  saying,    

“My  answer  has  been  simple:  to  be  remembered  at  all  is  pretty  special”  (Ripken,  11).  

Remaining  humble  and  honest  instills  a  sense  of  credibility  in  his  speaker  identity,  

which  the  audience  can  identify  with.  He  maintains  ethos  when  referring  to  his  

dream  as  a  young  boy,  and  mentions  family  values  that  inspire  personal  connections  

to  relate  to  his  life  when  stating,  “And  I  have  a  wife  and  children  to  help  me  share  

and  savor  the  fruits  of  that  dream”  (Ripken,  4).  A  family  man  has  more  credibility  

amongst  the  many  mothers  and  fathers  listening  to  the  message.  

  The  arrangement  of  the  speech  does  not  follow  the  similar  and  traditional  

pattern  of  an  introduction,  body,  and  conclusion.  He  does  start  and  finish  with  the  

simple  memorable  phrases  “As  a  kid  I  had  this  dream”  (Ripken,  1)  and  “Thank  you”  

(Ripken,  13),  but  the  middle  of  his  speech  speaks  to  a  common  theme  of  extending  

the  reach  of  his  dream  to  make  a  difference  in  the  world  beyond  the  sport.    

  Style  is  not  as  essential  in  the  Cal  Ripken  Jr.  speech  than  the  Lou  Gehrig  

speech,  but  similarities  emerge.  An  erotema  is  applied  when  Ripken  asks,  “How  do  I  

want  to  be  remembered?”  (Ripken,  11).  The  thought  provoking  tool  gives  the  

audience  a  brief  glimpse  into  the  speaker’s  mind,  and  creates  a  sense  of  

understanding.  Repetition  is  frequent  with  the  word  “dream,”  used  seven  times.  

Multiple  caesuras  are  noted,  as  Ripken  used  a  short  sentence  structure  in  his  speech  

accompanied  by  long  stressed  pauses  for  emphasis.    

  The  speech  was  memorized  and  was  planned.  Giving  the  speech  without  

thorough  preparation  would  have  not  been  rhetorically  effective  for  Ripken  as  

Gehrig.  Ripken  was  retiring  from  a  sport,  in  comparison  to  Gehrig’s  announcement  

of  a  terminal  disease.  The  delivery  of  the  speech  was  significant,  as  Ripken  used  

short,  staccato  speech  in  his  sentence  structure,  and  kept  a  relatively  constant  

tempo.  His  volume  was  appropriate,  however,  on  audio  recordings  the  speech  can  

be  difficult  to  hear  behind  the  audience’s  applause.  Ripken  uses  a  humorous  note  in  

the  middle  of  the  speech  with  a  notion  to  his  thinning  white  hair.  The  audience  

laughs  appreciatively  in  the  background,  demonstrating  an  effective  slow  delivery  

technique.  Television  helped  spread  the  news  of  the  speech,  and  audio  recordings  

can  be  streamed  for  all  the  public  on  American  Rhetoric’s  website  (American  

Rhetoric,  2001).  The  final  methodology  analyzed  is  Cluster  Criticism.  After  selecting  

key  terms  for  each  speech,  the  following  diagram  was  constructed  for  Lou  Gehrig:  

 

Cal  Ripken  Jr.:  

 

After  analyzing  the  discourses,  the  findings  for  the  artifacts  will  be  provided.  

Hope  

Lucky  

Thanks  

Empowering  Courage  

Dream  

Life  

Remembered  Difference  

VII.  Findings  for  Artifact(s)  

  There  is  a  distinct  connection  between  Gehrig  and  Ripken’s  retirement  

speeches.  A  common  theme  exists  of  a  positive  message;  neither  man  focused  on  his  

departure  from  baseball  as  anything  besides  a  memorable  and  upbeat  experience.  

Both  speeches  are  relatively  short  in  duration,  but  both  men  make  each  word  work  

rhetorically.  Figures  of  speech  and  rhetorical  devices  enhance  the  persuasive  

elements  of  the  discourse,  and  allow  for  a  common  man’s  ability  to  relate  to  the  text.  

Although  Gehrig’s  message  elicited  a  much  more  somber  response,  Ripken’s  

functioned  similar  in  the  sense  that  baseball  is  truly  more  significant  than  just  a  

game  or  sport.  More  so,  Ripken  honored  the  bravery  of  Gehrig  years  down  the  road  

by  creating  a  fund  in  both  players’  names  to  raise  money  for  ALS  awareness  (Misc.  

Baseball,  2011).  

  After  analyzing  the  two  artifacts,  both  speeches  function  with  themes  of  

empowerment  and  hope.  Both  orators  understood  the  necessity  of  discourse  that  

the  audience  has  the  ability  to  relate  with.  The  farewell  speeches  do  not  function  as  

solely  retirement  addresses.  Gehrig  did  not  want  the  perception  of  pity  and  a  lack  of  

solace.  He  stood  that  day  at  Yankee  stadium  as  a  proud  man,  proud  of  those  who  

stood  alongside  him.  He  gave  a  voice  to  those  searching  for  a  living  example  of  grace  

and  dignity,  and  empowered  listeners  to  follow  suit.  Ripken  spoke  of  living  life  

maximizing  his  potential  for  success  and  happiness.  He  provides  an  example  for  an  

audience  of  a  man  shaped  by  his  family,  his  experiences,  and  his  relationship  with  

baseball.  Both  men  gave  more  to  the  game  than  just  statistical  records  and  iconic  

departures.  

VII.  Findings  for  Method(s)  

  The  rhetorical  situation  is  effective  in  these  speeches  not  only  to  outline  the  

issue,  audience,  and  limiting  factors,  but  also  to  pull  out  the  connection  between  the  

three  constituents.    The  Gehrig  speech  deviates  from  the  norm,  as  the  sense  of  

despair  waits  in  the  ensuing  months.  However,  Gehrig  refuses  to  focus  on  the  

undeniable  negative.  He  strives  to  empower  his  listeners  with  the  knowledge  that  

although  he  may  have  his  life  cut  short  prematurely,  he  has  the  moral  fiber  to  find  

the  happiness  in  any  given  situation.  Inspiring  his  listeners  is  the  exigence.  Ripken’s  

exigence  is  less  profound,  but  demonstrates  that  at  a  less  drastic  scale,  baseball  is  a  

game  that  comes  full  circle  with  life.  The  urgency  of  a  terminal  illness  is  not  present  

in  Ripken’s  case,  but  connecting  his  family,  team,  and  values  gives  him  the  ability  to  

empower  his  listeners  as  they  relate  to  his  message.    

  Neo-­‐Aristotelian  criticism  of  the  two  speeches  function  the  most  effective  

rhetorically.  Both  discourses  rely  on  not  only  the  central  message  of  hope  and  the  

pursuit  of  happiness,  but  also  the  power  of  their  spoken  words  to  establish  

emotional  response  and  personal  connection.  The  take  away  message  is  far  more  

influential  than  a  simple  farewell  speech,  causing  the  audience  to  have  the  ability  to  

relate  and  transcend.  The  used  artistic  and  inartistic  proofs  demonstrate  what  the  

orator  creates  in  the  audience  and  what  is  unchanging.  The  proofs  provide  a  

framework  for  how  the  speeches  are  put  together.  Although  the  discourses  do  not  

follow  a  standard  classical  oration  formula,  the  short,  concise  delivery  

communicates  their  rhetorical  intents  effectively.    

  Style  is  the  primary  cannon  applied  by  both  speakers.  Neo-­‐Aristotelian  

criticism  has  a  fundamental  basis  in  how  ideas  are  expressed,  not  just  emphasizing  

what  the  idea  or  message  is,  but  how  it  is  conveyed.  Memory  differs  between  the  

two  discourses,  but  both  operate  effectively  within  the  given  context  of  each  

baseball  player’s  life  situation.  Delivery  is  a  common  them;  both  players  were  short  

and  rather  brief,  but  the  subject  depth  and  notion  of  empowerment  in  life  caused  

lasting  transcendence.    

  The  Cluster  Criticism  gives  visual  to  how  both  orators’  use  key  terms  that  

serve  as  a  theme  or  message  of  the  entire  discourse.  Lou  Gehrig  managed  to  find  the  

light  in  the  scariest  of  circumstances,  offering  a  lesson  of  hope  to  the  audience.  He  

poses  the  notion  that  if  a  man  with  a  limited  number  of  days  left  can  remain  

courageous  and  speak  optimistically,  living  to  the  fullest  for  the  rest  of  us  can  be  

obtainable.  Gehrig  uses  courage  to  enable  the  audience  to  be  empowered  regardless  

of  negative  circumstance.  Gehrig  goes  as  far  to  say  he  is  lucky  to  be  where  he  is  at,  

and  is  thankful  and  appreciative  for  what  he  was  able  to  experience  and  alter.    

  Cal  Ripken  Jr.  spoke  of  a  childhood  dream  shaping  the  man  he  became.  A  

dream,  that  while  acting  as  a  guide  for  his  life  both  personally  and  professionally,  

also  influenced  his  ability  to  make  a  difference  and  be  remembered  beyond  baseball.  

The  term  “dream”  in  the  cluster  is  the  central  theme,  with  three  surrounding  key  

terms.  The  terms  “difference”  and  “remembered”  are  closely  correlated,  as  one  does  

not  exist  in  his  life’s  goals  without  the  other  present.  The  term  “life”  is  closer  to  the  

central  theme  and  has  higher  intensity  than  the  other  term;  because  of  how  often  

Ripken  refers  back  to  his  life  in  retrospect.  After  offering  my  findings  from  the  three  

different  methodologies,  there  is  evidence  of  commonality  between  both  the  

farewell  to  baseball  speech  of  Lou  Gehrig  and  the  retirement  speech  of  Cal  Ripken  Jr.  

VIII.  Conclusion  

  We  have  seen  many  baseball  players  leave  a  lasting  impact  on  the  game,  but  

none  quite  as  profound  as  the  two  athletes  analyzed.  Lou  Gehrig  not  only  provided  

exposure  to  a  previously  unknown  disease,  but  also  has  proved  that  positives  can  be  

drawn  out  from  even  the  most  negative  circumstances  with  his  state  of  mind.  Both  

Gehrig  and  Ripken  were  prime  examples  of  consistency  on  the  ball  field,  and  

extended  their  reach  beyond  the  park.  By  emphasizing  the  connections  between  the  

two  speeches  using  three  rhetorical  criticism  methodologies,  the  message  is  

apparent.  Sport  can  be  interwoven  with  real-­‐life  struggles  and  tribulations  with  

effective  oratory  discourse,  and  both  men  left  an  imprinted  model  on  doing  more  

than  producing  record-­‐setting  statistics  and  athletic  triumphs,  and  have  been  

remembered.    

 

Works  Cited    Burton,  Gideon  O.  “Silva  Rhetoricae.”  Brigham  Young  University.  

 <http://rhetoric.byu.edu>.    Foss,  Sonja.  Rhetorical  Criticism:  Exploration  and  Practice  (3rd  ed.).  Long  Grove,  

Illinois:  Waveland  Press.  2004.    Gehrig,  Lou.  “Lou  Gehrig’s  Farewell  Speech  on  July  4,  1939.”  Misc.  Baseball.  26,  April  

2011.  <http://miscbaseball.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/lou-­‐gehrigs-­‐farewell-­‐speech-­‐on-­‐july-­‐4-­‐1939>.  

 McCollough,  Andy.  “Major  League  Baseball  to  commemorate  70th  anniversary  of  Lou  

Gehrig’s  famous  July  Fourth  speech.”  2  July  2009.  

<http://www.nj.com/yankees/index.ssf/2009/07/major_league_baseball_to_comme.html>.  

 Nordquist,  Richard.  “Rhetorical  Situation.”  About.com.  2014.  

<http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/rhetsituaterm.htm>.    “Readability-­‐score.com.”  Web  4  March  2014.  <https://readability-­‐score.com>.    Ripken  Jr.,  Cal.  “Cal  Ripken  Jr.  Farewell  Baseball  Address.”  American  Rhetoric.  6  Oct.  

2001.  <http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/calripkenjr.htm>.    Shurkin,  Joel  N.  “In  the  Name  of  Lou  Gehrig.”  Hopkins  Medical  News.  2000.  

<http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hmn/sp00/Feature1.html>.