Multi-Dimensional Exploratory Factor Analysis of TED talks
This article conducts Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on a corpus of TED talks (2463 talks, across 427 topic
tags) to create a new Multi-Dimensional model. The resultant model contained seven dimensions: i. ‘Spontaneous involved versus
edited informational discourse’, ii. ‘Abstract informational versus narrative discourse’, iii. ‘Human-world oriented versus
object-oriented discourse’, iv. ‘Subjective perspectives’, v. ‘Persuasive stance’, vi. ‘Expert elaboration’, and vii. ‘Change and
inspiration’. When the model was compared to prior research, similarity with MD models based in academic texts was observed.
However, some dimensions were found to be indicative of the unique nature of TED talks, such as expert elaboration and change and
inspiration. When the EFA model was mapped onto the TED corpus’s subcorpora (defined by topic tags), individual disciplines were
characterised in terms of the dimensions and some traditional academic groups were observed.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.TED Talk corpus
- 2.1Compilation
- 2.2Situational characteristics of TED talks
- 3.Method
- 3.1Corpus annotation for MD
- 3.2Exploratory factor analysis
- 4.Results
- 4.1EFA model
- 4.2Dimension 1 spontaneous involved versus edited informational discourse
- 4.3Dimension 2 abstract informational versus narrative discourse
- 4.4Dimension 3 human-world oriented versus object oriented discourse
- 4.5Dimension 4 subjective perspectives
- 4.6Dimension 5 persuasive stance
- 4.7Dimension 6 expert elaboration
- 4.8Dimension 7 change and inspiration
- 5.Discussion and conclusion
-
References
References (39)
References
Abdulrahman, T. (2017). TED
talks as listening teaching strategy in EAP classroom. Asian EFL
Journal,
1
1, 72–93.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Anderson, C. (2016). TED
Talks: The Official TED Guide to Public
Speaking. London: Nicholas Brealy Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D. (1988). Variation
across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D. (2001). Dimensions
of variation among eighteenth-century speech-based and written
registers. In Conrad, S. & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation
in English: multi-dimensional
studies (pp. 200–214). Harlow: Longman. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register,
genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., Helt, M., Clark, V., Cortes, V., Csomay, E., & Urzua, A. (2004). Representing
Language Use in the University: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 Spoken and Written Academic Language
Corpus. TOEFL Monograph Series.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships
between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university
departments. Journal of Applied
Psychology,
57
(3), 204–213. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brezina, V., Timperley, M., & McEnery, T. (2018). #LancsBox
v. 4.x [software]. Available at: [URL]
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative
ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing
structural equation
models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bu, H., Connor-Linton, J., & Wang, L. (2020). Linguistic
variation in the discourse of corporate annual reports: A multi-dimensional analysis. Discourse
Studies,
22
(6), 647–677. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Condi de Souza, R. (2014). Dimensions
of variation in TIME magazine. In T. B. Sardinha, M. V. Pinto, & D. Biber (Eds.), Multi-dimensional
analysis, 25 years on : a tribute to Douglas Biber. Multi-dimensional analysis, twenty-five years
on (pp. 177–194). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Csomay, E. (2005). Linguistic
variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective. Linguistics and
Education,
15
(3), 243–74. Elsevier Inc. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Di Carlo, G. S. (2015). Stance
in TED talks: Strategic use of subjective adjectives in online popularisation. Ibérica: Revista
de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos
(AELFE),
29
1, 201–222.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Di Carlo, G. S. (2018). Patterns
of clusivity in TED Talks: When ‘you’ and ‘I’ become
‘we.’ Ibérica,
35
1, 119–144. [URL]
Egbert, J. (2014). Student
perceptions of stylistic variation in introductory university textbooks. Linguistics and
Education,
25
1, 64–77. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Elk, C. (2014). Beyond
mere listening comprehension: Using TED talks and metacognitive activities to encourage awareness of
errors. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and
Research,
3
(2), 215–230, 246. [URL]
Felices Lago, Á. (1997). The
integration of the axiological classeme in an adjectival lexicon based on functional-lexematic
principles. In C. S. Butler, J. H. Connolly, R. A. Gatward, & R. M. Vismans (Eds.), A
Fund of ideas: Recent developments in functional
grammar (pp.95–112). Amsterdam: IFOTT.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gardner, S., Nesi, H., & Biber, D. (2018). Discipline,
level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student
writing. Applied
Linguistics,
40
(4), 646–674. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gotti, M. (2014). Reformulation
and recontextualization in popularization
discourse. Ibérica,
27
1, 15–34.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gray, B. (2011). More
than discipline: uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research
articles. Corpora,
8
(2), 153–181. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hardy, J. A., & Friginal, E. (2016). Genre
variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes,
22
1, 119–131. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance
and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse
Studies,
7
(2), 173–92. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, K. (2007). Disciplinary
discourses: Social interactions in academic
writing. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Iberri-Shea, G. (2011). Speaking
in front of the class: a multi-dimensional comparison of university student public speech and university
language. Classroom
Discourse,
2
(2), 251–267. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
JASP
Team (2020). JASP (Version
0.14.1) [Computer software].![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mattiello, E. (2017). The
popularisation of science via TED talks. International Journal of Language
Studies,
11
(4), 77–106.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nini, A. (2019). The
Multi-Dimensional Analysis Tagger. In T. B. Sardinha & V. M. Pinto (Eds.), Multi-dimensional
analysis: Research methods and current
issues (pp. 67–94). London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nurmukhamedov, U. (2017). Lexical
coverage of TED talks: Implications for vocabulary instruction. TESOL
Journal,
8
(4), 768–790. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic
part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of
International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, Manchester, UK.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sugimoto, C., Thelwall, M., Larivière, V., Tsou, A., Mongeon, P., & Macaluso, B. (2013). Scientists
popularizing science: characteristics and impact of TED talk presenters. PLoS
ONE,
8
(4). e62403. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Takaesu, A. (2014). TED
Talks as an extensive listening resource for EAP students. Language Education in
Asia,
4
(
2
), 150–162. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ted.com. (n.d). Our
Organisation: History of TED. Available at: [URL]. Accessed 1 Jan. 2021.
Thompson, P., Hunston, S., Murakami, A., & Vajn, D. (2017). Multi-dimensional
analysis, text constellations, and interdisciplinary discourse. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics,
22
(2), 153–186. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wingrove, P. (2017). How
suitable are TED talks for academic listening? Journal of English for Academic
Purposes,
30
1, 79–95. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Tao, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
2024.
A Multidimensional Analysis of a High-Stakes English Listening Test: A Corpus-Based Approach.
Education Sciences 14:2
► pp. 137 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.