- -

A Pragmatic analysis of emotion-triggering strategies in TED talks

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

A Pragmatic analysis of emotion-triggering strategies in TED talks

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre: Mestre-MestrePere ...
Tamaño: 1.004Mb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión editorial
Abrir
dc.contributor.author Mestre-Mestre, Eva M. es_ES
dc.contributor.author Pérez-Cabello de Alba, María Beatriz es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2023-12-19T19:01:58Z
dc.date.available 2023-12-19T19:01:58Z
dc.date.issued 2022 es_ES
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/200927
dc.description.abstract [EN] TED talks are a relatively new genre, in which experts in different fields share their knowledge, ideas and experiences to large audiences. The talks are broadcasted worldwide, thus reaching international and intercultural spectators. Although public spoken language has been extensively studied in literature, TED talks present a new field of study, and are considered as a hybrid genre. It has been argued that, although similar in some ways, they differ from other oral discourse types, such as university lectures, in many aspects, such as the epistemic stance, the presentation of ideas, or the macro-discourse markers used (Caliendo and Compagnone, 2014). The utilization of emotion for triggering audience response is the foundation of the present study, aimed at examining the way speakers use emotions to involve spectators in their monologues, and exploring other strategies exploited to spark feedback, so that the most successful ones can be identified. The paper discusses the analysis of 120 TED talks from two different topics, business and education, taking a basic list of emotion words as a starting point, to continue examining how these emotion words and audiences intermingle by looking into laughter and applause, as the two identified forms of feedback. Results indicate that no significant differences can be found in the two subcorpora analyzed in terms of emotion words, the use of multiple humor strategies, and the acknowledgment of multicultural audiences on the side of the speakers. es_ES
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Universidad Complutense de Madrid es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof Circulo de Linguistica Aplicada a la Comunicacion es_ES
dc.rights Reconocimiento (by) es_ES
dc.subject Emotion es_ES
dc.subject Humor es_ES
dc.subject Intercultural context es_ES
dc.subject TED talks es_ES
dc.subject.classification FILOLOGIA INGLESA es_ES
dc.title A Pragmatic analysis of emotion-triggering strategies in TED talks es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.5209/clac.77996 es_ES
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.contributor.affiliation Universitat Politècnica de València. Escuela Politécnica Superior de Gandia - Escola Politècnica Superior de Gandia es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation Mestre-Mestre, EM.; Pérez-Cabello De Alba, MB. (2022). A Pragmatic analysis of emotion-triggering strategies in TED talks. Circulo de Linguistica Aplicada a la Comunicacion. (92):257-271. https://doi.org/10.5209/clac.77996 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod S es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion https://doi.org/10.5209/clac.77996 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 257 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 271 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.issue 92 es_ES
dc.identifier.eissn 1576-4737 es_ES
dc.relation.pasarela S\475718 es_ES
dc.description.references Abelin, Åsa and Allwood, Jens. 2000. Cross Linguistic Interpretation of Emotional Prosody. In Proceedings ISCA w/s Speech and Emotion. Newcastle, Northern Ireland, 110–113. es_ES
dc.description.references Alba-Juez, Laura and J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2019a. Emotion processes in discourse in J.L. Mackenzie and L. Alba-Juez (eds.) Emotion processes in discourse, 3-26. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.302.01alb es_ES
dc.description.references Alba-Juez, Laura and J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2019b. Emotion, lies, and “bullshit” in journalistic discourse: The case of fake news. Iberica 38: 17-50 es_ES
dc.description.references Albalat-Mascarell, Ana and Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa. 2019. Self-Representation in Political Campaign. Journal of Pragmatics, 147. 86-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.011 es_ES
dc.description.references Anthony, Laurence. 2017. AntConc (3.5.8) [MAC–OS]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software es_ES
dc.description.references Bellés– Fortuño, Begoña. 2008. Discourse Makers within the University Lecture Genre: a contrastive study between Spanish and North American Lectures (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Universitat Jaume I, Castellón. es_ES
dc.description.references Bhatia, Vijay Kumar. 2012. Critical reflections on genre analysis. Iberica, 24. 17–28. es_ES
dc.description.references Biber, Douglas. 2009. Corpus-Based and Corpus-driven Analyses of Language Variation and Use. In Heine, B. and H. Narrog. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0008 es_ES
dc.description.references Caliendo, Giuditta and Compagnone, Antonio. 2014. Expressing epistemic stance in University lectures and TED talks: a contrastive corpus–based analysis. Lingue Linguaggi. 11(11). 105–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1285/i22390359v11p105 es_ES
dc.description.references Compagnone, Antonio. 2015. The reconceptualization of academic discourse as a professional practice in the digital age: A critical genre analysis of TED Talks. Hermes (Denmark), (54). 49–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v27i54.22947 es_ES
dc.description.references Compagnone, Antonio. 2017. The pragmatics of Spoken Academic discourse in the Framework of Ted Talks: A case Study. Utrecht studies in language and Communication. 29. es_ES
dc.description.references Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.1.2.06sil es_ES
dc.description.references Derks, Daantje, Fischer, Agneta H. and Bos, Arjan E.R. 2008. The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 766–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.04.004 es_ES
dc.description.references Drasovean, Anda and Tagg, Caroline. 2015. Evaluative language and its solidarity-bilding role on TED.com: An appraisal and corpus analysis. Language@Internet, 12, 1. urn:nbn:de:0009-7-42341 es_ES
dc.description.references Dudley–Evans, Tony and St. John, Maggie J. 1998. Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi–disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. es_ES
dc.description.references Duwila, Shanty and Probowati, Yeni. 2021. Personal Metadiscourse Features on TED Talks by British Speakers. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020), 520–526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210427.079 es_ES
dc.description.references Dynel, Marta. 2009. Pragmatics and Discourse. A Resource Book for Students, 2nd Edition. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 1074–1078. DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.011 es_ES
dc.description.references Dynel, Marta. 2011. Pragmatics and linguistic research into humour, in M. Dynel (ed.) The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.210 es_ES
dc.description.references Dynel, Marta. 2016. Comparing and combining covert and overt untruthfulness: on lying, deception, irony and metaphor. Pragmatics and Cognition. 23(1). 174–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.1.08dyn es_ES
dc.description.references Flowerdew, John and Miller, Lindsay. 1997. The teaching of academic listening comprehension and the question of authenticity. English for specific purposes. 16(1). 27–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00030-0 es_ES
dc.description.references Giménez–Moreno, Rosa. 2012. The interdependence of repetition and relevance in university lectures. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6–7), 744–755. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.013 es_ES
dc.description.references Goffman, Erving. 1981. Footing. In Goffman, E. (ed.), Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 124–159. es_ES
dc.description.references Holmes, Janet. 2000. Politeness, power and provocation: how humor functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies 2 (2). 159–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002002002 es_ES
dc.description.references HUMAINE. 2008. Emotion Annotation and Representation Language. Emotion-research.net. Archived from the original. es_ES
dc.description.references Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. es_ES
dc.description.references Jenkins, Jennifer. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2 (3), 49-85. DOI:10.1515/eip-2015-0003 es_ES
dc.description.references Kecskes, Istvan. 2004. Lexical merging, conceptual blending and cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics. 1(1). 1–21. DOI:10.1515/iprg.2004.005 es_ES
dc.description.references Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The paradox of communication: A socio–cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society 1(1). 50–73. DOI:10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec es_ES
dc.description.references Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. es_ES
dc.description.references Kecskes, Istvan. 2016. “Can Intercultural Pragmatics Bring Some New Insight into Pragmatic Theories?”. In: Mey J. and A. Capone (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society, Cham: Springer. 43–69. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_3 es_ES
dc.description.references Kecskes, Istvan. 2015. Intercultural impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 43–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.023 es_ES
dc.description.references Khuwaileh, Abdullah. 1999. The role of chunks, phrases and body language in understanding co–ordinated academic lectures. System. 27(2). 249–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346–251X(99)00019–6 es_ES
dc.description.references Langlotz, Andreas and Locher, Miriam A. 2013. The role of emotions in relational work. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 87–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.014 es_ES
dc.description.references Lim, Nangyeon. 2016. Cultural differences in emotion: differences in emotional arousal level between the East and the West. Integrative Medicine Research, 5(2). 105–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2016.03.004 es_ES
dc.description.references Liu, Chen Yu and Chen, Howard Hao Jan. 2019. Academic Spoken Vocabulary in TED Talks: Implications for Academic Listening. English Teaching and Learning, 43(4), 353–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00033-2 es_ES
dc.description.references Liu, Zhe, Xu, Anbang., Zhang, Mengdi, Mahmud, Jalal, and Sinha Vibha. 2017. Fostering User Engagement: Rhetorical Devices for Applause Generation Learnt from TED Talks. Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Palo Alto, California: The AAAI Press. es_ES
dc.description.references Locher, Miriam A. and Langlotz, Andreas. 2008. “Relational work: At the intersection of cognition, interaction and emotion”. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée. 88. 165–191. DOI: 10.5451/unibas-ep8791 es_ES
dc.description.references Ludewig, Julia. 2017. TED Talks as an Emergent Genre. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture. 19 (1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.2946 es_ES
dc.description.references Mestre-Mestre, Eva María. 2020. Showing emotion in academic discourse. A pragmatic analysis in ML Carrió-Pastor (Ed.) Corpus Analysis in Different Genres. Academic Discourse and Learner Corpora. New York, NY: Routledge. es_ES
dc.description.references Nesi, Hilary. 2001. A corpus– based analysis of academic lectures across disciplines. In Cotterill, J. and Ife, A. (eds.): Language across boundaries. London: Continuum. es_ES
dc.description.references Nesi, Hilary. 2012. Laughter in university lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2). 79–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.12.003 es_ES
dc.description.references Norrick, Neal. 1993. Conversational joking: humour in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. DOI: 10.1017/S004740450001808X es_ES
dc.description.references Norrick, N. 2003. Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics. 35. 1333–1359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00180-7 es_ES
dc.description.references Norrick, Neal. 2004. Non–verbal humor and joke performance. Humor 17: 401–409. DOI:10.1515/humr.2004.17.4.401 es_ES
dc.description.references Norrick, Neal. 2009. Humor in language. In Mey, J. L. (Ed.): Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. 335–336. es_ES
dc.description.references Nurmukhamedov, Ulugbek. 2017. Lexical coverage of TED talks: implications for vocabulary instruction. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 768–790. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.323 es_ES
dc.description.references Partington, Alan. 2006. The Linguistics of Laughter: A Corpus–assisted Study of Laughter–talk. Routledge, London. es_ES
dc.description.references Pell, Marc. D., Paulmann, Silke, Dara, Chinar, Alasseri, Areej, and Kotz, Sonja. A. 2009. Factors in the recognition of vocally expressed emotions: A comparison of four languages. Journal of Phonetics, 37(4), 417–435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2009.07.005 es_ES
dc.description.references Pinto, Alon. 2019. Variability in the formal and informal content instructors convey in lectures. Journal of Mathematical Behavior. 54. 100680. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.11.001 es_ES
dc.description.references Poyatos, Fernando. 2002. Nonverbal Communication Across Disciplines. Volume II: Paralanguage, Kinesics, Silence, Personal and Environmental Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:10.1075/gest.6.2.11fey es_ES
dc.description.references Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2011.00305.x es_ES
dc.description.references Sproull, Lee, and Kiesler, Sara. 1986. Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organization communication. Journal of Management Science, 32, 1492–1512. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492 es_ES
dc.description.references Taguchi, Naoko. and Ishihara, Noriko. 2018. The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca: Research and pedagogy in the era of globalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38. 80–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000028 es_ES
dc.description.references Tognini–Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.6 es_ES
dc.description.references Tsai, Timothy J. 2015. Are you TED talk material? comparing prosody in professors and TED speakers. Interspeech-15. 2534-2538. DOI: doi: 10.21437/Interspeech.2015-546 es_ES
dc.description.references Uicheng, Kanokrat and Crabtree, Michael. 2018. Macro Discourse Markers in TED Talks: How Ideas are Signaled to Listeners. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand. (55). 1–31. es_ES
dc.description.references Valeiras-Jurado, Julia, Ruiz-Madrid, María Noelia and Jacobs, Geert. 2018. Revisiting persuasion in oral academic and professional genres: Towards a methodological framework for multimodal discourse analysis of research dissemination talks. Iberica. (35). 93–118. es_ES
dc.description.references Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold / New York: Oxford University Press. es_ES
dc.description.references Vincent Marrelli, Jocelyne. 2003. Truthfulness. In: Verschueren, J. Ӧstman, J.-O. Blommaert, J. and C. Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 1–48. es_ES
dc.description.references Vincent Marrelli, Jocelyne. 2004. Words in the Way of Truth. Truthfulness, Deception, Lying across Cultures and Disciplines. Napoli: Edizione Scientifiche Italiane. es_ES
dc.description.references Virtanen, Tuija and Halmari, Helena. 2005. “Persuasion across genres: Emerging perspectives” in H. Halmari and T. Virtanen (eds.): Persuasion across genres. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130 es_ES
dc.description.references Walther, Joseph B., Anderson, Jeffrey F. and Park, David . 1994. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a meta-analysis of social and anti-social communication. Communication Research, 21,460–487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003 es_ES
dc.description.references Wanzer, Melissa Bekelja and Frymier, Ann Bainbridge. 1999. “The relationship between student perceptions of instructor humor and students’ reports of learning”. Communication Education. 48(1). 48-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529909379152 es_ES
dc.description.references Wanzer, Melissa Bekelja, Frymier, Ann Bainbridge, Wojtaszczyk, Ann M. and Smith, Tony. 2006. Appropriate and inappropriate uses of humor by teachers. Communication Education 55, 178––196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520600566132 es_ES
dc.description.references Wingrove, Peter. 2017. How suitable are TED talks for academic listening? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 30. 79-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.010 es_ES


Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem