COMMUNICATIVE FUNCTIONS USED BY TED TALK SPEAKERS TO ATTRACT THEIR AUDIENCES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55606/khatulistiwa.v3i1.1059Keywords:
communicative functions, speech, languageAbstract
TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, and Design. It is a global set of conferences that has now broadened its focus to include talks on many scientific, cultural, and academic topics (ted.com). This research aimed to identify the kinds of communicative functions used by speakers in TED Talks and which communicative functions are used the most by the speakers to attract their audiences. There were two basic data involved in this study. The first data were TED Talks audio-visual recordings. There were six videos used in this study. The second data was the transcript of the TED Talks. This research adopted the purposive sampling method. The analysis of the functional communicative profile has shown that some communicative functions are used in the same way by TED Talk speakers. Some other functions are more frequently used than others. The most frequently used were the heuristic communicative function and interactional communicative function. This study is expected to enrich the knowledge of teachers and practitioners whose daily lives are close to public speaking and better understand what makes certain public talks and speeches succeeded to captivate their viewers.
References
Adler, E. Scott, and John Wilkerson. (2013). The Congressional bills project. Internet: http://www.congressionalbills.org/research.html
Armstrong, Elizabeth. (2010). Language, meaning, context, and functional communication. Edith Cowan University: Australia, pp 120-124.
Atkinson, R. (2007). The life story interview as a bridge in narrative inquiry. In J. Clandinin (Ed.) Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. California: Sage, pp. 224-246.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000) Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc, pp 31-35.
Cresswell, John. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. California: SAGE Publications, Inc, pp.101-105.
Fernandes, F.D.M. Pragmatics in Andrade, C.R.F., Befi-Lopes, D.M., Wertzner, H.F. (2015). Child language test in the areas of phonology, vocabulary, fluency, and pragmatics. Carapicuiba (SP): Pró-Fono, 2000b. cap. 4, p. 77-89.
Grimmer, Justin. (2013). Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts. Political Analysis Advance Access Journal, Volume 21, Issue 3, Summer 2013, pp. 267 – 297, https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps028
Grimmer, Justin, and Gary King. (2011). General purpose computer-assisted clustering and conceptualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 108(7), pp. 2643–2650.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1975) Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. New York: Arnold, pp 271-272.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). Language as Social Semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Maryland: University Park Press, pp 85-87.
Holland, A. (1982). When is aphasia? The problem of closed head injury. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BRK Publishers, pp 121-125.
Hopkins, Daniel, and Gary King. (2010). Extracting systematic social science meaning from the text. American Journal of Political Science, Volume 54(1), pp 229–47.
Lamb, Brenda. (1998). Coming to Terms: Rhetoric. English Journal. Volume 87, January 1998, pp 108-109.
Laver, Michael, Kenneth Benoit, and John Garry. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review, Volume 97(02), 2003, pp 311–31.
Lyons, N. (2007). What possible future influence on policy or practice? In J. Clandinin (Ed.) Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (). Sage: California, pp. 600-631.
Miles, Matthew B, and Michael Huberman. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Second. Ed. SAGE Publications: California, pp. 302-304
Monroe, Burt, Michael Colaresi, and Kevin Quinn. (2008). Fightin’ words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Political Analysis, Volume 16(4), pp. 372-382.
Monroe, Burt, and Ko Maeda. (2014). Talk’s cheap: Text-based estimation of rhetorical ideal points. Paper presented at the 21st annual summer meeting of the Society of Political Methodology.
Quinn, Kevin. (2010). How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. American Journal of Political Science, Volume 54(1), pp. 209–28.
Grimmer, Justin. (2010). A Bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: Measuring expressed agendas in senate press releases. Political Analysis Volume 18(1), pp. 1–35.
Savignon, S.J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading: MA, pp. 81-82.
Slapin, Jonathan, and Sven-Oliver Proksch. (2008). A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science, Volume: 52(3), pp. 705–722.
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 54, pp. 558-568.
Spirling, Arthur. (2012). US treaty-making with American Indians. American Journal of Political Science, Volume 56(1), pp. 84–97.
Tausczik, Yla R., Pennebaker, James W. (2010). The Psychological Meaning of Words. Journal of Language and Social Psychology: Sage Publications, pp. 150-165.
Wong, Ngan Ling. (2011). Communicative Functions and Meaning of Silence: An Analysis of Cross-Cultural Views, pp. 121-135
Young, Lori, and Stuart Soroka. (2011). Affective news: The automated coding of sentiment in political texts. Journal Political Communication Volume 29(2), pp. 205–231.
