File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: How suitable are TED talks for academic listening?

TitleHow suitable are TED talks for academic listening?
Authors
KeywordsAcademic vocabulary
Corpus analysis
Lecture discourse
Lexical density
Speech rate
TED talks
Issue Date2017
PublisherElsevier. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap
Citation
Journal of English for Academic purposes, 2017, v. 30, p. 79-95 How to Cite?
AbstractTo investigate the suitability of TED talks for academic listening in EAP contexts, this research paper compares Academic Vocabulary List (AVL) representation (Gardner & Davies, 2014), lexical density, and speech rate in a TED talk corpus and a lecture discourse corpus, which were both compiled for this study. 28 lecture series (727 lectures total) and 49 TED talks were analysed for AVL representation. TED talks were found to have lower AVL representation than the university lectures (t(75) = 4.95, p < 0.0001). 43 one-minute samples from the Lecture Discourse Corpus and 47 one-minute samples from the TED Talk Corpus were analysed for lexical density, where no differences were found; and speech rate, which was found to be significantly faster in TED talks, in terms of syllables per second (t(98) = 4.23, p < 0.0001) and words per minute (t(98) = 4.20, p < 0.0001). A negative correlation was found between lexical density and syllables per second in the lecture discourse corpus (r = −0.343, p < 0.05), where none was found in the TED talk corpus (r = −0.031, ns), perhaps due to TED talks being a scripted genre. It is concluded that TED talk variation enables a range of academic listening applications.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/260924
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWINGROVE, PE-
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-14T08:49:36Z-
dc.date.available2018-09-14T08:49:36Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of English for Academic purposes, 2017, v. 30, p. 79-95-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/260924-
dc.description.abstractTo investigate the suitability of TED talks for academic listening in EAP contexts, this research paper compares Academic Vocabulary List (AVL) representation (Gardner & Davies, 2014), lexical density, and speech rate in a TED talk corpus and a lecture discourse corpus, which were both compiled for this study. 28 lecture series (727 lectures total) and 49 TED talks were analysed for AVL representation. TED talks were found to have lower AVL representation than the university lectures (t(75) = 4.95, p < 0.0001). 43 one-minute samples from the Lecture Discourse Corpus and 47 one-minute samples from the TED Talk Corpus were analysed for lexical density, where no differences were found; and speech rate, which was found to be significantly faster in TED talks, in terms of syllables per second (t(98) = 4.23, p < 0.0001) and words per minute (t(98) = 4.20, p < 0.0001). A negative correlation was found between lexical density and syllables per second in the lecture discourse corpus (r = −0.343, p < 0.05), where none was found in the TED talk corpus (r = −0.031, ns), perhaps due to TED talks being a scripted genre. It is concluded that TED talk variation enables a range of academic listening applications.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherElsevier. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of English for Academic purposes-
dc.subjectAcademic vocabulary-
dc.subjectCorpus analysis-
dc.subjectLecture discourse-
dc.subjectLexical density-
dc.subjectSpeech rate-
dc.subjectTED talks-
dc.titleHow suitable are TED talks for academic listening?-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.010-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85034059987-
dc.identifier.hkuros291045-
dc.identifier.volume30-
dc.identifier.spage79-
dc.identifier.epage95-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000416979900009-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats