Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abdulrahman, T.
    (2017) TED talks as listening teaching strategy in EAP classroom. Asian EFL Journal, 1, 72–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, C.
    (2016) TED Talks: The Official TED Guide to Public Speaking. London: Nicholas Brealy Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2001) Dimensions of variation among eighteenth-century speech-based and written registers. InConrad, S. & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: multi-dimensional studies (pp.200–214). Harlow: Longman. 10.4324/9781315840888
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315840888 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2006) Studies in corpus linguistics: University language (Vol.23). Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2014) Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. Languages in Contrast, 14(1), 7–34. 10.1075/lic.14.1.02bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.02bib [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Biglan, A.
    (1973) Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213. 10.1037/h0034699
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034699 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brezina, V., Timperley, M., & McEnery, T.
    (2018) #LancsBox v. 4.x [software]. Available at: corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox
  11. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R.
    (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. InK. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 10.1177/0049124192021002005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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. 10.1177/1461445620928231
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620928231 [Google Scholar]
  13. Condi de Souza, R.
    (2014) Dimensions of variation in TIME magazine. InT. 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. 10.1075/scl.60.06sou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.60.06sou [Google Scholar]
  14. Crosthwaite, P., & Cheung, L.
    (2019) Learning the language of dentistry: disciplinary corpora in the teaching of English for specific academic purposes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.93
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.93 [Google Scholar]
  15. Csomay, E.
    (2005) Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective. Linguistics and Education, 15(3), 243–74. Elsevier Inc.10.1016/j.linged.2005.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2005.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  16. 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, 201–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2018) Patterns of clusivity in TED Talks: When ‘you’ and ‘I’ become ‘we.’ Ibérica, 35, 119–144. https://doaj.org/article/969b60f26c5c416aafae72d2c644133e
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Egbert, J.
    (2014) Student perceptions of stylistic variation in introductory university textbooks. Linguistics and Education, 25, 64–77. 10.1016/j.linged.2013.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. search.proquest.com/docview/1655287119/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Felices Lago, Á.
    (1997) The integration of the axiological classeme in an adjectival lexicon based on functional-lexematic principles. InC. 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]
  21. 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. 10.1093/applin/amy005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy005 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gotti, M.
    (2014) Reformulation and recontextualization in popularization discourse. Ibérica, 27, 15–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gray, B.
    (2011) More than discipline: uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles. Corpora, 8(2), 153–181. 10.3366/cor.2013.0039
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2013.0039 [Google Scholar]
  24. Grieve, J.
    (2014) A Multi-Dimensional analysis of regional variation in American English. InT. 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.2–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.60.01gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.60.01gri [Google Scholar]
  25. Hardy, J. A., & Friginal, E.
    (2016) Genre variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 119–131. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hyland, K.
    (2005) Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–92. 10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2007) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 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. 10.1080/19463014.2011.614061
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.614061 [Google Scholar]
  29. JASP Team
    JASP Team (2020) JASP (Version 0.14.1) [Computer software].
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mattiello, E.
    (2017) The popularisation of science via TED talks. International Journal of Language Studies, 11(4), 77–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Nini, A.
    (2019) The Multi-Dimensional Analysis Tagger. InT. B. Sardinha & V. M. Pinto (Eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues (pp.67–94). London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic. 10.5040/9781350023857.0012
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.0012 [Google Scholar]
  32. Nurmukhamedov, U.
    (2017) Lexical coverage of TED talks: Implications for vocabulary instruction. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 768–790. 10.1002/tesj.323
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.323 [Google Scholar]
  33. Sardinha, T. B., Kauffmann, C., & Acunzo, C. M.
    (2014) Dimensions of register variation in Brazilian Portuguese. InT. B. Sardinha & M. V. Pinto, (Eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis, 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber (pp.25–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.60.02ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.60.02ber [Google Scholar]
  34. Schmid, H.
    (1994) Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. InProceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, Manchester, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 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. 10.1371/journal.pone.0062403
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062403 [Google Scholar]
  36. Takaesu, A.
    (2014) TED Talks as an extensive listening resource for EAP students. Language Education in Asia, 4 (2), 150–162. 10.5746/LEiA/13/V4/I2/A05/Takaesu
    https://doi.org/10.5746/LEiA/13/V4/I2/A05/Takaesu [Google Scholar]
  37. Ted.com
    Ted.com. (n.d). Our Organisation: History of TED. Available at: https://www.ted.com/about/our-organization/history-of-ted. Accessed1 Jan. 2021.
  38. 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. 10.1075/ijcl.22.2.01tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.01tho [Google Scholar]
  39. Wingrove, P.
    (2017) How suitable are TED talks for academic listening?Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 79–95. 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.010 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error