How to Influence Others? Synthetic Personalization and Social Semiotic Analysis of Genders
Main Article Content
Abstract
Within the last 20 years, TED has become an influential platform that provides knowledge and education by directing speakers on giving motivational speeches. This paper aims to analyze gender attitudes while delivering the speech and how they influence the audience. This study applied a descriptive qualitative method by using Synthetic Personalization by Fairclough (2001) and a Social-semiotic approach by Van Leeuwen (2008) to the selected TED videos to analyze the data and corpus linguistics, namely AntConc, as the tool to analyze the vocabularies, first-person and second-person concordances presented. The findings show 1.101 vocabularies used by men and 1.156 vocabularies that denote synthetic personalization used by women. Although the strategies they used are different, men’s and women’s speeches have successfully influenced the audience by immersing synthetic personalization to bring intimate, engagement, and personal relationships towards the mass audience by bringing up the feeling of ‘similarity’. The social-semiotic covers social distance and social interaction between men and women toward the audiences. Women are more socially considerate while men are more direct in their speech. The distance and interactions are subjected as a form of representation of closeness.
Downloads
Article Details
Issue
Section
Open Access
Humanus: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu-ilmu Humaniora is a peer reviewed and open access journal that publishes significant and important research from all area of humanities studies.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content that making research publish in this journal freely available to the public that supports a greater exchange of knowledge.
Copyright
Submission of a manuscript implies that the submitted work has not been published before (except as part of a thesis or report, or abstract); that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; that its publication has been approved by all co-authors. If and when the manuscript is accepted for publication, the author(s) still hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions. Authors or others are allowed to multiply article as long as not for commercial purposes. For the new invention, authors are suggested to manage its patent before published.
Disclaimer
No responsibility is assumed by publisher and co-publishers, nor by the editors for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a result of any actual or alleged libelous statements, infringement of intellectual property or privacy rights, or products liability, whether resulting from negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any ideas, instructions, procedures, products or methods contained in the material therein.
How to Cite
References
Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc ( Windows , Macintosh OS X , and Linux ) Getting Started ( No installation necessary ). 7, 3–4.
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., McEnery, T., & Wodak, R. (2008). A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse and Society, 19(3), 273–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962
Borhani, M. (2019). Corpus analysis using relaxed conjugate gradient neural network training algorithm. Neural Processing Letters.
Cranny-Francis, A., Waring, W., Stavropoulos, P., & Kirkby, J. (2017). Gender studies: Terms and debates. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Djonov, E., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2018). Social media as semiotic technology and social practice: the case of ResearchGate’s design and its potential to transform social practice. Social Semiotics, 28(5), 641–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1504715
Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of Methods, 2001, 25–38.
Fairclough, N. (2013a). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2013b). Language and power. Routledge.
Holmes, J., & Wilson, N. (2017). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Routledge.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2002). Colour as a semiotic mode: notes for a grammar of colour. Visual Communication, 1(3), 343–368.
Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Language in the Inner City, 354–396.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45–79.
Lu, K., Mardziel, P., Wu, F., Amancharla, P., & Datta, A. (2020). Gender bias in neural natural language processing. In Logic, Language, and Security (pp. 189–202). Springer.
Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2014). Storytelling and synthetic personalization in television cooking shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 71(September 2014), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.005
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, G. L. (1988). Personal reference in English. Language in Society, 17(3), 317–349.
Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45(3), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802073712
Özcan, F. H. (2016). Choice of address terms in conversational setting. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 982. https://doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v13i1.3489
Page, R. (2012). The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse and Communication, 6(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312437441
Pilcher, J., & Whelehan, I. (2016). Key concepts in gender studies. Sage.
Putra, A. B., & Prayudha. (2020). The Analysis of Women and Men Language Features on America’s Got Talent. 2004, 1–9. http://eprints.uad.ac.id/id/eprint/14761
Rahimi, M., AMAL, S. E., & Deghat, S. (2010). The CDA of 2008 presidential campaign speeches of democratic candidates with respect to their gender & race.
Rustamov, D., Shakhabitdinova, S., Solijonovc, S., Mattiyev, A., Begaliyev, S., & Fayziev, S. (2021). Research of peculiarities of speech of male and female on phonetic and lexical levels of language. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.52462/jlls.26
Subon, F. (2013). Gender Differences in the Use of Linguistic Forms in the Speech of Men and Women in the Malaysian Context. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, 13(3), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-1336779
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. The Handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Critical discourse analysis. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 349–371.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford university press.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2014). Representing social actors. In Critical Discourse Analysis: Concepts, History, Theory (pp. 291–326). SAGE Publications.
Weirich, M., & Simpson, A. P. (2018). Gender identity is indexed and perceived in speech. PloS One, 13(12), e0209226.
Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2007). Critical discourse analysis. Springer.
Wodak, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. Qualitative Research Practice, 185, 185–204.
Wodak, R. (2005). Gender mainstreaming and the European Union: Interdisciplinarity, gender studies and CDA. In Feminist critical discourse analysis (pp. 90–113). Springer.
Wodak, R., & Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis. Sage Los Angeles.
Wong, W. W. B. (2016). Synthetic personalization of Barack Obama at the 2008 US Democratic National Convention: a social semiotic multimodal analysis of a staged political context. Visual Communication, 15(4), 509–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357216632164
Xia, X. (2013). Gender differences in using language. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 3(8).