MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200588008 · doi:10.46872/pj.310

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF FIGURES OF SPEECH IN SEVERN SUZUKI’S PERSUASIVE SPEECH

2021· article· en· W4200588008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmet KONUKOĞLU, Mehmet Salih YOĞUN

Bibliographic record

VenueIEDSR Association · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperboleSimileCritical discourse analysisLinguisticsRhetorical questionContext (archaeology)IronyDiscourse analysisFigure of speechUtteranceMeaning (existential)PsychologySociologyPoliticsHistoryPolitical scienceMetaphorLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a frequently used method with the intent of serving a trustworthy evaluation of what is intended to mean when the language is used to define and commentate. It is therefore of capital importance to consider the social context, the manner and word selection while analysing a speech in order to avoid passively reporting upon since the speech is impregnated with its meaning and perspective. In this respect, the purpose of the current study was to search for the critical discourse analysis of the speech given by a then 12-year-old Canadian girl called Severn Suziki, an environmental activist, in United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 in order to draw the attention of 117 presidents and representatives of 178 nations to some crucial topics such as environment and global warming. The keyword analysis of the speech revealed that the most frequently used words were ordered as child, children, world and afraid confirming the main aim of the speech that the environment should be protected for the future generations. Critical discourse analysis of the speech demonstrated that Severn Suziki utilised 7 figures of speech such as alliteration, hyperbole, imagery, irony, parallelism, rhetorical questions and simile justifying that she had her own particularity and implemented various persuasive techniques and figures of speech.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEDSR AssociationSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207