Provide a detailed and well-researched analysis of the following speech:
Coyne, G. (2014). We are all made of stardust [Video]. TEDxYYC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWp4Sp8GTgI
The transcript of the talk can be found within the speech link above with time indicators. It has been put in a google doc for your reference here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FfTe5cy8L847wbMu19i3AUaNIFmgYyPqGGbTu4-pd7s/edit?usp=sharing
With reference to the readings from the course, the information provided to you in the course material from Module 1 – Unit 3, and from at least 2 of the following secondary sources, write a 1,500–2,000 word analysis of the rhetoric of the speech using the five canons as your framework for analysis.
You SHOULD analyze both the composition of the speech itself and the components of the speaker’s memory and delivery if relevant to your thesis statement.
Your paper must have an introduction that includes a strong thesis statement that assesses the effectiveness of the rhetoric employed with the TED talk and how you intend to show that the speech was or was not effective. In other words, rhetoric becomes the lens from which you can explain whether or not you liked the talk and the way it is presented (though you should avoid using the personal pronoun “I”). It is also expected that you will use proper APA citation style throughout the paper and that you will incorporate your two secondary sources and textbook in a meaningful manner.
The secondary sources can be used to introduce your essay, make comparisons with your own analysis (since some have analyzed other speeches), and/or to explore some of the debates about TED talks more generally and how relevant the canons remain today. You must also source and use your textbook and content posted to D2L concerning rhetoric when defining ALL key terms associated with the canons.
list of Secondary Sources are given by the professor
di Carlo, G. S. (2015). Ethos in Ted talks: The role of credibility in popularised texts. Facta Universitatis, Series: Linguistics and Literature. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228552277.pdf
di Carlo, G. S. (2015).
Pathos as a communicative strategy for online knowledge dissemination: The case of TED Talks. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 21(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c477/1a32f4a91e39164a1120f58fb26fae422037.pdf
Kedrowicz, A. A., & Taylor, J. L. (2016).
Shifting rhetorical norms and electronic eloquence: TED talks as formal presentations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(3), 352-377.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1050651916636373
Ludewig, J. (2017).
TED Talks as an emergent genre. CLCWEB-Comparative Literature and Culture, 19(1). https://dspace.allegheny.edu/bitstream/handle/10456/42646/Ludewig_2017_CLCWeb_TED%20Talks.pdf
Oleksandrivna, K. I. (2021).
Ted Talk as an object of rhetoric research. Scientific journal of the Lviv State University of Life Safety. https://doi.org/10.32447/2663-340X-2021-10.11.
