Engaging with data Choices and decisions

Seeing or looking at? The advance of corpus linguistics has certainly changed the way that we can look at our data, both in a literal and metaphorical sense. The KWIC lies at the heart of corpus linguistics, but perhaps the question that we need to consider is: how do we get there? How do we decide what our node will be? we need to consider the influence of the researcher also as an ‘observer’. In approaching any text, we all bring with us our ‘primings’ in terms of theoretical background, methodological background and more generally ideologies.

Observer primings and getting started it is as natural a priming to address data in different ways as it is to be primed for any other event the more the researcher makes use of a variety of complementary ‘windows’, or triangulation, the more complete the picture of the data is likely to be. When dealing with a large corpus, one difficulty may be deciding exactly as to what to do with it, what to ask it, or where to get started.

Points of departure we can trace a variety of potential starting points in the selection of terms for the concordance lines we look at Key terms identified by the software ‘the WordSmith tradition’: the researcher might begin by comparing the corpus under study with a larger reference corpus, and then follow up KeyWords or Key Clusters. To a large extent we let the data ‘speak for itself’ but it is clear that we still select terms which we think are likely to prove interesting.

Key terms/structures identified through a qualitative analysis The researcher may start from a qualitative analysis, for instance using the APPRAISAL system, and then use these findings to inform the querying of the corpus. This was the approach used for looking at keywords in the Hutton enquiry data where government evidence was examined for elements of dialogistic positioning. Examination of the different types of examination (friendly, direct, cross, hostile) in the Hutton inquiry data in the light of Goffman’s theory of Facework

Key terms identified through reference to theoretical background In this case the researcher is often involved in hypothesis testing, for instance in the CorDis Corpus theories which have been tested include Lakoff’s work on metaphors used by Democrats and Republicans Lakoff’s work on Conceptual metaphors, related to the concepts of strict vs nurturant parent his wordlists of recurrent items belonging to the two ‘moral systems’ Analysis of the data for these items and comparison across sub- corpora (Democrats and Republicans in House of Representatives debates)

Key terms identified through contextual knowledge. For example the a priori selection of terms to investigate could involve groups which we know to be involved such as Iraqis, or processes such as fight in the CorDis Corpus or the identification of the participants and the processes in the study of RASIM. Or the items related to the press in SiBol or CorDis Matching nouns and the verbs which collocate; identifying patterns, semantic preferences.

Key items identified as semantic motifs E.g. Speech and thought representation: analysing the data for critical choices in the use of reporting signals in terms of voice, message and attitude Evaluation in TV news Modality use in editorials Evidentiality in news reports Question forms in interviews

Key structural items identified through cross corpora findings For example, Hunston and Sinclair’s local grammar of evaluation (e.g (p ) of LINK VERB + ADJECTIVE GROUP + TO - INFINITIVE CLAUSE ). In this case, by taking the language patterns set out in the local grammar of evaluation we have a way of adding to the complement of starting points, of making the amount of data manageable, and of viewing the data through a clearly defined window.

Key terms/structures identified through intuition This is the most difficult of the various starting points to describe as intuition is a result of a wide range of primings and therefore will vary greatly depending on the individual. It is likely to involve elements of the other starting points discussed here.

Key items of functional or strategic communication The way certain communicative functions are enacted is selected for examination in a data-set E.g how public apologies are executed and how they are represented in the press How holiday brochures persuade without openly stating transgressive nature of holidays 18-30

The inductive approach Select a phenomenon for investigation Collect a relevant data-set Look inside the data for significant patterns Check with a comparable data-set Formalise significant patterns as probabilising rules describing natural events. The theoretical stance of the researcher will influence the nature of the research question (e.g that lexis helps organise language structure)

A default background approach The steady collection and measurement of observational data leading to a more or less detailed description of a phenomenon Interspersed with hypothesis testing (e.g. that a particular term might be an over-the fence term, might have a particular evaluative prosody such as derogatory evaluation

A bridge Corpus linguistics is potentially sociolinguistic, CADS is inherently sociolinguistic The methods of linguistic research are applied to real-world communication and tell us more about human social interaction, value systems, power relations, politeness strategies A theory of lexical priming adds a psycholinguistic dimension and a framework within which we can investigate how the sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic interact CADS has its own descriptive ends but can also serve those of lexical grammar, evaluation and priming theory

Basic needs An interest in the world Curiosity A hypothesis Knowledge of previous research A data-set A methodology A willingness to engage with the data, testing hypotheses, retesting reformulating

Your data Remember we are looking at language – not at topic X but how topic X is represented in discourse type Y Not discourse type X but how discourse type X differs from other DTs Not author X but whether author X has a linguistically identifiable style which can be shown to be different from others Notice how researchers refer to their data, describe their data-set and express their research question

Hypotheses and interpretations A corpus based analysis is one which focuses on norms and frequent patterns within language There are numerous ways of making sense of linguistic patterns Corpus data does not interpret itself it is up to the researcher to make sense of the patterns of language found within a corpus. Presenting the data is not enough. You should be relating it to your hypothesis and research question

Previous research Look at the articles provided and the examples of research to see how researchers carry out their analyses Look at the CL 2015 abstract book to get an idea of the different areas of possible research and the variety of corpora that have been investigated – notice how they refer to previous research when introducing their work. There are a number of ways of referring to others’ work. Make sure you notice how it is done. If you are considering a research question search for articles on the topic to see if it has been covered – you might consider replication or para-replication of a previous piece of research

Later this week… The research question Compiling a corpus Analysing and interpreting For now: another example of research: Public apologies in the press