Context
Read and Compare (critical thinking) Leech’s and Biber’s definitions of corpus linguistics. This article presents two facets of corpus-based research. What follows are two definitions of how quantitative and qualitative researches relate to the question of corpora.
1-(Biber) “Quantitative techniques are essential for corpus-based studies. For example, if you wanted to compare the language use of patterns for the words big and large, you would need to know how many times each word occurs in the corpus, how many different words co-occur with each of these adjectives (the collocations), and how common each of those collocations is. These are all quantitative measurements….”A crucial part of the corpus-based approach is going beyond the quantitative patterns to propose functional interpretations explaining why the patterns exist. As a result, a large amount of effort in corpus-based studies is devoted to explaining and exemplifying quantitative patterns1.” 2-(Leech) “[I]n corpus linguistics quantitative and qualitative methods are extensively used in combination. It is also characteristic of corpus linguistics to begin with quantitative findings, and work toward qualitative ones. But…the procedure may have cyclic elements. Generally, it is desirable to subject quantitative results to qualitative scrutiny—attempting to explain why a particular frequency pattern occurs, for example. But on the other hand, qualitative analysis (making use of the investigator’s ability to interpret samples of language in context) may be the means for classifying examples in a particular corpus by their meanings; and this qualitative analysis may then be the input to a further quantitative analysis, one based on meaning….”2
Answer:
Bieber's Perspective: Biber champions quantitative analysis as fundamental to corpus-based studies. He argues this point by comparing usage patterns of "big" and "large." For instance, by counting occurrences and examining collocations, Biber would highlight how "big" may appear more frequently in casual speech, as revealed by its prevalence in a conversational corpus. Moreover, by quantifying how often "big" appears alongside words like "problem" or "opportunity," he could infer about the nature of discussions surrounding these terms. Biber believes in quantifying such patterns as essential first steps. Yet, Biber's methodology isn't limited to quantification. He insists on interpreting these patterns to understand their function. For example, why "big" might collocate with "problem" in news reporting corpora could reflect a cultural propensity to emphasize challenges. This move from quantification to qualitative interpretation is what Biber sees as advancing corpus-based research beyond mere number-crunching to meaningful analysis. Leech's Perspective: Leech's view of corpus linguistics involves a dialog between quantitative and qualitative methods. He sees the research beginning with numerical analysis and moving towards interpretive understanding. For example, a study might quantify the use of passive constructions in legal documents. This initial step is quantitative. The subsequent qualitative phase might investigate why passives are preferred, possibly to maintain objectivity or depersonalize responsibility. Leech also sees the potential for a cyclical process. A qualitative insight, such as recognizing that "access" as a noun is more prevalent in academic writing than in fiction, might lead to further quantitative analysis, perhaps measuring "access" against synonyms like "entry" or "approach" across genres. This iterative process, where qualitative interpretations inform subsequent quantitative analysis, illustrates the dynamism of Leech's approach. Comparative Conclusion: In summary, both Biber and Leech underscore the indispensable roles of quantitative and qualitative methods in corpus linguistics, albeit with different emphases. Biber prioritizes numerical analysis as a precursor to functional interpretation, suggesting that understanding the frequency and collocation of terms like "big" and "large" is critical before interpreting their usage. In contrast, Leech views the process as more fluid, with qualitative insights potentially sparking further quantitative inquiry. Both perspectives demonstrate the multifaceted approach required for comprehensive corpus-based research.
Questions? Reach out to [Your Contact Information]. https://dumup.podia.com/learning-community
We're here to help!
References
ouglas Biber, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen, Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use, Cambridge University Press, 2004. 2 Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen, Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
