Method

While the main techniques for analysis featuring a combination of Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Analysis methods now appear to be well-established (e.g. concordances, collocates, keywords, dispersion, etc.), applying corpus methods in discourse analysis, however, is still a developing and a “cross-disciplinary field which is somewhat under-subscribed” (Baker 2006:

102

6). Using corpora to approach discourse has been subject to as much resistance and criticism as interest during the past decades. Corpus-based approaches have been problematized by some researchers as “too broad” to “facilitate close readings of texts” (cited in Baker 2006: 7) and only offering “a partial account of language” by ignoring the correspondence between corpus findings and native speaker intuition (Widdowson 2000: 7). Other opponents claim that corpus linguistics treats language as a self-contained object by “abstracting text from its context” (Baldry 2000: 36) and that it is often difficult to draw conclusions about language use when an example does not appear in the corpus or is implicitly endowed with meaning by native speakers (Borsley and Ingham 2002).

However, that “all methods of research have associated problems which need to be addressed”

(Baker 2006: 7) does not mean that corpus approaches cannot contribute to uncovering interesting things in discourse studies. An epistemological shift to post-structuralism as an alternative way to produce and process knowledge (Denzin 1988) “favors a more eclectic approach to research” (Denzin 1998: 16) in which different methodologies can be combined within localized research context. Baker (2006) summarized the advantages of corpus approaches to discourse analysis as follows:

1. Reducing researcher bias;

2. Revealing the incremental effect of discourse by examining repeated patterns shaped by cognitive and cultural factors;

3. Approaching language dynamics by examining resistant and changing discourses;

4. Achieving triangulation by applying multiple methods of analysis.

Baker (2006: 17)

103

Nevertheless, not much attention in the literature has been paid to combining different methodologies to approach knowledge construction in group work. A few exceptions (e.g.

Hmelo-Silver 2003; Ebenezer et al. 2010) used experimental interventions and statistical tests in combination with more fine-grained analyses. The qualitative analyses, however, are only taken as a complementary approach to the basic experimental designs, or a way of

methodological triangulation for more valid results.

In this study, the key semantic domains are directly extracted from the NUCASE data on a frequency basis. The Corpus Linguistics analyses are strictly empirical starting from a

comparison between the semantically tagged focus corpus and reference corpus to identify the key epistemic domains. Lexical concepts encoded by specific linguistic forms with high frequency values in the over-used, non-shared key epistemic domains (across the sub corpora) are then investigated through concordance lines and collocations to show patterns of meaning-making for interpretive frames invoking. The lexical concepts are grouped into domains of knowledge with clear epistemic boundaries. This is a way of “slicing” the corpus data (Walsh 2014) and viewing it within categories of meaning rather than by individual words, which assists the analysis of situated meaning-making through more identifiable language patterns.

A qualitative analytical method is then employed to zoom into the micro-contexts beyond the statistical results in exploring the relationship between language use, meaning construction and interaction (Christodoulidou 2011). Detailed observations of framing-in-interaction can be carried out via close, contextualized analyses of expanded talk scenarios to show how knowledge is constructed through the participants’ manipulation of the interactional sequences.

The nature of “keyness” which has been discussed earlier is of particular relevance to the

104

proposed methodological synergy. “Keyness” of a linguistic form is represented in the form of a value which is calculated based on the statistically significant difference in its frequencies when two corpora are compared with each other. The larger the keyness value of a linguistic form is, the more key it is in the focus corpus when compared with the reference corpus. This is the quantitative facet of keyness. On the other hand, “keyness” is a textual matter which is highly context-dependent, which means that the reference corpus and the comparison itself matter in the keyword procedure. This is the qualitative facet of keyness which emphasizes the importance of taking a closer look at keywords in context. The researcher needs to be aware that a keyword/key domain with similar keyness values calculated from different comparisons can reveal different discourse patterns and underpin differently situated contexts.

The context-dependency of keyness from CL perspectives and the functions of framing devices provide an interface where these two methodologies for data analysis can be mixed at both the conceptual and methodological levels.

The major strengths of using a methodological synergy to approach knowledge construction in the current study are (adapted from Dörnyei 2007) as follows:

 It develops a comprehensive and complete interpretation of knowledge construction in the research context (university small group talk) by increasing the strengths of both methods while eliminating their weaknesses (e.g. de-contextualization of CL, unrepresentativeness of IL);

 It conducts multi-level analyses of complex issues of knowledge construction concerning its nature (e.g. information exchange through meaning negotiation) and representation (e.g. framing through talk of lexical concepts, epistemic status through sequential manipulation);

 It improves the research validity with a potential to produce evidence through the convergence of the findings;

 It attracts multiple audiences with various research interests and paradigmatic orientations, thus, contributes to communication and cooperation between researchers working in different fields.

(p. 45-46)

105

In sum, the methodological synergy proposed in this chapter demonstrated that the current study is, at the methodological level, complementary to recent studies that have combined Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Analysis approaches to interactive university talk.

3.5 Summary

This chapter introduced and presented an overview of the methodology which was adopted in this study. Section 3.2 reviewed relevant theories and methods of Corpus Linguistics, focusing on the expanded scope of investigation of keyness. The USAS system for semantic tagging and the WordSmith Tools 6.0 for collocation generation and concordancing were introduced.

Section 3.3 reviewed relevant theories and methods of Interactional Linguistics. The basic procedure of using the method for sequential analyses of the small group talk was outlined.

Based on the reviews, Section 3.4 provided the rationale and method of combining Corpus Linguistics and Interactional Linguistics analyses in this study.

106