Research Questions

The research questions introduced in this section were identified and refined as a result of carrying out the analysis of the corpora I collected. Hence, they were formed in a bottom-up as opposed to a top-down way. As such, they reflect the ‘research journey’ that I have undertaken, one which involved false starts and dead-ends (see section 4.5.3.1). Considering this, a set of questions which reflect how I developed a methodology (RQ3) had to be created.

I started off my research with the intention of identifying representations following a corpus-based discourse analysis approach in the same way carried out by Baker (2014a) and Bachmann (2011) (see section 3.6.1). However, this changed as the study progressed. In the end, I took a prospective approach to the data, allowing findings to emerge rather than having a clear-cut framework where I knew which features I would examine from the outset. This resulted in some questions (like RQ1c) being

Building upon the research tradition of corpus-based discourse studies, this research turns to the analysis of concordance lines of search terms32_{homosexual*, lesbian*,}

gay*, fleto*, cola*, maric*, lela*, camion*, lésbic* and the phrase mismo sexo (same sex) so as to identify representations around homosexuality in Chilean church and parliamentary discourse (these terms are explained in more detail in 4.5.3.4). To this end, the Overarching Research Question this thesis aims to answer is as follows: ORQ: What are the representations around homosexuality in Chilean church and

parliamentary discourse between 2005-2015?

In order to answer ORQ, a series of research questions needed to be devised. These research questions are:

RQ1: What does a concordance analysis reveal about the representations around homosexuality in parliamentary and Catholic and Evangelical church discourse in Chile?

1.a) How are nomination and predication strategies used to instantiate the representations around homosexuality identified in each corpus?

1.b) How are legitimation strategies used to justify the representations around homosexuality identified in each corpus?

1.c) What is the legitimating function of the representations around homosexuality identified in each corpus?

RQ1 focuses on what the methodological approach adopted in this study elucidated in terms of the various ways in which homosexuality and related topics/entities are talked about in Chilean parliamentary and church discourse. RQ1 is answered by

32 _{The asterisk in the query term acts as a wildcard that indicates that zero or more characters can}

means of three research sub-questions. Sub-question 1.a focuses on the nomination and predication strategies identified through the analysis of the corpora and how these contribute to the formation of the representations identified. On the other hand, sub- question 1.b considers legitimation strategies as they interact with the representations identified in the data sets, while sub-question 1.c focuses on the legitimating function of the representations proper. In this thesis, I provide the answers to the above

research questions in Chapters 5, 6 and 7, where I present the findings of the Evangelical Churches, Catholic Church and Parliamentary Debates corpora, respectively.

RQ2: How are the representations around homosexuality influenced by the social context in which they are instantiated?

2.a) How are the representations around homosexuality similar and/or different in the three corpora?

2.b) Why are the representations in the three data sets similar and/or different? 2.c) What are the implications of the representations identified in the wider

social context where they take place?

In contrast to RQ1, RQ2 has a critical and explanatory aim. To achieve this, it focuses on the interaction between the representations identified through linguistic analysis and the specific contextual constraints of the corpora in which they occur. RQ2 is answered by means of three research sub-questions. Sub-question 2.a aims to identify any similarities and/or differences in the corpora, while sub-question 2.b intends to identify the reason why these similarities and/or differences take place considering the contextual constraints. Finally, sub-question 2.c focuses on the potential effect of the findings on the social context in which they occur. RQ2 and its corresponding sub- questions are answered in Chapter 8.

RQ3: What is the most appropriate method of analysis to answer RQ1 and RQ2? 3.a) How can working with small specialised corpora (i.e. less than 250,000

words) influence the methodological approach undertaken?

3.b) What forms of contextual analysis are more relevant in explaining the research findings?

Finally, RQ3 considers the features of the corpora designed for this study and aims to identify the methodological approach that is best suited to answering RQ1 and RQ2. RQ3 is answered by means of two research sub-questions. Sub-question 3.a focuses on the role that the corpora analysed played in the selection of the method of analysis, acknowledging a methodological contribution of this study, while sub-question 3.b

aims at identifying the best way in which contextual analysis can help to explain the findings. Sub-question 3.a is answered in the present chapter, while sub-question 3.b

is answered in Chapter 8.

4.3. Data collection and cleaning