Meta analysis definition in linguistics8/11/2023 To begin, a simple definition of what corpus-based techniques are for: ‘Corpus linguistics attempts to gain linguistic knowledge through the analysis of collections of samples of naturally-occurring texts and transcribed recordings’ (Wallis and Nelson 2001: 305). It should also be noted that while corpus linguists are involved in both the construction and the analysis of corpora, only the latter is discussed here for reasons of space, despite the undoubted importance of corpus building. Rather than any kind of potted history, I shall concentrate on certain features of the technique which are of relevance to this study and to argumentation research in general. Only the briefest description of the methods of corpus linguistics and the reasons why they have become so important in the study of language can be provided here, and those familiar with the topic may wish to move on at once. How might the results of such studies be employed?īefore introducing the studies themselves, some elaboration is provided in the sub-sections below. What possibilities does such a methodology provide? Is the methodology of corpus linguistics appropriate to the study of (meta-) argumentation? Taken together, however, the conclusions of those pilots should allow a preliminary answer to be made to the following research questions: As such, they are not described in the rigorous detail which a full-scale corpus investigation would require in order to be accepted. It is important to bear in mind that the pilot-studies themselves, while producing some interesting results, are too small a foundation upon which to base any wider conclusions as to their subjects: at best they open avenues for further research. This adds a layer of complexity to the structure of the paper itself: the methods, results and conclusions from each of those pilot-studies are detailed below however, the method of the overall paper is to employ those pilots, its results are their conclusions, and the final analysis of the value of the methodology is discussed in the concluding Sects. In order to achieve that, the paper contains descriptions of three mini- or pilot-studies. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the use of the methods of corpus linguistics in certain aspects of the study of argumentation. Secondly, theorists could obtain a more accurate picture of how arguments are used, by whom, and to what reception, allowing claims on such matters to be evidence, rather than intuition, based. This suggests such corpora may be of use in two different ways: firstly, the wider project of improving public debate and educating the populace in the skills of critical thinking can only be helped by a better understanding of the current state of knowledge of the technical terms and concepts of argumentation. All three pilot-studies revealed interesting facts about the usage of the terms by non-specialists, and led to numerous examples of the types of arguments mentioned. The presence of each of these phrases on internet news sites was investigated and assessed for correspondence to the norms of use by argumentation theorists. After brief introductions to corpus linguistics and the concept of meta-argument, I describe three pilot-studies into the use of the terms Straw man, Ad hominem, and Slippery slope, made using the open access News on the Web corpus. As more and more sophisticated software is created to allow the mining of arguments from natural language texts, this paper sets out to examine the suitability of the well-established and readily available methods of corpus linguistics to the study of argumentation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |