Abstract
This chapter offers, in the first instance, a theoretical perspective on the merits and potential problems associated with a combined Corpus Linguistics (CL) and Conversation Analytic (CA) (henceforth, CLCA) approach to the study of language. Secondly, the chapter considers some of the practical outcomes offered by a combined CLCA approach and looks at how this methodology might be operationalized using spoken corpora.
When seen from epistemological and ontological perspectives, CL and CA have such different origins and research foci that some researchers might almost say they are incompatible. CL offers insights into the overall landscape of a corpus by focusing on specific features of the data such as word frequency, concordances, multi-word units and keyness. The analysis is highly quantitative, uses a large sample of data and sets out to describe patterns and key linguistic features. CA, on the other hand, looks at talk- in-interaction, focusing on turn-taking and turn sequencing in order to uncover how social actions are shared and how interactants achieve intersubjectivity or mutual understanding. Using a detailed, microscopic approach to spoken data, CA sets out to explain how interactants co-construct meanings, repair breakdowns and orient to each other. The analysis is more qualitative, though the procedures used are precise.
In this study, I set out the various arguments for and against combining CL with CA from both theoretical and practical perspectives. While there are certainly issues associated with a CLCA methodology, I will argue that the benefits of this approach to language study outweigh the shortcomings. From a more practical perspective, the chapter suggests ways in which a CLCA approach has the potential to offer new insights into spoken texts by considering how linguistic and interactional features interface in the co-construction of meaning in an educational context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ädel, A. 2010. How to use corpus linguistics in the study of political discourse. In The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, ed. A. O’Keeffe and M.J. McCarthy, 591–604. London: Routledge.
Basturkmen, H. 2002. Negotiating meaning in seminar-type discussions and EAP. English for Specific Purposes 21(1): 233–242.
Bennett, C., C. Howe, and E. Truswell. 2002. Small group teaching and learning in psychology. York: LTSN Psychology University of York.
Benwell, B.M., and E.H. Stokoe. 2002. Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: Shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies 4(4): 429–453.
Carter, R., and M.J. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English. A comprehensive guide to spoken and written grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cotterill, J. 2010. How to use corpus linguistics in forensic linguistics. In The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, ed. A. O’Keeffe and M.J. McCarthy, 578–590. London: Routledge.
Cullen, R. 1998. Teacher talk and the classroom context. English Language Teaching Journal 52(3): 179–187.
Drew, P., and J. Heritage. 1992. Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. P. Drew and J. Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, A., and D. Westgate. 1994. Investigating classroom talk. London: Falmer.
Farr, F., B. Murphy, and A. O’Keeffe. 2004. The Limerick corpus of Irish English: Design, description and application. Teanga 21: 5–29.
Firth, A., and J. Wagner. 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal 81: 285–300.
Gibson, W., A. Hall, and P. Callery. 2006. Topicality and the structure of interactive talk in face-to-face seminar discussions: Implications for research in distributed learning media. British Educational Research Journal 32(1): 77–94.
Greaves, C., and M. Warren. 2010. What can a corpus tell us about multi-word units? In The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistic, ed. A. O’Keeffe and M.J. McCarthy, 212–226. London: Routledge.
Hellermann, J. 2008. Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hellermann, J. 2009. Looking for evidence of language learning in practices for repair: A case study of self-initiated self-repair by an adult learner of English. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 53(2): 113–132.
Hellermann, J. 2011. ‘Members’ methods, members’ competencies: Looking for evidence of language learning in longitudinal investigations of other-initiated repair’. In L2 Interactional competence and development, ed. J.K. Hall, J. Hellermann, and S. Pekarek Doehler, 147–172. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Heritage, J. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Structures of social action, ed. J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. 1997. Conversational analysis and institutional talk: Analysing data. In Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, ed. D. Silverman. London: Sage Publications.
Heritage, J., and D. Greatbatch. 1991. On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, ed. D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hutchby, I., and R. Wooffitt. 2008. Conversation analysis, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lee, J. 2009. Size matters: An exploratory comparison of small- and large-class university lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes 28(1): 42–57.
Lorés, R. 2006. The referential function of metadiscourse: thing(s) and idea(s) in academic lectures. In Corpus linguistics: Applications for the study of English, ed. A. Hornero, M. Luzón, and S. Murillo, 315–334. Bern: Peter Lang.
Louwerse, M., S. Crossley, and P. Jeuniauxa. 2008. What if? Conditionals in educational registers. Linguistics and Education 19(1): 56–69.
Markee, N. 2008. Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics 29: 404–427.
McCarthy, M., and A. O’Keeffe. 2010. Historical perspective: What are corpora and how have they evolved? In The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, ed. A. O’Keeffe and M.J. McCarthy, 3–13. London: Routledge.
O’Keeffe, A. 2006. Investigating media discourse. London: Routledge.
O’Keeffe, A., and F. Farr. 2003. Using language corpora in language teacher education: Pedagogic, linguistic and cultural insights. TESOL Quarterly 37(3): 389–418.
O’Keeffe, A., M. McCarthy, and R. Carter. 2007. From Corpus to classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.
Schegloff, E.A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, M. 2008. WordSmith tools (version 5). Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
Seedhouse, P. 2004. The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P. 2005. Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching 38(4): 165–187.
Sidnell, J. 2010. Conversation analysis- an introduction. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Simpson, R.C., S.L. Briggs, J. Ovens, and J.M. Swales. 2002. The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
Stokoe, E.H. 2000. Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. Language and Education 14(3): 184–203.
Viechnicki, G.B. 1997. An empirical analysis of participant intentions: Discourse in a graduate seminar. Language and Communication 17(2): 103–131.
Walsh, S. 2006. Investigating classroom discourse. London: Routledge.
Walsh, S., and A. O’Keeffe. 2007. Applying CA to a modes analysis of third-level spoken academic discourse. In Conversation analysis and languages for specific purposes, ed. H. Bowles and P. Seedhouse. Bern: Peter Lang.
Walsh, S., T. Morton, and A. O’Keeffe. 2011. Space for learning: Language use, interaction and orientation to knowledge in small group teaching in higher education. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.
Yang, S. 2013. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Newcastle.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walsh, S. (2013). Corpus Linguistics and Conversation Analysis at the Interface: Theoretical Perspectives, Practical Outcomes. In: Romero-Trillo, J. (eds) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013. Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6250-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6250-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6249-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6250-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)