This paper proposes a novel mode of Discourse-Historical Approach that features integrative triangulation of quantitative and qualitative analyses. The integrative triangulation is achieved by following a rule-bound and systematic discourse analytic procedure with rules derived from a diachronic discourse model that is constructed by explicating premises in the Discourse-Historical Approach, and by using data-driven inductive inference with three supra-lexical quantifiable components – propositions, sinsign topics, and discursive strategies. The case study with American identity construction as the macro-topic and the U.S. presidential inaugural addresses as the discourse corpus shows that the integrative mode produces explicit and sufficient evidence that not only complements, validates, and expands existent findings, but also reveals novel insights on the macro-topic, proving that integrative triangulation of quantitative and qualitative analyses promotes credibility, explicitness, transparency, and replicability in the Discourse-Historical Approach.
AustermühlF (2014) The Great American Scaffold: Intertextuality and Identity in American Presidential Discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
4.
BakerP (2004) Querying keywords: Questions of difference, frequency, and sense in keywords analysis. Journal of English Linguistics32(4): 346–359.
5.
BakerP (2006) Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
6.
BakerP (2012) Acceptable bias? Using corpus linguistics methods with critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies9(3): 247–256.
7.
BakerPGabrielatosCKhosravinikM, et al. (2008) A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society19(3): 273–306.
8.
BakerPGabrielatosCMcEneryT (2013) Discourse Analysis and Media Attitudes: The Representation of Islam in the British Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BakerPLevonE (2015) Picking the right cherries? A comparison of corpus-based and qualitative analyses of news articles about masculinity. Discourse & Communication9(2): 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481314568542
BondiMScottM (2010) Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
12.
BoukalaS (2016) Rethinking topos in the discourse historical approach: Endoxon seeking and argumentation in Greek media discourses on ‘Islamist terrorism’. Discourse Studies18(3): 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616634550
13.
BrockwellPJDavisRA (2016) Introduction to Time Series and Forecasting (3rd ed.). Cham: Springer.
14.
BrownR (2000) Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology30(6): 745–778.
15.
BrubakerWR (1990) Immigration, citizenship, and the nation-state in France and Germany: A comparative historical analysis. International Sociology5(4): 379–407.
16.
BuiP (2022) Defining American national identity: An exploration into measurement and its outcomes. Nationalities Papers, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2021.79 (online version).
17.
CarvalhoA (2005) Representing the politics of the greenhouse effect: Discursive strategies in the British media. Critical Discourse Studies2(1): 1–29.
18.
CitrinJSearsDO (2014) American Identity and The Politics of Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
DatondjiACAmousouF (2019) Discourse-historical approach to critical discourse studies: Theoretical and conceputal analysis, basic Characteristics and analytical Tools. Revue Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée, de Littérature et d’Education2(1): 70–80.
20.
FaircloughNWodakR (1997) Critical discourse analysis. In: van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: Sage, pp. 258–284.
21.
FaircloughN (2015) Language and Power, 3rd edn.Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
ForchtnerBKronederAWetzelD (2018) Being skeptical? Exploring far-right climate-change communication in Germany. Environmental Communication, 12(5), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1470546
23.
FriginalEHardyJA (2021) Corpus approaches to discourse analysis: Introduction and section overviews. In: FriginalEHardyJA (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Approaches to Discourse Analysis. London, New York: Routledge, pp. 1–4.
24.
GriesS (2010) Corpus linguistics and theoretical linguistics A love–hate relationship? Not necessarily. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15: 327–343.
25.
HanssonSPageR (2022) Corpus-assisted analysis of legitimation strategies in government social media communication. Discourse & Communication16(5): 551–571.
HoggMA (2016) Social identity theory. In: McKeownSHajiRFergusonN (eds) Understanding Peace and Conflict Through Social Identity Theory: Contemporary Global Perspectives. Cham: Springer, pp. 3–17.
28.
HsiehH-FShannonSE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research15(9): 1277–1288.
29.
HuntingtonSPDunnS (2004) Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
30.
LakoffG (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
31.
MarchiATaylorC (2018) Introduction: Partiality and reflexivity. In TaylorC.MarchiA. (eds) Corpus Approaches to Discourse : A Critical Review. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 1–6.
32.
MautnerG (2009) Corpora and critical discourse analysis. In: BakerP (ed.), Contemporary Approaches to Corpus Linguistics. London: Continuum, pp. 32–46.
33.
MautnerG (2016) Checks and balances: How corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA. In Wodak R and Meyer M (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, 3rd edn.Los Angeles, London: Sage, pp. 154–179.
34.
MayringP (2014) Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution [Monographie]. Availabe at: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173 (accessed 5 December 2022).
35.
MayringP (2015) Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In: Bikner-AhsbahsAKnippingCPresmegN (eds) Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education: Examples of Methodology and Methods. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 365–380.
36.
McCartneyPT (2006) Power and Progress: American National Identity, the War of 1898, and the Rise of American Imperialism. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press.
37.
McEneryTHardieA (2012) Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MilaniTMRichardsonJE (2021) Discourse and affect. Social Semiotics31(5): 671–676.
40.
MyrdalG (1944) The American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York, London: Harper & Borthers.
41.
NarteyMMwinlaaruIN (2019) Towards a decade of synergising corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis: A meta-analysis. Corpora14(2): 203–235.
42.
OrpinD (2005) Corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Examining the ideology of sleaze. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics10: 37–61.
43.
PalmadessaAL (2017) American National Identity, Policy Paradigms, and Higher Education. New York: Palgrave.
44.
PartingtonA (2003) The Linguistics of Political Argumentation: The Spin-doctor and the Wolf-Pack at the White House. London: Routledge.
ReisiglM (2017) The discourse-historical approach. In: FlowerdewJRichardsonJE (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 44–59. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739342.ch3
48.
ReisiglM (2018) The semiotics of political commemoration. In: WodakRForchtnerB (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 368–382.
49.
ReisiglMWodakR (2009) The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn.London: SAGE, pp. 87–121.
50.
ReisiglMWodakR (2016) The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, 3rd edn.London: SAGE, pp. 23–61.
51.
RheindorfM (2019) Revisiting the Toolbox of Discourse Studies New Trajectories in Methodology, Open Data, and Visualization. Cham: Springer.
52.
RheindorfM (2022) The discourse-historical approach: Methodological innovation and triangulation. In: WodakRRheindorfM (eds) Identity Politics Past and Present: Political Discourses from Post-War Austria to the Covid Crisis. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter Press, pp. 45–75.
53.
RheindorfMWodakR (2018) Borders, Fences, and limits—protecting Austria from refugees: Metadiscursive negotiation of meaning in the current refugee crisis. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies16(1–2): 15–38.
54.
RheindorfMWodakR (2020) Building ‘Fortress Europe’: Legitimizing exclusion from basic human rights. In: RheindorfMWodakR (eds) Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Migration Control: Language Policy, Identity and Belonging. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters, pp. 116–147.
55.
SeaboldSPerktoldJ (2010) Statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with python. In: Van der WaltSMillmanJ (eds) Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference. Austin, Texas: scipy.org, pp. 92–96.
56.
ShannonCE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal27: 623–656.
57.
SinclairJM (1996) The search for units of meaning. Textus9(1): 75–106.
58.
SmithRM (1988) The “American Creed” and American identity: The limits of liberal citizenship in the United States. Political Research Quarterly41: 225–251.
59.
StubbsM (1997) Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis (CDA). In: WrayARA (ed.) Evolving Models of Language. Clevedon, England: BAAL in Association with Multilingual Matters, pp. 110–116.
60.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: AustinWGWorchelS (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33–47.
61.
Theiss-MorseE (2009) Who Counts as an American?: The Boundaries of National Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62.
Tognini-BonelliE (2001) Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
63.
TurnerJCHoggMAOakesPJ, et al. (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
64.
van DijkTA (1998) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: SAGE.
65.
van DijkTAKintschW (1983) Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
VirtanenT (2009) Discourse linguistics meets corpus linguistics: Theoretical and methodological issues in the troubled relationship. In: RenouAKehoeA (eds) Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 49–65.
68.
WiddowsonHG (1998) Review article: The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics19(1): 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.136
69.
WodakR (2007) Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition15: 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.1.13wod
70.
WodakR (2008) Introduction: Discourse studies–important concepts and terms. In: WodakRKrzyżanowskiM (eds) Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–29.
71.
WodakR (2017) It was a long, hard road: A longitudinal perspective on discourses of commemoration in Austria. 10plus13: 22–41.
72.
WodakRde CilliaRReisiglM, et al. (2009) The Discursive Construction of National Identity, 2nd edn.Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
73.
WodakRReisiglM (2015) Discourse and racism. In: TannenDHamiltonHEand SchiffrinD (eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell. pp. 576–596.
