Lakhasly

Both Biber and Leech provide insights into the relationship between quantitative and qualitative methods in corpus linguistics, but they emphasize different aspects and approaches.
Biber's Perspective:
Biber highlights the essential role of quantitative techniques in corpus-based studies. According to him, to compare the language use of patterns for specific words, such as "big" and "large," one needs to employ quantitative measurements. This includes counting the frequency of each word in the corpus, determining co-occurrences with other words (collocations), and assessing the commonality of these collocations. Biber acknowledges that quantitative patterns are crucial but emphasizes that the corpus-based approach should go beyond these patterns. He notes that a significant effort in corpus-based studies is dedicated to explaining and exemplifying quantitative patterns, ultimately leading to functional interpretations. In other words, understanding not just what patterns exist but also why they exist becomes a central focus.
Leech's Perspective:
Leech, on the other hand, presents a more integrated approach, stating that in corpus linguistics, both quantitative and qualitative methods are extensively used and often employed in combination. He notes that it is characteristic of corpus linguistics to start with quantitative findings and then move towards qualitative analysis. Leech suggests a cyclic process where quantitative results are subjected to qualitative scrutiny, attempting to explain the reasons behind frequency patterns. At the same time, qualitative analysis, involving the interpretation of language samples in context, can be used to classify examples by their meanings. This qualitative analysis can then feed into further quantitative analysis based on meaning.
Comparison:
While both Biber and Leech acknowledge the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative methods in corpus linguistics, they differ in their emphasis. Biber puts a strong emphasis on the initial use of quantitative techniques to establish patterns and the subsequent effort to explain these patterns functionally. In contrast, Leech sees a more cyclical relationship between quantitative and qualitative methods, where each informs and enriches the other in an ongoing process of analysis.
In summary, Biber's approach seems to prioritize the establishment and explanation of quantitative patterns, while Leech's approach highlights a more dynamic interaction between quantitative and qualitative analyses throughout the research process