1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Argumentation in Context
  4. Volume 14, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Overall, a few studies have investigated argumentations in the research article discussion sections (RADs). More specifically, to date, no research has investigated the arrangement of standpoints and their supporting arguments in the RADs. In this study, we attempted to cast some light on the chronological variations of argument schemes and their possible interrelationships with argument soundness and strength. To this end, the argument schemes of 354 RADs from the journal of English for Specific Purposes () were analyzed using the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Also, the argument soundness/strength was analyzed using a literature-informed multi-faceted framework. Findings indicate that causal schemes have prevailed over the past three decades, compared to analogical and symptomatic schemes. Analogy scheme was the most common in the first decade, but faded away over time, while symptomatic scheme has never been salient. Concerning argument soundness/strength, five perspectives from the literature were integrated into this research. A tentative model consisting of three stratifications, i.e., logico-linguistic, pragma-linguistic, and logico-pragmatic, has been proposed to operationalize the abstruse concept of argument soundness/strength. Limited chronological disparities were identified and reported in this respect.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23004.ari
2025-04-17
2026-03-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23004.ari
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al Khatib, K., Ghosal, T., Hou, Y., de Waard, A., & Freitag, D.
    2021, June. Argument mining for scholarly document processing: Taking stock and looking ahead. InProceedings of the Second Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing, June 10, 2021, (pp.56–65). 10.18653/v1/2021.sdp‑1.7
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.sdp-1.7 [Google Scholar]
  2. Amnuai, W.
    2017 The textual organization of the discussion sections of accounting research articles. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 301, 1–6. 10.1016/j.kjss.2017.10.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.10.007 [Google Scholar]
  3. Amnuai, W., & Wannaruk, A.
    2013 Investigating move structure of English Applied Linguistics research article discussions published in international and Thai journals. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrews, R.
    2009 Argumentation in higher education: Improving practice through theory and research. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203872710
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203872710 [Google Scholar]
  5. Arizavi, S., Shokouhi, H., & Mousavi, A.
    2013 A cross-disciplinary analysis of rhetorical structure of dissertation abstracts. Iranian EFL Journal, 9(5), 381–400.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Arizavi, S., Jalilifar, A. & Riazi, A. M.
    2023 Analysis of Argumentation in the Discussion Sections of Published Articles in ESP Journal: A Diachronic Corpus-Based Approach. Argumentation, 371, 119–146. 10.1007/s10503‑022‑09588‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-022-09588-0 [Google Scholar]
  7. Arsyad, S., Purwo, B. K., & Adnan, Z.
    2020 The argument style in research article discussions to support research findings in language studies. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 290–307. 10.24815/siele.v7i2.16626
     https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.16626 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bachman, L.
    2006 Generalizability: A journey into the nature of empirical research in applied linguistics. InM. Chalhoub-Deville, C. A. Chapelle & P. Duff (eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives. Dordrecht: John Benjamins, 165–207. 10.1075/lllt.12.11bac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.12.11bac [Google Scholar]
  9. Basturkmen, H.
    2012 A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134–144. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. R.
    2004 The basics of communication research. Toronto: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Belanger, M.
    1982 A preliminary analysis of the structure of the discussion sections in ten neuroscience journal articles. Unpublished mimeo.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Belcher, B. M., Rasmussen, K. E., Kemshaw, M. R., & Zornes, D. A.
    2015 Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. Research Evaluation, 25(1), 1–17. 10.1093/reseval/rvv025
     https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv025 [Google Scholar]
  13. Benesch, S.
    2001 Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Casanave, C. P.
    2003 Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship: (But should it be called “post-process”?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 85–102.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Christensen-Branum, L., Strong, A., & Jones, C. D. O.
    2019 Mitigating Myside Bias in Argumentation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(4), 435–445. 10.1002/jaal.915
     https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.915 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cummings, L.
    2015 Reasoning and public health: New ways of coping with uncertainty. Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑15013‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dudley-Evans, T.
    1994 Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications. InJ. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp.146–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dujsik, D.
    2013 A genre analysis of research article discussion in applied linguistics. Language Research, 42(9), 453–477.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Garssen, B., & van Eemeren, F. H.
    2017 Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 31(1), 73–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gosden, H.
    2001 Thank you for your critical comments and helpful suggestions”: compliance and conflict in authors’ replies to referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Ibérica, Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 31, 3–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 2003 ‘Why Not Give Us the Full Story?’: Functions of Referees’ Comments in Peer Reviews of Scientific Research Papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 87–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hahn, U.
    2020 Argument quality in real world argumentation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 363–374. 10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hitchcock, D. L., & Wagemans, J. H. M.
    2011 The pragma-dialectical account of argument schemes. InE. T. Feteris, B. J. Garssen, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics (pp.185–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.163.13hit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.163.13hit [Google Scholar]
  24. Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T.
    1988 A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for specific purposes, 7(2), 113–121.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hyland, K.
    2017 English in the disciplines: Arguments for specificity. ESP Today, 5(1), 5–23. 10.18485/esptoday.2017.5.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2017.5.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K.
    2016 Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. 10.1177/0741088316650399
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2018 “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 511, 18–30. 10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2020 Text-organizing metadiscourse: Tracking changes in rhetorical persuasion. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21(1), 137–164. 10.1075/jhp.00039.hyl
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00039.hyl [Google Scholar]
  29. Jalilifar, A., Hayati, A. M., & Namdari, N.
    2012 A comparative study of research article discussion sections of local and international Applied Linguistic journals. Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(1), 1–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Katzav, J., & Reed, C. A.
    2004 On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of arguments. Argumentation, 18(2), 239–259. 10.1023/B:ARGU.0000024044.34360.82
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARGU.0000024044.34360.82 [Google Scholar]
  31. Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S. J., & Chan, S. H.
    2013 Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections. 3L, Language, Linguistics, Literature, 19(1), 65–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kirschner, C., Eckle-Kohler, J., & Gurevych, I.
    2015 Linking the thoughts: Analysis of argumentation structures in scientific publications. InProceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Denver, Colorado, June 4, 2015, (pp.1–11). 10.3115/v1/W15‑0501
     https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W15-0501 [Google Scholar]
  33. Li, Y.
    2006 A doctoral student of physics writing for publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case study. English for specific purposes, 25(4), 456–478.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L.
    2018 The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of meta-discourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34(July), 97–109. 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lubis, A. H.
    2019 The argumentation structure of research article ‘findings and discussion’ sections written by Non-native English speaker novice writers: a case of Indonesian undergraduate students. Asian Englishes, 22(2), 143–162. 10.1080/13488678.2019.1669300
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2019.1669300 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lumer, C., & Dove, I. J.
    2011 Argument schemes–an epistemological approach. InF. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation: Cognition and community. Proceedings of the ninth international conference of the Ontario society for the study of argumentation (pp.1–32). Windsor, ON: OSSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Macagno, F., Walton, D., & Reed, C.
    2017 Argumentation schemes. History, classifications, and computational applications. IFColog Journal of Logics and Their Applications, 4(8), 2493–2556.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Moyetta, D.
    2016 The discussion section of English and Spanish research articles in psychology: A contrastive study. ESP Today, 4(1), 87–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Paltridge, B.
    2019 Multi-perspective research. InThe Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp.29–38). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780367824471‑3
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367824471-3 [Google Scholar]
  40. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S.
    (Eds.) 2014 The handbook of English for specific purposes. John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Parkinson, J.
    2011 The discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes, 30(2), 164–175. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  42. So-mui, F. L., & Mead, K.
    2000 An analysis of English in the workplace: The communication needs of textile and clothing merchandisers. English for Specific Purposes, 19(4), 351–368.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Prager, E. M., Chambers, K. E., Plotkin, J. L., McArthur, D. L., Bandrowski, A. E., Bansal, N., … & Graf, C.
    2019 Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing. Journal of neuroscience research, 97(4), 377–390. 10.1002/jnr.24340
     https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.24340 [Google Scholar]
  44. Stab, C., Kirschner, C., Eckle-Kohler, J., & Gurevych, I.
    2014 Argumentation mining in persuasive essays and scientific articles from the discourse structure perspective. InProceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers and Connections between Argumentation Theory and Natural Language Processing, Forlí-Cesena, Italy, July 21–25, 2014, (pp.21–25).
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Swales, J.
    1981 Definitions in science and law — evidence for subject-specific course components?Fachsprache, 31, 106–112.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 1990 Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Swales, J. M.
    1997 English as Tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes, 16(3), 373–382.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B.
    2000 English in today's research world: A writing guide. University of Michigan Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Tardy, C.
    2004 The role of English in scientific communication: lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex?Journal of English for academic purposes, 3(3), 247–269.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. van Eemeren, F. H.
    2016 Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 30(1), 1–23. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9377‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9377-z [Google Scholar]
  51. 2018 Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
  52. van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B.
    2020 A variety of contributions to argumentation theory. InFrom Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild (pp.1–10). Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑28367‑4_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28367-4_1 [Google Scholar]
  53. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R.
    2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. van Eemeren, F. H., & Henkemans, A. F. S.
    2016 Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation. Taylor & Francis. 10.4324/9781315401140
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315401140 [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P.
    2015 Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Argumentation, 29(4), 431–451.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Henkemans, A. F. S.
    2007 Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  57. Wagemans, J. H.
    2016 Argumentative patterns for justifying scientific explanations. Argumentation, 30(1), 97–108. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9374‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9374-2 [Google Scholar]
  58. Walková, M. & Bradford, J.
    2022 Constructing an argument in academic writing across disciplines. ESP Today, 10(1), 22–42. 10.18485/esptoday.2022.10.1.2
     https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2022.10.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  59. Walton, D.
    2006 Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 2009 Argumentation theory: A very short introduction. Boston: Springer, MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Wen, J., & Lei, L.
    2022 Linguistic positivity bias in academic writing: A large-scale diachronic study in life sciences across 50 years, Applied Linguistics, 43(2), 340–364. 10.1093/applin/amab037
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab037 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wolfe, C. R.
    2012 Individual differences in the “myside bias” in reasoning and written argumentation. Written Communication, 291, 477–501. 10.1177/0741088312457909
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312457909 [Google Scholar]
  63. Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M., & Butler, J.
    2009 Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication26(2), 183–209. 10.1177/0741088309333019
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309333019 [Google Scholar]
  64. Wolfe, M. B., & Kurby, C. A.
    2017 Belief in the claim of an argument increases perceived argument soundness. Discourse Processes, 54(8), 599–617. 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1137446
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1137446 [Google Scholar]
  65. Yakhontova, T.
    2001 Textbooks, contexts, and learners. English for specific purposes, 201, 397-415.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Yu, S., & Zenker, F.
    2018 Peirce knew why abduction isn’t IBE — A scheme and critical questions for abductive argument. Argumentation, 32(4), 569–587.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 2020 Schemes, critical questions, and complete argument evaluation. Argumentation, 34(4), 469–498. 10.1007/s10503‑020‑09512‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09512-4 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23004.ari
Loading
Argument schemes and soundness/strength in published research article discussion sections
Journal of Argumentation in Context 14, 61 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.23004.ari
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23004.ari
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23004.ari
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argument scheme; argument soundness; argument strength; discussion section; pragma-dialectical approach

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error