Cover not available

In:Persuasion in Specialized Discourse: A multidisciplinary perspective
Edited by Chiara Degano, Dora Renna and Francesca Santulli
[Argumentation in Context 22] 2024
► pp. 24–45

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 1
Plural conversations about argumentation

A bibliometric and corpus analysis

 | Institute of Communication and Public Policy, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
 | Institute of Communication and Public Policy, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
 | Institute of Argumentation, Linguistics and Semiotics, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
Published online: 25 October 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.22.01tod
Abstract
Argumentation studies are an area of inquiry with important interdisciplinary appeal. As such, the word argumentation is used in communities with diverse perspectives and approaches. In this work we apply bibliometric and corpus analysis to identify the semantic content of the “scientific conversations” about argumentation on dataset containing 10,000 scientific publications. We focus on outlets of publication of those documents to map the cognitive structure of the field and use results as a seed for a linguistic analysis of discourse about argumentation in full-text documents’ relevant for each cluster. Our findings show a small common core, which however branches into distinct discussions about argumentation. Understanding these points of connection and separation is important for the field and for science in general, as they highlight mechanisms of interdisciplinarity and reveal possibilities for future interactions and developments.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A bibliometric overview of the field
    • 2.1Identifying subdomains through source co-citations
    • 2.2An analysis of subfields
  • 3.Analyzing the discourse on argumentation
    • 3.1Statistical keywords in co-citation clusters
    • 3.2 Collocations of argumentation and argument across co-citation clusters
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • References
References (64)
References
Amgoud, L., & Cayrol, C. (2002). A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34(1), 197–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2005). AntConc: Design and development of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom. pp. 729–737.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkinson, K., Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Hunter, A., Prakken, H., Reed, C., et al.. (2017). Towards artificial argumentation. AI Magazine, 38(3), 25–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10), 619–641. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boleda, G. (2020). Distributional semantics and linguistic theory. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6, 213–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bondi, M., & Scott, M. (2010). Keyness in texts. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chandra, Y. (2018). Mapping the evolution of entrepreneurship as a field of research (1990–2013): A scientometric analysis. Plos One, 13(1) Retrieved from Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, C., Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., & Hou, J. (2010). The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1386–1409. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chesnevar, C. I., Maguitman, A. G., & Loui, R. P. (2000). Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 32(4), 337–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research.Dordre-Cht: Springer,Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies – The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E., & Kloosterhuis, H. (2009). The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation: Approaches from legal theory and argumentation theory. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 16(29), 307–331.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Durrant, P. (2020). Analyzing co-occurrence data. In M. Paquo, & S. T. Gries (Eds.), A practical handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 141–159). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (2013). Papers in structural and transformational linguistics Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoeken, H., Timmers, R., & Schellens, P. J. (2012). Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument? Null, 18(3), 394–416. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search – comparison of major features of the web of science, scopus, and google scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537–1547. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.lu.unisi.ch/Progetti/Campus Virtuale/bibliografia/z_carole/methodology/Jacso2005.pdfGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 861–871. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keith, W., & Rehg, W. (2008). Argumentation in science: The cross-fertilization of argumentation theory and science studies. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 211–239.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545–552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kullenberg, C., & Kasperowski, D. (2016). What is citizen science?–A scientometric meta-analysis. PloS One, 11(1), e0147152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow engineers and scientists through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leydesdorff, L. (1987). Various methods for the mapping of science. Scientometrics, 11(5–6), 295–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989). Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization. Research Policy, 18(4), 209–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lippi, M., & Torroni, P. (2016). Argumentation mining: State of the art and emerging trends. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT), 16(2), 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2015). Classifying the patterns of natural arguments. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 48(1), 26–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization University of Southern California, Information Sciences Institute Los Angeles.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCain, K. W. (1991). Mapping economics through the journal literature: An experiment in journal cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (1986–1998), 42(4), 290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McMahan, P., & Evans, J. (2018). Ambiguity and engagement. American Journal of Sociology, 124(3), 860–912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. A new theory of human understanding Allen Lane Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mochales, R., & Moens, M. (2011). Argumentation mining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19(1), 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Monte-Sano, C., & De La Paz, S. (2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(3), 273–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potts, A., & Baker, P. (2012). Does semantic tagging identify cultural change in british and american english? International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3), 295–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayson, P., & Potts, A. (2020). Analysing keyword lists. In M. Paquot, & S. T. Gries (Eds.), A practical handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 119–139) Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reed, C., & Koszowy, M. (2011). The development of argument and computation and its roots in the Lvov–Warsaw school. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, Special Issue of the Argumentation Series on Argument and Computation, Ed. Koszowy, M, 23(36), 15–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. (2010). Comparing the argumentum model of topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: The procedural and material components. Argumentation, 24(4), 489–512. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Greco, S. (2019). Inference in argumentation. Argumentation Library, 34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, C., & Voth, B. (2002). The role of humor in political argument: How “strategery” and “lockboxes” changed a political campaign. Argumentation and Advocacy, 39(2), 110–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith1, P. M. (2006). The application of critical discourse analysis in environmental dispute resolution. Null, 9(1), 79–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Squire, K. D., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad city mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Philosophy, 34(130), 244–245.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C., Henkemans, A. F. S., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. the pragma dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F., & Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20(4), 381–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F., & Houtlosser, P. (2009). Strategic maneuvering examining argumentation in context. In F. Van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Verheij, B. (2017). Argumentation theory in formal and computational perspective. IFCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, 4(8), 2099–2181.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. (2010). Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal Logic, 30(2), 159–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Methods of argumentation Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D., & Godden, D. M. (2006). The impact of argumentation on artificial intelligence. Considering Pragma-Dialectics, Mahwah, Erlbaum, New Jersey, 287–299.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, R., Kwon, W., & Clarke, I. (2011). ‘Getting people on board’: Discursive leadership for consensus building in team meetings. Discourse & Society, 22(5), 592–644. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2004). Deconstructing difference: The rhetoric of human resource managers’ diversity discourses. Organization Studies, 25(1), 55–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue