Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 14:1 (2025) ► pp.61–97

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

Argument schemes and soundness/strength in published research article discussion sections

A chronological study

ORCiD logo with link | Sultan Qaboos UniversityMuscat
 | Shahid Chamran University of AhvazAhvaz
 | Hamed Bin Khalifa UniversityAl Rayyan
Published online: 17 April 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.23004.ari
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 (JESP) 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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Review of the literature
  • 3.Analytical frameworks
    • 3.1The pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation
    • 3.2Argument soundness and strength
    • 3.3A synthesized model for evaluating argument soundness and strength
      • a.Degree of cogency
      • b.Degree of biasedness
      • c.Degree of commitment
      • d.Logical inconsistency
      • e.Pragmatic inconsistency
  • 4.Methods
    • 4.1Corpus of the study
    • 4.2Coding procedures and agreement
  • 5.Findings and discussion
    • 5.1General findings
    • 5.2Argument schemes
    • 5.3Argument soundness and strength
      • Degree of cogency
      • Degree of biasedness
      • Degree of commitment
      • Logical and pragmatic inconsistencies
    • 5.4The nexus between argument soundness/strength and argument schemes
      • Linking argument soundness and argument strength
      • Linking argument soundness/strength and argument schemes
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (67)
References
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. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing, June 10, 2021, (pp. 56–65). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amnuai, W. 2017. The textual organization of the discussion sections of accounting research articles. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 301, 1–6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Andrews, R. 2009. Argumentation in higher education: Improving practice through theory and research. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arizavi, S., Shokouhi, H., & Mousavi, A. 2013. A cross-disciplinary analysis of rhetorical structure of dissertation abstracts. Iranian EFL Journal, 9(5), 381–400.
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachman, L. 2006. Generalizability: A journey into the nature of empirical research in applied linguistics. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. A. Chapelle & P. Duff (eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives. Dordrecht: John Benjamins, 165–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. R. 2004. The basics of communication research. Toronto: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belanger, M. 1982. A preliminary analysis of the structure of the discussion sections in ten neuroscience journal articles. Unpublished mimeo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benesch, S. 2001. Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Christensen-Branum, L., Strong, A., & Jones, C. D. O. 2019. Mitigating Myside Bias in Argumentation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(4), 435–445. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cummings, L. 2015. Reasoning and public health: New ways of coping with uncertainty. Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dudley-Evans, T. 1994. Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 146–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dujsik, D. 2013. A genre analysis of research article discussion in applied linguistics. Language Research, 42(9), 453–477.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garssen, B., & van Eemeren, F. H. 2017. Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 31(1), 73–90.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hahn, U. 2020. Argument quality in real world argumentation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 363–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hitchcock, D. L., & Wagemans, J. H. M. 2011. The pragma-dialectical account of argument schemes. In E. T. Feteris, B. J. Garssen, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics (pp. 185–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.
Hyland, K. 2017. English in the disciplines: Arguments for specificity. ESP Today, 5(1), 5–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. 2016. Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 511, 18–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2020. Text-organizing metadiscourse: Tracking changes in rhetorical persuasion. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21(1), 137–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Katzav, J., & Reed, C. A. 2004. On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of arguments. Argumentation, 18(2), 239–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirschner, C., Eckle-Kohler, J., & Gurevych, I. 2015. Linking the thoughts: Analysis of argumentation structures in scientific publications. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Denver, Colorado, June 4, 2015, (pp. 1–11). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lumer, C., & Dove, I. J. 2011. Argument schemes–an epistemological approach. In F. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. 2019. Multi-perspective research. In The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 29–38). London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (Eds.). 2014. The handbook of English for specific purposes. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parkinson, J. 2011. The discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes, 30(2), 164–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stab, C., Kirschner, C., Eckle-Kohler, J., & Gurevych, I. 2014. Argumentation mining in persuasive essays and scientific articles from the discourse structure perspective. In Proceedings 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. 1981. Definitions in science and law — evidence for subject-specific course components? Fachsprache, 31, 106–112.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. 1997. English as Tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes, 16(3), 373–382.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. 2000. English in today's research world: A writing guide. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. 2016. Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 30(1), 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Switzerland: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. 2020. A variety of contributions to argumentation theory. In From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild (pp. 1–10). Springer, Cham. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Henkemans, A. F. S. 2016. Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation. Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Henkemans, A. F. S. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagemans, J. H. 2016. Argumentative patterns for justifying scientific explanations. Argumentation, 30(1), 97–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walková, M. & Bradford, J. 2022. Constructing an argument in academic writing across disciplines. ESP Today, 10(1), 22–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Argumentation theory: A very short introduction. Boston: Springer, MA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfe, C. R. 2012. Individual differences in the “myside bias” in reasoning and written argumentation. Written Communication, 291, 477–501. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M., & Butler, J. 2009. Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication 26(2), 183–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfe, M. B., & Kurby, C. A. 2017. Belief in the claim of an argument increases perceived argument soundness. Discourse Processes, 54(8), 599–617. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yakhontova, T. 2001. Textbooks, contexts, and learners. English for specific purposes, 201, 397-415.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
2020. Schemes, critical questions, and complete argument evaluation. Argumentation, 34(4), 469–498. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue