Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of Argumentation in the Discussion Sections of Published Articles in ESP Journal: A Diachronic Corpus-Based Approach

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Argumentation has remained under-researched in studies analyzing academic journal publications despite its importance in academic writing. This paper reports a study in which we investigated stereotypical argumentative trends, lexico-grammatical features, and interactional metadiscourse markers in 354 research article free-standing discussion sections from the journal of ESP over forty years. The field of ESP was chosen because of its maturity, which has given substance to a dynamic ground for arguments. We drew on the pragma-dialectical approach to analyzing argumentations in the corpus. Findings indicated that due to the argumentative nature of the discussion section, certain argumentative trends recurred more often. The analysis of the lexico-grammatical features and metadiscourse markers of the standpoints also showed patterns of variability over time. The study concludes that it is imperative to incorporate relevant facets from various argumentation models to construct a comprehensive argumentation theory and gain deeper insights into argumentation in academic writing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amnuai, W. 2017. The textual organization of the discussion sections of accounting research articles. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 30: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R. 2010. Argumentation in higher education: Improving practice through theory and research. New York, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariyanti, A. 2021. EFL students’ use of transition signals in essay writing. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics 6 (1): 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arsyad, S., B.K. Purwo, and Z. Adnan. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacha, N.N. 2010. Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (3): 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachman, L. 2006. Generalizability: A journey into the nature of empirical research in applied linguistics. In Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives, ed. M. Chalhoub-Deville, C.A. Chapelle, and P. Duff, 165–207. Dordrecht: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, D. 2017. The extent to which the passive voice is used in the scientific journal article, 1985–2015. Functional Linguistics 4 (1): 1–17.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belcher, D., A.M. Johns, and B. Paltridge, eds. 2011. New directions in English for specific purposes research. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, A. 2004. Arguments and their uses. In Takeshi S., Yoshiro Y., & K. Takayuki, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Tokyo Conference on argumentation: Argumentation and social cognition, pp. 21–27. Tokyo: The Japan Debate Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, A. 2007. Transferring generic features and recontextualizing genre awareness: Understanding writing performance in the ESP genre-based literacy framework. English for Specific Purposes 26 (3): 287–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, F.W., and L. Unsworth. 2016. Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24: 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S., Y. Tian, and Q. Wan. 2022. Argumentation features and essay quality: Exploring relationships and incidence counts. Journal of Writing Research? 14 (1): 299–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. 2015. Reasoning and public health: New ways of coping with uncertainty. Cham Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. 2021. Engaging with the reader in research articles in English: Variation across disciplines and linguacultural backgrounds. English for Specific Purposes 63: 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dujsik, D. 2013. A genre analysis of research article discussion in applied linguistics. Language Research 42 (9): 453–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, U. 2020. Argument quality in real world argumentation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24 (5): 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, W. 2014. Measuring the vocabulary load of engineering textbooks for EFL undergraduates. English for Specific Purposes 33: 54–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. 2008. Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies 8 (2): 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. 2017. Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 113: 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., and F.K. Jiang. 2018. “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes 51: 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilyinova, E.Y., and L.A. Kochetova. 2016. Diachronic perspective in text and discourse studies: Review of approaches. Science Journal of Vol SU. Linguistics 15 (4): 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalilifar, A.R. 2011. World of attitudes in research article discussion sections: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Technology & Education 5 (3): 177–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalilifar, A.R., A.M. Hayati, and N. Namdari. 2012. A comparative study of research article discussion sections of local and international applied linguistic journals. The Journal of Asia TEFL 9 (1): 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, F.K., and K. Hyland. 2016. Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics 39 (4): 508–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanoksilapatham, B. 2005. Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes 24 (3): 269–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanoksilapatham, B. 2015. Distinguishing textual features characterizing structural variation in research articles across three engineering sub-discipline corpora. English for Specific Purposes 37: 74–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khaghaninejad, M.S., M. Eslami, S. Yadollahi, and S.M. Jafari. 2021. A Corpus based analysis of the application of “concluding transition signals” in academic texts. Cogent Arts & Humanities 8 (1): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khedri, M., S.J. Ebrahimi, and S.H. Chan. 2013. Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections. 3L, Language, Linguistics Literature 19 (1): 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunsch, D.W., K. Schnarr, and R. van Tyle. 2014. The use of argument mapping to enhance critical thinking skills in business education. Journal of Education for Business 89 (8): 403–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labrie, N., and P.J. Schulz. 2014. Does argumentation matter? A systematic literature review on the role of argumentation in doctor–patient communication. Health Communication 29 (10): 996–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latifi, S., O. Noroozi, J. Hatami, and H.J. Biemans. 2021. How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning? Innovations in Education and Teaching International 58 (2): 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J.J., and J.E. Casal. 2014. Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System 46: 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., and L. Buckingham. 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, T., and I. McGrath. 1993. Teaching bibliographic documentation skills. English for Specific Purposes 12 (3): 219–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzi, D. 2007. The construction of argumentation in judicial texts: Combining a genre and a corpus perspective. Argumentation 21 (1): 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, L., and M. Kuteeva. 2012. Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes 31 (3): 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehltretter Drury, S.A., and D.A. Herbeck. 2016. Remembering and re-creating the great debates of 1960: Presidential libraries as sites for political argumentation. Communication Quarterly 64 (2): 173–192.

    Article  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 

  • Paltridge, B., and S. Starfield, eds. 2013. The handbook of English for specific purposes. Boston: Wiley Blackwell.

  • Paltridge, B. 2019. Multi-perspective research. In: The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 29–38). Routledge.

  • Parkinson, J. 2011. The discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes 30 (2): 164–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peacock, M. 2002. Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System 30 (4): 479–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peacock, M. 2006. A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora 1 (1): 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilgram, R. 2009. Argumentation in doctor-patient interaction: medical consultation as a pragma-dialectical communicative activity type. Studies in Communication Sciences 9 (2): 153–169.

  • Planken, B., F. Van Meurs, and A. Radlinska. 2010. The effects of the use of English in Polish product advertisements: Implications for English for business purposes. English for Specific Purposes 29 (4): 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramage, J., J. Bean, and J. Johnson. 2010. Writing arguments: A rhetoric with readings, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riazi, M., L. Shi, and J. Haggerty. 2018. Analysis of the empirical research in the journal of second language writing at its 25th year (1992–2016). Journal of Second Language Writing 41: 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinelli, S., and P. J. Schulz. 2006. “Let me tell you why!”. When argumentation in doctor–patient interaction makes a difference. Argumentation 20 (3): 353–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swales, M., and C. Feak. 2018. Academic writing for graduate students: Essential skills and tasks. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P., and H. Girginer. 2002. The use of discourse analysis to enhance ESP teacher knowledge: An example using aviation English. English for Specific Purposes 21 (4): 397–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H. 2016. Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation 30 (1): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H. 2018. Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Switzerland: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and C. Henkemans. 2017. Argumentation analysis and evaluation, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., P. Houtlosser, and A.F. Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wagemans, J.H. 2016. Argumentative patterns for justifying scientific explanations. Argumentation 30 (1): 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walková, M., and J. Bradford. 2022. Constructing an argument in academic writing across disciplines. ESP Today 10 (1): 22–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2009. Argumentation theory: a very short introduction. Boston: Springer, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wingate, U. 2012. ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2): 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, C., M. Britt, and J. Butler. 2009. Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication 26 (2): 183–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, R., and D. Allison. 2003. Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English Language & Literature, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

    Saleh Arizavi & Alireza Jalilifar

  2. Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Ar-Rayyan, Qatar

    A. Mehdi Riazi

  3. Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    A. Mehdi Riazi

Authors
  1. Saleh Arizavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alireza Jalilifar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Mehdi Riazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Saleh Arizavi; materials analysis was first analyzed by Saleh Arizavi and the second round analysis was performed and approved by Alireza Jalilifar and Mehdi Riazi. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Saleh Arizavi, and all authors commented on the first versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alireza Jalilifar.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This study was conducted at Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz (Iran) where the first author is studying for his PhD and the second author is a tenured academic. None of the authors of this study have any conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arizavi, S., Jalilifar, A. & Riazi, A.M. Analysis of Argumentation in the Discussion Sections of Published Articles in ESP Journal: A Diachronic Corpus-Based Approach. Argumentation 37, 119–146 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-022-09588-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-022-09588-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation