Cover not available
Part of
Persuasion in Specialized Discourse: A multidisciplinary perspective
Edited by Chiara Degano, Dora Renna and Francesca Santulli
[Argumentation in Context 22] 2024
► pp. 24–45

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
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.
Keywords: argumentation studies, bibliometric analysis, corpus analysis, interdisciplinarity, semantic content
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
    • 3.2Collocations of argumentation and argument across co-citation clusters
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • References
Published online: 25 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.22.01tod
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, L. (2005). AntConc: Design and development of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom. pp. 729–737.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10), 619–641. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boleda, G. (2020). Distributional semantics and linguistic theory. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6, 213–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bondi, M., & Scott, M. (2010). Keyness in texts. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bova, A. (2015). Adult as a source of expert opinion in child’s argumentation during family mealtime conversations. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4(1), 4–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351–374. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesnevar, C. I., Maguitman, A. G., & Loui, R. P. (2000). Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 32(4), 337–383. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research.Dordre-Cht: Springer,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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies – The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218–233. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (2013). Papers in structural and transformational linguistics Springer.Google Scholar
Hoeken, H., Timmers, R., & Schellens, P. J. (2012). Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument? Null, 18(3), 394–416. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kullenberg, C., & Kasperowski, D. (2016). What is citizen science?–A scientometric meta-analysis. PloS One, 11(1), e0147152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow engineers and scientists through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Leydesdorff, L. (1987). Various methods for the mapping of science. Scientometrics, 11(5–6), 295–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization. Research Policy, 18(4), 209–223. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2015). Classifying the patterns of natural arguments. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 48(1), 26–53. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahan, P., & Evans, J. (2018). Ambiguity and engagement. American Journal of Sociology, 124(3), 860–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. A new theory of human understanding Allen Lane Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Mochales, R., & Moens, M. (2011). Argumentation mining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19(1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Greco, S. (2019). Inference in argumentation. Argumentation Library, 34. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith1, P. M. (2006). The application of critical discourse analysis in environmental dispute resolution. Null, 9(1), 79–100. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Philosophy, 34(130), 244–245.Google Scholar
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. DOI logoGoogle 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
Van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. the pragma dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F., & Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20(4), 381–392. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. (2010). Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal Logic, 30(2), 159–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Methods of argumentation Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2004). Deconstructing difference: The rhetoric of human resource managers’ diversity discourses. Organization Studies, 25(1), 55–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar