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. 189–210

Chapter 9
Argumentation in scientific discourse

A pragma-dialectical pilot study

| University of Bergamo
This pilot study investigated scientific argumentation from a pragma-dialectical methodological approach with the aim of characterizing possible prototypical argumentative patterns by reconstructing argumentation structures, and identifying and analyzing the standpoints, arguments, starting points, and strategies. The results corroborated the findings of previous studies regarding the complexity of standpoints, structures, and patterns, the dialogical nature attained by advancing doubts and criticism, and the important role of exploratory argumentation (comparing and evaluating options). New insights also emerged: Causal argumentation appeared to play a more pervasive role than was previously assumed, which was supported by different subtypes of argument schemes. Furthermore, scientific argumentation proved to be indirect but strong, with standpoints that were not predominantly descriptive, and weighing was used strategically.
Keywords: scientific discourse, pragma-dialectics, analysis of argumentation, prototypical argumentative patterns, indirect argumentation, German scientific papers, Italian scientific papers
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Pragma-dialectics
    • 2.2Scientific discourse and argumentation
  • 3.Empirical analysis
    • 3.1Methods and texts
    • 3.2Argumentation in the German paper
    • 3.3Argumentation in the Italian paper
  • 4.Interpretation of the results and conclusions
  • Notes
  • Bibliography
Published online: 25 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.22.09ron
References (51)
Bibliography
Analyzed scientific articles
Miglietta, A. (2006). Lecce: italiano e dialetto dei bambini, fra scuola e gioco. In A. Sobrero, & A. Miglietta (a cura di), Lingua e dialetto nell’Italia del Duemila (pp. 311–323). Congedo Editore.Google Scholar
Radtke, I. I. (2010/[1976]). Stadtsprache? In H. Löffler, & L. Hofer (Hrsg.), Stadtsprachenforschung. Teilband A (pp. 197–220). Georg Olms Verlag [First version appeared in W. Viereck (Ed.) (1976), Sprachliches Handeln – soziales Verhalten. Ein Reader zur Pragmalinguistik und Soziolinguistik (pp. 29–48). Fink].Google Scholar
References
Amossy, R. (2006). L’argumentation dans le discours. Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Atayan, V. (2006). Makrostrukturen der Argumentation im Deutschen, Französischen und Italienischen. Lang.Google Scholar
Brambilla, E. (2019). Prototypical argumentative patterns in activist discourse. The case of the Greenpeace Detox. In B. Garssen, & F. H. van Eemeren (Eds.), Argumentation in actual practice: Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context (pp. 173–194). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breitkopf, A. (2006). Wissenschaftsstile im Vergleich: Subjektivität in deutschen und russischen Zeitschriftenartikeln der Soziologie. Freiburger Dissertationsreihe Band 11 Philologie.Google Scholar
De Mauro, T., & Lodi, M. (1986/[1979]). Lingua e dialetti. Editori Riuniti.Google Scholar
DFG – Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (1998). Vorschläge zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis: Empfehlungen der Kommission „Selbstkontrolle in der Wissenschaft“; Denkschrift. Wiley-VCH.
Ehlich, K. (2007/[1993]). Deutsch als Fremde Wissenschaftssprache. Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 19, 13–42.Google Scholar
(2014). Argumentieren als sprachliche Ressource des diskursiven Lernens. In A. Hornung, G. Carobbio, & D. Sorrentino (Hrsg.), Diskursive und textuelle Strukturen in der Hochschuldidaktik. Deutsch und Italienisch im Vergleich [Sprach-vermittlungen 12] (pp. 41–54). Waxmann.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K., & Rehbein, J. (1994). Institutionsanalyse. Prolegomena zur Untersuchung von Kommunikation in Institutionen. In G. Brünner, & G. Graefen (Hrsg.), Texte und Diskurse (pp. 287–327). Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical Figures in Science. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Figures of Argument. Informal Logic, 24(2). 115–135.Google Scholar
Garssen, B. (2017). The role of pragmatic problem-solving argumentation in plenary debate in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns (pp. 31–51). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, A. G. (1990). The Origin of Species: Evolutionary Taxonomy as an Example of the Rhetoric of Science. In H. W. Simons (Ed.), The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry (pp. 91–115). The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1991). Rhetoric of Science without Constraints. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 9(4). 283–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public understanding of science, 3, 3–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996/[1990]). The Rhetoric of Science. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies. Southern Illinois UP.Google Scholar
Gross, A. G., & Keith, W. M. (Eds.). (1996). Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The Language of Science [Vol. 5 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday]. Continuum.Google Scholar
Harris, R. A. (2018). Landmark essays on rhetoric of science: Case Studies. Routledge.Google Scholar
(2020). Landmark essays on rhetoric of science: Issues and Methods. Routledge.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, D., & Wagemans, J. (2011). The pragma-dialectical account of argumentation schemes. In E. T. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 1–22). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K, & Bondi, M. (2006). Academic Discourse Across Disciplines. Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
La Fontaine, M. J. (1968). A Critical Translation of Philip Melancthon’s ‘Elementorum Rhetorices Libri Duo’ [Latin text with English translation and notes]. Unpublished thesis. University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Mair, C. (2007). Kult des Informellen – auch in der Wissenschaftssprache? Zu neueren Entwicklungen des englischen Wissenschaftsstils. In P. Auer, & H. Baßler (Hrsg.), Reden und Schreiben in der Wissenschaft (pp. 157–183). Campus.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Pirazzini, D. (2002). Ist Persuasion das Ziel der Argumentation? Das abwägende Verfahren in romanischen Texten. In M. Drescher (Hrsg.), Textsorten im romanischen Vergleich (pp. 137–152). Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Plantin, C. (1996). L’argumentation. Seuil (Mémo).Google Scholar
(2014). Dictionnaire de l’argumentation – Une introduction notionnelle aux études d’argumentation. ENS Editions Lyon.Google Scholar
Roncoroni, T. (2015). Argumentative Strategien in deutschen und italienischen wissenschaftlichen Artikeln. Am Beispiel der Soziologie und der Sprachwissenschaft. Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, E. (1983). Argumentationsfiguren in der Wissenschaftssprache. In R. Jongen, S. De Knop, P. H. Nelde, & M.-P. Quix (Hrsg.), Sprache, Diskurs und Text. Akten des 17. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Brüssel. Band 1 (pp. 191–201). Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Argumentationsstrategien mit aber. In S. Bastian, & F. Hammer (Hrsg.), Aber, wie sagt man doch so schön… (pp. 107–115). Lang.Google Scholar
Sergo, L. (2009). La funzione argomentativa del connettore infatti in testi scientifici e divulgativi. In V. Atayan, & D. Pirazzini (Éds.), Argumentation: théorie, langue, discours (pp. 317–330). Lang.Google Scholar
Sobrero, A. A. (1993). Lingue speciali. In A. A. Sobrero (a cura di), Introduzione all’italiano contemporaneo (pp. 237–277). Laterza.Google Scholar
Thielmann, W., Redder, A., & Heller, D. (2014). Akademische Wissensvermittlung im Vergleich. In A. Redder, D. Heller, & W. Thielmann (Hrsg.), Eristische Strukturen in Vorlesungen und Seminaren deutscher und italienischer Universitäten. Analysen und Transkripte (pp. 7–18). Synchron.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trautmann, C. (2004). Argumentieren. Funktional-pragmatische Analysen praktischer und wissenschaftlicher Diskurse. Lang.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2016). Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentation, 30, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a). Argumentation Theory and Argumentative Practices: A Vital but Complex Relationship. Informal Logic, 37(4), 322–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 7–29). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Argumentative Style: A Complex Notion. Argumentation, 33, 153–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Andone, C. (2016). Argumentation and communicative practices. In A. Rocci, & L. de Saussure (Eds.), Verbal Communication (pp. 245–268). de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2019). Argument schemes: Extending the pragmadialectical approach. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. R. Mitchell, & J. H. M. Wagemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 308–318). OSSA.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Routledge.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: a pragma-dialectical study. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagemans, M. H. J. (2016). Argumentative Patterns for Justifying Scientific Explanations. Argumentation, 30, 97–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wander, P. C. (1976). The rhetoric of science. Western Speech Communication, 40, 4, 226–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar