Article published in:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 3:3 (2014) ► pp. 259–286

What’s in a name

Journal titles in the field of epistemic research

| University of Waterloo
We survey the disciplinary status and the research trends of argumentation studies. Our investigation combines the methods of a literature review and environmental scan. The latter consists in analysis of the linguistic features of journal titles, which we approach as a type of metacommunication. The results of our environmental scan suggest that the authors contributing to argumentation research envision it as a well-integrated field with a complex system of relations among the communities, agendas, methods, and venues involved in it. Yet we also found that the field is often seen as divided along the lines of binary oppositions between theory and its applications, as well as between theoretical and empirical research. We found that the field is increasingly turning to empirical, applied, and professional research, while the status of scholarly research is declining. Our analysis suggests that argumentation studies is developing a more sophisticated and tractable theory and methodology
Keywords: epistemic studies, environmental scan, journal titles, metacommunication, survey methods
Published online: 12 February 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.3.3.02gla
References
Aarts, B
2008 English Syntax and Argumentation (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Adams Smith, D.E
1984 “Medical Discourse: Aspects of Author’s Comment.” The ESP Journal 31: 25–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Afros, E., and C.F. Schryer
2009 “Promotional (meta)Discourse in Research Articles in Language and Literary Studies.” English for Specific Purposes 281: 58–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle
1984 “Nicomachean Ethics.” In (W.D. Ross, Trans.), The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation Vol. 21, 1729–1867. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (accessed 26 March, 2010 on InteLex database).Google Scholar
Barton, E.L
1993 “Evidentials, Argumentation, and Epistemological Stance.” College English 55 (7): 745–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, C
1983 “Scientific Writing as a Social Act.” In New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication Research Theory Practice, ed. by P.V. Anderson, R.J. Brockman, and C.R. Miller, 156–18. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood Publishing.Google Scholar
1985 “Physicists Reading Physics, Schema-Laden Purposes and Purpose-Laden Schema.” Written Communication 2 (1): 3–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989 “Introduction: Rhetoricians on the Rhetoric of Science.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 14 (1): 3–6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fahnestock, J
1989 “Arguing in Different Forums: The Bering Crossover Controversy.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 14 (1): 26–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, C., and R.A. De los Santos
2005 “Measuring Incommensurability: Are Toxicology and Ecotoxicology Blind to What the Other Sees?” In Rhetoric and Incommensurability, (Ed. and Intr.) R.A. Harris, 424–463. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, S.B
1990 “Dichotomous and Complex Thinking.” The Social Service Review 64 (1): 46–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., E. Csomay, J.K. Jones, and C. Keck
2004 “A Corpus Linguistics Investigation of Vocabulary-based Discourse Units in University Registers.” In Applied Corpus Linguistics: A Multidimensional Approach, ed. by U. Connor, and T.A. Upton, 53–72. Amsterdam, NY: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.D
2004 “Research Methods for Applied Linguistics: Scope, Characteristics, and Standards.” In The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, (Eds. and Intr.) A. Davies, and C. Elder, 476–500. Oxford, UK & Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burke, K
1966 Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Busch-Lauer, I.A
1995 “Abstracts in German Medical Journals: A Linguistic Analysis.” Information Processing and Management 31 (5): 769–776. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “Titles of English and German Research Papers in Medicine and Linguistics.” In Analysing Professional Genres, (Ed. and Intr.) A. Trosborg, 77–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butos, W.N., and R. Koppl
2003 “Science as a Spontaneous order: An Essay in the Economics of Science.” In The Evolution of Scientific Knowledge, ed. by H.S. Jensen, L.M. Richter, and M.T. Vendelø, 189–208. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Carter, R.A
1990 “When is a Report Not Report? Observations from Academic and Non-Academic Settings.” In The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse, (Ed. and Intr.) W. Nash, 171–191. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Ceccarelli, L
2001 Shaping Science with Rhetoric: The Cases of Dobzhanski, Schrödinger, and Wilson. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chan, C.S.C
2009 “Forging a Link Between Research and Pedagogy: A Holistic Framework for Evaluating Business English Materials.” English for Specific Purposes 28 (2): 125–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crismore, A., and R. Farnsworth
1990 “Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse.” In The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse, ed. by W. Nash, 118–136. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
De Haan, P., and K. van Esch
2004 “Towards an Instrument for the Assessment of the Development of Writing Skills.” In Applied Corpus Linguistics: A Multidimensional Approach, ed. by U. Connor, and T.A. Upton, 267–279. Amsterdam, NY: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A., and C. Elder
2004 “General Introduction: Applied Linguistics: Subject to Discipline?” In The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, 1–15. Oxford, UK & Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fahnestock, J
1989 “Arguing in Different Forums: The Bering Crossover Controversy.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 14 (1): 26–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fahnestock, J., and M. Secor
2002 “The Stasis in Scientific and Literary Argument.” In Teaching Argument in the Composition Course, ed. by T. Barnett, 58–73. Boston, NY: Bedford / St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
Forstater, M
2003 “Must Spontaneous Order be Unintended? Exploring the Possibilities for Consciously Enhancing Creative Discovery and Imaginative Problem-Solving.” In The Evolution of Scientific Knowledge, ed. by H.S. Jensen, L.M. Richter, and M.T. Vendelø, 189–208. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Fuller, S., and J.H Collier
2004 Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge: A New Beginning for Science and Technology Studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gilbert, G.N
1976 “The Transformation of Research Findings into Scientific Knowledge.” Social Studies of Science 6 (3/4): 281–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M
1997 Coalescent Argumentation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T.F
1982 “Relativist/Constructivist Programmes in the Sociology of Science: Redundance and Retreat.” Social Studies of Science 121: 279–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gladkova, O
2010 “The Identification of Epistemic Topoi in a Corpus of Biomedical Research Articles.” Unpublished dissertation, University of Waterloo.
Hacking, I
(ed) 1981 Scientific Revolutions. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, R.A
1991 “Rhetoric of Science.” College English 53 (3): 282–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 Linguistics Wars. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002 “Knowing, Rhetoric, Science.” In Visions and Revisions: Continuity and Change in Rhetoric and Composition, ed. by J.D. Williams, 163 – 218. Carbondale, SI: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
2005 “Introduction.” In Rhetoric and Incommensurability, 3–149. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Hersh, W.R
2003 Information Retrieval: A Health and Biomedical Perspective. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Hill, S.S., B.F. Soppelsa, and G.K. West
1982 “Teaching ESL Students to Read and Write Experimental Research Papers.” TESOL Quarterly 161: 333–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K
2005 Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ifantidu, E
2005 “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 371: 1325–1353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Isocrates
2000 “Antidosis.” In Isocrates I, (D. Mirhady, and Y.L. Too, Trans.), 201–264. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
King, L.S
1982 Medical Thinking: A Historical Preface. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kneale, W.C
1949 Probability and Induction. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Korobov, N
2001 “Reconciling Theory with Method: From Conversation Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis to Positioning Analysis.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2 (3). (accessed 4 April 2008 on www​.qualitative​-research​.net​/fqs​-texte​/3​-01​/3​-01korobov​-e​.htm).Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S
1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., and S Woolgar
1986 Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Litman, D.J
1996 “Cue Phrase Classification Using Machine Learning.” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 51: 53–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lunsford, A.A., K.H. Wilson, and R.A. Eberly
2009 The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacMillan, K., and T. Koenig
2004 “The Wow Factor: Preconceptions and Expectations for Data Analysis Software in Qualitative Research.” Social Science Computer Review 22 (2): 179–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malcolm, L
1987 “What Rules Govern Tense Usage in Scientific Articles?” English for Specific Purposes 61: 31–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manning, C., and H. Schütze
2000 Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Myers, G
1990 Writing Biology. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Paul, D., D. Charney, and A. Kendall
2001 “Moving Beyond the Moment: Reception Studies in the Rhetoric of Science.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 15 (3): 372–399. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteka
1969 The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Plato
1953 The Dialogues of Plato (B. Jowett, Trans. and Ed.) (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (accessed 28 April 2010 on InteLex database).Google Scholar
1914 “The Republic.” In The Dialogues of Plato (B. Jowett, Trans. and Intr.), Vol. 21 [Online version]. New York, NY: Heart’s International Library. Hathi Trust.Google Scholar
Prelli, L.J
1989 The Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H
1981 “The ‘Corroboration’ of Theories.” In Scientific Revolution, ed. by I. Hacking, 60–79. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Read, B., and B. Francis
2001 “Playing Safe: Undergraduate Essay Writing and the Presentation of Student ‘Voice’.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 22 (3): 387–399. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F
1992 “A Text-type and Move Analysis Study of Verb Tense and Modality Distributions in Medical English Abstracts.” English for Specific Purposes 111: 93–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 “Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse.” English for Specific Purposes 13 (2): 149–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W.C
1985 “Conflicting Conceptions of Scientific Explanation.” The Journal of Philosophy 82 (11): 651–654. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A
1997 “Whose Text? Whose Context?” Discourse and Society 81: 165–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schryer, C.F
2000 “Walking a Fine Line: Writing Negative News Letters in an Insurance Company.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 141: 445–497. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scriven, M
1975 “Causation as Explanation.” Noûs 9 (1): 3–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987 “Probative Logic.” In Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline: Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986, Vol. 31 ed. by F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and C.W. Willard, 201–215. Dordrecht-Holland/Providence-USA: Foris.Google Scholar
Swales, J
1986 “Citation Analysis and Discourse Analysis.” Applied Linguistics 7 (1): 39–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004 Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tindale, C.W
1999 Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S
1969 The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, F. Snoeck Henkemans, J.A. Blair, R.H. Johnson, E.C.W. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D.N. Walton, C.A. Willard, J. Woods, and D. Zarefsky
1996 Fundamentals of Argumentation theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Willard, C
1989 A Theory of Argumentation. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, G., and C.G. Herndl
2007 “Boundary Objects as Rhetorical Exigence: Knowledge Mapping and Interdisciplinary Cooperation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 21 (2): 129–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Mehlenbacher, Ashley Rose, Randy Allen Harris & Chrysanne Di Marco
2017. Rhetorical figures as argument schemes – The proleptic suite. Argument & Computation 8:3 ► pp. 233 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.