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

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.