Article Sidebar

Submitted
November 6, 2018
Accepted
November 6, 2018
Published
December 10, 2017
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 475 Download : 409

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study investigates the argument pattern in research articles by postgraduate students of English and Education University Bengkulu, based on Toulmin’s Theory (1958). This study analyzed the argument pattern, and reveal the type of data used by the student to support the claim in their argument contains in introduction section and discussion section of Journal Applied Lingusitic and Literature (JOALL) 2016. The data analysis result show that (a) the common argument pattern employed for arguments in introduction section of Research Article published in JOALL is Semi-complete pattern; (b) in discussion section the authors also commonly employ Semi-complete pattern. In addition (c) there are five types of data used by the authors to ground their arguments they are, Facts, Statistics, Example, Expert Opinion, and A Note on Visual. It can be conclude that the Research Article author published in JOALL have a good argumentative text based on Toulmin’s theory.

Article Details

License

Authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
  4. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Bermani, R. A., Safnil, S., & Arono, A. (2017). An Analysis of Argument Structure of Research Article of English Postgraduate Program of Bengkulu University Published In Journal. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 2(2), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v2i2.5954
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Adnan, Zifirdaus. 2009. Some potential problems for research articles written by Indonesian academics when submitted to international English language journals. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly 11, no. 1: 107–125.
  2. Alfiyatun N. 2015. “Pola dan Kadar Ketajaman Argumen Paragraf Argumentasi Bagian Pembahasan Artikel Jurnal Terakreditasi Bidang Kelautan”. Universitas Brawijaya” Unpublished Thesis. Yogyakarta: PBSI, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
  3. Badvekar, S.B .2015. Writing the Discussion Section: Describing the Significance of the Study Findings. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India. Vol.63
  4. Banik, B.J. 1993. Applying triangulation in nursing research. Applied Nursing Research, 6(1), 47-52.
  5. Branson, R.D. 2004. Anatomy of a Research Paper. Respiratory Care, 49 (10), 1222-1228
  6. Berland, L.K & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49 (1) : 68-94.
  7. Booth Wayne. C, Colomb G. Gregory, Williams Joseph. M. 2003. The Craft of Research second edition. Chicago & London. University Of Chicago Press
  8. Boyd, C.O. 2000. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. In P.L. Munhall & C.O. Boyd (Eds.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (2nd ed., 454-475). Boston: Jones & Bartlett
  9. Cohen, Robin. 1987. Analyzing the structure of argumentative discourse. Computational Linguistics, 13(1-2):11–24.
  10. Darlington. Y & Scott, D. 2002. Qualitative Research in practice Stories from the Field. Sydney: Allen & Unwin
  11. Denzin, N.K. 1970. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine.
  12. Douglas Walton, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press
  13. Du Bois, John W.. 2003. Argument structure Grammar in use. University of California, Santa Barbara. John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/ Philadelphia
  14. Fisher, J.P, Jansen, J.A, Jhonson, P.C, Mikos, A.G. 2013. Guidelines for writing a research paper for publication. Mary Ann Liebert Inc. Publishers
  15. Gall, Meredith. D, Joyce. P. Gall, and Walter. R. Borg. 2007. Educational Research. Boston : Pearson Education. Inc.
  16. Gay, L.R. 2009. Educational Research : Competencies for Analysis and Application, New Jersey : Pearson Education.
  17. Govier Trudy. 2010. A Practical Study Of Argument seventh edition. Wadsworth, 10 Davis Drive Belmont, Ca 94002-3098 Usa. Cengage Learning
  18. Henkenmans, A. F. S. 2000 State of the Art : The Structure of Argumentation. Kluwer Academic Publisher.
  19. Huda, Tanzil. 2016. Reflection of Rhetorical Pattern in the Introduction of Academic Research Reports., Prosiding ICTTE UNS. Semarang
  20. Hurley. Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic, Eleventh Edition. Cengage Learning Wadsworth 20 Channel Center Street Boston, MA 02210 USA
  21. Jamaludin Azilawati, Ho Mei Lin Caroline and Chee Yam San. 2007 The impact of structured argumentation and enactive role play on students’ argumentative writing skills. Proceedings ascilite Singapore
  22. Kirschner Christian, Judith Eckle-Kohler, Iryna Gurevych. 2015. Linking the Thoughts : Analysis of Argumentation Structure in Scientific Publications. Proceeding of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Association for Computational Linguistics Pages 1-11
  23. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  24. Mc Hugh, M. 2012. Interater Reliability: The Kappa Statistic. Biochemia Medica 2012 : 22(3):276-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.037.
  25. Mirahayuni, N. K. 2002. Investigating Generic Structure of English Research Article: Writing Strategy Differences between English and Indonesian Writers. TEFLIN
  26. Mitchell, E.S. (1986). Multiple triangulation: A methodology for nursing science. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 18-26.
  27. Moleong, J. Lexy. 2006. Metodology Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung : Remaja Rosdakarya.
  28. Pandey, Anshul Vikram; Manivannan, Anjali; Nov, Oded; Satterthwaite, Margaret L.; and Bertini, Enrico, “The Persuasive Power of Data Visualization” 2014. Newyork University Public and Law and Legal Theory Working Papers. Paper 474.
  29. Parkinson, Jean. 2011. The Discussion Section as Argument: the Language used to prove knowledge claim. English for Specific Purposes. 30 (3), 164-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.02.001
  30. Rakhmawati, A. 2014. English Research Article Written by Indonesian Academics; Coping with common Practices and Rhetorical Diversity.
  31. Reza, Pishghadam & Attaran, Atena. 2013. Rhetorical patterns of argumentation in EFL journals of Persian and English. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning. ISSN: 2243-7754. Online ISSN: 2243-7762. DOI: 10.5861/ijrsll.2012.132
  32. Rotenberg, A. 2011.Elements of Arguments: A Text and Reader.New York: St. Martin Press, Inc.
  33. Rusfandi, R. 2015. Argument-counterargument structure in Indonesian EFL learners’ English argumentative essays: A dialogic concept of writing. RELC Journal 46: 181–197. DOI: 10.1177/0033688215587607
  34. Safnil. 2000. Genre Structure Analysis of the Indonesian Research Article, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Australian National University, Canberra Australia.
  35. . 2013. A Genre-Based Analysis on Discussion Section of Research Articles in Indonesian Written by Indonesian Speakers. International Journal of Linguistic. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i4.3773
  36. . Dian, Eka C.W. 2014. Introduction in Indonesian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Articles: How Indonesian Writers Justify Their Research Projects. Journal Lingusitik Indonesia. Vol 32. 146-163
  37. . 2015. Buku Pengantar Analisis Retorika. FKIP UNIB Press
  38. Sondang R. Manurung, Nuryani Y. Rustaman, and Nelson Siregar. 2013. A scheme of pedagogical problems solving in kinematic to observe toulmin argumentation feasibility. Citation: AIP Conf. Proc. 1555, 94 (2013); doi: 10.1063/1.4821001
  39. Sugiyono. 2007. Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Alfabeta
  40. Stab, Christian. Gurevych, Iryna. 2016. Parsing Argumentation Structures in Persuasive Essays. Association for Computational Linguistics
  41. Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.
  42. Toulmin, S. E. 1958. The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press
  43. Toulmin, S. E., Rieke and A. Janik 1984, An Introduction to Reasoning, 2nd edition. Macmillan, New York.
  44. Toulmin, S. E. 2001. Return to Reason, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
  45. Walton, D. N., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York
  46. D. Walton, 2006 Epistemic and dialectical models of begging the question.Syntheses. (152), 237–284,
  47. Woods, A. 1989. English Tutorial notes. University of NSW
  48. Widodo A, B. Waldrip, D. Herawati. 2016. Students Argumentation in Science Lessons: A Story of Two Research Projects. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia. DOI: 10.15294/jpii.v5i2.5949
  49. Valencia college, Types of evidence in persuasive, viewed on 16 april 2017 https://www.umt.edu/writingcenter/docs/resourcesforwriters/waystosupportanargument.pdf
  50. University of Montana, Three Ways to Support an Argument viewed on 16 april 2017 https://www.umt.edu/writingcenter/docs/resourcesforwriters/waystosupportanargument.pdf