It is in the interest of scholarly journals to publish important research and of researchers to publish in important journals. One key to making the case for the importance of research in a scholarly article is to incorporate value arguments. Yet there has been no rhetorical analysis of value arguments in the literature. In the context of rhetorical situation, stasis theory, and Swales’s linguistic analysis of moves in introductions, this article examines value arguments in introductions of science research articles. Employing a corpus of 60 articles from three science journals, the author analyzes value arguments based on Toulmin’s definition of argument and identifies three classes of value arguments and seven functions of these arguments in introductions. This analysis illuminates the rhetorical construction of value in science articles and provides a foundation for the empirical study of value in scholarship.
AnthonyL. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is a standard model?IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 38-46.
2.
BieseckerB. A. (1989). Rethinking the rhetorical situation from within the thematic of différance. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 22, 110-130.
3.
BitzerL. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.
4.
CarterM. (1988). Stasis and kairos: Principles of social construction in classical rhetoric. Rhetoric Review, 7, 97-112.
5.
CharlesM. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27, 492-518.
6.
CharlesM. (2007). Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 203-218.
7.
ConleyJ. P. (2012). Low acceptance rates, commercial publishing, and the future of scholarly communication. Economics Bulletin, 32(4), A37.
8.
DearinR. D. (1976). The fourth Stasis in Greek rhetoric. In BlankenshipJ.StelznerH. G. (Eds.), Rhetoric and communication (pp. 3-16). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
9.
DieterO. A. L. (1950). Stasis. Speech Monographs, 17, 345-369.
10.
Directory of Open Access Research Journals. Retrieved from https://doaj.org
11.
DressenD. (2003). Geologists’ implicit persuasive strategies and the construction of evaluative evidence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 273-290.
12.
EdbauerJ. (2005). Unframing models of public distribution: From rhetorical situation to rhetorical ecologies. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 35, 5-24.
FahnestockJ. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3, 275-296.
15.
FahnestockJ.SecorM. (1983). Ground for argument: Stasis theory and the topoi. In ZarefskyD.SillarsM. O.RhodesJ. (Eds.), Argument in transition: Proceedings of the third Speech Communication Association/American Forensic Association conference on argumentation (pp. 135-146). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
16.
FahnestockJ.SecorM. (1991). The rhetoric of literary criticism. In BazermanC.ParadisJ. (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 77-96). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
17.
FahnestockJ.SecorM. (1988). The stases in scientific and literary argument. Written Communication, 5, 427-443.
18.
FahnestockJ.SecorM. (2004). A rhetoric of argument: Text and reader (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
19.
FecherB.FriesikeS. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In BartlingS.FriesikeS. (Eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the web is changing research, collaboration, and scholarly publishing. Retrieved from www.book.openingscience.org
20.
GoodmanS. N.AltmanD. G.GeorgeS. L. (1998). Statistical reviewing policies of medical journals: Caveat lector. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 13, 753-756.
21.
GrayB.BiberD. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In HylandK.Sancho GuindaC. (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15-83). Gordonsville, VA: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
GreenwoodJ. (2014, April12). Political science journals: Acceptance rates and turnaround time. Retrieved from http://www.reviewmyreview.eu
23.
HultzénL. S. (1966). Status in deliberative analysis. In BryantD. C. (Ed.), The rhetorical idiom: Essays in rhetoric, oratory, language, and drama (pp. 97-123). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
24.
HunstonS. (1989). Evaluation in experimental research articles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
25.
HunstonS. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In GhadessyM. (Ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice (pp. 57-73). London, UK: Pinter.
26.
HunstonS. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In CoulthardM. C. (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 191-218). London, UK: Routledge.
27.
KennedyG. A. (1963). The art of persuasion in Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
KennedyG. A. (1983). Greek rhetoric under Christian emperors. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
MabeM.MulliganA. (2011). What journal authors want: Ten years of results from Elsevier’s author feedback programme. New Review of Information Networking, 16, 71-89. doi:10.1080/13614576.2011.574495
30.
MartinJ. R. (2003). Introduction. Text, 23, 171-181.
31.
MartinJ. R.WhiteP. R. R. (2005). Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
McConnellK. F. (2010). In appreciation of the kind of rhetoric we learn in school: An institutional perspective on the rhetorical situation and on education. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 96, 278-299.
33.
MillerC. R. (1987). Aristotle’s special topics in rhetorical practice and pedagogy. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 17, 61-70.
34.
NadeauR. (1958). Hermogenes on “stock issues” in deliberative speaking. Speech Monographs, 25, 59-66.
35.
NadeauR. (1959). Classical systems of stases in Greek: Hermagoras to Hermogenes. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 2, 51-71.
36.
National Research Council. (2003). Sharing publication-related data and materials: Responsibilities of authorship in the life sciences. Washington, DC: Committee on Responsibilities of Authorship in the Biological Sciences.
SamrajB. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 55-67.
41.
SwalesJ. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
SwalesJ. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
SwalesJ. M.FeakC. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for nonnative speakers of English (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
44.
SwiftC. L. (2007). “I had an abortion”: The rhetorical situation of a Planned Parenthood T-shirt. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 8, 57-63.
45.
ThompsonG.HunstonS. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In HunstonS.ThompsonG. (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1-17). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
46.
ToulminS. (2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
ToulminS.RiekeR.JanikA. (1979). An introduction to reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan.
VatzR. E. (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 6, 154-161.
50.
WareM.MabeM. (2015). The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. The Hague, Netherlands: International Association of Science, Technology, and Medical Publishers. Retrieved from http://stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf
51.
YoungN. S.IoannidisJ. P. A.Al-UbaydliO. (2008). Why current practices may distort science. PLOS Medicine, 5(10), e201. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201
