Welcome to Bilingual Publishing Group
Bilingual Publishing Group

Argumentation in Pragmatics (2014–2024): A Linguistic Perspective on Themes and Impact

Authors

  • Munisa Tursunova Email ORCID

    Department of Teaching Theory and Methodology, Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanization Engineers, National Research University, Tashkent 100174, Uzbekistan
  • Nodira Kushiyeva ORCID

    Department of Functional Lexicon of English language, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Tashkent 100138, Uzbekistan
  • Dildora Usarova ORCID

    Department of Foreign Languages, Tashkent State University of Law, Tashkent 100047, Uzbekistan
  • Dilfuza Tursunova ORCID

    English Language Department, Kimyo International University, Tashkent 100121, Uzbekistan

    Centre for Education and Sustainable Development Strategies, INTI International University, Nilai 71800, Malaysia
  • Kurbonova Gulsara ORCID

    Department of French Philology, National University of Uzbekistan named after Mirzo Ulugbek, Tashkent 100174, Uzbekistan
  • Oybek Axmedov ORCID

    Department of English Teaching Methodology 2, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Tashkent 100170, Uzbekistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i11.11327
Received: 28 July 2025 | Revised: 15 August 2025 | Accepted: 26 August 2025 | Published Online: 20 October 2025

Abstract

The evaluation of research is of considerable importance in identifying the evolution and the potential direction of subsequent research. We conducted a bibliometric analysis of 262 studies published between 2014 and 2024, accessed through the Web of Science database. A visual representation of our performance analysis was generated using the VOS viewer program, and a scientific map was developed to illustrate the relationships between the bibliometric data elements. This study examined research trends in argumentation in pragmatics, focusing on the leading journals, keywords, and highly cited publications. The study aimed to provide a consolidated understanding of existing pedagogical research on teaching argumentation, including publications that have shaped the field. In particular, the study would draw attention to the key contributors and most significant identified works to influence future research and add to the development of effective pedagogical approaches to argumentation literacy. These findings would make a valuable contribution to educators and researchers interested in research studies and help advance the specialized knowledge of language instruction, and become more inclusive with research to contribute to advancing knowledge. It remains important for educators and researchers to try to disseminate the findings from their research and reach out to colleagues from across institutions and countries to ensure that their findings reach a larger audience. The bibliometric review has provided two pedagogical categories that are most effective in teaching argumentation: task-based argumentation pedagogy and AI technology-enhanced teaching. The review introduces the TAP-5 taxonomy of methodological strands and PACER, a five-stage integrative cycle, as its theoretical contribution to facilitating the organization and further development of research on teaching argumentation in pragmatics. These findings would add value and conclusions for educators and researchers interested in exploring the teaching of argumentation in other parts of the world.

Keywords:

Bibliometric Analysis, Pragmatics, Pragmatic Competence, Argumentation, Discourse Analysis, English as a Foreign Language (EFL)

References

[1] Cummings, L., 2013. Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, 1st ed. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. p. 138

[2] Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., 1973. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, 1st ed. University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame, IN, USA. p. 576. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvpj74xx

[3] Macagno, F.; Walton, D., 2014. Emotive Language in Argumentation, 1st ed. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA. pp. 301.

[4] Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., 2013. What Is Meant by Argumentative Competence? An Integrative Review of Methods of Analysis and Assessment in Education. Review of Educational Research. 83(4), 483–520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313487606

[5] Fairclough, N., 2014. Language and Power, 3rd ed. Routledge: London, UK. p. 274.

[6] Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C., 2017. bibliometrix : An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics. 11(4), 959–975. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

[7] Elmuratova, A., Sabirova, G., Alautdinova, K., et al., 2025. Increased Popularity of AI and Digital Technologies in ESP: A Bibliometric Review. Forum for Linguistic Studies. 7(6). DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i6.9715

[8] Mardieva, D., Bakieva, G., Mardiev, R., et al., 2025. Bibliometric Analysis of Research on L2 Speaking Skills for the Period of 2020–2024. Forum for Linguistic Studies. 7(7). DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i7.10284

[9] Turdibekova, D., Ruzmetova, M., Kanayev, B., et al., 2025. A Systematic Review Analysis of Papers from the Web of Science Database Published in English between 2019 and 2023. Forum for Linguistic Studies. 7(6). DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i6.9808

[10]Mardieva, D., Bakiyeva, G., Kannazarova, Z., et al., 2024. A Bibliometric Review: Interventions for Enhancing Speaking Skills in non-English-Speaking Contexts. XLinguae. 17(4), 195–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18355/XL.2024.17.04.12

[11] Goyibova, N., Muslimov, N., Sabirova, G.,et al., 2025. Differentiation approach in education: Tailoring instruction for diverse learner needs. MethodsX. 14,103163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2025.103163

[12] Mazzi, D., 2014. “Our reading would lead to…”: Corpus perspectives on pragmatic argumentation in US Supreme Court judgments. Journal of Argumentation in Context. 3(2), 103–125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.3.2.01maz

[13] Garcés Gómez, M.P., 2020. Constructions with Communication Verbs: Pragmatic and Discursive Values. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación. 83, 65–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5209/clac.70564 (in Spanish)

[14] Breveníková, D., 2016. Semantic analysis and pragmatic aspects of US presidential campaign speeches: Donald Trump’s speech on foreign policy. pp. 285–292. Available from: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000392451400024 (cited 27 July 2025).

[15] Garssen, B., 2016. Problem-Solving Argumentative Patterns in Plenary Debates of the European Parliament. Argumentation. 30(1), 25–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9378-y

[16] Santos, L., Silva, A.M., Teofilo, N.P., 2024. Luka: a digital game using argumentation to promote non-polarized discourse in Brazilian elementary school students. Praxis & Saber. 15(41), 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.22160159.v15.n41.2024.17050 (in Spanish)

[17] Hautli-Janisz, A., Budzynska, K., McKillop, C., et al., 2022. Questions in argumentative dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics. 188, 56–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.029

[18] Andone, C., 2015. Pragmatic argumentation in European practices of political accountability. Argumentation. 29(1), 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9334-2

[19] Urbaniak, E., 2024. The act of disagreement in colloquial Spanish. Verba: Anuario Galego de Filoloxía. 51,1–25.DOI: https://doi.org/10.15304/verba.51.8644 (in Spanish)

[20] Oswald, S., Greco, S., Miecznikowski, J., et al., 2020. Argumentation and meaning. Journal of Argumentation in Context. 9(1), 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00005.osw

[21] Rapanta, C., Macagno, F., 2022. Pragmatics, education and argumentation: Introduction to the special issue. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 36, 100371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100371

[22] Matuszkiewicz, K., 2018. Self-Reference in Philosophical Argumentation from the Perspective of Pragmatics. Filozofia Nauki. 26(3),5–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14394/filnau.2018.0015

[23] Korat, O., 2018. Comparing Comparatives: The Argumentative Force of Comparative Quantifiers. Corpus Pragmatics. 2(4), 399–423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-018-0042-2

[24] Rapanta, C., Macagno, F., 2023. Authentic questions as prompts for productive and constructive sequences: A pragmatic approach to classroom dialogue and argumentation. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal. 11(3), A65–A87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2023.546

[25] Ivlev, Y., 2015. The role of questions in argumentation. Wisdom. 4(1),26-33. Available from: https://wisdomperiodical.com/index.php/wisdom/article/view/112 (cited 27 July 2025).

[26] Al-Aadili, N., Shardaghly, T., 2023. A pragmatic manifestation of monologic and dialogic argumentation in the Holy Qur’an. Eurasian J Appl Linguist. 9(3),1–9. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1414604.pdf (cited 27 July 2025).

[27] Krivobokova, G., 2015. The Addressee as a Cognitive and Pragmatic Rationale of Argumentation in English Advertising Discourse. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija 2. Jazykoznanije. 14(2), 80–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2015.2.11

[28] Wagemans, J.H.M., 2016. Argumentative Patterns for Justifying Scientific Explanations. Argumentation. 30(1), 97–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9374-2

[29] Tseronis, A., Pollaroli, C., 2018. Introduction: Pragmatic insights for multimodal argumentation. International Review of Pragmatics. 10(2), 147–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01002001

[30] Bigi, S., Grata, G., Mosconi, P., 2024. Arguments and framing strategies in Italian public discourse about measures to contrast the Covid-19 pandemic. In: Degano, C., Renna, D., Santulli, F. (Eds.). Argumentation in Context.Springer: Cham, Switzerland. pp. 71–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.22.03big

[31] Kertész, A., 2016. Poor vs. Good Thought Experiments in Pragmatics: A Case Study. In: Allan, K., Capone, A., Kecskes, I. (Eds.). Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland. pp. 643–677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_33

[32] Wagemans, J.H.M., 2023. How to identify an argument type? On the hermeneutics of persuasive discourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 203, 117–129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.11.015

[33] Hanan, G., Ebedy., 2021. Online Debating as a Pedagogy for Enhancing Argumentative Writing and Reducing Writing Apprehension among EFL Majors.Journal of Scientific Research in Education. 22(6), 589–612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/jsre.2021.74636.1309

[34] Ryan-Atkin, H., 2015. The use of an on-line discussion forum to support collaborative studying practices and argumentation amongst trainee teachers.Teacher Education Advancement Network Journal. 7(1), 25–37. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365362084_The_use_of_an_on-line_discussion_forum_to_support_collaborative_studying_practices_and_argumentation_amongst_trainee_teachers (cited 27 July 2025).

[35] Wood, J., 2022. Making peer feedback work: the contribution of technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback to feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 47(3), 327–346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544

[36] Subrahmanyam Vellanki, S., Bandu, S., 2021. Engaging Students Online with Technology-Mediated Task-Based Language Teaching. Arab World English Journal. 12(1), 107–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/covid.8

[37] Zarefsky, D.H., 2020. Review of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Informal Logic. 40(1), 139–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i1.6159

[38] Goodwin, J., Innocenti, B., 2019. The Pragmatic Force of Making an Argument. Topoi. 38(4), 669–680. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09643-8

[39] Oswald, S., 2023. Pragmatics for argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics. 203, 144–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.001

[40]Hinton, M., 2023. Pragmatics in argumentation research. Journal of Pragmatics. 212, 89–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.05.016

[41] Popa, E.O., 2024. Convincing in Pragma-Dialectics: A Critical Reassessment. Topoi. 43(4), 1295–1307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-024-10082-3

[42] Koszowy, M., Araszkiewicz, M., 2014. The Lvov-Warsaw School as a Source of Inspiration for Argumentation Theory. Argumentation. 28(3), 283–300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9321-7

[43] Lombardi Vallauri, E., 2022. Implicit strategies aimed at persuading the audience in public debates. Intercultural Pragmatics. 19(3), 299–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2022-3002

[44] Drid, T., 2016. A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentative Discourse. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 19(4), 20–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5782/2223-2621.2016.19.4.20

[45] Moeschler, J., 2016. Argumentation and Connectives: How Do Discourse Connectives Constrain Argumentation and Utterance Interpretations? In: Capone, A., Mey, J.L. (Eds.). Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland. pp. 653–675. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_26

[46] López, J., 2014. Interrogation as a persuasive strategy in editorials. Revista de Filología de la Universidad de La Laguna. University of La Laguna Press: Tenerife, Spain. pp. 181–195. Available from: https://portalciencia.ull.es/documentos/5ea21c0e2999521f7d522daf (cited 27 July 2025). (in Spanish)

Downloads

Issue

2025 Vol.7 No.11

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Munisa Tursunova, Nodira Kushiyeva, Dildora Usarova, Dilfuza Tursunova, Kurbonova Gulsara, Oybek Axmedov

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.