اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 349 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,876 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,280,609 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,414,997 |
Unveiling the Argumentative Nature of Meta-Analysis in Applied Linguistics: An Argument Mining Approach | ||
| Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 10، شماره 4، دی 2023، صفحه 135-162 اصل مقاله (1.16 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: research paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jmrels.2023.18873.2222 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Arsalan Yaghoobi1؛ Mohammad Amini Farsani* 2؛ Behrouz Minaei-Bidgoli3؛ Ali Asghar Taghizadeh4 | ||
| 1MS student of Computational Linguistics at Brandeis University, USA | ||
| 2Department of Foreign Languages, Iran University of Science and Technology | ||
| 3School of Computer Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology | ||
| 4School of Computer Sciences at Iran University of Science and Technology | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 10 خرداد 1402، تاریخ بازنگری: 25 تیر 1402، تاریخ پذیرش: 15 مرداد 1402 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Despite paradigmatic research advancements and movements in applied linguistics, the issue of rhetoric, which serves as one of the fundamental pillars of each paradigm, remains largely unaccounted for. Considering the commensurability of argumentation and meta-analysis, coupled with the increasing rate of meta-analytic studies in the field of applied linguistics, there arises a need to examine the argumentation behavior of applied linguistics’ meta-analysts. As such, following research synthesis techniques and an argument mining approach, we examined the academic argumentation genre of meta-analysis published in leading applied linguistics journals through argument-mining techniques in light of the modified Toulmin framework proposed by Qin and Karabacak (2010). The current study, employing the modified Toulmin framework, examined the argumentative writing components represented in the introduction section of 54 meta-analytic studies published in leading journals of applied linguistics through argument-mining techniques. Our findings highlight the complexity and argumentativeness of the meta-analysis genre. We further found that the Modified Toulmin Model is implementable for the task of argument mining, which can have a great impact on argumentation, meta-analysis, and argumentative academic writing. Implications and recommendations for academic argumentative writers and meta-analyzers are discussed. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Academic argument؛ argument-mining؛ meta-analysis؛ Applied linguistics | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| بررسی نگارش استدلالی در مقاله های متا آنالیزی در رشته زبان شناسی کاربردی براساس رویکرد برهان کاوی | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| با وجود پیشرفت‌ها و حرکت‌های پژوهشی پارادایماتیک در زبان‌شناسی کاربردی، چیزی که تقریباً صورت نگرفته است، موضوع بلاغت به‌عنوان یکی از ارکان اساسی هر پارادایم است. با توجه به قیاس پذیری استدلال و فراتحلیل و با توجه به افزایش نرخ مطالعات فرا تحلیلی در حوزه زبان شناسی کاربردی، به نظر می رسد بررسی رفتار استدلالی فراتحلیلان زبان شناسی کاربردی ضروری باشد. به این ترتیب، با استفاده از تکنیک‌های سنتز تحقیق و رویکرد استدلال کاوی، نوبسیندگان ژانر استدلال آکادمیک متاآنالیز منتشر شده در مجلات زبان‌شناسی کاربردی پیشرو را از طریق تکنیک‌های استدلال کاوی در پرتو چارچوب اصلاح‌شده تولمین پیشنهاد شده توسط Qin و Karabacak (2010) بررسی کردیم. مطالعه حاضر، با استفاده از چارچوب اصلاح‌شده تولمین، مؤلفه‌های نوشتاری استدلالی ارائه‌شده در بخش مقدمه 54 مطالعه فرا تحلیلی منتشر شده در مجلات پیشرو زبان‌شناسی کاربردی را از طریق تکنیک‌های استدلال کاوی بررسی کرد. یافته های ما پیچیدگی و استدلالی بودن ژانر متاآنالیز را برجسته می کند. ما همچنین دریافتیم که مدل اصلاح‌شده تولمین برای کار استدلال کاوی قابل اجرا است که می‌تواند تأثیر زیادی بر استدلال، متاآنالیز و نوشتن آکادمیک استدلالی داشته باشد. مفاهیم و توصیه هایی برای نویسندگان استدلالی دانشگاهی و متاآنالیزورها مورد بحث قرار می گیرد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| استدلال علمی, استدلال کاوی, متا آنالیز, زبان شناسی کاربردی | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdollahzadeh, E., Amini Farsani, M., & Beikmohammadi, M. (2017). Argumentative writing behavior of graduate EFL learners. Argumentation, 31, 641-661.
Amini Farsani, M., & Babaii, E. (2018). Mapping past, current and future TEFL research trends in Iran: a synthetic review of topics and paradigms in three decades. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 5(4), 81-108.
Amini Farsani, M., & Mohammadi, V. (2022). Mixed methods research in an EFL context: A quality assessment perspective. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 9(2), 99-122.
Amini Farsani, M., Abdollahzadeh, E., & Beikmohammadi, M. (2019). Self-regulated learning, metacognitive awareness, and argumentative writing: A structural equation modeling approach. Writing & Pedagogy, 11(2).
Amini Farsani, M., Babaii, E., Beikmohammadi, M., & Babaii Farsani, M. (2022). Mixed-methods research proficiency for applied linguists: a PLS-path modelling approach. Quality & Quantity, 56(5), 3337-3362.
Amini Farsani, M., Jamali, H. R., Beikmohammadi, M., Ghorbani, B. D., & Soleimani, L. (2021). Methodological orientations, academic citations, and scientific collaboration in applied linguistics: What do research synthesis and bibliometrics indicate? System, 100, 102547.
Anani Sarab, M. R., & Amini Farsani, M. (2023). Second-order synthesis of meta-analytic studies in applied linguistics (1998–2021). Quality & Quantity, 1-27.
Ajjour, Y., Chen, W. F., Kiesel, J., Wachsmuth, H., & Stein, B. (2017, September). Unit segmentation of argumentative texts. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining (pp.118-128). Copenhagen.
Aker, A., Sliwa, A., Ma, Y., Lui, R., Borad, N., Ziyaei, S., & Ghobadi, M. (2017, September). What works and what does not: Classifier and feature analysis for argument mining. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining (pp. 91-96).
Al Khatib, K., Wachsmuth, H., Hagen, M., Köhler, J., & Stein, B. (2016, June). Cross-domain mining of argumentative text through distant supervision. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: human language technologies (pp. 1395-1404), Melbourne.
Ball, W. J. (1994). Using Virgil to analyze public policy arguments: A system based on Toulmin’s informal logic. Social Science Computer Review, 12(1), 26-37.
Boulton, A., & Cobb, T. (2017). Corpus use in language learning: A meta‐analysis. Language learning, 67(2), 348-393.
Byrnes, H. (2013). Notes from the editor. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 825-827.
Cocarascu, O. Cabrio, E. Villata, S & Toni, F. (2020). A Dataset independent set of baselines for relation prediction in argument mining. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.04970
Chernodub, A., Oliynyk, O., Heidenreich, P., Bondarenko, A., Hagen, M., Biemann, C., & Panchenko, A. (2019, July). Targer: Neural argument mining at your fingertips. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (pp. 195-200). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Eger, S., Daxenberger, J., & Gurevych, I. (2017). Neural end-to-end learning for computational argumentation mining. In Proceedings of ACL (11-22)
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2010). They say, I say. The moves that matter in Academic Writing. W. W. Norton and Company.
Hoey, M., & Winter, E. O. (1983). On the surface of discourse. Allen & Unwin.
Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta‐analysis. Language learning, 64(1), 160-212.
Lin, J. J., & Lin, H. (2019). Mobile-assisted ESL/EFL vocabulary learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(8), 878-919.
Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2016). An A–Z of Applied linguistics research methods. Macmillan Education UK.
McKinley, J. (2020). Theorizing research methods in the golden age of applied linguistics research in J. McKinley and H. Rose (Eds.): The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (pp. 1-12). Routledge.
Melendez-Torres, G, J. O’Mara-Eves, A. Thomas, J. Brunton, G. Caird, J. Petticrew, M. (2017). Interpretive analysis of 85 systematic reviews suggests that narrative syntheses and meta-analyses are incommensurate in argumentation. Research Synthesis Method, 8(1), 109–118.
Nguyen, H., & Litman, D. (2018, April). Argument mining for improving the automated scoring of persuasive essays. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 32, No. 1). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
Osman, W. H., & Januin, J. (2021). Analyzing ESL persuasive essay writing using Toulmin’s model of argument. Psychology and Educational Journal, 58(1), 1810-1821.
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 655–687.
Plonsky, L. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990-2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform: Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990-2010). Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 450–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12058.x
Plosky, L. (2017). Quantitative research methods. In The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 505-521). Routledge.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2015). Meta-analyzing second language research. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 106-128). Routledge.
Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38(3), 444-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.012
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.
Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2017). Parsing argumentation structures in persuasive essays. Computational Linguistics, 43(3), 619-659.
Stapleton, P., & Wu, Y. A. (2015). Assessing the quality of arguments in students’ persuasive writing: a case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 12-23.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, A.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. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wachsmuth, H., Stede, M., El Baff, R., Al Khatib, K., Skeppstedt, M., & Stein, B. (2018, August). Argumentation synthesis following rhetorical strategies. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 3753-3765). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Warschauer, M., Yim, S., Lee, H., & Zheng, B. (2019). Recent contributions of data mining to language learning research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 93-112. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 181 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 549 |
||