In a doctor-linguist collaboration, a framework of reasoning in clinical contexts is presented. Arguments used for inquiry, justification and persuasion are sketched in diagnosis, counselling, and management settings integral to everyday clinical practice thereby extending the diagnostic function typically associated with clinical reasoning per se. A system of logic, a method of persuasive orientation, and a synthesis of negotiation in dialogue are then elaborated to illustrate the complexity of argument practice in medical culture.

A variety of theoretical and epistemological perspectives on the notion of argument has contributed towards the development of numerous text analysis systems in contemporary argumentation research, making the selection of an analytic model for the description and evaluation of arguments in natural language contexts a complex task for researchers. Not surprisingly, Western scholars have overwhelmingly relied on Anglo- and Euro-centric models of argumentation as normative references of argument structure and quality in a variety of research contexts, disregarding plurality of practice (...) within socio-cultural contexts. I will discuss how the findings of my own research, in which I examine the rhetorical styles of Australian and Japanese students’ academic writing in English, have led me to suggest an approach towards argument analysis that accommodates the variety of rhetorical styles found in my studies of academic writing and contributes towards a useful account of the functions and structures of academic argument in contemporary tertiary texts. (shrink)