Toulmin's (1958) model of argumentation and Abdi et al.'s (2010) model of metadiscourse, mapped onto Grice's (1975) Cooperative Principle, are both attempts to elaborate on the process and contribute to the goal of obtaining persuasion. This study is an attempt to integrate the use of metadiscursive and argument strategies to provide a common logical rationale for their employment. Through a qualitative investigation of 40 ELT research articles (RAs), we propose a convergent framework for employing CP-based metadiscourse and argumentation model in RA arguments. As a result, endophoric markers were identified to be used as warrants to meet quantity, while transitions, frame markers, and code glosses were found to be employed as conclusions and data to fulfill manner. Furthermore, evidentials were found to be employed in conclusion, backing, and warrant; hedges were seen to be used as qualifiers; and finally, disclaimers were recognized to be employed in rebuttals; to meet quality. The findings reveal that argumentations are built metadiscursively which has implications for writers and educators. For writers, it could help to develop a deeper understanding of the positive role of metadiscursive strategies in RA arguments and as such could guide a more efficient employment of it to facilitate persuasion. For educators, the findings could provide a model for building and ensuring basic logical and rhetorical characteristics of an argument in academic writing.
