The theory of argument that informs discussion of argumentative invention in this course is drawn from Stephen Toulmin's The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1958). Toulmin's theory was designed, among other things, to analyze the practical arguments of everyday life. That makes it an especially appropriate theory for analyzing the rhetorical arguments you will encounter in this course. Toulmin's theory based on a layout of argument elements (as depicted below). The basic elements may be defined roughly as follows:
Claim--A statement or proposition that the arguer wants the audience to accept. Data--The statements or reasons put forward by the arguer to get the audience to accept the claim. Warrant--When the arguer relates the data to the claim, a relationship between the two is asserted or assumend. The warrant is an inference rule that "authorizes" this relationship. (Warrants are best thought of as conditional statements in "if, then" form.
Backing--The principles of the field at stake in the argument from which the warrant is abstracted or drawn.
In Toulmin's view, every acceptable argument may be layed out using these elements. However, arguments in actual discourses infrequently express their warrants and backing in words. These elements are usually suppressed by arguers.
Sometimes, the arguments that arguers offer employ warrants that are subject to exceptions. That is, despite the general addeptability of the inferences authorized by the rule, there are special circumstances in which applying the rule will lead to an unacceptable conclusion. In such cases we say there are reservations to the warrant. When there are reservations to the warrant, the arguer may meet them by showing that the case under consideration is not exceptional or by reducing the rigor of the claim proposed (when the argument is unacceptable, neither of these strategies will work). Speakers reduce the rigor of their claims with qualifiers.
Everyday arguments are sometimes quite complex. The following example illustrates a fairly simple argument on behalf of the U.S. citizenship of a person named Smith. Note that two levels of data are offered in support of the main claim (when the data for the main claim are questionable, they become subordinate claims and need their own data). Note too that possible rebuttals to warrants have been met directly with supplementary arguments. Instead of producing these supplementary arguments, the arguer might have qualified the main and subordinate claims of the argument ("almost certainly" would appear to work in both cases).
As Toulmin envisioned his layout of argument, it was a tool for hearers to use in deciding
whether to accept arguers' claims. This conception is certainly consistent with
application of the layout as a means of analyzing and evaluating strategic discourse. The layout may
also be used as an instrument for performing and evaluating intellection, namely, that aspect of
rhetorical invention wherein the arguer considers what sorts of arguments might be appropriate to the
given circumstances. The fact is that different kinds of speech activities call for different argument
elements. The utility of Toulmin's layout for performing and evaluating intellection becomes obvious
which paradigmatic cases of argument are represented in the layout. Let me illustrate this point with
the following forensic and deliberative argument paradigms.
Toulmin's Layout of Argument
Data------------------------------------[Qualifier,] Claim
("Because, . . .") |
|["Unless,"] Reservations
|--------------------------
|
Warrant
("If _____, then _____.")
|
|
|
Backing
(Principles of Field)
A Simple Example
Smith's birth certificate lists -------------Smith was born in IA,----------------------Smith is a U.S. citizen.
Iowa as birthplace. | | a state of the U.S. |
| | |
Hospital records register-------| |Unless, Smith's documents are forged: |Unless Smith is a naturalized citizen
Smith's birth in Ames, IA. |But they are not forged; they have |elsewhere: But Smith is not a naturalized
|official seals. |citizen elsewhere; she has a regular U.S.
| |passport.
If official records support a person's claim to birthplace, |
then the claim to birthplace is acceptable. |
| |
| |
Principles of Offial Authentication |
|
If any body is born is a state of U.S., he or she is a U.S. Citizen.
|
|
|
Principles of Citizenship in U.S. Constitution.
Toulmin's Layout and Intellection
Paradigm for Accusation
The accused has intentionally-----|--------The accused has committed a
performed a behavior | | wrongful act.
| |
The behavior was harmful or-------| |[Unless the accused had license
forbidden. |to perform the behavior.]
|
|[Unless the accused was not
|responsible for the action.]
|
|
If anyone intentionally performs a harmful or forbidden behavior,
then he or she has committed a wrongful act.
|
|
Principles of Public Morality or Law
Paradigm for Deliberative Proposal
There exists a significant----|------------The jurisdiction should
problem or lack of benefit | | adopt Plan X as its policy.
inherent in the status quo. | |
| |[Unless Plan X is not feasible.]
Plan X will solve the problem-| |
or secure the benefit. |[Unless Plan X creates more
|problems than it solves.]
|
|[Unless Plan X is not the most
|effective means of solving the
|problem or securing the benefit.]
|
|
If a plan solves a significant problem or lack of benefit inherent
in the status quo, the jurisdiction should adopt the plan.
|
|
Principles of Political Science