English 505
Rhetorical Theory
Session Twelve Notes
Goals/Objectives:
1) To begin to understand the Argumentation theories of Stephen Toulmin
2) To begin to understand the differences between Substantial and Analytic Arguments
3) To begin to understand Toulmin’s notion of Rational Assessment
4) To begin to understand the basic elements of Toulmin’s Model
Questions/Main Ideas (Please
write these down as you think
of them)
Argumentation Continued
Two influential theorists interested in argumentation
Stephen Toulmin – English
Chaim Perelman – Belgian
Provided new ways to think about argumentation
Argumentation Continued
First, both split with the traditional study of logic
Both sought to study and understand argumentation as it actually occurs instead of as it
should occur
Argumentation Continued
At the heart of Toulmin’s (1969) theory of argumentation is what he sees as a divergence
between “the practical business of argumentation” and “the corresponding analyses of
them set out in books on formal logic”
Argumentation Continued
Perelman adds, “As a consequence, it is necessary that we clearly distinguish analytical
forms from dialectical reasoning, the former dealing with truth and the latter with
justifiable opinion”
Argumentation Continued
Although logic may appropriately deal with deciding questions of truth based on systematic
reasoning, modern argumentation theorists believe that the task of creating and evaluating
statements that can be considered reasonable for a particular audience should fall to
rhetoric
Argumentation Continued
Second, both emphasized the linguistic nature of argumentation, an approach that is
directly related to their practical focus
Because arguers use words and because words have ambiguous meanings . . .
Argumentation Continued
. . . we must include the words arguers use in any kind of study or description of
argumentation
Third, both focused on audience response to arguments
Argumentation Continued
In doing so, they paved the way for rhetorical theorists to use their theories to learn about
rhetoric
Stephen Toulmin
Born in London in 1922
BA in mathematics and physics from King’s College in 1942
Junior scientific officer doing technical intelligence during WW II
Earned an MA in 1947
Toulmin
PhD in 1948 from Cambridge
One of his professors was Ludwig Wittgenstein
He died in December 2009
Toulmin’s classification of arguments provides a way of diagramming and critiquing
arguments
Toulmin
The foundation of Toulmin’s contribution is the classification of two types of argument:
Substantial vs. Analytic
The former are evaluated according to content
The latter according to form
Toulmin
A substantial argument involves an inferential leap from some data or evidence to the
conclusion of the argument
Toulmin
In contrast, the conclusion of an analytic argument requires no inferential leap because the
conclusion goes no further than the data contained in the argument’s premise
Toulmin
Individuals using analytic arguments base their claims on unchanging and universal
principles
Those who use substantial arguments ground their claims in the context of a particular
situation rather than in abstract, universal principles
Toulmin
Elsewhere (in a book with Albert R. Jonsen) Toulmin describes a similar distinction
between theoretical and practical arguments
Theoretical = analytical
Practical = substantial
Toulmin
The distinction between these two types of arguments lies at the base of “two very different
accounts of ethics and morality: one that seeks eternal, invariable principles, the practical
application of which can be free of exception or qualifications . . .
Toulmin
. . . and another that pays closest attention to the specific details of particular moral cases
and circumstances”
Thus, a theoretical or analytical argument is based on unchanging, absolute, and invariant
principles
Toulmin
While a practical or substantial argument is based on probability and attends to the
circumstances of particular cases
Theoretical arguments represent idealized formal logic
Toulmin
Practical arguments represent everyday reasoning
Theoretical or analytic argument is consistent with Plato’s ideal of formal, deductive logic
that leads to absolute truth regardless of context
Toulmin
Practical or substantial argument conforms more closely to the ideas that Aristotle
developed
Practical argument is judged not by its correspondence to deductive form, but by its
substance
Toulmin
It deals with matters of probability rather than universal truths and thus it varies according
to context
Toulmin
Part of Toulmin’s life work was in developing an account of theoretical and practical
argument that emphasizes the poor fit that follows from using theoretical argument in all
commonplace situations
Toulmin
These situations range from how individuals consider and decide upon political issues to
how they deal with personal moral dilemmas to how scientists describe their concepts
Toulmin
Toulmin claims that theoretical argument has been the dominant mode since the end of the
Renaissance, even though it leads to largely “irrelevant claims”
Toulmin
He also claims that too much reliance on theoretical argument has limited the range of
methods for appropriate decision making and has created its own type of tyranny
Toulmin
Toulmin sees his approach as an attempt to emancipate people from the “domination of
theoretical argument”
Toulmin’s thesis is that the doctrine of absolutism dominated Western civilization
throughout the entirety of the modern period (roughly 1650-1950)
Toulmin
Toulmin’s approach to argumentation is rooted in an assumption of the irrelevance of
theoretical argument to the assessment of everyday life
The prototypical example of theoretical argumentation is the syllogism
Toulmin
Through a complex analysis of logic, Toulmin attempts to show that what formal logicians
call premises actually serve different functions
Thus, they cannot be grouped together satisfactorily
Toulmin
The ideal of formal logic assumes that arguments never vary regardless of their subject
matter
For example, formal logic assumes that the standards for judging an argument in the field of
art are the same as those for physics
Toulmin
Formal logicians consider all arguments to be deficient unless they follow the form of
deductive logic
But, because all fields of human activity are not based on assumptions identical to those of
mathematics or geometry . . .
Toulmin
. . . logical arguments are largely irrelevant to the practical world of rationality
Because they derive from mathematical fields, theoretical arguments are highly impersonal
Toulmin
For example, the person “doing” logic is no more important to formal logic than the person
“doing” mathematics is to the formula for determining the circumference of a circle
Toulmin
In contrast, the person engaging in argument is extremely important in rational assessment
in the practical world
Toulmin states that rational procedures “do not exist in the air, apart from actual reasoners:
Toulmin
Toulmin claims that theoretical or analytical arguments are not relevant to the world of
practical affairs for a number of reasons
One reason is that practical concerns are rarely – if ever – governed by a single overriding
principle
Toulmin
A vast number of situations individuals face on a day-to-day basis are too complex to yield
to a single universal principle
The problems of everyday life are not simple because they vary according to the details of
the situation
Toulmin
An example:
“If I go next door and borrow a silver soup tureen, it goes without saying that I am
expected to return it as soon as my immediate need for it is over”
What is the universal principle?
Toulmin
“If, however, it is a pistol that I borrow and if, while it is in my possession, the owner
becomes violently enraged and threatens to kill one of his neighbors as soon as he gets his
pistol back, I shall find myself in a genuinely problematic situation
Toulmin
I cannot escape from it by lamely invoking the general maxim that borrowed property
ought to be returned promptly”
In the first example, the principle of returning borrowed goods can be applied without
problem
Toulmin
The second situation is more problematic because the principle of requiring the return of
borrowed items conflicts with a duty not to harm another person
Toulmin
An analytic argument will not solve this problem because no single, absolute principle
exists that does not come into conflict with another equally important principle
Toulmin
Another reason that Toulmin considers formal logic to be largely irrelevant to practical
argument is that formal logic assumes that concepts do not change over time
For an argument to be valid in formal logic, “it must surely be good once and for all”
Toulmin
Toulmin believes, however, that most argument fields cannot accommodate timeless claims
to knowledge
Another difficulty is that answers to many everyday problems are either “probably
correct” or “probably incorrect”
Toulmin
Rather than “absolutely correct” or “absolutely incorrect”
Many of the questions that rational procedures are designed to answer cannot be answered
with certainty
Did Nixon lie when he said:
“I am not a crook”
Toulmin
Did Clinton lie when he said:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman – Ms. Lewinsky.”
The answers are probably – but not certainly – yes.
Toulmin
Reliance on absolute standards of judgment can lead to argumentative deadlock
He uses the abortion debate as an example
In some cases, the importance of absolute moral standards leads to a “tyranny of
principles”
Toulmin
One group uses its supposed absolute principle in order to impose those principles
tyrannically on all other groups and individuals
One alternative to theoretical argument is relativism
Toulmin
According to Toulmin, this has become extremely popular in recent decades
Relativism denies the existence of objective standards to evaluate concepts
The only relevant standards are ones shared by groups or comm.
Toulmin
And standards vary across these communities
The choice then is seen as limited either to a completely absolutist or a completely
relativistic position – both of which Toulmin sees as untenable and unnecessary
Toulmin
He argues that absolute standards are so strict that they are irrelevant to the practice of
rational criticism
But he objects to relativistic standards because they are so imprecise that they constitute no
standards at all
Toulmin
In other words, they can’t distinguish between a good and a poor argument
Thus, Toulmin attempts to develop the notion that practical argument can and should be
emancipated from “the hegemony of theoretical argument”
Toulmin
To free argumentation from the extremes of absolutism without falling into the abyss of
relativism
This is where Toulmin’s model comes in
Toulmin
An argument is sound if it is able to survive the criticism offered by those who participate in
the rational enterprise of various fields
Toulmin’s model uses the notions field-dependent and field-invariant standards
Toulmin
One of the ways in which arguments do not vary from field to field is that they may be
analyzed according to his layout of argument
His classification of arguments provides a way of diagramming and critiquing arguments
Toulmin
Toulmin’s model helps us to visualize how arguments are created and used
It also helps us to critique arguments, because it allows us to see if parts are missing or are
unsubstantiated
Toulmin
One example that Toulmin uses to illustrate his layout concerns a man named Harry and a
claim that Harry is a British citizen
This example helps to explain the basic parts of Toulmin’s model
Toulmin
Warrant: A man born in Bermuda is a British citizen
Data (also called “grounds”): Harry was born in Bermuda
Claim: Harry is a British citizen
Toulmin
Basic Elements
A claim is the “conclusion whose merits we are seeking to establish”
Brockriede and Ehninger: “The claim is the explicit appeal produced by the argument, and
is always of a potentially controversial nature
Toulmin
Data or Grounds are the “facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim”
Data may report historical or contemporary events
May take the form of a statistical compilation
Toulmin
Or of citations from an authority
Or they may consist of one or more general declarative sentences established by a prior
proof
You might think of data as the evidence used to support a claim
Toulmin
Brockriede and Ehninger: “Data and claim taken together represent the specific contention
advanced by an argument, and therefore constitute what may be regarded as its main proof
line”
Toulmin
The claim contains or implies the word “therefore,” according to Toulmin
The warrant: an arguer needs to explain how he or she moved from the data to the claim
Toulmin
Toulmin explains: “Our task is no longer to strengthen the ground on which our argument is
constructed, but is rather to show that, taking these data as a starting point, the step to the
original claim or conclusion is an appropriate and legitimate one”
Toulmin
Thus, we use a warrant, which functions as a bridge to “authorize the sort of step to which
our particular argument commits us,” providing a rationale or justification for the claim
Notice that Toulmin’s original model could easily be transformed into a formal syllogism
Toulmin
Major Premise: A man born in Bermuda is a British citizen
Minor Premise: Harry was born in Bermuda
Conclusion: Harry is a British citizen
Toulmin
Thus, alone, these three primary elements fail to distinguish analytic from practical
arguments
Because he was interested in how people argue, as opposed to more formal logic, he
included additional elements into his model
Toulmin
A Qualifier is a statement that we make about the strength of the argument
Toulmin explains that it is used “to register the degree of force which the maker believes
his claim to possess”
Toulmin
A Rebuttal expresses some kind of exception that would negate the argument being made
Toulmin’s analogy: “The rebuttal performs the function of a safety valve, or escape hatch,
Toulmin
and is, as a rule, appended to the claim statement”
The rebuttal “recognizes certain conditions under which the claim will not hold good or will
hold good only in a qualified and restricted way”
Toulmin
Backing consists of “credentials designed to certify the assumptions expressed in the
warrant”
The backing is the reason the warrant is valid
Toulmin
The backing is often a scientific study or law or some other form of proof for the warrant
The backing should not be confused with the data, which is the initial observation or
support for the claim
Toulmin
Toulmin explains that “Backing must be introduced when readers or listeners are not
willing to accept a warrant at its face”
Let’s practice
Toulmin
Toulmin’s model also helps us to diagram and make sense of Aristotle’s artistic proofs:
ethos, pathos, logos
It gives us a methodology to chart these types of arguments
Toulmin
What Aristotle referred to as logos, Toulmin calls “substantive arguments”
Toulmin
A substantive argument contains a warrant that reflects an assumption concerning the way
in which things are related in the world about us
The warrant in the wellness center scenario is an example
Toulmin
What Aristotle calls ethos, Toulmin calls “authoritative arguments”
In an authoritative argument, the data consists of testimony from some person
Toulmin
The warrant affirms the reliability of the source from which these are derived
Data: The university president stated, “Our school should build a student wellness center”
Toulmin
Warrant: The president of the school is thought to be knowledgeable about the school’s
needs, so his or her words should be seen as credible
Toulmin
Claim: Our school should build a student wellness center
The statement has added credibility, given the warrant
Toulmin
What Aristotle calls pathos, Toulmin calls “motivational arguments”
A motivational argument is very similar to an authoritative argument
Toulmin
However, the warrant in this case provides a motive for accepting the claim by associating
it with some inner drive, value, desire, emotion, or aspiration, or with a combination of
such forces
Toulmin
In other words, data are offered that refer to some value, need or emotion humans
experience
The warrant affirms the presence of this value, need or emotion, and supports the claim that
the data should be accepted on their appeal to a genuine human need or value
Toulmin
Data: Onstar is a feature in some cars that provides emergency assistance to its customers
Warrant: People have a need to feel safe and secure
Claim: Purchasing a car with Onstar is a good idea
Summary/Minute Paper: