Toulmin's Model Of Argument
Berg & Wetherell (2003:138) Maykel Verkuyten The structure and content of arguments cannot be separated. The content analysis focus on what specific term is and relate to cultural meanings and specific representation. For instance, the notion of happiness is as the main concern in the arguments. It is analyzed by examining the ideological history into account which raises the question of context. According to Toulmin in Renkema (2004: 203) contends that the most important in arguments is how the arguments are structured, not the form of logic.
It has been explained earlier that argumentation occurs when different people have different viewpoints. Argumentation is a way to gain or alleviate others’ point of views in order to set the seal or …show more content…
impute by composing proposition arrangement which can help someone to decide logically to a decision (Van Eemeren et al, 1996: 5). When people submit their arguments, they put their consideration in the field of reason. Whereas, words are used to argue, to declare or deny. There have been many scholars who have attempted to propose an effective way in breaking arguments up. They are Plato, Perelman, Kuhn, Rogerian and Toulmin. Syllogism, nevertheless, only explain simple arguments not the complex ones. Plato, Perelman, Kuhn, Rogerian and Toulmin had held some research which resulted to theories in argumentation. This argumentation model is a reaction to the models of formal logic. Toulmin contends that the former argumentation model is not applicable in analyzing human thought which is very dynamic (Hart, 1990:138). Moreover, he also asserts that it helps to understand how the minor primes used to prove the major premise (Toulmin, 1986: 94).
Toulmin is the author of the famous argument around 1960 and 1970 besides Perelman who argues the techniques in 'new rhetoric' arguments used by the people for receiving their opinion approvals from others. His theory was developed with the classic reasoning, syllogism. Toulmin explains how argument occurs in the natural process of everyday argument which he wrote in his book entitled ‘The Use of Argument’. Mainly, Toulmin’s argument model is classified into two triads. The first triad consists of claims, ground, warrants. The second triad consists of backings, rebuttals and qualifiers. The first triad is the heart of argument. Common arguments consists of that triad. Nonetheless, claims, ground and warrants are three essential categories in forming a valid argument. Toulmin states that claims are strengthened by either ground or facts (2003: 90). These three most important aspects in Toulmin’s theory are adopted from syllogism, namely major premise, minor premise and conclusion.
Claim
Conclusion
Ground
Minor Premise
Warrant
Major Premise
Nevertheless, Toulmin’s model of argument is not a theoritical argument which is in line with syllogism.
In fact, Toulmin’s model of argument is used as practical arguments which is suitable for analyzing daily argument. When people argue in daily life, it does not only consist of three elements such as major, minor premises and conclusion, but also they can make complex arguments.
2.1.5.1 Claim Claim advocates a change of status quo . It is a change of what we think is true. Moreover, a claim is a statement that you want the other to accept. According to Mullins (2001:361) in Jaffee, a disputable assertion which needs supports or evidence so that it can be accepted and it is referred to one of syllogism premise, the major premise is called claim. The characteristics of claims are controversial, clear, balance, and challenge (Warnick and Inc). It needs to be arguable, not ambigious, confronting with value, belief, or communicant attitude. Fisher, Copy, and Cohen use conclusion indicators to identify claim, for example “so”, “therefore”, “then”, and “consequently”. To review, claim is divided into three: factual claim, value claim,and policy claim (Jaffe, 2002:361). Factual claim argues about what exists, what causes something else, or what the future will bring. Value claim deals with the rightness, the goodness, or the worth of a thing. Finally, policy claim argues over action or proposal for change. The example of claim is if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British
citizen.”
Claims represent conclusions. In an argument, claims may occur more than one time. The claim of an argument is, by Björk and Räisänen (2003; 84), defined as the statement or assertion about an issue that one wishes to convince someone to accept something as being true. However, this thesis deals with data in Indonesian Language. Zahro (2000:18) mentions ‘jadi’, ‘oleh karena itu’, or‘karena itu’, ‘dengan demikian’, ‘simpulannya’ as the conclusion indicators which means also claim indicators.
2.1.5.2 Ground
Ground can contain traditional evidences, additional reasons, arguments and information to support claims . Toulmin asserts that opinions, credible academic works, reports, statistics, quotations, findings, narrative or other forms of ground including sub-arguments can be used to bolster the claim besides facts . Moreover, a question “ what do you have to prove?” or “what is the proof?” evokes answers which can support claims or it is also determined as ground. The evidence provides support and rationale for the claim. Ground needs to be stated explicitly not implicitly. In Indonesian language, the varieties are not as many as those in English. Zahro (2000:20) mentions the premise indicators are ‘sebab’, ‘karena’, ‘alasannya adalah’, ‘buktinya’, ‘faktanya’, ‘berdasarkan data-data berikut ini’ and ‘hal ini didukung oleh’.
2.1.5.3 Warrant Warrant is the heart of the whole argument because it is the reasoning process how ground is really suitable for supporting claim. Simply, warrant is a reasoning link between claim and data. It is the turning point where the correctness of the ground needs to be established. It can also be identified as general statement, inference or assumption that can be accepted to be true . Toulmin (1958:98) describes warrants as “general, hypothetical statements, which can act as bridges and authorise the sort of step to which our particular argument commits us”. Warrants can be defended by appeal to a system of taxonomic classification, to a statue, to statistics from a census, and so forth .
Mentioning the ground behind the claim, however, is not enough. The connection between the claim and the ground, warrants are distinguished from ground which can appear either explicit or implicit, whereas grounds are mentioned explicitly (Toulmin, 2003: 92). They are a necessary component of a good argument; but often there is no need to state them explicitly because they are implied by the context. According to Toulmin, warrants go along with qualifier which seeks to qualify the claim using words such as ‘probably’, ‘necessarily’ to produce different strengths or certainty of conclusion.
Warrants are typically
It has been explained earlier that argumentation occurs when different people have different viewpoints. Argumentation is a way to gain or alleviate others’ point of views in order to set the seal or …show more content…
impute by composing proposition arrangement which can help someone to decide logically to a decision (Van Eemeren et al, 1996: 5). When people submit their arguments, they put their consideration in the field of reason. Whereas, words are used to argue, to declare or deny. There have been many scholars who have attempted to propose an effective way in breaking arguments up. They are Plato, Perelman, Kuhn, Rogerian and Toulmin. Syllogism, nevertheless, only explain simple arguments not the complex ones. Plato, Perelman, Kuhn, Rogerian and Toulmin had held some research which resulted to theories in argumentation. This argumentation model is a reaction to the models of formal logic. Toulmin contends that the former argumentation model is not applicable in analyzing human thought which is very dynamic (Hart, 1990:138). Moreover, he also asserts that it helps to understand how the minor primes used to prove the major premise (Toulmin, 1986: 94).
Toulmin is the author of the famous argument around 1960 and 1970 besides Perelman who argues the techniques in 'new rhetoric' arguments used by the people for receiving their opinion approvals from others. His theory was developed with the classic reasoning, syllogism. Toulmin explains how argument occurs in the natural process of everyday argument which he wrote in his book entitled ‘The Use of Argument’. Mainly, Toulmin’s argument model is classified into two triads. The first triad consists of claims, ground, warrants. The second triad consists of backings, rebuttals and qualifiers. The first triad is the heart of argument. Common arguments consists of that triad. Nonetheless, claims, ground and warrants are three essential categories in forming a valid argument. Toulmin states that claims are strengthened by either ground or facts (2003: 90). These three most important aspects in Toulmin’s theory are adopted from syllogism, namely major premise, minor premise and conclusion.
Claim
Conclusion
Ground
Minor Premise
Warrant
Major Premise
Nevertheless, Toulmin’s model of argument is not a theoritical argument which is in line with syllogism.
In fact, Toulmin’s model of argument is used as practical arguments which is suitable for analyzing daily argument. When people argue in daily life, it does not only consist of three elements such as major, minor premises and conclusion, but also they can make complex arguments.
2.1.5.1 Claim Claim advocates a change of status quo . It is a change of what we think is true. Moreover, a claim is a statement that you want the other to accept. According to Mullins (2001:361) in Jaffee, a disputable assertion which needs supports or evidence so that it can be accepted and it is referred to one of syllogism premise, the major premise is called claim. The characteristics of claims are controversial, clear, balance, and challenge (Warnick and Inc). It needs to be arguable, not ambigious, confronting with value, belief, or communicant attitude. Fisher, Copy, and Cohen use conclusion indicators to identify claim, for example “so”, “therefore”, “then”, and “consequently”. To review, claim is divided into three: factual claim, value claim,and policy claim (Jaffe, 2002:361). Factual claim argues about what exists, what causes something else, or what the future will bring. Value claim deals with the rightness, the goodness, or the worth of a thing. Finally, policy claim argues over action or proposal for change. The example of claim is if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British
citizen.”
Claims represent conclusions. In an argument, claims may occur more than one time. The claim of an argument is, by Björk and Räisänen (2003; 84), defined as the statement or assertion about an issue that one wishes to convince someone to accept something as being true. However, this thesis deals with data in Indonesian Language. Zahro (2000:18) mentions ‘jadi’, ‘oleh karena itu’, or‘karena itu’, ‘dengan demikian’, ‘simpulannya’ as the conclusion indicators which means also claim indicators.
2.1.5.2 Ground
Ground can contain traditional evidences, additional reasons, arguments and information to support claims . Toulmin asserts that opinions, credible academic works, reports, statistics, quotations, findings, narrative or other forms of ground including sub-arguments can be used to bolster the claim besides facts . Moreover, a question “ what do you have to prove?” or “what is the proof?” evokes answers which can support claims or it is also determined as ground. The evidence provides support and rationale for the claim. Ground needs to be stated explicitly not implicitly. In Indonesian language, the varieties are not as many as those in English. Zahro (2000:20) mentions the premise indicators are ‘sebab’, ‘karena’, ‘alasannya adalah’, ‘buktinya’, ‘faktanya’, ‘berdasarkan data-data berikut ini’ and ‘hal ini didukung oleh’.
2.1.5.3 Warrant Warrant is the heart of the whole argument because it is the reasoning process how ground is really suitable for supporting claim. Simply, warrant is a reasoning link between claim and data. It is the turning point where the correctness of the ground needs to be established. It can also be identified as general statement, inference or assumption that can be accepted to be true . Toulmin (1958:98) describes warrants as “general, hypothetical statements, which can act as bridges and authorise the sort of step to which our particular argument commits us”. Warrants can be defended by appeal to a system of taxonomic classification, to a statue, to statistics from a census, and so forth .
Mentioning the ground behind the claim, however, is not enough. The connection between the claim and the ground, warrants are distinguished from ground which can appear either explicit or implicit, whereas grounds are mentioned explicitly (Toulmin, 2003: 92). They are a necessary component of a good argument; but often there is no need to state them explicitly because they are implied by the context. According to Toulmin, warrants go along with qualifier which seeks to qualify the claim using words such as ‘probably’, ‘necessarily’ to produce different strengths or certainty of conclusion.
Warrants are typically