This is not the first time I've heard of the Toulmin argument. In fact, I learned about it first in my Comm Studies (public speaking) class. I find it interesting I learned about it during a public speaking course, when really, it was done in an age that wasn't dominated by public speaking (at least in comparison to ancient rhetoric).
Here is basically how the Toulmin model goes:
1) Claim - Establishing conclusion
2) Evidence - Data, facts that support claim
3) Warrant - Statement that bridges gap between data and claim
4) Backing - Evidence for warrant
5) Rebuttal - Statements that show restrictions of argument
6) Qualifier - Words that lessen speaker's degree of force
When we discussed letter writing in class (much earlier), we got talking about formulaic writing. There was a certain formula for writing letters. There's formula writing all around us, whether it is in journalism, blogs, or essays (think of 5-paragraph essays). This way of setting up a rhetorical argument is no different.
There are certain restrictions with formulaic writing, however. The most important is the restriction of arrangement and style. Obviously, you can't pick and choose how you set up an argument if you are following a formula or template. Unfortunately, this means you are sort of stuck with writing a certain way. This takes away an aspect of creativity in both the style and delivery of the argument.
Using Aristotle's canons, you can see how formulaic writing can have it's downfalls. However, before I get stuck on the negatives, there are few parts of Toulmin's model I like, and that Aristotle would like.
Starting with Aristotle, he would certainly like both the evidence and backing within the model. Evidence and backing support the notion of logos that was established by Aristotle. Any claim, argument, warrant, or whatever synonym you want to use, needs some sort of evidence. Using data is the best way of supporting any type of claim.
Another thing that I personally like is the rebuttal section. By using rebuttal, you can do a number of things. First, you establish the weak points of your argument. By doing this, you can actually establish credibility. Nothing is more credible then pointing out your own faults. Secondly, it can help you strengthen your argument by thinking of the restrictions. This way, you can try to prove the restrictions false. In theory, this will help the validity of your argument.
Toulmin's model can be used in various circumstances, despite it's formulaic nature. It has it's restrictions, but it certainly has it's positives as well.
Modern and Postmodern Rhetoric
"It was in the context of Bertand Russell's analytic philosophy, its distrust of language, and its reliance on logic that Stephen Toulmin developed his theory of argument." (p. 1195)
In modern and postmodern rhetoric, we began to see more of things we'd seen earlier, just more developed. Back in ancient rhetoric, the Sophists believed that there was a constructed truth. There was no inherent truth, but just one that was constructed by society to be "right." The Sophists didn't believe that there was a divine, spiritual, or universal truth. Also during the period of ancient rhetoric, there was an emphasis on speech and language. Literacy was more based on status during these times, and became important as a status and educational tool.
Moving to modern and postmodern times, language finally became skeptical. The Sophists, if still around now, would say that we have constructed language just like we constructed truth. Language directly correlates with meaning (according to some). Therefore, if we have constructed the language, we have certainly constructed the words and meanings. In other words, logic is constructed.
By using a source I researched for one of our papers, I found this quote by French linguist Ferndinand de Sausssure:
"It assumes that ready-made ideas exist before words…; it does not tell us whether a name is vocal or psychological in nature…; finally, it lets us assume that the linking of a name and a thing is a very simple operation – an assumption that is anything but true. But this rather naïve approach can bring us near the truth by showing us that linguistic unit is a double entity, one formed by the associating of two terms.”
I like the psychological approach to language. Being a double major in psychology, I like to find connections between the two subjects. Here, it is easy to see. As interacting human beings, we find ways to associate certain terms with certain meanings. But do they actually inherently mean that? Not necessarily.
Look at how different words have changed, just over the past 10 years. Words such as "gay" and "retarded" don't have their same meanings. They are now negative words that simply mean "dumb" or "stupid." (i.e. That's so gay!).
Also from a psychological standpoint, we tend to also classify meaning by looking at the what the word DOES NOT mean. Jacques Derrida called this "differance." The "differance" (he was French) was what the word meant in comparison to what it didn't mean. For example, the good was not evil. But evil was not good. There was almost a circular logic to what something meant and what something didn't mean. Interestingly, it was a fallacious system for classifying meaning or logic. Both logos and fallacies derived from Aristotle's ancient rhetoric.
In modern and postmodern rhetoric, we began to see more of things we'd seen earlier, just more developed. Back in ancient rhetoric, the Sophists believed that there was a constructed truth. There was no inherent truth, but just one that was constructed by society to be "right." The Sophists didn't believe that there was a divine, spiritual, or universal truth. Also during the period of ancient rhetoric, there was an emphasis on speech and language. Literacy was more based on status during these times, and became important as a status and educational tool.
Moving to modern and postmodern times, language finally became skeptical. The Sophists, if still around now, would say that we have constructed language just like we constructed truth. Language directly correlates with meaning (according to some). Therefore, if we have constructed the language, we have certainly constructed the words and meanings. In other words, logic is constructed.
By using a source I researched for one of our papers, I found this quote by French linguist Ferndinand de Sausssure:
"It assumes that ready-made ideas exist before words…; it does not tell us whether a name is vocal or psychological in nature…; finally, it lets us assume that the linking of a name and a thing is a very simple operation – an assumption that is anything but true. But this rather naïve approach can bring us near the truth by showing us that linguistic unit is a double entity, one formed by the associating of two terms.”
I like the psychological approach to language. Being a double major in psychology, I like to find connections between the two subjects. Here, it is easy to see. As interacting human beings, we find ways to associate certain terms with certain meanings. But do they actually inherently mean that? Not necessarily.
Look at how different words have changed, just over the past 10 years. Words such as "gay" and "retarded" don't have their same meanings. They are now negative words that simply mean "dumb" or "stupid." (i.e. That's so gay!).
Also from a psychological standpoint, we tend to also classify meaning by looking at the what the word DOES NOT mean. Jacques Derrida called this "differance." The "differance" (he was French) was what the word meant in comparison to what it didn't mean. For example, the good was not evil. But evil was not good. There was almost a circular logic to what something meant and what something didn't mean. Interestingly, it was a fallacious system for classifying meaning or logic. Both logos and fallacies derived from Aristotle's ancient rhetoric.
Frederick Douglass
Douglass, a former slave, and subsequently uneducated individual, became an important icon for rhetoric. Known for his oration, he didn't let his image work against his credibility. At the time of his anti slavery rhetoric, his credibility or rhetorical image, if you will, was very low. Being a slave himself, it would be tough for him to gain a rhetorical following.
Douglass decided to change his oration, mainly the way he spoke and his diction, in order to sound smarter. This inadvertently shows how naive an audience can be. Can the inflection of someone's voice, or the manner in which they speak, really influence how well of a rhetorician they are? For Douglass, it helped him.
I'm not saying he wasn't intelligent, or he shouldn't have been listened to. Instead, I am merely pointing out the fact that he used alternate ways of gaining respect rhetorically. Instead of relying on his ability to move an audience ("pathos") or his evidence and backing ("logos"), he tried his hardest to act more professionally.
This reminds me of learning about the presidential debates when JFK was running. According to the people who watched the debate, JFK won. However, people who listened over the radio, thought that he lost. Why was there a disconnect? It marked the beginning of what I will call the "rhetorical image." If a person looks more attractive than their opponent, they already have the upper hand. In the job market this is true as well. In rhetoric, there is no denying that it helps to a degree.
Bringing into modern day politics and rhetoric, we can look at President Obama. Obama is often criticized by fellow African Americans for being "too white," or "white-washed." I think that this shows how someone's image can have an effect on their rhetorical appeal.
Douglass decided to change his oration, mainly the way he spoke and his diction, in order to sound smarter. This inadvertently shows how naive an audience can be. Can the inflection of someone's voice, or the manner in which they speak, really influence how well of a rhetorician they are? For Douglass, it helped him.
I'm not saying he wasn't intelligent, or he shouldn't have been listened to. Instead, I am merely pointing out the fact that he used alternate ways of gaining respect rhetorically. Instead of relying on his ability to move an audience ("pathos") or his evidence and backing ("logos"), he tried his hardest to act more professionally.
This reminds me of learning about the presidential debates when JFK was running. According to the people who watched the debate, JFK won. However, people who listened over the radio, thought that he lost. Why was there a disconnect? It marked the beginning of what I will call the "rhetorical image." If a person looks more attractive than their opponent, they already have the upper hand. In the job market this is true as well. In rhetoric, there is no denying that it helps to a degree.
Bringing into modern day politics and rhetoric, we can look at President Obama. Obama is often criticized by fellow African Americans for being "too white," or "white-washed." I think that this shows how someone's image can have an effect on their rhetorical appeal.
Richard Whately
According to Richard Whately, persuasion and rhetoric sometimes revolve around logic, and sometimes don't. From previous posts and even one of my papers, I attack logic in rhetoric. Logic is always changing and isn't fixed, even if we'd like to think it is. However, I will focus on a different part of the subject, trying not to merely reiterate what I've been saying all semester.
Going back to Aristotle, anybody in rhetoric knows that he believed in "ethos," "pathos," and "logos." It appears that Whately believed that there was a definite connection with the three, or at least two of them. He didn't go too in-depth into "pathos," so I won't either. Aristotle himself, liked to believe that rhetoric could be purely logical, and not need the other two aspects. I wouldn't agree with this, and either would Whately.
He cites an example where testimonials are often made more believable by a person's character, or "ethos." Although maybe it doesn't translate exactly across, "ethos" is often the character or credibility of a person. In a court case, a person with good character, likable, and etc. is often a better witness to use. Even in juries, the court looks for people in higher character to make the "right" decisions.
There is certainly a need for "ethos" along with "logos" in rhetoric. Relying heavily on one would be a huge mistake. Incorporating "pathos," an argument, claim, or etc. that is based solely on "pathos" or emotions will eventually lack with the audience. An argument can be emotional, but needs some sort of support, or "logos" to go with it. Along the same lines, if an argument is purely (theoretically) logical, and lacks emotions or a character-driven person, it won't connect with the audience.
I'm not sure if rhetoric should deal with emotions. On a theoretical level, it'd be nice to take emotions out because they are often irrational. However, it is certainly impossible to do this. That is why the perfect combination of the three aspects is necessary to make the best argument.
Going back to Aristotle, anybody in rhetoric knows that he believed in "ethos," "pathos," and "logos." It appears that Whately believed that there was a definite connection with the three, or at least two of them. He didn't go too in-depth into "pathos," so I won't either. Aristotle himself, liked to believe that rhetoric could be purely logical, and not need the other two aspects. I wouldn't agree with this, and either would Whately.
He cites an example where testimonials are often made more believable by a person's character, or "ethos." Although maybe it doesn't translate exactly across, "ethos" is often the character or credibility of a person. In a court case, a person with good character, likable, and etc. is often a better witness to use. Even in juries, the court looks for people in higher character to make the "right" decisions.
There is certainly a need for "ethos" along with "logos" in rhetoric. Relying heavily on one would be a huge mistake. Incorporating "pathos," an argument, claim, or etc. that is based solely on "pathos" or emotions will eventually lack with the audience. An argument can be emotional, but needs some sort of support, or "logos" to go with it. Along the same lines, if an argument is purely (theoretically) logical, and lacks emotions or a character-driven person, it won't connect with the audience.
I'm not sure if rhetoric should deal with emotions. On a theoretical level, it'd be nice to take emotions out because they are often irrational. However, it is certainly impossible to do this. That is why the perfect combination of the three aspects is necessary to make the best argument.
Giambattista Vico
Giambattista Vico's primary concern was opposing Renee Descartes. Descartes believed that there were only a few factual, legitimate parts of thinking - math and science. Vico, unlike Descartes, believed that math and science weren't any more factual, legitimate, or whatever verb you want to use. Math and science, like law, history, art, language, and etc., aren't any more factual because they still rely argument and conviction.
I won't spend too much time on why law, history, art, language, and etc. are based on argument and conviction. Essentially, all of these aspects of human knowledge are up for debate. Thinking of art as the primary example, there is a strong rhetorical argument about what is and what is not art. There is not a clear, distinct line. Now, Descartes would argue that math and science are the opposite of this. There is a clear line of what is mathematically correct and incorrect, or what is scientifically correct and scientifically incorrect.
I do have to agree with Vico is a sense here. Yes, law, history, art, language, and etc. are very subjective, but in a way math and science are too. Surely, they are less subjective, but that isn't the point. The point is, there is a level of subjectivity that brings their level of credibility down.
In math specifically, it is based off of axioms in order to make proofs. Axioms are essentially the laws to math. However obvious or right they may be, they still need to be established. In order to establish axioms, it takes an intervening human interaction. Humans still need to establish what is "true" and what is not "true." Therefore, according to Vico, it still requires both argument and conviction to do this.
In science, you see this happening quite a bit. Science is still interpreted, experimented, and "proved" (a thought I will get to in a moment) by humans. To be completely objective is certainly impossible. Humans are not machines or robots that can throw away emotions. In science, everything is based off of theory for a reason. Theory is the repeated testing of the same hypothesis with the same result. It doesn't say anything about "proving" anything, because the field of science is too smart to ignore the fact that you can't actually prove anything. You can merely see trends, not absolutes. It still deals with some level (maybe not to the extent as the other fields) of argument and conviction.
I won't spend too much time on why law, history, art, language, and etc. are based on argument and conviction. Essentially, all of these aspects of human knowledge are up for debate. Thinking of art as the primary example, there is a strong rhetorical argument about what is and what is not art. There is not a clear, distinct line. Now, Descartes would argue that math and science are the opposite of this. There is a clear line of what is mathematically correct and incorrect, or what is scientifically correct and scientifically incorrect.
I do have to agree with Vico is a sense here. Yes, law, history, art, language, and etc. are very subjective, but in a way math and science are too. Surely, they are less subjective, but that isn't the point. The point is, there is a level of subjectivity that brings their level of credibility down.
In math specifically, it is based off of axioms in order to make proofs. Axioms are essentially the laws to math. However obvious or right they may be, they still need to be established. In order to establish axioms, it takes an intervening human interaction. Humans still need to establish what is "true" and what is not "true." Therefore, according to Vico, it still requires both argument and conviction to do this.
In science, you see this happening quite a bit. Science is still interpreted, experimented, and "proved" (a thought I will get to in a moment) by humans. To be completely objective is certainly impossible. Humans are not machines or robots that can throw away emotions. In science, everything is based off of theory for a reason. Theory is the repeated testing of the same hypothesis with the same result. It doesn't say anything about "proving" anything, because the field of science is too smart to ignore the fact that you can't actually prove anything. You can merely see trends, not absolutes. It still deals with some level (maybe not to the extent as the other fields) of argument and conviction.
John Locke
Being a double major in psychology, John Locke seemed like someone fun to examine. Through my work in psychology, I have heard about Locke many times. Essentially, he believes that everything someone knows is down through themselves, we only know our own ideas, experiences, relationships, and etc. This is why he is often called the "Father of Liberalism" in psychology. Liberalism is essentially the idea that we have individual liberty and equal rights.
Connecting this psychological approach to rhetoric is pretty easy. Since everything is somewhat individualized, this shapes rhetoric. Everybody has their own approach to an issue, their own experience. It is impossible to experience the same thing through someone else's shoes. In rhetoric, we must strive to find a common ground with these people, find something to connect with. This common ground isn't always easy to find, but we (as rhetoricians) must try.
An example of common ground can be found in death penalty arguments. A lot of people think that the death penalty is either wrong or right, no in between. Although the action of putting someone to death is black and white, people often do not realize what both sides really want: justice. Both advocates and proponents of the death penalty want criminals to get punished and justice to be served. Therefore, they must work together to get the appropriate justice. Maybe, this means that they need to make the death penalty a fair process that guarantees that no innocent "criminals" are put to death. There is common ground in every argument.
Another thing that caught my eye was how Locke felt about language and translation. Since everybody experiences things differently, this can be generalized to a bigger group. For example, one culture may have a word for something when another culture does not have any words for the same thing. Translation doesn't cross cultures and languages evenly. I've talked about this on previous blog posts and even my second paper. The validity of the words becomes questionable when the language is changed. It is always something to keep in my wind when talking about how logical an argument is. If the argument can't even be fully understood, then how can it be completely logical?
Connecting this psychological approach to rhetoric is pretty easy. Since everything is somewhat individualized, this shapes rhetoric. Everybody has their own approach to an issue, their own experience. It is impossible to experience the same thing through someone else's shoes. In rhetoric, we must strive to find a common ground with these people, find something to connect with. This common ground isn't always easy to find, but we (as rhetoricians) must try.
An example of common ground can be found in death penalty arguments. A lot of people think that the death penalty is either wrong or right, no in between. Although the action of putting someone to death is black and white, people often do not realize what both sides really want: justice. Both advocates and proponents of the death penalty want criminals to get punished and justice to be served. Therefore, they must work together to get the appropriate justice. Maybe, this means that they need to make the death penalty a fair process that guarantees that no innocent "criminals" are put to death. There is common ground in every argument.
Another thing that caught my eye was how Locke felt about language and translation. Since everybody experiences things differently, this can be generalized to a bigger group. For example, one culture may have a word for something when another culture does not have any words for the same thing. Translation doesn't cross cultures and languages evenly. I've talked about this on previous blog posts and even my second paper. The validity of the words becomes questionable when the language is changed. It is always something to keep in my wind when talking about how logical an argument is. If the argument can't even be fully understood, then how can it be completely logical?
Eramus
In class we've dealt extensively with "Arrangement," originally one of Aristotle's canons. Erasmus, another religious rhetorical figure, had his own take on Aristotle's "Arrangement." Essentially, he broke it down to five parts:
1) Word order: This was essentially meaning that the words should be ordered clearly, musically, and/or vigorously.
2) Order of propositions: Basically, you should order your arguments (which we will get into more later)
3) Parts of individual arguments: This was important because it broke each proposition or argument into it's own parts.
4) Large section: this was the evidence-based part of the sermon
5) Whole sermon: the culmination of everything into a religious sermon.
Steps 2 & 5 seem to be the most important because Erasmus believed the best/strongest arguments should be at the beginning and the end. The order of propositions seemed obviously important in this step. You would structure your rhetoric/arguments to get the strongest at the beginning and the end. This sets up the parts of individual arguments to follow. Then, at the end, step #5, the whole sermon is ultimately the most important. At the end, sermons are what should be remembered, according to Erasmus and other religious rhetoricians.
The notion of best arguments at the beginning and the end is taught still today. The introduction and conclusion sometimes get overlooked in writing and rhetoric. However, psychologically, this is what the audience remembers. The middle of the speech/paper may contain the evidence and the logical appeals, but the audience needs to know the premise from the beginning, and the end arguments tie it all together. There is no doubt that the end of any rhetorical speech/paper/process needs to be the strongest.
Erasmus would agree.
1) Word order: This was essentially meaning that the words should be ordered clearly, musically, and/or vigorously.
2) Order of propositions: Basically, you should order your arguments (which we will get into more later)
3) Parts of individual arguments: This was important because it broke each proposition or argument into it's own parts.
4) Large section: this was the evidence-based part of the sermon
5) Whole sermon: the culmination of everything into a religious sermon.
Steps 2 & 5 seem to be the most important because Erasmus believed the best/strongest arguments should be at the beginning and the end. The order of propositions seemed obviously important in this step. You would structure your rhetoric/arguments to get the strongest at the beginning and the end. This sets up the parts of individual arguments to follow. Then, at the end, step #5, the whole sermon is ultimately the most important. At the end, sermons are what should be remembered, according to Erasmus and other religious rhetoricians.
The notion of best arguments at the beginning and the end is taught still today. The introduction and conclusion sometimes get overlooked in writing and rhetoric. However, psychologically, this is what the audience remembers. The middle of the speech/paper may contain the evidence and the logical appeals, but the audience needs to know the premise from the beginning, and the end arguments tie it all together. There is no doubt that the end of any rhetorical speech/paper/process needs to be the strongest.
Erasmus would agree.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)