论文部分内容阅读
Abstract: In his book The Uses of Argument, Stephen Toulmin lays out a structural model by which rhetorical arguments can be analyzed. This paper aims to introduce the argument model, analyze its theoretical foundation, and discuss its application in classroom teaching.
Key words: Toulmin's argument, data, warrant, claim, application, classroom
［CLC number］H315
［Document code］A
［Article ID］1006-2831(2006) 06-0030-4
Ⅰ Description of Toulmin's Layout of Argumentation
When we research both sides of a question, we often find ourselves being convinced first by one side, and then by the other. Each argument sounds good— at least while we are reading it and soon we may feel completely confused. Here is where Toulmin's argumentation model comes in. This model identifies six aspects of argument that are common in any field. Although the substance of the argument may change from one field to another, the parts will remain the same. The model consists of the following six parts:
The first part is the claim represented by C. Argument C postulates that a conclusion is simply someone trying to justify their argument. The second part is the data represented by D, i.e. the facts on which the argument is based. The third element of the argument is the warrant represented by W. The warrant of the argument shows how we move from the data to the claim, or in other words, assesses whether or not the claim is legitimate based on the data or grounds. The fourth part is the backing represented by B. The backing of an argument gives additional support for a warrant by answering different questions. The modal qualifier, Q, is the fifth part of the argument. The modal qualifier indicates the strength of the leap from the data to the warrant. The sixth and final element of the argument is the rebuttal indicated by R. The rebuttal occurs when the leap from grounds to claim does not appear to be legitimate. Usually it is the point where the arguer concedes to some facts or exceptions that make the warrant either less effective or ineffective, whereby the arguer gives candor to the argument by acknowledging some weaknesses. Rebuttals are implicitly or explicitly understood to be unlikely to occur under normal circumstances.
On the surface, Toulmin's model resembles the syllogism. Warrant is equivalent to the major premise; data is equivalent to the minor premise and claim is equivalent to the conclusion. However, Toulmin's model is evolutionary or dynamic rather than static. With its six components, it is far more convenient for analyzing two opposing arguments on the same issue. Actually, Toulmin's model is built on Aristotelian persuasive rhetoric, which focuses on persuasion through three appeals: rational appeal, emotional appeal and ethical appeal. In some way, the types of argument that are recommended in Toulmin's model can be categorized into three groups according to Professor Hu Shuzhong. Toulmin's arguments include arguments from cause-effect, arguments from sign, argument from analogy, arguments from generalization, arguments from classification— which are classified under rational appeal—and arguments from authority or expertise, which is referred to as ethical appeal and argument from motivation, which is emotional appeal. Also, the three types of arguments are used to discuss three types of issues: The issue of fact, the issue of value and the issue of policy. Given the detailed and precise analysis, Toulmin's model can be used extensively to assess the strength and the weakness of arguments. It is a very effective way to sharpen our analytical ability and cultivate our critical thinking.
The value of Toulmin's model lies in its usefulness in identifying the six parts and examining the soundness of the warrant. If we submit each source we study to rigorous Toulmin analysis and identify each argument's claims— data, and warrants and then look for qualifiers, rebuttals, and backing for the warrants—we will be in a better position to compare one claim with another and compare data between the two arguments, and then their warrants and their backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals. By analyzing the separate parts of an argument, we'll be much better equipped to evaluate the validity of each argument.
Ⅱ Application of Toulmin's Argumentation Model in Classroom Teaching
2.1 Identify the warrant
To acquaint students with the nature of argumentation, the teacher should draw a distinction between three concepts: matters of fact, matters of good faith and matters of argument. The first two are beyond the limits of persuasive writing or argument. Then the discussion can move to the analysis of some short statements in which the warrant is often implicit. Students tend to have some difficulty identifying the warrant. Here are some of the statements that I have used as warm-up exercises in class:
a. 'Hhe'll do well in college. She got good grades in high school.?(Data: She got good grades in high school. Claim: She'll do well in college. Warrant: College is the same kind of educational experience as high school). It is clear that we can refute the argument by pointing out the fallacy in the warrant: studying at the high school is a different experience to studying at college.
b. "He'll make an excellent president. See how successful he was as a banker.?(Warrant: Presiding over a university requires precisely the same skills as being a successful banker.)
c. "If the Pope were a woman, he would favor abortion."(Warrant: All women favor abortion). Obviously not all women are in favor of abortion. Such a statement is invalid because its validity is not modified or limited by words like "Lost" "Hhe majority" ight etc.
d. "ceorge Washington could not have been truthful. He was a politician, wasn't he?"(Warrant: All politicians are not truthful.) Here we find the same fallacy as in the preceding statement.
e. "Hhese days, almost everyone seems to be worried about the future of money—a fact that was reflected on a recent Times bestseller nonfiction list on which five of the fifteen books, from Crisis Investing at No.7 to Money Dynamics for the 1980s at No.14 were books about money: how to get it, how to keep it, how to acquire things without it."(Warrant: five of the fifteen books on a recent Times bestseller nonfiction list are about money.) Here is an example of argument from generalization: To refute it, we can give some counter—examples or state that the five examples given are not representative, or the sources from which the examples are taken are not reliable. So, with a clear layout of the main parts of the argument, it is possible to approach the argument from different angles.
Students are often very confused about what the warrant is in a particular statement. Group discussions are needed to reach consensus.
2.2 Analyze simple arguments
Having acquainted the students with the components of the model and the lines along which a warrant can be refuted, the teacher can then guide them in examining some simple arguments. The first few samples I selected were advertisements.
Here is how I proceeded:
Suppose we see one of those commercials for a product that promises to give you whiter teeth. Here are the basic parts of the argument behind the commercial: claim: you should buy our teeth-whitening product; data: studies show that teeth are 50.5% whiter after using the product for a certain period; warrant : people want white teeth. However, it should be noticed that such commercials don't usually bother trying to convince consumers that they want whiter teeth; instead, the advertisers assume that consumers have bought into the value our culture places on whiter teeth. When an assumption—a warrant in Toulmin's terms—is unstated, it's called an mplicit warrant?as in the examples given above. Sometimes, however, the warrant may need to be stated because it is a powerful part of the argument. When the warrant is stated, it's called an xplicit warrant.?Toulmin says that the weakest part of any argument is its weakest warrant. So to analyze the weakness and strength of a commercial, one should first look at the warrant, since the warrant is the link between the data and the claim. If the warrant isn't valid, the argument collapses.
Here is another commercial claiming that stains on teeth are caused by drinking coffee, but the advertiser might need to acknowledge that there may be other causes as well. Hence, a qualified claim would be that drinking coffee is the most significant cause (although perhaps not the only cause) of stained teeth. The advertiser might also have to acknowledge that a certain kind of coffee does not stain teeth. The claim, however, would be that coffee is the major cause of stained teeth except for (rebuttal) those coffee drinkers who drink the special non-teeth staining coffee. Now the teacher should draw students?attention to the function of rebuttal, which is to make the argument less vulnerable by conceding some point(s).
2.3 Examine longer texts
At this stage the students are asked to intensively read a selected article on euthanasia. They are required to identify the two opposing arguments and compare them in pairs in terms of all the components to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each. The following are the arguments we outlined and examined in class:
Issue in dispute: Should active euthanasia be implemented? (In the following analysis I will use 襝on?to refer to the arguments against active euthanasia and to refer to those in favor of active euthanasia.)
Con 1 Data: the patient is incurable and it is burdensome for him or her to live. Claim: We should let the patient die, but should not administer a lethal drug to speed up death. Warrant: Giving a lethal drug to a patient is murder and murder is antithetical to medical ethics.
Pro 1 Data: is the same as in Con 1. Claim:We should give the patient a lethal drug to speed up death. Warrant:Allowing the patient to die without intervention means that suffering is prolonged and therefore is more cruel than administering a lethal drug or other means to terminate the life of the patient. Therefore, active euthanasia is humanitarian.
Con 2 Data: is the same as the previous arguments. Claim: To let the patient die without intervention is morally acceptable.Warrant:Administering lethal drug is murder and murder is morally unacceptable while allowing death without intervention is not immoral.
Here, it is not difficult to discover the weak point of the con arguments, for they hinge upon ethics, whereas the pro arguments emphasize the humanitarian nature of the issue. To further reinforce the strength of the arguments, the pro-euthanasia arguer makes another argument, which, under the scrutiny of the Toulmin model, reveals some loopholes. The case is made based on an analogy between someone who takes a life by submerging the victim under water for some selfish gain and someone else that has the same intention, but happens to witness the victim drowning and look away without doing anything to help. The attempted murder is averted, but the would-be murderer witnesses the death of the victim. Here is the layout:
Data: Someone stands by to watch the victim die and someone else in a similar situation murders the victim. Claim: Both are immoral. Warrant: Since both are motivated by self-interest.
It is clear to students that, because the data of the pro argument are incompatible to those of the euthanasia situation, the claims of the two different situations are not compatible. Logically, the arguer commits the fallacy of false analogy. However, aware of this weak point, the arguer adds, "How it may be pointed out, quite properly, that the cases of euthanasia with which doctors are concerned are not like this at all. They do not involve personal gain or the destruction of normal healthy children. Doctors are concerned only with cases in which the patient's life has become, or will soon become a terrible burden. However, the point is the same in these cases: the bare difference between killing and letting die does not, in itself, make a moral difference.?This is a typical example of rebuttal. Then the arguer points out that, given the same end, any methods, be it the administering of a lethal drug or the withdrawal of treatment, active or inactive euthanasia, are of no consequence provided that the diagnosis is correct. Such further statement is a powerful backing-up of the argument. Finally the pro-euthanasia arguers make a last case, which follows:
Data:letting die or killing Claim:They are both intentional killing. Warrant: Since in both cases they end life.
Thus the pro arguments impress the reader as more forceful because of the stronger backing, the more considered rebuttal and above all, the more convincing warrant .
Ⅲ Concluding remarks
From the analysis above we can see that applying Toulmin's argumentation model in the analysis of opposing arguments can facilitate the understanding of some complicated debates. It is a way of thinking in concepts that can lead to the perception of the sufficiency or insufficiency of validity behind some seemingly complex arguments in reading and writing.
References
Hartwell Patrick. Open to Language[M]. Oxford University Press, 1982.
Liu Lijun. Postgraduate English Intensive Reading (II)[M]. Revised Edition the Press of People's University, 1999.
Rov V.. WoodLinn Goodnight Strategic Debating [M]. National Textbook Company, 1995.
Stephen Toulmin. The Uses of Argument [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.
胡曙中. 美国新修辞学研究[M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.
Key words: Toulmin's argument, data, warrant, claim, application, classroom
［CLC number］H315
［Document code］A
［Article ID］1006-2831(2006) 06-0030-4
Ⅰ Description of Toulmin's Layout of Argumentation
When we research both sides of a question, we often find ourselves being convinced first by one side, and then by the other. Each argument sounds good— at least while we are reading it and soon we may feel completely confused. Here is where Toulmin's argumentation model comes in. This model identifies six aspects of argument that are common in any field. Although the substance of the argument may change from one field to another, the parts will remain the same. The model consists of the following six parts:
The first part is the claim represented by C. Argument C postulates that a conclusion is simply someone trying to justify their argument. The second part is the data represented by D, i.e. the facts on which the argument is based. The third element of the argument is the warrant represented by W. The warrant of the argument shows how we move from the data to the claim, or in other words, assesses whether or not the claim is legitimate based on the data or grounds. The fourth part is the backing represented by B. The backing of an argument gives additional support for a warrant by answering different questions. The modal qualifier, Q, is the fifth part of the argument. The modal qualifier indicates the strength of the leap from the data to the warrant. The sixth and final element of the argument is the rebuttal indicated by R. The rebuttal occurs when the leap from grounds to claim does not appear to be legitimate. Usually it is the point where the arguer concedes to some facts or exceptions that make the warrant either less effective or ineffective, whereby the arguer gives candor to the argument by acknowledging some weaknesses. Rebuttals are implicitly or explicitly understood to be unlikely to occur under normal circumstances.
On the surface, Toulmin's model resembles the syllogism. Warrant is equivalent to the major premise; data is equivalent to the minor premise and claim is equivalent to the conclusion. However, Toulmin's model is evolutionary or dynamic rather than static. With its six components, it is far more convenient for analyzing two opposing arguments on the same issue. Actually, Toulmin's model is built on Aristotelian persuasive rhetoric, which focuses on persuasion through three appeals: rational appeal, emotional appeal and ethical appeal. In some way, the types of argument that are recommended in Toulmin's model can be categorized into three groups according to Professor Hu Shuzhong. Toulmin's arguments include arguments from cause-effect, arguments from sign, argument from analogy, arguments from generalization, arguments from classification— which are classified under rational appeal—and arguments from authority or expertise, which is referred to as ethical appeal and argument from motivation, which is emotional appeal. Also, the three types of arguments are used to discuss three types of issues: The issue of fact, the issue of value and the issue of policy. Given the detailed and precise analysis, Toulmin's model can be used extensively to assess the strength and the weakness of arguments. It is a very effective way to sharpen our analytical ability and cultivate our critical thinking.
The value of Toulmin's model lies in its usefulness in identifying the six parts and examining the soundness of the warrant. If we submit each source we study to rigorous Toulmin analysis and identify each argument's claims— data, and warrants and then look for qualifiers, rebuttals, and backing for the warrants—we will be in a better position to compare one claim with another and compare data between the two arguments, and then their warrants and their backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals. By analyzing the separate parts of an argument, we'll be much better equipped to evaluate the validity of each argument.
Ⅱ Application of Toulmin's Argumentation Model in Classroom Teaching
2.1 Identify the warrant
To acquaint students with the nature of argumentation, the teacher should draw a distinction between three concepts: matters of fact, matters of good faith and matters of argument. The first two are beyond the limits of persuasive writing or argument. Then the discussion can move to the analysis of some short statements in which the warrant is often implicit. Students tend to have some difficulty identifying the warrant. Here are some of the statements that I have used as warm-up exercises in class:
a. 'Hhe'll do well in college. She got good grades in high school.?(Data: She got good grades in high school. Claim: She'll do well in college. Warrant: College is the same kind of educational experience as high school). It is clear that we can refute the argument by pointing out the fallacy in the warrant: studying at the high school is a different experience to studying at college.
b. "He'll make an excellent president. See how successful he was as a banker.?(Warrant: Presiding over a university requires precisely the same skills as being a successful banker.)
c. "If the Pope were a woman, he would favor abortion."(Warrant: All women favor abortion). Obviously not all women are in favor of abortion. Such a statement is invalid because its validity is not modified or limited by words like "Lost" "Hhe majority" ight etc.
d. "ceorge Washington could not have been truthful. He was a politician, wasn't he?"(Warrant: All politicians are not truthful.) Here we find the same fallacy as in the preceding statement.
e. "Hhese days, almost everyone seems to be worried about the future of money—a fact that was reflected on a recent Times bestseller nonfiction list on which five of the fifteen books, from Crisis Investing at No.7 to Money Dynamics for the 1980s at No.14 were books about money: how to get it, how to keep it, how to acquire things without it."(Warrant: five of the fifteen books on a recent Times bestseller nonfiction list are about money.) Here is an example of argument from generalization: To refute it, we can give some counter—examples or state that the five examples given are not representative, or the sources from which the examples are taken are not reliable. So, with a clear layout of the main parts of the argument, it is possible to approach the argument from different angles.
Students are often very confused about what the warrant is in a particular statement. Group discussions are needed to reach consensus.
2.2 Analyze simple arguments
Having acquainted the students with the components of the model and the lines along which a warrant can be refuted, the teacher can then guide them in examining some simple arguments. The first few samples I selected were advertisements.
Here is how I proceeded:
Suppose we see one of those commercials for a product that promises to give you whiter teeth. Here are the basic parts of the argument behind the commercial: claim: you should buy our teeth-whitening product; data: studies show that teeth are 50.5% whiter after using the product for a certain period; warrant : people want white teeth. However, it should be noticed that such commercials don't usually bother trying to convince consumers that they want whiter teeth; instead, the advertisers assume that consumers have bought into the value our culture places on whiter teeth. When an assumption—a warrant in Toulmin's terms—is unstated, it's called an mplicit warrant?as in the examples given above. Sometimes, however, the warrant may need to be stated because it is a powerful part of the argument. When the warrant is stated, it's called an xplicit warrant.?Toulmin says that the weakest part of any argument is its weakest warrant. So to analyze the weakness and strength of a commercial, one should first look at the warrant, since the warrant is the link between the data and the claim. If the warrant isn't valid, the argument collapses.
Here is another commercial claiming that stains on teeth are caused by drinking coffee, but the advertiser might need to acknowledge that there may be other causes as well. Hence, a qualified claim would be that drinking coffee is the most significant cause (although perhaps not the only cause) of stained teeth. The advertiser might also have to acknowledge that a certain kind of coffee does not stain teeth. The claim, however, would be that coffee is the major cause of stained teeth except for (rebuttal) those coffee drinkers who drink the special non-teeth staining coffee. Now the teacher should draw students?attention to the function of rebuttal, which is to make the argument less vulnerable by conceding some point(s).
2.3 Examine longer texts
At this stage the students are asked to intensively read a selected article on euthanasia. They are required to identify the two opposing arguments and compare them in pairs in terms of all the components to discover the strengths and weaknesses of each. The following are the arguments we outlined and examined in class:
Issue in dispute: Should active euthanasia be implemented? (In the following analysis I will use 襝on?to refer to the arguments against active euthanasia and to refer to those in favor of active euthanasia.)
Con 1 Data: the patient is incurable and it is burdensome for him or her to live. Claim: We should let the patient die, but should not administer a lethal drug to speed up death. Warrant: Giving a lethal drug to a patient is murder and murder is antithetical to medical ethics.
Pro 1 Data: is the same as in Con 1. Claim:We should give the patient a lethal drug to speed up death. Warrant:Allowing the patient to die without intervention means that suffering is prolonged and therefore is more cruel than administering a lethal drug or other means to terminate the life of the patient. Therefore, active euthanasia is humanitarian.
Con 2 Data: is the same as the previous arguments. Claim: To let the patient die without intervention is morally acceptable.Warrant:Administering lethal drug is murder and murder is morally unacceptable while allowing death without intervention is not immoral.
Here, it is not difficult to discover the weak point of the con arguments, for they hinge upon ethics, whereas the pro arguments emphasize the humanitarian nature of the issue. To further reinforce the strength of the arguments, the pro-euthanasia arguer makes another argument, which, under the scrutiny of the Toulmin model, reveals some loopholes. The case is made based on an analogy between someone who takes a life by submerging the victim under water for some selfish gain and someone else that has the same intention, but happens to witness the victim drowning and look away without doing anything to help. The attempted murder is averted, but the would-be murderer witnesses the death of the victim. Here is the layout:
Data: Someone stands by to watch the victim die and someone else in a similar situation murders the victim. Claim: Both are immoral. Warrant: Since both are motivated by self-interest.
It is clear to students that, because the data of the pro argument are incompatible to those of the euthanasia situation, the claims of the two different situations are not compatible. Logically, the arguer commits the fallacy of false analogy. However, aware of this weak point, the arguer adds, "How it may be pointed out, quite properly, that the cases of euthanasia with which doctors are concerned are not like this at all. They do not involve personal gain or the destruction of normal healthy children. Doctors are concerned only with cases in which the patient's life has become, or will soon become a terrible burden. However, the point is the same in these cases: the bare difference between killing and letting die does not, in itself, make a moral difference.?This is a typical example of rebuttal. Then the arguer points out that, given the same end, any methods, be it the administering of a lethal drug or the withdrawal of treatment, active or inactive euthanasia, are of no consequence provided that the diagnosis is correct. Such further statement is a powerful backing-up of the argument. Finally the pro-euthanasia arguers make a last case, which follows:
Data:letting die or killing Claim:They are both intentional killing. Warrant: Since in both cases they end life.
Thus the pro arguments impress the reader as more forceful because of the stronger backing, the more considered rebuttal and above all, the more convincing warrant .
Ⅲ Concluding remarks
From the analysis above we can see that applying Toulmin's argumentation model in the analysis of opposing arguments can facilitate the understanding of some complicated debates. It is a way of thinking in concepts that can lead to the perception of the sufficiency or insufficiency of validity behind some seemingly complex arguments in reading and writing.
References
Hartwell Patrick. Open to Language[M]. Oxford University Press, 1982.
Liu Lijun. Postgraduate English Intensive Reading (II)[M]. Revised Edition the Press of People's University, 1999.
Rov V.. WoodLinn Goodnight Strategic Debating [M]. National Textbook Company, 1995.
Stephen Toulmin. The Uses of Argument [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.
胡曙中. 美国新修辞学研究[M]. 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.