Page 34 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 34
four critical essays on argumentation
different ‘fields of argument’, and not all fields of argument, according to
him, use topoi as their argumentative principles or bases of their argumen-
tation. According to Toulmin (1958/1995: 94–107), if we have an utteran-
ce of the form, ‘If D then C’—where D stands for data or evidence, and C
for claim or conclusion—such a warrant would act as a bridge and authori-
ze the step from D to C, which also explains in more detail where Manfred
Kienpointner’s definition of topos draws from: mostly from Toulmin. But
then a warrant may have a limited applicability, so Toulmin introduces qu-
alifiers Q, indicating the strength conferred by the warrant, and conditions
of rebuttal (or Reservation) R, indicating circumstances in which the gene-
ral authority of the warrant would have to be set aside. And finally, in case
the warrant is challenged in any way, we need some backing as well. His di-
agram of argumentation looks like this:
It is worth noting that in Toulmin’s diagram, we are dealing with a
kind of ‘surface’ and ‘deep’ structure: while data and claim stay ‘on the
surface’, as they do in everyday communication, the warrant is—presum-
ably because of its generality—‘under the surface’ (like the topos in en-
thymemes), and usually comes ‘above the surface’ only when we try to re-
construct it. And how do we do that, how do we reconstruct a warrant?
What is attractive and useful about Toulmin’s theory is the fact that he
is offering a kind of a guided tour to the center of topoi in six steps, not just
in three (as in enthymemes). All he asks is that you identify the claim or the
standpoint of the text or discourse you are researching, and then he pro-
vides a set of five questions that lead you through the process.
34
different ‘fields of argument’, and not all fields of argument, according to
him, use topoi as their argumentative principles or bases of their argumen-
tation. According to Toulmin (1958/1995: 94–107), if we have an utteran-
ce of the form, ‘If D then C’—where D stands for data or evidence, and C
for claim or conclusion—such a warrant would act as a bridge and authori-
ze the step from D to C, which also explains in more detail where Manfred
Kienpointner’s definition of topos draws from: mostly from Toulmin. But
then a warrant may have a limited applicability, so Toulmin introduces qu-
alifiers Q, indicating the strength conferred by the warrant, and conditions
of rebuttal (or Reservation) R, indicating circumstances in which the gene-
ral authority of the warrant would have to be set aside. And finally, in case
the warrant is challenged in any way, we need some backing as well. His di-
agram of argumentation looks like this:
It is worth noting that in Toulmin’s diagram, we are dealing with a
kind of ‘surface’ and ‘deep’ structure: while data and claim stay ‘on the
surface’, as they do in everyday communication, the warrant is—presum-
ably because of its generality—‘under the surface’ (like the topos in en-
thymemes), and usually comes ‘above the surface’ only when we try to re-
construct it. And how do we do that, how do we reconstruct a warrant?
What is attractive and useful about Toulmin’s theory is the fact that he
is offering a kind of a guided tour to the center of topoi in six steps, not just
in three (as in enthymemes). All he asks is that you identify the claim or the
standpoint of the text or discourse you are researching, and then he pro-
vides a set of five questions that lead you through the process.
34
