{"id":5095,"date":"2021-10-21T13:50:04","date_gmt":"2021-10-21T11:50:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5095"},"modified":"2025-06-14T17:30:01","modified_gmt":"2025-06-14T15:30:01","slug":"layout-of-argument-toulmin-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/layout-of-argument-toulmin-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Layout of Argument (Toulmin)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00ab\u00a0THE LAYOUT OF ARGUMENT\u00a0\u00bb<\/span><\/h1>\n

In The Uses of Argument<\/em>, Stephen Toulmin presents a general description of the structure of argumentative passages, \u201cthe layout of argument\u201d (1958, Chap. III, pp. 94-145). This highly influential representation is also known as the Toulmin Scheme, the Toulmin Model of Argument or the Toulmin Argument Pattern (TAP)<\/p>\n

1.\u2002The Structure of the Prototypical Argumentative and Monologue and Dialogue<\/span><\/h2>\n

1.1 Argumentation as a Polyphonic Monologue<\/span><\/h3>\n

The following passage is an elementary argumentative cell, that brings together the basic components of argumentative discourse according to Toulmin.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Harry was born in Bermuda, so, presumably, Harry is a British subject
\n\u2014 Since a man born in Bermuda will generally be a British subject, <\/span>
\non account of the following statutes and other legal provisions\u2026
\n\u2014 Unless both his parents were aliens or he has become a naturalized American citizen<\/span>
\n(id., p. 103).<\/span><\/p>\n

This layout of argument combines two main components.<\/p>\n

\u2014 A central, affirmative component.<\/span>
\n\u2014 A negative component, staging a challenging voice, that details the \u201ccircumstances in which the general authority of the warrant would have to be set aside.\u201d (Id., p. 101)<\/span><\/p>\n

1.2 Argumentation as Dialogue<\/span><\/h2>\n

This discourse can be reenacted as a prototypical argumentative dialogue, beginning with a question, posed by an investigating third party, and evolving under pressure from a challenger.<\/p>\n

(i) A Question<\/strong><\/p>\n

Question: \u202f\u2014\u202fWhat is Harry’s nationality?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

(ii) A Claim \u2014\u00a0<\/strong>The arguer responds:<\/p>\n

Arguer: \u2014 \u201cHarry is a British subject<\/em>\u201d (ibid<\/em>., p. 99).<\/span><\/p>\n

By making this assertion, the arguer \u201c[is thereby committed] to the claim which any assertion necessarily involves.\u201d As a Claim (C<\/strong>), it can be \u201cchallenged\u201d:<\/p>\n

Challenger: \u2014\u00a0\u201cWhat have you got to go on?\u201d<\/em> (ibid<\/em>. p. 98)<\/span><\/p>\n

(iii) Data \u2014\u00a0<\/strong>In the defense, the arguer \u201cmust be able to establish [the Claim] \u2014\u00a0that is, make it good and show that it was justifiable. How is this to be done?\u201d (Id., p.\u200997). \u201cwe shall normally have some facts to which we can point in its support\u201d (ibid.). Here, the arguer presents a fact, or Data<\/em> (D<\/strong>) to support his answer.<\/p>\n

Arguer: \u2014\u00a0Harry was born in Bermuda.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Toulmin’s layout is clearly built on a dissensus background. A Claim<\/em> is \u201ca demand for something rightfully or allegedly due\u201d (WCD, Claim<\/em>). A claim is made in the context of a dispute \u201cto lay claim to, to assert one’s right or title to\u201d (ibid.).
\nData<\/em> are \u201cthings known or assumed; facts or figures from which conclusions can be inferred\u201d (WCD, Data<\/em>). The search for data<\/em> is undertaken with a claim<\/em> in mind, see justification<\/a>.
\n<\/strong>Data<\/em> and Claim<\/em> are correlative words: Claims<\/em> require Data<\/em>, and Data<\/em> is sought and selected based on Claims.<\/em> They are explicitly linked by a Warrant.<\/em><\/p>\n

(iv) Warrant \u2014\u00a0<\/strong>The challenger may still consider the answer unsatisfactory, and \u201c[require]\u201d the speaker to explain \u201cthe bearing of the data already produced on his conclusion\u201d (id., p. 98):<\/p>\n

Challenger: \u2014\u00a0\u201cHow do you get there?\u201d<\/em> (Ibid.)<\/span><\/p>\n

The arguer must now provide a Warrant <\/em>(W<\/strong>), i.e., \u201csome rule, principle or inference license\u201d (Ibid.):<\/p>\n

Arguer: \u2014\u00a0\u201cA man born in Bermuda will be a British subject.\u201d<\/em> (id., p. 99)<\/span><\/p>\n

The inquisitive challenger may now be \u201cdubious\u201d of \u201cwhether the warrant is acceptable at all\u201d (ibid., p. 103):<\/p>\n

Challenger: \u2014\u00a0\u201cYou presume that a man born in Bermuda can be taken to be a British subject; [\u2026]\u00a0why do you think that?\u201d<\/em> (Ibid.).<\/span><\/p>\n

A warrant is an \u201cauthorization or sanction, as by a superior or the law\u201d (WCD, Warrant<\/em>). The gap between the argument and conclusion is fillen by some authority. It can also be \u201ca justification or reasonable grounds<\/em> for some act, course, statement or belief\u201d (ibid.). In this case, the warrant itself would correspond to a good reason added to the data. It is generally a law that orients the fact as a data<\/em> for this claim<\/em>.
\nAnother warrant would provide a different orientation to the same data. For instance, the warrant \u201cIn Bermuda the climate can be uncomfortably hot from late May to October, with especially high humidity<\/em>\u201d would orient the same fact toward the claim \u201cHarry certainly knows how to behave in a humid subtropical climate<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

(v) Backing \u2014\u00a0<\/strong>The arguer must now provide a Backing<\/em> (B<\/strong>) to make the Warrant acceptable<\/p>\n

Arguer: \u2014\u00a0I say that \u201con account of the following statutes and other legal provisions: \u2026\u201d<\/em> (id., p. 105).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0(vi) Qualifier – Rebuttal \u2014 <\/strong>In previous moves, the challenger requested formal clarifications. Now, he turns to substantive objections, such as:<\/p>\n

Challenger: \u2014\u00a0But \u201cspecial facts may make this case an exception to the rule, or one in which the law can be applied only subject to certain qualifications\u201d\u00a0<\/em>(id., p. 101).<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the claimant acknowledges these caveats. Her claim is a \u201cpresumption\u201d, which is only \u201cpresumably\u201d true, not \u201cnecessarily\u201d so. This must be made clear by a Qualifier<\/em> (Q<\/strong>), \u201cindicating the exceptional conditions which might be capable of defeating or refuting the warranted conclusion (R<\/strong>).\u201d<\/p>\n

Arguer: \u2014 My claim (C) is probably true, insofar as we don’t know if \u201cboth his parents were aliens [or]\u00a0he has become a naturalized American<\/em>\u201d (id. p. 102-103).<\/span><\/p>\n

The Rebuttal<\/em> articulates the conditions that would defeat the inference if met. By incorporating the challenger’s contributions into his argument, the speaker introduces co-operation into the inquiry process.
\nThe Qualifier<\/em> should not be seen as the expression of some vague mental limitation, just in case things do not turn out as expected. Rather, it is the trace of substantial Rebuttals<\/em>, not just any face-saving softener<\/em> or mitigator.<\/em> These terms would not express the link with the substantial rebutting counter-discourse.<\/p>\n

2. Representation<\/span><\/h2>\n

Toulmin articulates these six basic elements in the following diagram<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\u2014 The chain \u201cData \u2014 Warrant \u2014 Backing \u2014 Claim<\/strong><\/span>\u201d represents the positive<\/em> component of the model.
\n\u2014 The combination \u201cQualifier + Rebuttal<\/strong><\/span>\u201d represents the negative, or default<\/em> component of the model.<\/p>\n

3. Corollaries<\/span><\/h2>\n

3.1. A legal syllogism<\/span><\/h3>\n

Toulmin refers to his approach to argumentation as \u201cgeneralized jurisprudence\u201d ([1958], p. 7). An instance of reasoning that illustrates the structure of an argument corresponds to a legal syllogism<\/em>, in which a law is applied to a fact.<\/p>\n

Positive component<\/strong>
\n<\/strong>Law: Any driver who crosses the yellow line is breaking the law, and will be fined<\/em>.
\n<\/em>Recorded fact: X crossed the yellow line<\/em>.
\n<\/em>Conclusion: This is a violation of the law and the driver will be fined.<\/em><\/p>\n

Default Component<\/strong>
\n<\/strong>Unless X was driving a fire engine, or ambulance on a call,\u00a0 participating in a formal parade, orroadworks were in progress.<\/em><\/p>\n

This positive component articulates a premise with a general subject (a law) and a premise with a concrete subject (or singular proposition, the argument) in order to deduce a proposition with a concrete subject (the conclusion). This process corresponds to a categorization<\/a>, which includes an individual in a class, and thus allows the attribution of the properties and stereotypes that characterize the class to the individual. Toulmin’s basic example highlight the importance of categorization and intracategorical deduction in everyday reasoning. However, warrants are not restricted to categorizing. In fact, a Warrant is an instance of an argument scheme<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

3.2 The \u201cRediscovery of the Topoi\u201d<\/span><\/h3>\n

The warrant corresponds to the traditional argumentative notion of topos<\/em> (Bird 1961), or argument scheme<\/em>. A topos is a general statement that \u201cwarrants\u201d the acceptability of the argument and can generate an infinite number of particular arguments or enthymemes of the same form.
\nEhninger and Brockriede have shown how the concept of a warrant could cover the main forms of argument schemes. For example \u201cauthoritative arguments\u201d ([1960], p. 293):<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0(D) Klaus Knorr states \u201cSoviet leaders calculate that a minor build-up of nuclear power in the NATO countries of Western Europe will add only marginally to the danger of American striking power.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 Therefore<\/em> (C) Soviet leaders calculate that a minor build-up of nuclear power in the NATO countries of Western Europe will add only marginally (to the danger of American striking power).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0Since<\/em> (W) what Knorr says about the power of nuclear weapons is reliable.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0Because <\/em>(B) Knorr is a professor at Princeton’s Center of International Studies, he is unbiased and has made reliable statements on similar matters in the past.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0Unless <\/em>(R) Other authorities more qualified than Knorr say otherwise or special circumstances negate or reduce Knorr’s usual reliability as a witness.<\/span><\/p>\n

Accordingly, the specific objections and rebuttals associated with a given argument scheme fall under the qualifier – rebuttal subsystem.<\/p>\n

3.3 Open Foundations<\/span><\/h2>\n

Let us assume that Harris was not born not Bermuda but in the Falkland Islands<\/em> (English name) also called Islas<\/em> Malvinas<\/em> (Argentine name) and not in Bermuda. In that case, the backing mentioning the British nationality statutes, would possibly be supplemented by an appeal \u00a0to the right of occupation, conquest and survival of the fittest, considering the islands’complex history.<\/p>\n

Basing the Warrant on a Backing opens a potential regression to infinity, since the guarantee needs itself to be guaranteed. The same regression could be observed in the argument, which coud also be challenged.<\/p>\n

3.4 Scientific Calculation and the Deletion of the Rebuttal<\/em> Component<\/span><\/h2>\n

Toulmin’s layout is popular among scientists interested in argumentation. The following example, less frequently cited than the previous one, expresses the expression of a scientific prediction based on a calculation involving laws derived from experience and observation (1958, p. 184):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The general premise is replaced by a calculation based on physical laws. The disappearance of the counter-discourse (modal + rebuttal) characterizes the transition to a mathematical calculus based on stable scientific content.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00ab\u00a0THE LAYOUT OF ARGUMENT\u00a0\u00bb In The Uses of Argument, Stephen Toulmin presents a general description of the structure of argumentative passages, \u201cthe layout of argument\u201d (1958, Chap. III, pp. 94-145). This highly influential representation is also known as the Toulmin Scheme, the Toulmin Model of Argument or the Toulmin Argument Pattern (TAP) 1.\u2002The Structure of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5095","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5095"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5095\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14368,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5095\/revisions\/14368"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}