The Status in 1980 of the Toulmin Model of Argument in the Area of Speech Communication
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1980 The status in 1980 of the Toulmin model of argument in the area of speech communication Jeffrey Robert Sweeney Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Intellectual History Commons, Speech and Hearing Science Commons, and the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Sweeney, Jeffrey Robert, "The status in 1980 of the Toulmin model of argument in the area of speech communication" (1980). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3164. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.3155 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Jeffrey Robert Sweeney for the Master of Science in Speech Communication presented November 17, 1980. Title: The Status in 1980 of the Toulmin Model of Argument in the Area of Speech Communication. APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COM1'1ITTEE: Francis P. Gibson, Chairman Rupert ~- ~ucnanan In 1958 Stephen E. Toulmin wrote of inadequacies of formal logic and proposed a new field-dependent approach to the analysis of arguments. Despite a generally negative response to his proposal from formal logicians, Toulmin's model for the laying out of arguments for analysis was 2 subsequently appropriated by several speech communication textbook writers. In some textbooks, the Toulmin model has become successor to the syllogism as the paradigm of logi cal argument. Yet, perhaps due to their seemingly uncriti cal acceptance of Toulmin's approach there appears to be serious disagreement and confusion among speech communication professionals about the nature and applications of the Toul min model. Towards a resolution of this problem, this study provides a descriptive analysis and assessment of the history of the Toulmin model and its proposed applications to speech communication. Data were collected from two sources: (1) articles about the Toulmin approach from professional journals of philosophy and speech communication, and (2) selected speech communication textbook presentations of the Toulmin model or some variation of it. In order to determine the degree to which speech communication professionals appear to apprehend the limitations and strengths of the Toulmin approach relative to formal logic, major themes of criticism ·found in professional journals were used as points of departure for observations made of textbook presentations of the model. Various interpretations and applications of the Toulmin model presented in textbooks were compared, and critically assessed in order that specific issues suitable for subsequent investigation could be identified. 3 Formal logicians' general criticisms of Toulmin's approach were judged to be inconsequential to potential applications of his model to speech communication. How ever, their criticisms specific to the model itself were judged to be salient and may be summarized as follows: (1) many of the elements are difficult if not impossible to distinguish, (2) the backing element is inadequate to provide the kind of justification for arguments which Toulmin expects of it, (3) the data element is unclearly defined and is therefore questionable, and (4) the nature of warrant establishing arguments is not clearly explained. The sub stance of these criticisms is that formal logicians object to nearly every innovative feature of the Toulmin model. It is hypothesized that this conflict between formal logi cians and Toulmin may be explained as a difference of theo retical perspectives--linear vs. systems. Apparently with little regard for crucial/differences between formal logic and Toulmin's approach, speech com munication textbook writers have introduced diverse modifi cations of the model. Theoretical bases of Toulmin's approach such as "field-dependence" are seldom even tacitly acknowledged. Diagrammatic models have been severely altered. Modified definitions and poor exemplification have resulted in reduced clarity and consistency. There is also disagreement as to whether the model is usefully applied to field-invariant categories of argument, specific 4 fields relevant to speech communication or rhetorical dis course in general. Further research should be aimed towards a clarifica tion of the epistemological implications of alternative theoretical perspectives, the nature of argument fields, and the nature of the elements and uses of the Toulmin model. Investigation of these issues should facilitate the judicious appraisal of the relative values of alternative approaches to argument analysis, the usefulness of proposed modifications of the Toulmin model, and the limits of its potential applications. THE STATUS IN 1980 OF THE TOULMIN MODEL OF ARGUMENT IN THE AREA OF SPEECH COI'1MUNICATION by JEFFREY ROBERT SWEENEY A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in SPEECH CO.MMUNICATIO~ Portland State University 1981 TO THE OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH: The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Jeffrey Robert Sweeney presented November 17, 1980. Francis P. Gibson, Chairman Theodore G. Grove ·~rt APPROVED: Roberts, Acting Head, Department of Speech ommunication Stanl~Ci. Rauc1l;±fean of Graduate Studies and Research ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my deepest appreciation to all whose generous assistance and unqualified support have con- tributed to the success of this project. Listed below are those to whom I am especially indebted. ~r sr~ Francis P. Gibson. It has been my pri~ege to have Dr. Gibson as thesis advisor. The initial impetus for this project was an idea suggested by him in his outstanding sem- inar, "Reason in Oral Discourse." Once I embarked on my research, he willingly shared with me insights born of his nearly two decades of careful and creative investigation of the Toulmin model. During the eighteen months this thesis took to write, we spent hundreds of stimulating hours together conferring, exploring, and sometimes debating. For me, these discussions were the most impactful aspect of my research. Without the benefit of his considerable experience, sure-handed guidance, and unflagging support, this project could not have been completed. Dr. Gibson has helped me mold this work into a greater, more useful thesis than I had ever envisioned. For this I shall always be grateful. More generally, his enthusiasm for ideas and selfless devotion to the art of teaching are inspirational to me. iv Ted Grove, Milton Bennett, Steve Kosokoff, and Rupert Buchanan deserve special thanks for serving as members of my final oral examination committee. Each of them surpassed my highest expectations by dedicating an extraordinary amount of time and care to the reading of my manuscript. Through detailed suggestions regarding style and substance, I benefited from the excellent scholarship of each member. To the extent that I responded to their suggestions, this thesis is unquestionably richer, clearer, and more readable. Most of all I appreciate the encouragement they offered me during those inevitable moments of panic and desperation. The faculty and staff of the Department of Speech Communication made an invaluable contribution by conspiring to create a uniquely warm and supportive environment for learning and working. Barbara Vogelsang lent her superior expertise to the preparation and typing of the manuscript. Her assistance was a pleasure and a blessing. Innis Bowers, whose sacrifices on behalf of this project were many, helped me more than any other with her love, laughter, patience, perspective, and companionship. In addition, my gratitude extends to the treasured members of my physical and spiritual families whose large and small contributions made the work seem less difficult and the goal, more worthwhile. The following is a partial list. v Ben and Dora Sweeney Dominic A. LaRusso David J. Pegg William G. Sweeney Rick and Candace Rudge Debbie Sullivan and Dan O'Shea Richard D'Arcey Marion Murray Cheryl and Ted Haller Mark Bergman William J. Bowers Janet Bennett Bill and Francie Anton Hiro and Ann Teguchi Rick and Lucy Leffler Don Levi Stephen Toulmin and of course, The Immortal Socrates. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • iii LIST OF FIGURES • ix CH.API'ER I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 4 Methods of Research • • • 6 II FORMAL LOGIC AND THE TOULMIN MODEL: ORIGINS OF A NEW APPROACH • • • • • 21 Formal Logic and the Syllogism 23 The Toulmin Model • . 38 Toulmin's Criticisms of Formal Logic . • • • • • • • • 55 Summary •• 68 III CRITICISM OF THE TOULMIN MODEL FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF FORMAL LOGIC: A CONFLICT OF THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • 81 General Criticisms of the Toulmin Approach • • • . • • • • . • 82 Specific Criticisms of the Toulmin Mode 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 93 Differences of Theoretical Perspectives • • • • • • 122 Summary • • • • • • • • • • 140 vii CHAPTER PAGE IV TEXTBOOK REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TOULMIN APPROACH: INTERPRETATIONS OF SPEECH COMMUNICATION PROFESSIONALS • • • . • • 150 Theoretical Bases of the Toulmin Approach as Reflected in Speech Communication Textbooks • • • • • • 151 The Toulmin Diagrammatic Model as Represented in Speech Communication Textbooks • • • • • • • • •