Abstract
In The Uses of Argument (1958) proposed a new, dialectically grounded structure for the layout of arguments, replacing the old terminology of “premiss” and “conclusion” with a new set of terms: claim, data (later “grounds”), warrant, modal qualifier, rebuttal, backing. Toulmin’s scheme has been widely adopted in the discipline of speech communication, especially in the United States. In this paper I focus on one component of the scheme, the concept of a warrant. I argue that those who have adopted Toulmin’s scheme have often distorted the concept of warrant in a way which destroys what is distinctive and worthwhile about it. And I respond to criticisms of the concept by (1984), (1996) and (1991). Their criticisms show the need for some revision of Toulmin’s position, but his basic concept of warrant, I shall argue, should be retained as a central concept for the evaluation of arguments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aristotle (1984/c. 350 BCE). Topica et Sophistici Elenchi, ed W. D. Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press. First published c. 350 BCE.
Clark, R. (1956). Natural inference. Mind, 65, 455–472.
Cowan, J.L. (1964). The uses of argument-an apology for logic. Mind, 73, 27–45.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Falfacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eemeren F.H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1984). The Study of Argumentation. New York: Irvington.
Ennis, R.H. (1982). Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese, 51, 61–86.
Freeman, J.B. Dialectics and the Macro structure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure. Berlin: Foris.
Hitchcock, D. (forthcoming a). Sampling scholarly arguments: a test of a theory of good inference. In H.V. Hansen & C.W. Tindale (Eds.), Argumentation and its Applications. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Hitchcock, D. (forthcoming b). A sample of arguments. In H.V. Hansen & C.W. Tindale (Eds.), Argumentation and its Applications. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Appendix to (Hitchcock, forthcoming a).
Johnson, R.H. (1996/1981). Toulmin’s bold experiment. In R.H. Johnson, The Rise of Informal Logic (pp. 116–152). Newport News, VA: Vale Press. First published in Informal Logic Newsletter, 3/3, 13-19.
Mill, J.S. (1973/1843). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. First edition published in 1843.
Nagel, E. (1961). The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Oldisworth, W. (1709). A dialogue between Timothy and Philatheus, in which the principles and projects of a late whimsical book: Intituled, the rights of the Christian church &c. are fairly stated and answer’ d in their kind: And some attempts made towards the discovery of a new way of reasoning, intirely unknown both to the Ancients and Moderns. Written by a layman (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). London: For Bernard Lintott.
Peirce, C.S. (1955/1867-1902). What is a leading principle? In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical Writings of Peirce (pp. 129–134). New York: Dover. Compiled from portions of articles first published in 1867, 1880 and 1902.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique: Trnité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Pollock, J.L. (2001). Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence, 133, 233–282.
Ryle, G. (1950) ‘If,’ so’ and ‘because’. In M. Black (Ed.), Philosophical Analysis: A Collection of Essays (pp. 323–340). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S.E., Rieke, R. & Janik, A. (1984). An Introduction to Reasoning, second edition. New York: Macmillan.
Verheij, Bart (forthcoming). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. In H.V. Hansen & C.W. Tindale (Eds.), Argumentation and its Applications. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Zubov, V.I. (1964). Methods of A.M. Lyapunov and their Application, L.F. Boron (Ed.). Groningen: P. Noordhoff.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hitchcock, D. (2003). Toulmin’s Warrants. In: Van Eemeren, F.H., Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (eds) Anyone Who Has a View. Argumentation Library, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1456-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1078-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive