On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the analysis and criticism of arguments

Willard, Charles Arthur

doi:10.1080/03637757609375942

Cited by 51 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…People are not much involved in formally stated premises, and they are absolutely invisible when the premises are given symbolic summary. In practice, formalization depersonalizes arguments, and to a lesser degree, so does diagramming them (Willard 1976). This willingness to de-personalize is evident in our literature.…”

Section: Informal Logicsupporting

confidence: 52%

The Arguers

Hample

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I wish to argue in favor of a particular orientation, one expressed in Brockriede's remark that "arguments are not in statements but in people." While much has been gained from textual analyses, even more will accrue by additional attention to the arguers. I consider that textual materials are really only the artifacts of arguments. The actual arguing is done exclusively by people, either the argument producers or receivers, and never by words on a page. In fact, most of our textual interpretations are quietly founded on the assumption that the artifact is fully informative about what people think.Résumé: Je veux soutenir une orientation exprimée dans une remarque de Brockriede que « les arguments ne sont pas dans des énoncés mais dans des personnes ». Malgré les bénéfices des analyses textuelles, on bénéficiera davantage d'une plus grande attention sur les personnes qui argumentent. Je considère le matériel textuel comme des objets façonnés par l'argumentation, mais celle-ci est façonnée exclusivement par des personnes qui produisent ou reçoivent des arguments, et jamais par des mots sur une page. En effet, la plupart de nos interprétations se fondent silencieusement sur la supposition que ces textes nous informent de la pensée des gens.

show abstract

Section: Informal Logicsupporting

confidence: 52%

The Arguers

Hample

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within argumentation theory and philosophy, it has been argued that the monological view afforded by the Toulmin model cannot meaningfully be applied to the complex dialogic dynamics of everyday argumentation (e.g. Fulkerson 1996;Habermas 1984;Johnson 1981aJohnson , 2002Lynch 1982;Primatarova-Miltscheva 1987;van Eemeren et al 1987;Willard 1976;Wohlrapp 1987). So though the Toulminian analyst may intend to investigate dialogic argumentation, her direct object of study is monologic -it is dialogic only in terms of the distant dialogic context in which the object of study was recorded.…”

Section: Summary and Discussion Of The Uses Of The Toulmin Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The extrapolation of core elements is fundamentally the creation of a static layout of the argumentation; and while this has many benefits it precludes the analyst from studying her object of study as a dynamic dialectical exchange that moves forwards (e.g. Fulkerson 1996;Willard 1976;Wohlrapp 1987). …”

Section: Dialogic Argumentation As An Object Of Study: Two Kinds Of Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bermejo-Luque 2006;Chambliss 1995;Cooley 1959;Freeman 2005Freeman , 2009Johnson 1981a, b;Keith and Beard 2008;Newman and Marshall 1991;Reed and Rowe 2005;Trent 1968;Verheij 2005;Willard 1976). For example, Cowan (1964) and van Eemeren et al (1987) have pointed out that talk units that may be extrapolated as data in one case can be extrapolated as a warrant in others and vice versa; similarly Castaneda (1960), Gross (1984), and Hample (1992) have argued that that there is no meaningful functional distinction between warrants and backings.…”

Section: The Toulmin Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dialectical Features of Students’ Argumentation: A Critical Review of Argumentation Studies in Science Education

Nielsen

2011

Res Sci Educ

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the challenges of using the Toulmin model to analyze students' dialogical argumentation. The paper presents a theoretical exposition of what is involved in an empirical study of real dialogic argumentation. Dialogic argumentation embodies dialectical features -i.e. the features that are operative when students collaboratively manage disagreement by providing arguments and engaging critically with the arguments provided by others. The paper argues that while dialectical features cannot readily be understood from a Toulminian perspective, it appears that an investigation of them is a prerequisite for conducting Toulminian analysis. This claim is substantiated by a detailed review of five of the ten most significant papers on students' argumentation in science education. This leads to the surprising notion that empirical studies in the argumentation strand -even those studies that have employed non-dialectical frameworks such as the Toulmin model -have implicitly struggled to come to terms with the dialectical features of students' discourse. The paper finally explores how some scholars have worked to attend directly to these dialectical features; and it presents five key issues that need to be addressed in a continued scholarly discussion.

show abstract

“…Once, however, we move beyond that rather uninteresting point of agreement we reach a wide range of differentiation. Some theorists, such as Willard (1976), claim that arguments cannot be understood in isolation from the actual, particular argument as it happens and where it happens. At the other extreme we have Johnson (2000) who sees written arguments as presented in an editorial or an essay as the "distillate" of argumentation (168).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hample's Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face

Gilbert

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the analysis and criticism of arguments

Cited by 51 publications

References 6 publications

The Arguers

The Arguers

Dialectical Features of Students’ Argumentation: A Critical Review of Argumentation Studies in Science Education

Hample's Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About