2006
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3009766
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Fluidity of Warrants: Using the Toulmin Model to Analyse Practical Discourse

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At the same time, enthymemes contribute to enhancing narrative resonance. Compared to narratives, which are generally open to multiple interpretations (Barry and Elmes, 1997; Boje, 1995; Cunliffe et al, 2004), enthymemes are relatively unambiguous (see Tans, 2006; Toulmin, 1994). Hence, audiences can complete the argument ‘with the help of their background knowledge regarding the issue at hand’ (Van Eemeren et al, 2014: 118).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the same time, enthymemes contribute to enhancing narrative resonance. Compared to narratives, which are generally open to multiple interpretations (Barry and Elmes, 1997; Boje, 1995; Cunliffe et al, 2004), enthymemes are relatively unambiguous (see Tans, 2006; Toulmin, 1994). Hence, audiences can complete the argument ‘with the help of their background knowledge regarding the issue at hand’ (Van Eemeren et al, 2014: 118).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because warrants are somewhat fluid (Tans, 2006), they often imply more than one kind of rationality. For the sake of clarity, we have coded warrants according to the rationality that is dominant.…”
Section: Data and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Argumentation rationality thus implies expressing the reasons to act on. These reasons are expressed in a phenomenon (argumentation, debate) that is ubiquitous in everyday life (Weick & Browning, 1986) and relatively easy to observe, especially when the debates are public (Phillips, Sewell, & Jaynes, 2008;Tans, 2006). Following Toulmin (1958), practical argumentation in such debates is contextual, given the field dependence of argumentation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%