Toulmin's skeleton for analyzing argument & arguing differently

I am currently taking a moment to reflect upon Toulmin's "first skeleton of a pattern for analyzing arguments" (1). This skeleton proposes that D (since W)- so C; or as an example Harry was born in Bermuda (since a man born in Bermuda will be a British subject)- So, Harry is a British subject (2). In this skeleton we can identify some core components to an argument. For example we have data, warrant, and claim. Claim is C, or Harry is a British Subject. The warrant is since W, or since a man born in Bermuda will be a British subject (that which is implicit). And the data is D, or Harry was born in Bermuda (that which is explicit).

Now when thinking of what is traditional argument or normal argument, in order to think about arguing differently, I am first interested in exploring this normal or traditional argument as presented by Toulmin. It seems just from this most basic skeleton that there may not be reason to change this structure- to create an alternative. However, maybe there is. Maybe this simplistic model is too simplistic. For example, it may in fact be inherently exclusionary because to rely on implicit messages may not be understood by all. What if this formula is used with people from different cultures, would that which is implicit be understood? Or would this skeleton for argument prove to have limitations? Also, what about the grounds that this skeleton may rest on? For instance, the warrant in the example above is based within law or legal grounds, and it may be possible that this law, or its legal framework, may be structurally or institutionally violent in some way or another, and thus to have ones argument based within a violent framework could prove to be problematic.

Now, lets suppose that we don't want to adjust this structure, but we are still interested in arguing differently. It seems as though we could use a cultural studies lens (as just 1 example) to examine what are some hegemonic and dominant ways of arguing in our culture? Tannen presents a nice starting point here. Additionally, I think Maxwells previous post which explores rhetoric and policy could also provide some rich grounds. But, once we can grasp some of the more dominant arguments, or modes of argument, we could then possibly not necessarily stray from Toulmins model, but we could offer alternatives to the dominant. For example, by understanding how our political process traditionally, normally, or hegemonically argues- we could then offer alternative types of argument. Or find ways to shift, reframe, play with inclusion and exclusion, or argue differently.

These are just some immediate ideas floating around as I think about arguing differently & Toulmins first skeleton of a pattern for analyzing argument.



1- P. 9 from Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. NY: Cambridge University Press.
2- P. 9 (same source as #1).