Research Article


DOI :10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666   IUP :10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666    Full Text (PDF)

Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics

Mehmet Ali ÜzelgünÖnder KüçükuralRahmi Oruç

The inferential relation drawn between a reason and a claim constitutes the basis of all argument approaches and models. This article conducts a concept-based comparative literature review that aims to compile and compare four contemporary argument models that are used in the analysis of everyday discourse: the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics. Argumentation theory and models are inspired, on the one hand, by discursive approaches in the emphasis put on the content and context, and on the other, from analytical philosophy and logic in the application of rational norms and standards. Before examining the four models, developed in the framework of argumentation theory, the article positions the argument approach between the social constructionist and empirical approach of discourse analysis and the formal and normative approach of logic. In examining the four argument models and their analytical reconstruction operations, it seeks to clarify their approach to inferential relations in everyday communication and illustrate their analytical differences. Throughout the four sections, schematic illustrations of how each model reconstructs a simple everyday argument are thus provided. In the conclusion, the models are compared discussing the type of studies each model is most suitable for and the cases for which each can be used most fruitfully.

DOI :10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666   IUP :10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666    Full Text (PDF)

Argüman Analizinde Dört Yaklaşım: Toulmin Modeli, Pragma-Diyalektik, Politik Söylem Analizi ve Argüman Kaynakları Modelinin bir Karşılaştırması

Mehmet Ali ÜzelgünÖnder KüçükuralRahmi Oruç

Bir gerekçe ile bir iddia arasında kurulan çıkarsama ilişkisi tüm argüman teorilerinin ve modellerinin temelini oluşturur. Bununla birlikte farklı analitik öncelikler doğrultusunda detaylandırılmış çeşitli argüman modelleri mevcuttur. Bu makale kavramsal ilişkilere odaklı karşılaştırmalı bir literatür taraması yöntemi ile söylem analizi çalışmalarını desteklemek amacıyla geliştirilmiş dört güncel argüman modelini karşılaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır: Toulmin Modeli, Pragma-Diyalektik, Politik Söylem Analizi ve Argüman Kaynakları Modeli. Argüman modelleri ve yaklaşımları bir yanda analizde içerik ve bağlamın önemine yaptıkları vurguyla söylemsel yaklaşımlardan, öte yanda belli akli ilişkileri ve standartları uygulamaya geçirmekle analitik felsefe ve mantıktan esin almışlardır. Argüman teorisi çerçevesinde önerilen dört modeli sırayla incelemeden önce argüman yaklaşımı söylem analizinin sosyal inşacı ve ampirik yaklaşımıyla, mantığın biçimsel ve normatif yaklaşımı arasında konumlandırılmaktadır. Ardından, söz konusu dört argüman modelinin gündelik iletişimdeki çıkarsama ilişkilerini apaçık etmek amacıyla, lakin farklı analitik ihtiyaçları göz önünde bulundurarak, bu ilişkileri nasıl farklı öğelere ayırdıkları irdelenmektedir. Dört bölüm boyunca basit bir gündelik argümanın her bir model tarafından ne şekilde yeniden yapılandırıldığı şematik olarak örnekleyerek gösterilmektedir. Sonuç bölümünde ise modellerin bir karşılaştırması ile hangi modelin ne tür çalışmalar için daha uygun olduğu, ne tür durumlarda daha verimli olarak kullanılabileceği ve kullandıkları argüman yaklaşımının sınırları kısaca tartışılmaktadır.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


The inferential relation drawn between a reason and a claim constitutes the basis of all argumentation approaches and models. This article aims to compile and compare four contemporary argument models that are used in the analysis of everyday discourse: the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics. The main purpose of these argument models is to reveal the inferential relations speakers naturally establish and use in daily conversations. The four models, however, are constructed with different approaches to argumentation and respond to different analytical needs.

Before examining these four models, developed in the framework of argumentation theory, the argumentation approach is positioned between the social constructionist and empirical approach of discourse analysis and the formal and normative approach of logic. Argumentation theory and models are inspired, on the one hand, by discursive approaches in the emphasis put on the content and context, and on the other, from analytical philosophy and logic in the application of rational norms and standards. In order to clarify the uses of the argumentative approach in the analyses of discourse, the study focuses specifically on the analytical reconstruction operations performed in the application of the four argument models.

First, the Toulmin Model (1958) preceded the other three models and can be considered the ancestor of the other models. Toulmin developed the classic Aristotelian relationship between a premise and a conclusion, leading contemporary argumentation  studies, together with the ground-breaking work of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969). Although the Toulmin Model may appear as a one-sided argument model, this model is based on predicting and addressing the possible moves of an antagonist in a singular argument. Although there is no dialogue process in which both sides participate in the model, addressing the moves of the other party can be useful in terms of revealing how the speaker represents the position of the hearer.

Pragma-Dialectics, in the second place, differs from the other three models we examine. This approach treats a dialogue both as a product (argument) and a process (critical discussion). The important contribution of Pragma-Dialectics is an ideal protocol for discussion; that is, a normative model that lists the verbal and argumentative movements that parties can use and should avoid in a critical discussion. Instead of proposing a schematic argument model like the other three approaches, this approach introduces an act-based protocol for a normative analysis, accompanied by a notation system for representing the relations among propositions. Both are shortly mentioned, providing a glimpse of how the propositions in a dialogue can be reconstructed using this approach.

Third, Political Discourse Analysis focuses specifically on a particular type of argument or scheme, i.e., practical argument. The practical argument has a privileged position among all other argument types for its precedence in everyday discourse and in its key role in political decisions and negotiations. This model establishes the argumentative relation between a goal that is contextualized by a circumstance and a value premise and a means to that goal.

Finally, the Argumentum Model of Topics focuses specifically on the internal structure of single arguments, with the goal and capacity of further specifying the inferential relations therein. This model proposes to distinguish between the inferential and the contextual components of an argument. The emphasis is that it is not enough just to look at the rational principles in the inferential component, but to simultaneously assess their use and enactment in context.

Throughout the four analytical sections of this review, the paper schematically illustrates how a simple everyday argument is reconstructed by each of the four models. In the conclusion, the models are compared, discussing the types of studies each model is most suitable for and the cases for which each can be used most fruitfully. Finally the limits and the potentials of the argumentative approach are discussed.


PDF View

References

  • Akın, M. (2018). Günümüzde bazı marjinal mehdî tiplemeleri ve söylem analizleri. Kader, 16, 66-88. https://doi.org/10.18317/kaderdergi.403347 google scholar
  • Aldağ, H. (2006). Toulmin tartışma modeli. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15, 13-33. google scholar
  • Amossy, R. (2002). Introduction to the Study of Doxa. Poetics Today, 23, 369-394. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-23-3-369 google scholar
  • Audi, R. (2006). Practical reasoning and ethical decision. London, UK: Routledge. google scholar
  • Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press. google scholar
  • Austin, J. L. (2009). Söylemek ve yapmak. İstanbul, Turkey: Metis Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Breeze, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis and its critics. Pragmatics, 21, 493-525. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.4.01bre google scholar
  • Bevir, M., & Blakely, J. (2018). Interpretive social science: An anti-naturalist approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • Blair, J. A. (2010). ISSA Proceedings 2010 - Logic in the Pragma-Dialectical Theory. Rozenberg Quarterly. Retrieved from http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2010-logic-in-the-pragma-dialectical-theory/ google scholar
  • Cengiz, K., & Küçükural, Ö. (2018). Sabitleyici bir tartışma (argümantasyon) pratiği olarak erkeklik. Toplum ve Bilim, 145, 32-54. google scholar
  • Çalışkan, O. (2019). Politik argümantasyonun temellendirilmesinde ortak kanaatlere başvurma: Cumhur ittifakı argümanlarına yönelik bir inceleme. İnsan ve İnsan, 6(19), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.462678 google scholar
  • Fairclough, I. (2017). Deliberative discourse. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 242-256). London, UK: Routledge. google scholar
  • Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London, UK: Routledge. google scholar
  • Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 162-187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  • Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. New York, USA: Routledge. google scholar
  • Fairclough, I., & Mădroane, I. D. (2016). ISSA Proceedings 2014 - An argumentative approach to policy ‘framing’. Competing ‘frames’ and policy conflict in the Roşia Montană case. Rozenberg Quarterly. Retrieved from http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2014-an-argumentative-approach-to-policy-framing-competing-frames-and-policy-conflict-in-the-rosia-montana-case/ google scholar
  • Fogelin, R. (2005). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic, 25, 1-8. google scholar
  • Gerritsen, S. (2001). Unexpressed premises. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 56-84). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat. google scholar
  • Gilbert, M. A. (1995). Coalescent argumentation. Argumentation, 9, 837-852. google scholar
  • Greco Morasso, S. (2012). Contextual frames and their argumentative implications: A case study in media argumentation. Discourse Studies, 14, 197-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611433636 google scholar
  • Gürsoy, B. (2013). Tüketi̇mi̇n esteti̇ği̇ ve medya: “Bugün ne gi̇ysem” programı üzeri̇nden bi̇r değerlendi̇rme. İstanbul Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44, 85-98. google scholar
  • Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen. google scholar
  • Jackson, S. (1992). “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 260-269). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat. google scholar
  • Jäger, S., & Maier, F. (2009). Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 32-61). London, UK: Sage. google scholar
  • Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London, UK: Sage. google scholar
  • Keeney L. R. (1992). Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decision making. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press. google scholar
  • Kim, J. (2014). Interactivity, user-generated content and video game: an ethnographic study of Animal Crossing: Wild World. Continuum, 28(3), 357-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2014.893984 google scholar
  • Kurtuldu, B. (2019). Douglas Walton’ın argüman biçimleri yaklaşımı. Felsefe Arkivi, 51, 161-178. google scholar
  • Lewiński, M. (2018). Practical argumentation in the making: Discursive construction of reasons for action. S. Oswald, T. Herman, J. Jacquin (Eds.), Argumentation and Language - Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations (pp. 219-241). Cham: Springer. google scholar
  • Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. (2016). Argumentation theory. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198 google scholar
  • Nabers, D. (2009). Filling the void of meaning: Identity construction in US foreign policy after September 11, 2001. Foreign Policy Analysis, 5, 191-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2009.00089.x google scholar
  • O’Toole, M. M. (2004). Opera Ludentes: the Sydney Opera House at work and play. In K. O'Halloran (Ed.), Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic functional perspectives (pp. 11-27). London, UK: Continuum. google scholar
  • Perelman, C. (2012). The new rhetoric and the humanities: Essays on rhetoric and its applications. New York, USA: Springer. google scholar
  • Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, France: University of Notre Dame Press. google scholar
  • Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & Meyer, M. (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (pp. 87-121). London, UK: Sage. google scholar
  • Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons. google scholar
  • Rigotti, E., & Greco Moraso, S. (2010). Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to other contemporary approaches to Argument Schemes: The procedural and material components. Argumentation, 24, 489-512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-010-9190-7 google scholar
  • Schiappa, E. (2003). Defining reality: Definitions and the politics of meaning. Carbondale, Edwardsville: SIU Press. google scholar
  • Scollon, R. (2001). Action and text: Towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action, Mediated Discourse analysis and the Problem of Social Action. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (pp. 139-183). London, UK: Sage. google scholar
  • Searle, J. R., & Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Seçkin Kapucu, M., & Türk, H. (2019). Güncel bilimsel haberlerin Toulmin argüman modeline göre incelenmesi ve öğrencilerin argüman düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(3), 1119-1144. google scholar
  • Snoeck-Henkemans, A. (2003). Complex argumentation in a critical discussion. Argumentation, 17, 405-419. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026390419589 google scholar
  • Şah, U. (2012). Andımızı okumak: Bir aracılı söylem analizi çalışması. In S. Arkonaç (Ed.), Söylem çalışmaları. İstanbul, Turkey: Nobel. google scholar
  • Tindale, C. W. (2015). The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Toulmin, S. (2003). Uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Üzelgün, M. A. (2015). Sosyal temsil çalışmaları için sistematik bir yöntem olarak argüman analizi. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 35, 71-90. google scholar
  • Üzelgün, M. A., Mohammed, D., Lewiński, M., & Castro, P. (2015). Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: An argumentative analysis. Discourse Studies, 17, 467-484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615578965 google scholar
  • Üzelgün, M. A., & Pereira, J. R. (2020). Beyond the co-production of technology and society: The discursive treatment of technology with regard to near-term and long-term environmental goals. Technology in Society, 61, 101244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101244 google scholar
  • van Benthem, J. (2009). One logician's perspective on argumentation. Cogency, 1, 1-16. google scholar
  • van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 google scholar
  • van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 349-371). Massachusetts, USA: Blackwell. google scholar
  • van Eemeren, F. H. (2009). Argumentation theory after the New Rhetoric. L’analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, 17, 119-148. google scholar
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (2019). Handbook of argumentation theory: A critical survey of classical backgrounds and modern studies (Vol. 7). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. google scholar
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A. F. S. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. London, UK: Routledge. google scholar
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20(4), 381-392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9037-z google scholar
  • Wagemans, J. H. (2019). Four basic argument forms. Research in Language, 17, 57-69. https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2019-0005 google scholar
  • Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Wenzel, J. W. (2006). Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9-26). New York, USA: Idebate Press. google scholar
  • Wodak, R. (2011). The Discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
  • Wodak, R. (2001). “The discourse-historical approach”. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63-94). London, UK: Sage. google scholar
  • Zarefsky, D. (2014). Rhetorical perspectives on argumentation: Selected essays by David Zarefsky (Vol. 24). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Üzelgün, M.A., Küçükural, Ö., & Oruç, R. (2020). Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 0(59), 265-297. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666


AMA

Üzelgün M A, Küçükural Ö, Oruç R. Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences. 2020;0(59):265-297. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666


ABNT

Üzelgün, M.A.; Küçükural, Ö.; Oruç, R. Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 59, p. 265-297, 2020.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali, and Önder Küçükural and Rahmi Oruç. 2020. “Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics.” Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 0, no. 59: 265-297. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666


Chicago: Humanities Style

Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali, and Önder Küçükural and Rahmi Oruç. Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics.” Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 0, no. 59 (Dec. 2024): 265-297. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666


Harvard: Australian Style

Üzelgün, MA & Küçükural, Ö & Oruç, R 2020, 'Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics', Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, vol. 0, no. 59, pp. 265-297, viewed 7 Dec. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Üzelgün, M.A. and Küçükural, Ö. and Oruç, R. (2020) ‘Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics’, Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 0(59), pp. 265-297. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666 (7 Dec. 2024).


MLA

Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali, and Önder Küçükural and Rahmi Oruç. Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics.” Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, vol. 0, no. 59, 2020, pp. 265-297. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666


Vancouver

Üzelgün MA, Küçükural Ö, Oruç R. Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences [Internet]. 7 Dec. 2024 [cited 7 Dec. 2024];0(59):265-297. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666 doi: 10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666


ISNAD

Üzelgün, MehmetAli - Küçükural, Önder - Oruç, Rahmi. Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics”. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 0/59 (Dec. 2024): 265-297. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666



TIMELINE


Submitted13.07.2020
Accepted21.12.2020
Published Online30.12.2020

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.