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 Üzelgün, Önder Küçükural, Rahmi OruçThe 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.
Argüman Analizinde Dört Yaklaşım: Toulmin Modeli, Pragma-Diyalektik, Politik Söylem Analizi ve Argüman Kaynakları Modelinin bir Karşılaştırması
Mehmet Ali Üzelgün, Önder Küçükural, Rahmi OruçBir 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.
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.
