An Alternate Use of the Uses of Argument: A Feminist/Perceptive Adaptation of the Toulmin Model

Abstract

Though a segment of feminists have questioned the combative, logical, objective nature of academic writing and presentation, their critique has seldom extended to the most widely used model in composition and communication, Stephen Toulmin’s Informal Model of argument, which terminologically relates to combative, logical and legal terminologies. Toulmin’s model, however, adapted to a visual rather than legal metaphor, fits well with the less confrontational, more personal and contextual approach espoused by some feminists and many argument theorists. This essay offers an adaptation of Toulmin’s six-part model based in a visual metaphor, adding three more parts: ‘Interrelated Perceptions’ ; and ‘Historical/Cultural Horizon,’ (using Gadamer’s, 1989, hermeneutical historical concept to further contextualize arguments. The model then responds to two key feminist and argumentation theorist concerns, replacing the argument-as-war metaphorical mapping of argument relations, and personalizing and contextualizing arguments as to historical, social, and cultural situation.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,410

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Toulmin’s “Analytic Arguments”.Ben Hamby - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (1):116-131.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-04-02

Downloads
4 (#1,629,625)

6 months
1 (#1,478,912)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Uses of Argument.Stephen E. Toulmin - 1958 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Man Made Language.Dale Spender - 1985 - Routledge.
Conceptual metaphor in everyday language.George Lakoff & Mark Johnson - 1980 - Journal of Philosophy 77 (8):453-486.

View all 7 references / Add more references