, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 267–286

Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation



The Toulmin diagram layout is very familiar and widely used, particularly in the teaching of critical thinking skills. The conventional box-and-arrow diagram is equally familiar and widespread. Translation between the two throws up a number of interesting challenges. Some of these challenges (such as the relationship between Toulmin warrants and their counterparts in traditional diagrams) represent slightly different ways of looking at old and deep theoretical questions. Others (such as how to allow Toulmin diagrams to be recursive) are diagrammatic versions of questions that have already been addressed in artificial intelligence models of argument. But there are further questions (such as the relationships between refutations, rebuttals and undercutters, and the roles of multiple warrants) that are posed as a specific result of examining the diagram inter-translation problem. These three classes of problems are discussed. To the first class are addressed solutions based on engineering pragmatism; to the second class, are addressed solutions drawn from the appropriate literature; and to the third class, fuller exploration is offered justifying the approaches taken in developing solutions that offer both pragmatic utility and theoretical interest. Finally, these solutions are explored briefly in the context of the Araucaria system, showing the ways in which analysts can tackle arguments either using one diagrammatic style or another, or even a combination of the two.


argument analysis argument diagramming argument software computational models of argument Toulmin diagrams 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beardsley, M. C.: 1950, Practical Logic, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  2. Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D. 2003‘Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argument Schemes and Generalisations’Artificial Intelligence & Law11125165Google Scholar
  3. Bench-Capon, T. J. M.: 1998, ‘Specification and Implementation of Toulmin dialogue game’, in Hage, J. C. et al. (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems, pp. 5–20, GNIGoogle Scholar
  4. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 2003‘Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value Based Argumentation Frameworks’Journal of Logic and Computation13429448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chryssafidou, E., M. Sharples: 2002, ‘Computer-Supported Planning of Essay Argument Structure’ in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Argumentation, Sic Sat, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Dung, P. M. 1995‘On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games’Artificial Intelligence77321357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fox, J. and S. Das: 1996, ‘A Unified Framework for Hypothetical and Practical Reasoning’, in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning (FAPR’96), SpringerGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman, J. B.: 1991, Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Argument, ForisGoogle Scholar
  9. Groarke, L. 1999‘Deductivism Within Pragma-Dialectics’Argumentation13116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoaglund, J.: 1999, Critical Thinking, 3rd ed., Vale PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Hitchcock, D.: 2003, ‘Toulmin’s Warrants’ in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Argumentation, Sic Sat, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. Katzav, J., Reed, C. 2004‘On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments’Argumentation18239259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirschner, P. A., S. J. Buckingham-Shum and C. S. Carr: 2003, Visualizing Argument, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  14. Krause, P., Ambler, A., Elvang-Goransson, M., Fox, J. 1996‘A Logic of Argumentation for Reasoning under Uncertainty’Computational Intelligence11113131Google Scholar
  15. Parsons, T. 1996‘What is Argument?’Journal of Philosophy93164185Google Scholar
  16. Perleman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric, Notre Dame PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Pollock, J. L.: 1995, Cognitive Carpentry, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Reed, C. and T. J. Norman: 2003, Argumentation Machines, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  19. Reed, C. and G. W. A. Rowe: 2001, ‘Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML’ in Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  20. Reed, C., Rowe, G. W. A. 2004‘Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation’International Journal of AI Tools14961980Google Scholar
  21. Rittel, H. W., Webber, M. M. 1973‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’Policy Sciences4155169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, CUPGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Gelder, T. J.: 2003, ‘Enhancing Deliberation Through Computer-Supported Argument Visualization’ in (Kirschner et al., 2003)Google Scholar
  24. Verheij, B. 2003‘Artificial Argument Assistants for Defeasible Argumentation’Artificial Intelligence150291324Google Scholar
  25. Walton, D. N.: 1997, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, LEAGoogle Scholar
  26. Wigmore, J. H.: 1931, The Principles of Judicial Proof, 2nd ed., Little, Brown & CoGoogle Scholar
  27. Wreen, M. J.: 1998, ‘A Few Remarks on the Individuation of Arguments’ in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Argumentation, Sic Sat, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Applied ComputingUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations