Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beardsley, M. C.: 1950, Practical Logic, Prentice Hall
F. Bex H. Prakken C. Reed D. Walton (2003) ArticleTitle‘Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argument Schemes and Generalisations’ Artificial Intelligence & Law 11 IssueID2–3 125–165
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, GNI
T. J. M. Bench-Capon (2003) ArticleTitle‘Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value Based Argumentation Frameworks’ Journal of Logic and Computation 13 IssueID3 429–448 Occurrence Handle10.1093/logcom/13.3.429
Chryssafidou, E., M. Sharples: 2002, ‘Computer-Supported Planning of Essay Argument Structure’ in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam
P. M. Dung (1995) ArticleTitle‘On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games’ Artificial Intelligence 77 IssueID2 321–357 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
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), Springer
Freeman, J. B.: 1991, Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Argument, Foris
L. Groarke (1999) ArticleTitle‘Deductivism Within Pragma-Dialectics’ Argumentation 13 1–16 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1007771101651
Hoaglund, J.: 1999, Critical Thinking, 3rd ed., Vale Press
Hitchcock, D.: 2003, ‘Toulmin’s Warrants’ in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam
J. Katzav C. Reed (2004) ArticleTitle‘On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments’ Argumentation 18 IssueID2 239–259 Occurrence Handle10.1023/B:ARGU.0000024044.34360.82
Kirschner, P. A., S. J. Buckingham-Shum and C. S. Carr: 2003, Visualizing Argument, Springer
P. Krause A. Ambler M. Elvang-Goransson J. Fox (1996) ArticleTitle‘A Logic of Argumentation for Reasoning under Uncertainty’ Computational Intelligence 11 IssueID1 113–131
T. Parsons (1996) ArticleTitle‘What is Argument?’ Journal of Philosophy 93 164–185
Perleman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric, Notre Dame Press
Pollock, J. L.: 1995, Cognitive Carpentry, MIT Press
Reed, C. and T. J. Norman: 2003, Argumentation Machines, Kluwer
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 Report
C. Reed G. W. A. Rowe (2004) ArticleTitle‘Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation’ International Journal of AI Tools 14 IssueID3–4 961–980
H. W. Rittel M. M. Webber (1973) ArticleTitle‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’ Policy Sciences 4 155–169 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF01405730
Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, CUP
Van Gelder, T. J.: 2003, ‘Enhancing Deliberation Through Computer-Supported Argument Visualization’ in (Kirschner et al., 2003)
B. Verheij (2003) ArticleTitle‘Artificial Argument Assistants for Defeasible Argumentation’ Artificial Intelligence 150 IssueID1–2 291–324
Walton, D. N.: 1997, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, LEA
Wigmore, J. H.: 1931, The Principles of Judicial Proof, 2nd ed., Little, Brown & Co
Wreen, M. J.: 1998, ‘A Few Remarks on the Individuation of Arguments’ in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reed, C., Rowe, G. Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation. Argumentation 19, 267–286 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4416-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4416-9