Argumentation

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 185–202 | Cite as

Using Toulmin's Framework for the Analysis of Everyday Argumentation: Some Methodological Considerations

  • Maria Simosi

Abstract

This study used Toulmin's analytical framework of argumentative structure in order to examine employees' argumentative discourse on the way they handle conflict situations in their workplace. The way in which this analytical tool has been applied here challenges critics on the usefulness of the particular analytical tool for the analysis of real-life argumentation. The definition of argumentative elements according to their function in the context of a particular argument, together with the analysis beyond the level of what has been stated explicitly enabled a comprehensive understanding of how specific information, statements or assumptions are interpreted and utilized in arguments examined. Finally, the acknowledgment of the importance of `field-dependency' of argumentative discourse, through the consideration of the social context within which this discourse is embedded, elicited the way in which this context made employees' argumentation a meaningful and acceptable discourse in this particular setting.

argumentation analysis conflict resolution ordinary argumentation Toulmin 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Antaki, C.: 1994, Explaining and Arguing: The Social Organization of Accounts, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  2. Antaki, C.: and I. Leudar: 1992, ‘Explaining in Conversation: Towards an Argument Model’, European Journal of Social Psychology 22, 181-194.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, W. J.: 1994, ‘Using Virgil to Analyze Public Policy Arguments: A System Based on Toulmin's Informal logic’, Social Science Computer Review 12(1), 26-37.Google Scholar
  4. Berelson, B.: 1952, Content Analysis in Communication Research, Free Press, Glencoe, Ill.Google Scholar
  5. Boulding, K.: 1963, Conflict and Defense, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Burelson, B. R.: 1992, ‘On the Analysis and Criticism of Arguments: Some Theoretical and Methodological Considerations’, in W. L. Benoit, D. Hample and P. J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in Argumentation, Foris, Berlin, pp. 259-277.Google Scholar
  7. Canary, D. J. and A. L. Sillars: 1992, ‘Argument in Satisfied and Dissatisfied Married Couples’, in W. L. Benoit, D. Hample and P. J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in Argumentation, Foris, Berlin, pp. 737-764.Google Scholar
  8. Chambliss, M. J.: 1995, ‘Text Cues and Strategies Successful Readers Use to Construct the Gist of Lengthy Written Arguments’, Reading Research Quarterly 30(4), 778-807.Google Scholar
  9. Dijk, T. A. van: 1997, ‘The Study of Discourse’, in T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process, Sage, London, pp. 1-34.Google Scholar
  10. Dunn, W. N.: 1981, Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst and T. Kruiger: 1987, Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1997, ‘Argumentation’, in T. A. van Dijk, (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process, Sage, London, pp. 208-229.Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, J. B.: 1991, Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments, Foris, Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. Govier, T.: 1987, Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  15. Kneupper, C. W.: 1978, ‘On Argument and Diagrams’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 14, 181-186.Google Scholar
  16. Kolb, D. M. and L. L. Putnam: 1992, ‘Introduction: The Dialectics of Disputing’, in D. M. Kolb and D. M. Bartunek (eds.), Hidden Conflict in Organizations: Uncovering Behind the-Scenes Disputes, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 1-31.Google Scholar
  17. Krippendorff, K.: 1980, Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  18. Mishler, E. G.: 1986, Research Interviewing, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Personal Narratives Group: 1989, ‘Truths’, in Personal Narratives Group, (ed.), Interpreting Women's Lives: Feminist Theory and Personal Narratives, Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, pp. 261-264.Google Scholar
  20. Riessman, C. K.: 1993, Narrative Analysis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Toulmin, S.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  22. Toulmin, S., R. RIEKE and A. JANIK: 1984, An Introduction to Reasoning, 2nd edition, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  23. TRIANDIS, H. C. and V. Vassiliou: 1972, ‘A Comparative Analysis of Subjective Culture’, in H. C. Triandis et al. (eds.), The Analysis of Subjective Culture, Wiley, New York, pp. 299-335.Google Scholar
  24. Weber, A. L., J. H. Harvey and T. L. Orbuch: 1992, ‘What Went Wrong: Communicating Accounts of Relationship Conflict’, in M. L. McLaughlin et al. (eds.), Explaining One's Self to Others, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 261-280.Google Scholar
  25. Wenzel, J. W.: 1992, ‘Perspectives on Argument’, in W. L. Benoit, D. Hample and P. J. Benoit (eds), Readings in Argumentation, Foris, Berlin, pp. 121-143.Google Scholar
  26. Willard, C. A.: 1976, ‘On the Utility of Descriptive Diagrams for the Analysis and Criticism of Arguments’, Communication Monographs 43, 308-319.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Simosi
    • 1
  1. 1.AthensGreece

Personalised recommendations