Keeping balance between loyalty and modification: a Toulminian model as analytical framework

Abstract

AbstractToulmin model has been widely applied to composition-rhetoric and several modified models have been advanced. However, those modified versions diverge widely from Toulmin model. To Keep loyalty to Toulmin’s argumentation and infuse van Eemeren et al.’s pragma-dialectic view, we propose a new modified model as an analytical framework for argumentative essays, with the assumption that a writer is in fact arguing with a potential reader who holds a different view. The proposed framework was applied to explore the Chinese writers’ argumentative essays with content analysis employed. Altogether 60 essays were selected, coded, and analyzed. The results show that the Chinese writers preferred parallel arguments (i.e., several arguments supporting the same claim with the same ground-warrant structure) to hierarchical ones, justification to opposition, and descriptive warrant to the other types. Moreover, the adult expert writers wrote more warrants and qualifiers than the novice writers. The results reveal Chinese rhetoric and writing conventions, and prove the effectiveness of our proposed analytical framework.