Translating Toulmin diagrams: Theory neutrality in argument representation

Chris Reed, Glenn Rowe

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    16 Citations (Scopus)

    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.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)267-286
    Number of pages20
    JournalArgumentation
    Volume19
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2005

    Fingerprint

    neutrality
    pragmatism
    artificial intelligence
    layout
    pragmatics
    engineering
    Teaching
    Neutrality
    Translating
    Diagrams
    literature
    Warrants

    Keywords

    • Argument analysis
    • Argument diagramming
    • Argument software
    • Computational models of argument
    • Toulmin diagrams

    Cite this

    @article{89becbc0e10447799aa674bb4d31e91d,
    title = "Translating Toulmin diagrams: Theory neutrality in argument representation",
    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.",
    keywords = "Argument analysis, Argument diagramming, Argument software, Computational models of argument, Toulmin diagrams",
    author = "Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe",
    note = "dc.publisher: Springer Verlag The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com dc.description.sponsorship: Leverhulme Trust F/00 143/C",
    year = "2005",
    doi = "10.1007/s10503-005-4416-9",
    language = "English",
    volume = "19",
    pages = "267--286",
    journal = "Argumentation",
    issn = "0920-427X",
    publisher = "Springer Verlag",
    number = "3",

    }

    Translating Toulmin diagrams : Theory neutrality in argument representation. / Reed, Chris; Rowe, Glenn.

    In: Argumentation, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2005, p. 267-286.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Translating Toulmin diagrams

    T2 - Theory neutrality in argument representation

    AU - Reed, Chris

    AU - Rowe, Glenn

    N1 - dc.publisher: Springer Verlag The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com dc.description.sponsorship: Leverhulme Trust F/00 143/C

    PY - 2005

    Y1 - 2005

    N2 - 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.

    AB - 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.

    KW - Argument analysis

    KW - Argument diagramming

    KW - Argument software

    KW - Computational models of argument

    KW - Toulmin diagrams

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33644545716&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1007/s10503-005-4416-9

    DO - 10.1007/s10503-005-4416-9

    M3 - Article

    VL - 19

    SP - 267

    EP - 286

    JO - Argumentation

    JF - Argumentation

    SN - 0920-427X

    IS - 3

    ER -