ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on the presentation of arguments in everyday discourse. We use the work of Stephen Toulmin, an English philosopher, and Chaim Perelman, a Belgian legal scholar, to elaborate and expand the classical model of rhetoric.
Toulmin’s work provides us with concepts useful for puzzling out the structure of informal arguments. His concept of argument field coupled with Aristotle’s notions of genre keep us mindful of the context in which any argument is presented. Perelman’s ideas help us to see better that rhetoric is focused on audiences—the judges or decision makers to whom arguments are addressed. Consequently, argumentation is not mechanical, but humane; it is subjective, uncertain, and creative. Persuasion does not result by summing the parts arguments, nor does it result from application of logical algorithms.
The goal of argument is the formation of opinions in others. We show how Toulmin’s model helps us identify elements of arguments, and how Perelman’s useful fiction, the universal audience, helps you suss out the fittedness of arguments to decision makers targeted by rhetors.
We demonstrate differences between classical and new rhetorical approaches by re-analyzing Obama’s speech, “A More Perfect Union,” so you can compare the approaches.
