Kenneth Burke On Application And Toulmin On Argument

Starting with the famous Roman teachers of rhetoric, such as Cicero and Quintilian, to the inspiring Aristotle, these men and many more made huge contributions to rhetorical theory and how people understand and make sense of the world. The purpose of this paper is to access two articles on modern rhetoric. The first article is titled “Kenneth Burke on Form,” by Robert L. Heath and the second one is “Toulmin on Argument: An Interpretation and Application” by Wayne Brockriede and Douglas Ehninger. In this essay I will argue that Toulmin’s article on argument and interpretation application is the superior of the two articles. I will first summarize, “Kenneth Burke on Form,” and then summarize “Toulmin on argument: An Interpretation and Application”.

In “Kenneth Burke on Form,” Heath makes a compelling argument on the importance of the concept of form. He argues that form provides rationale for combining language, idea, and appeal. This article is about Heath proving that form is a concept worth continuing scrutiny, and Burke does provide helpful insight. I will discuss each of the four steps Heath explains in analyzing why this concept of form should be appreciatively noted.

He first discusses the evolution of the concept, second he looks at various decisions that Kenneth Burke makes on the theory, third he explains how Burke combines form, substance, idea and audience appeal into a single, critical principle, and fourth he argues that his theory is important because it provides rationale for combing language, idea, and appeal.
The first discussion of this article is looking at the evolution of the development of Burke’s theory on form. It begins with his earliest writings in the 1920’s and continues to evolve throughout the 1970’s. During this time his thoughts reflect the influence of literary and rhetorical theory, perspectives on psychology and classical philosophy. He solved these influences into a dramatistic view of form as act. Heath states, as act, form is created by the interrelationship among substance, the discursive progression of an idea through its various stages of modification and amplification, and audience expectations. Burke states this unity is possible because appeal in form is intrinsic to language, the symbolic realm. He concludes that act, form and idea are

interchangeable. Secondly I will now look at the fundamental decisions made by Kenneth Burke. “Burke came to view humans as influenced less directly through contact with their physical environment and more by their symbolic, linguistic environment.”(Heath 396), he then eventually concluded the physical is completed by the linguistic. Burke decided that the linguistic realm was ultimately more important for human interaction. Form in the physical realm makes the individual more sensitive to the symbolic realm of form, but the essential realm of form is symbolic. Third I will now explain how Burke combines form, substance, idea and audience appeal into a single, critical principle. His importance on form as intrinsic to the nature of language started in 1922, when he speculated that form and idea are inseparable. For rationale to unite idea and form Burke sought classical foundations. He revealed form is an act of giving shape to an idea; knowing what goes with what and how ideas modify and transform one another through arrangement is essential to forming discourse. Burke states that form is the development of substance to complete an idea in a progression which meets the expectations of the audience. So rather than viewing form, idea, and substance separate, he chose to combine them in such a manner that, “once a complex linguistic structure has arisen, there is also a state of simultaneous mutuality among terms.” Form and substance are inseparable because the culture of a people allows only certain statements to be accepted as true. The last part of the essay I will explain is the importance of Burke’s theory. It has strong importance because of its unification of substance, rules of language use, thought process, and appeal into a single, coherent critical principle. Heath stresses that Burkes theory deserves to be appreciatively noted because of its centrality to the nature of language and of humans as language-using beings. When two concepts are put together, the expectations of a logical statement coincide with the form of expression. Heath uses the concepts “red and “dress” as an example. This can express, “red dress”. If you used the opposite combination it means something very different, even suggesting communistic differences. Form consists of the expression of an idea in such a manner that the expectations of the audience are met by the resolution of the idea. The appeal of form is universal, this article suggests why Burke’s dramatistic rationale of form is critically important.
In the document titled “Toulmin on Argument: An Interpretation and application,” Brockriede and Ehninger make a great argument on why Toulmin’s analysis and terminology are important to the rhetorician for two reasons. The first reason being is they provide an appropriate structural model by means of which rhetorical arguments may be laid out for analysis and criticism. The second is they suggest a system for classifying artistic proofs which employs argument as a central and unifying construct. It is also argued that Toulmin’s method is preferable over traditional logic. I will analyze and discuss these reasoning’s made by Brockriede and Ehninger.
First, Toulmin’s analysis on argument is movement from accepted data, through a warrant, to a claim.

Stephen Toulmin noticed that good, realistic arguments typically will consist of six parts. He used these terms to describe the items. Data answers the question, “What have you got to go on?” Data is facts or evidence used that proves the argument. Without data clearly present or strongly implied, an argument has no informative or substantive component, no factual point of departure. Claim is the statement being argued, a thesis. It is always of a potentially controversial nature is the explicit appeal produced by the argument. A claim may stand as the final theory in an argument. The data and claim together may be regarded as its main proof line. Warrant the general, hypothetical (and often implicit) logical statements that serve as bridges between the claim and the data, it is the “leap” involved in advancing from data to claim. The warrant answers the question “How do you get there.” Its function is to carry the accepted data to the doubted or disbelieved proposition which establishes the claim, thereby confirming this claim as true or acceptable. Toulmin recognizes a second triad of components which may but need not necessarily to be present in an argument. He calls these the backing, rebuttal and qualifier. The backing is statements the serve to support the warrant. The rebuttal is counter-arguments or statements indicating circumstances when the general argument does

not hold true. And the qualifier is statements that limit the strength of the argument or statements that propose the conditions under which the argument is true. This is how Toulmin sets up a structural model for argument.
These authors argue that there are seven reasons to prefer Toulmin’s model to traditional logic in assessing arguments. First Toulmin’s model calls for warrant-establishing argument. Second all factors both “formal and material” bearing upon a disputed claim may be organized in a series of discrete steps. Third Toulmin’s second triad of backing, rebuttal, and qualifier directs attention the ways in which each of these elements can limit or condition a claim. Fourth Toulmin’s emphasis from data through warrant to claim helps to understand the role each part of an argument plays in this process. Fifth he lays an argument out in such a way that each step may be examined critically. Sixth he assigns each part of an argument a specific geographical or spatial position, making it more likely that weak points will be noticed. Seventh Toulmin’s formulations are open to serious criticism at several point.
The second proposition on why Brockriede and Ehninger stand by Toulmin’s model is because the model and vocabulary he has developed to describe it are suggestive of a system for classifying artistic proofs, using argument, which is defined as movement from data, through warrant, to claim, as a unifying construct. An inartistic proof is when the data themselves are conclusive. They approach the claim without aid from the warrant. Artistic proof is when the data is not immediately conclusive so that the role of the warrant in carrying them to the claim becomes a crucial part. The proof is based on the inventive powers of the arguer. The warrant is the crucial element in artistic proof, its function is to carry that data to the claim this is regarded as artistic. The authors exhibit the structural unity of the three modes of artistic proof by showing how they may be reduced to a single invariant pattern using argument as a unifying construct.
Although both of these professors do a great job in arguing why Kenneth Burke and Toulmin make huge contributions and impact on rhetorical theory, I believe Brockriede and Ehninger’s article on Toulmin’s model on argument is more superior. I believe Toulmin makes the better contributions to rhetorical theory. Argumentation is a huge component in Rhetoric. It can be defined as an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. Toulmin’s theory allows rhetoricians to take an argument, strip it down to its components and analyze it to determine its validity. His theory allows arguments written in this manner to unfold and reveal both the strengths and limits of the argument. The point is to come as close to the truth or as close to a realistic and feasible solution as you possibly can. “Toulmin has provided a structural model which promises to be of greater use in laying out rhetorical arguments for dissection and testing than the methods of traditional logic,” (Toulmin 47). The article argues and makes a great comparison of why Toulmin’s method of argument is superior to traditional logic by stating the seven reasons on page 45. “The superiority of the Toulmin model in describing and testing arguments may be claimed for seven reasons.” (Toulmin 45). This model is important to understanding argumentation. As previously stated the Toulmin model helps look at the strengths and differences in a particular argument. It allows you to look at an argument to see if it achieves its purpose or fails to do so which is why I argue that Toulmin made a better contribution to rhetorical theory.
This analysis has looked at the writings of two professors who are pioneers in the field of rhetoric. Each of these articles view the world very differently. Toulmin makes sense of the world through argument while Burke makes sense of the world through language. It is clear