When reading texts, we often simply pay attention to the information being given to us, which is called the content.  However, it is easy to forget how important the style, or form, of delivering content can do to the interpretation or meaning of the body of work.  For this week’s task, I was able to read Brigham Young University argument titled Content/Form and apply my understanding of the Toulmin Model to analyze it.  The first part of the model is claim, which is the thesis or argument that the listener should accept.  In this case, it is the first line, and clearly identifiable:

They want us to accept the claim that to truly understand rhetoric, the art of effectively speaking/writing, we must delve into the difference between physical information vs communication methods.  The second step of the model is grounds, or data, which is the hard factual evidence that provides basis for making the claim.  After all, no one would accept an argument without any evidence to support the claim, right?  In this text, the grounds is:

In the Renaissance, Erasmus of Rotterdam reiterated this foundational dichotomy for rhetorical analysis by titling his most famous textbook “On the Abundance of Verbal Expression and Ideas” (De copia verborum ac rerum). This division has been one that has been codified within rhetorical pedagogy, reinforced, for example, by students being required in the Renaissance (according to Juan Luis Vives) to keep notebooks divided into form and content.

The writer is explaining how during the Renaissance, golden age of literary and creative arts, students had to divide notebooks for form and content.  This is a harsh contrast from today’s times which concentrates the immense importance form vs content is.  For the next step of Toulmin’s argument, there is warrant, which explains why grounds is relevant to the claim.  An interesting note is that it could be explicit or implicit, depending on the revealing connection.  In our case, they provide additional info from the grounds:

For example, when students were asked to perform translations as rhetorical exercises, they analyzed their compositions in terms of approximations, since it is impossible to completely capture the meaning and effect of a thought expressed in any terms other than its original words.

Students would be asked to alter either the content or form in a persuasive argument which demonstrates the mastery of rhetoric by manipulating one or the other.  The warrant here helps solidify information given from the grounds.  Next is the backing, or support, of an argument that answers other questions listeners could have:

This division is based on a view of language as something more than simply a mechanistic device for transcribing or delivering thought. With the sophists of ancient Greece rhetoricians have shared a profound respect for how language affects not just audiences, but thought processes.

Here the author does something quite unique.  Instead of focusing simply on rhetoric, they connect their argument so it does not only pertain to writing communication, but the thought process as well.  By understanding form and content as separate entities, both listeners and the speaker will be affected by an argument.  The following step of Toulmin’s model is qualifier, connects data and warrant by addressing the application of the claim:

Thus, rhetoricians divided form and content not to place content above form, but to highlight the interdependence of language and meaning, argument and ornament, thought and its expression. It means that linguistic forms are not merely instrumental, but fundamental—not only to persuasion, but to thought itself.

In this scenario, the author concentrates their claim universality by explaining that form and content should not be ranked based on their sufficiency in an argument, but rather reveal how dependent both are upon each other in a body of work.  Last, but not least, there is rebuttal.  Rebuttal anticipates counter arguments by providing explanations for these counter arguments before they are even revealed:

For rhetoricians to insist that words and their expression are on par with the ideals and ideas of abstract philosophy has put rhetoric at odds with religion, philosophy, and science at times.

Here the author acknowledges that the idea that their claims could be disputed by leaders in other fields, and further continues to explain rhetoric and its application in our life.

REFLECTION

I am simply amazed at how useful this method was with analyzing this text!  I’ll be honest, initially when reading the text from the University, I was lost.  I couldn’t find much structure in their argument, and had trouble truly understanding their claims.  However, after using Toulmin’s argument model, I could reveal the individual parts of their argument and the purposes it serves to the reader.  Personally, out of the three methods we learned, this one is my favorite.  Considering we live in modern times, most of the work we read will be argumentative or trying to convince us to believe something, whether it is explicit or implicit.  This model works best to that style of writing.  It also is quite practical because if I was phrasing an argument, this would be exactly how I would want to do that.  Last semester, I delivered a persuasive speech in Speech COM 1010, and I can see the similarities in my speech and the model given here!

Signing off,

Delectable Danielle