Akademisk avhandling--Filosofi--Lund, 1979. / Bibliogr. p. 142-144. Index.

Paul Grice's conversational implicature is a widely studied and commonly accepted theory in the field of linguistics, and Stephen Toulmin's model of argument is perhaps even more widely studied and accepted in the field of argument. I was struck by the great similarities between the two theories, particularly the leap of logic both are dependent upon, and surprised by the fact that it didn't seem that anyone had explored the similarities. In this thesis, I explore the similarities of the processes, of Grices's implicature and Toulmin's model of argument, and how looking at the two together increases the understanding of both.

In 1958 Stephen E. Toulmin wrote of inadequacies of formal logic and proposed a new field-dependent approach to the analysis of arguments. Despite a generally negative response to his proposal from formal logicians, Toulmin's model for the laying out of arguments for analysis was subsequently appropriated by several speech communication textbook writers. In some textbooks, the Toulmin model has become successor to the syllogism as the paradigm of logical argument. Yet, perhaps due to their seemingly uncritical acceptance of Toulmin's approach there appears to be serious disagreement and confusion among speech communication professionals about the nature and applications of the Toulmin model. Towards a resolution of this problem, this study provides a descriptive analysis and assessment of the history of the Toulmin model and its proposed applications to speech communication.