Page 33 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 33
topoi in critical discourse analysis
(3) They do not develop systematic criteria for the demarcation of ar-
gument schemes.
In other words, Perelman left topoi on a somewhat descriptive level,
and exactly the same objections could be raised for the Discourse-Historical
Approach within CDA.17 But, in contrast to DHA, which is using topoi su-
perficially, Perelman has made some very interesting and important obser-
vations regarding the role and the use of topoi in contemporary societies.
He argued that (Perelman, Olbrechts-Tyteca ibid.: 114) even if it is the gen-
eral places that mostly attract our attention, there is an undeniable interest
in examining the most particular places that are dominant in different so-
cieties and allow us to characterize them. On the other hand, even when we
are dealing with very general places, it is remarkable that for every place we
can find an opposite place: to the superiority of lasting, for example, which
is a classic place, we could oppose the place of precarious, of something
that only lasts a moment, which is a romantic place.
And this repartition gives us the possibility to characterize societies,
not only in relation to their preference of certain values, but also accord-
ing to the intensity of adherence to one or another member of the antithet-
ic couple.
This sounds like a good research agenda for DHA, as far as its interest
in argumentation is concerned: to find out what views and values are dom-
inant in different societies, and characterize these societies by reconstruct-
ing the topoi that underlie their discourses. But in order to be able to imple-
ment such an agenda—an agenda that is actually very close to DHA’s own
agenda—DHA should dismiss the list of prefabricated topoi that facilitates
and legitimizes its argumentative endeavor somehow beforehand (i.e. the
topoi are already listed, we just have to check our findings against the back-
ground of this list of topoi), and start digging for the topoi in concrete texts
and discourses. How can DHA achieve that?
Toulmin: topoi as warrants
Curiously enough, the same year that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca publi-
shed their New Rhetoric, Stephen Toulmin published his Uses of Argument,
probably the most detailed study of how topoi work. I say ‘curiously enou-
gh’ because he does not use the terms topos or topoi, but the somewhat judi-
cial term ‘warrant’. The reason for that seems obvious: he is trying to cover
17 It should be emphasized, of course, that DHA is not an argumentation theory per se,
it is just using argumentation (or some parts of it).
33
(3) They do not develop systematic criteria for the demarcation of ar-
gument schemes.
In other words, Perelman left topoi on a somewhat descriptive level,
and exactly the same objections could be raised for the Discourse-Historical
Approach within CDA.17 But, in contrast to DHA, which is using topoi su-
perficially, Perelman has made some very interesting and important obser-
vations regarding the role and the use of topoi in contemporary societies.
He argued that (Perelman, Olbrechts-Tyteca ibid.: 114) even if it is the gen-
eral places that mostly attract our attention, there is an undeniable interest
in examining the most particular places that are dominant in different so-
cieties and allow us to characterize them. On the other hand, even when we
are dealing with very general places, it is remarkable that for every place we
can find an opposite place: to the superiority of lasting, for example, which
is a classic place, we could oppose the place of precarious, of something
that only lasts a moment, which is a romantic place.
And this repartition gives us the possibility to characterize societies,
not only in relation to their preference of certain values, but also accord-
ing to the intensity of adherence to one or another member of the antithet-
ic couple.
This sounds like a good research agenda for DHA, as far as its interest
in argumentation is concerned: to find out what views and values are dom-
inant in different societies, and characterize these societies by reconstruct-
ing the topoi that underlie their discourses. But in order to be able to imple-
ment such an agenda—an agenda that is actually very close to DHA’s own
agenda—DHA should dismiss the list of prefabricated topoi that facilitates
and legitimizes its argumentative endeavor somehow beforehand (i.e. the
topoi are already listed, we just have to check our findings against the back-
ground of this list of topoi), and start digging for the topoi in concrete texts
and discourses. How can DHA achieve that?
Toulmin: topoi as warrants
Curiously enough, the same year that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca publi-
shed their New Rhetoric, Stephen Toulmin published his Uses of Argument,
probably the most detailed study of how topoi work. I say ‘curiously enou-
gh’ because he does not use the terms topos or topoi, but the somewhat judi-
cial term ‘warrant’. The reason for that seems obvious: he is trying to cover
17 It should be emphasized, of course, that DHA is not an argumentation theory per se,
it is just using argumentation (or some parts of it).
33
