Page 55 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 55
fallacies: do we ‘use’ them or ‘commit’ them? ...
social structure relates to discourse patterns (in the form of pow-
er relations, ideological effects, and so forth), and in treating these
relations as problematic, that researchers in CDA situate the criti-
cal dimension of their work. It is not enough to uncover the social
dimension of language use. These dimensions are the object of
moral and political evaluation, and analysing them should have
effects in society: empowering the powerless, giving voices to the
voiceless, exposing power abuse, and mobilising people to reme-
dy social wrong. (Blommaert 2005: 25)
The discourse-historical approach and the (mis)use
of argumentation
Ruth Wodak initialised her own ‘school’ of CDA, called Discourse-
Historical Approach. Its programmatic view and its shortcomings, espe-
cially when using argumentation (topoi) in their analyses, can be found in
the first chapter of this book (see also Žagar 2010, 2011). And it was these
analyses of how DHA uses and misuses topoi that made me interested in
how they use (and mostly misuse) fallacies.
The work of reference for DHA is the book Discourse and Discrimination
(D&D from now on) by Martin Reisigl and Ruth Wodak, published in 2001
(Routledge). I say the work of reference, because it is the only book in the
DHA tradition that gives any substantial overview of the theoretical ap-
proaches and concepts DHA is using. All the subsequent works would just
quote Discourse and Discrimination, these quotes would get shorter and
shorter, and in one of the Wodak’s last books, The Discourse of Politics in
Action: Politics as Usual (2009), even some authors of theoretical approach-
es and concepts DHA is using would be lost and replaced—with the names
of Wodak and collaborators ...
Fallacies as seen by DHA
Here is the passage that introduces fallacies in D&D:
If one wants to analyse the persuasive, manipulative, discur-
sive legitimation of racist, ethnicist, nationalist, sexist and oth-
er forms of discrimination and the pseudo-argumentative back-
ing and strengthening of negative, discriminatory prejudices, one
encounters many violations of these ten rules. In rhetoric and ar-
gumentation theory, these violations are called ‘fallacies’ (among
55
social structure relates to discourse patterns (in the form of pow-
er relations, ideological effects, and so forth), and in treating these
relations as problematic, that researchers in CDA situate the criti-
cal dimension of their work. It is not enough to uncover the social
dimension of language use. These dimensions are the object of
moral and political evaluation, and analysing them should have
effects in society: empowering the powerless, giving voices to the
voiceless, exposing power abuse, and mobilising people to reme-
dy social wrong. (Blommaert 2005: 25)
The discourse-historical approach and the (mis)use
of argumentation
Ruth Wodak initialised her own ‘school’ of CDA, called Discourse-
Historical Approach. Its programmatic view and its shortcomings, espe-
cially when using argumentation (topoi) in their analyses, can be found in
the first chapter of this book (see also Žagar 2010, 2011). And it was these
analyses of how DHA uses and misuses topoi that made me interested in
how they use (and mostly misuse) fallacies.
The work of reference for DHA is the book Discourse and Discrimination
(D&D from now on) by Martin Reisigl and Ruth Wodak, published in 2001
(Routledge). I say the work of reference, because it is the only book in the
DHA tradition that gives any substantial overview of the theoretical ap-
proaches and concepts DHA is using. All the subsequent works would just
quote Discourse and Discrimination, these quotes would get shorter and
shorter, and in one of the Wodak’s last books, The Discourse of Politics in
Action: Politics as Usual (2009), even some authors of theoretical approach-
es and concepts DHA is using would be lost and replaced—with the names
of Wodak and collaborators ...
Fallacies as seen by DHA
Here is the passage that introduces fallacies in D&D:
If one wants to analyse the persuasive, manipulative, discur-
sive legitimation of racist, ethnicist, nationalist, sexist and oth-
er forms of discrimination and the pseudo-argumentative back-
ing and strengthening of negative, discriminatory prejudices, one
encounters many violations of these ten rules. In rhetoric and ar-
gumentation theory, these violations are called ‘fallacies’ (among
55
