Page 66 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 66
Slovenian Lectures
ment for conclusion C. The first idea that I want to bring out is that when
you have an argumentative string of the type argument conclusion, there
is always a reference to a third term which is distinct from both the argu-
ment and the conclusion, and which allows you to bridge the gap from one
to the other. S.E. Toulmin called that third term, the warrant. When I say
A, so C, I am supposing that there is something, a warrant, which allows
me to bridge the gap from A to B. Let us take an example which I have al-
ready used several times again: “It’s warm, let’s go for a walk!” When you
say that, you are supposing that there is a principle which allows you to
bridge the gap between the warmth, stated in A, and the suggestion to go
for a walk, the conclusion reached in C. That principle, which ensures the
validity or the legitimacy of the move from A to C is what, using the Aris-
totelian term, I will call a topos. Let us go back to our example: “It’s warm,
let’s go for a walk!” When you say that, you are in certain way presupposing
that Warmth makes a walk pleasant. Unless there is this principle, the A
C string would not achieve its conclusive move.
What are the characteristics of this topos (or warrant) which is to be
found behind argumentative discourse-segments? My claim is that the to-
pos, as encountered in that type of string, has three characteristics: first, it is
general; second, it is represented as a shared belief, that is a belief which a
certain group of people already accept; and third, it is scalar.
***
Firstly, the topos is general. What I mean is that the topos is represented
as being also valid in situations other than the one which the current dis-
course is about. The topos which allows the move from “It’s warm” to “Let’s
go for a walk” is not the The warmth today will make the walk pleasant to-
day but something far more general: Warmth IN GENERAL makes a walk
pleasant IN GENERAL, a principle which also goes for an infinite number
of situations other than the one which a particular piece of discourse may
be about. I will formulate this general character of the topos in the following
way: I will say that the topos relates two properties: a first property P, connect-
ed with the argument, A, and a second property Q, connected with the conclu-
sion, C. In my example, property P is the general property of warmth and
property Q, connected with the conclusion C, could be called pleasantness
of a walk. In saying “It’s warm, let’s go for a walk”, you are supposing that in
general those two properties, warmth and pleasantness of a walk, are con-
nected with one another in a certain way which will be defined more pre-
cisely later.
ment for conclusion C. The first idea that I want to bring out is that when
you have an argumentative string of the type argument conclusion, there
is always a reference to a third term which is distinct from both the argu-
ment and the conclusion, and which allows you to bridge the gap from one
to the other. S.E. Toulmin called that third term, the warrant. When I say
A, so C, I am supposing that there is something, a warrant, which allows
me to bridge the gap from A to B. Let us take an example which I have al-
ready used several times again: “It’s warm, let’s go for a walk!” When you
say that, you are supposing that there is a principle which allows you to
bridge the gap between the warmth, stated in A, and the suggestion to go
for a walk, the conclusion reached in C. That principle, which ensures the
validity or the legitimacy of the move from A to C is what, using the Aris-
totelian term, I will call a topos. Let us go back to our example: “It’s warm,
let’s go for a walk!” When you say that, you are in certain way presupposing
that Warmth makes a walk pleasant. Unless there is this principle, the A
C string would not achieve its conclusive move.
What are the characteristics of this topos (or warrant) which is to be
found behind argumentative discourse-segments? My claim is that the to-
pos, as encountered in that type of string, has three characteristics: first, it is
general; second, it is represented as a shared belief, that is a belief which a
certain group of people already accept; and third, it is scalar.
***
Firstly, the topos is general. What I mean is that the topos is represented
as being also valid in situations other than the one which the current dis-
course is about. The topos which allows the move from “It’s warm” to “Let’s
go for a walk” is not the The warmth today will make the walk pleasant to-
day but something far more general: Warmth IN GENERAL makes a walk
pleasant IN GENERAL, a principle which also goes for an infinite number
of situations other than the one which a particular piece of discourse may
be about. I will formulate this general character of the topos in the following
way: I will say that the topos relates two properties: a first property P, connect-
ed with the argument, A, and a second property Q, connected with the conclu-
sion, C. In my example, property P is the general property of warmth and
property Q, connected with the conclusion C, could be called pleasantness
of a walk. In saying “It’s warm, let’s go for a walk”, you are supposing that in
general those two properties, warmth and pleasantness of a walk, are con-
nected with one another in a certain way which will be defined more pre-
cisely later.
