Page 47 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 47
argumentation as poliphony: one speaker, several voices 47
work of the “strong informativistic” version such a conclusion is not
(co)-supported by the argumentative orientation of the particle only, the
orientation, which is the domain of language as a system2, and does not
pertain to extra-linguistic “factuality.” In example (1) we see the type of
argumentation that is (supposed to be) entirely non-linguistic, or, it is
linguistic only to the extent that it uses language as a conventional, stan-
dard means of communication, as a “medium,” which does not affect the
“message” that it conveys.
Of course, this spontaneous and common sense “theory” is immedi-
ately confronted with counter-examples. Let us assume (for the sake of
the argument) that we are working on a seminar paper about frictions
between Yugoslav nations in post-Titoist Yugoslavia, and that we are es-
pecially interested in the war in Bosnia; we ask our friends working in
the social sciences to refer us to somebody who might know something
about our object of interest, and we get the following two answers:
(3) Janez did not read all the UN resolutions (Argument) >
He may not be able to advise you (Conclusion)
and
(4) Marko read some of the UN resolutions (Argument) >
He may be able to advise you (Conclusion).
Utterances (3) and (4) display an obvious discrepancy between in-
formative and argumentative values. The “fact” that Janez did not read all
the UN resolutions could on the “factual,” informative level also mean
that he read all the UN resolutions except maybe one. And the “fact”
that Marko read some of the UN resolutions could on the “factual,” in-
formative level mean that he, perhaps, read only one or two. Janez could
thus be an incomparably more suitable “informant” than Marko, but
language simply doesn’t allow argumentative strings (3’) and (4’).
(3’) * Janez did not read all the UN resolutions (Argument) >
He may be able to advise you (Conclusion)
(4’) * Marko read some of the UN resolutions (Argument) >
He may not be able to advise you (Conclusion)
2 That some linguistic entity is argumentatively oriented means that its presence in the given discourse
segment imposes or represents some restriction(s) affecting the continuation of the discourse. In
other words, even if the particle only were followed by “twenty hours” and not “an hour or so,” the ut-
terance would still be represented as leading to a negative conclusion. This, of course, challenges the
“factuality” of “the fact, that one hour of studying is (usually) not enough to pass the exam.” Namely,
how many hours are enough to pass the exam, especially if we take into account the restricting role
of the particle “only”? More on this subject later in the text.
work of the “strong informativistic” version such a conclusion is not
(co)-supported by the argumentative orientation of the particle only, the
orientation, which is the domain of language as a system2, and does not
pertain to extra-linguistic “factuality.” In example (1) we see the type of
argumentation that is (supposed to be) entirely non-linguistic, or, it is
linguistic only to the extent that it uses language as a conventional, stan-
dard means of communication, as a “medium,” which does not affect the
“message” that it conveys.
Of course, this spontaneous and common sense “theory” is immedi-
ately confronted with counter-examples. Let us assume (for the sake of
the argument) that we are working on a seminar paper about frictions
between Yugoslav nations in post-Titoist Yugoslavia, and that we are es-
pecially interested in the war in Bosnia; we ask our friends working in
the social sciences to refer us to somebody who might know something
about our object of interest, and we get the following two answers:
(3) Janez did not read all the UN resolutions (Argument) >
He may not be able to advise you (Conclusion)
and
(4) Marko read some of the UN resolutions (Argument) >
He may be able to advise you (Conclusion).
Utterances (3) and (4) display an obvious discrepancy between in-
formative and argumentative values. The “fact” that Janez did not read all
the UN resolutions could on the “factual,” informative level also mean
that he read all the UN resolutions except maybe one. And the “fact”
that Marko read some of the UN resolutions could on the “factual,” in-
formative level mean that he, perhaps, read only one or two. Janez could
thus be an incomparably more suitable “informant” than Marko, but
language simply doesn’t allow argumentative strings (3’) and (4’).
(3’) * Janez did not read all the UN resolutions (Argument) >
He may be able to advise you (Conclusion)
(4’) * Marko read some of the UN resolutions (Argument) >
He may not be able to advise you (Conclusion)
2 That some linguistic entity is argumentatively oriented means that its presence in the given discourse
segment imposes or represents some restriction(s) affecting the continuation of the discourse. In
other words, even if the particle only were followed by “twenty hours” and not “an hour or so,” the ut-
terance would still be represented as leading to a negative conclusion. This, of course, challenges the
“factuality” of “the fact, that one hour of studying is (usually) not enough to pass the exam.” Namely,
how many hours are enough to pass the exam, especially if we take into account the restricting role
of the particle “only”? More on this subject later in the text.
