Page 55 - 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. 55
argumentation as poliphony: one speaker, several voices 55
gument, and it therefore becomes dominated by argumentative in-
structions.
2. The nature of an argument seems to be scalar or gradual. Several
arguments support the same conclusion, but some of them (more)
weakly than some others (almost ready, ready by now). That is why
Ducrot (sometimes) calls almost and some other operators/connec-
tives/indicators (e.g. already and yet) argumentative variables. They
do belong to/act on the same argumentative scales, but they occupy/
point to different positions on them.
The dominance of argumentativeness over informativeness and the
exposition of the gradual nature of arguments already provide all ex-
pedients for the transition into the latest, “strong version” of the theory
of argumentation in language, in which the fundamental concepts are
topoi and polyphony.
6. Topoi
The transition into the strong theory of argumentation in the lan-
guage-system represents a radical break with former phases of the theory,
not only terminologically, but above all conceptually. This break be-
comes evident from the two theoretical hypotheses characterizing this
phase:
1. The transition from A(rgument) to C(onclusion) is based on topoi,
which are general, common (within a given community), and scalar
structures of the type
The more P, the more Q
or
The less P, the less Q
2. Argumentative values of utterances take complete dominance over
their informative values, whereas exclusively informative utterances
acquire a linguistically marginal status.
In the “weak” phase of argumentation in the language-system, argu-
mentation is still based on “facts,” but it is controlled by argumenta-
tive instructions related to the meaning of the sentence. In the “strong”
phase, however, the argumentative no longer simply controls the informa-
tive, but supersedes it: the informative becomes not only entirely sub-
ordinated to the argumentative, it is even derived from it. If argumenta-
tion (i.e. argumentative orientation) is (at least to some extent) inherent
to language, then utterances merely describing reality or reporting about
it are linguistically marginal: they use language only as the medium of
transmission. Consequently, if argumentation is inherent to language,
gument, and it therefore becomes dominated by argumentative in-
structions.
2. The nature of an argument seems to be scalar or gradual. Several
arguments support the same conclusion, but some of them (more)
weakly than some others (almost ready, ready by now). That is why
Ducrot (sometimes) calls almost and some other operators/connec-
tives/indicators (e.g. already and yet) argumentative variables. They
do belong to/act on the same argumentative scales, but they occupy/
point to different positions on them.
The dominance of argumentativeness over informativeness and the
exposition of the gradual nature of arguments already provide all ex-
pedients for the transition into the latest, “strong version” of the theory
of argumentation in language, in which the fundamental concepts are
topoi and polyphony.
6. Topoi
The transition into the strong theory of argumentation in the lan-
guage-system represents a radical break with former phases of the theory,
not only terminologically, but above all conceptually. This break be-
comes evident from the two theoretical hypotheses characterizing this
phase:
1. The transition from A(rgument) to C(onclusion) is based on topoi,
which are general, common (within a given community), and scalar
structures of the type
The more P, the more Q
or
The less P, the less Q
2. Argumentative values of utterances take complete dominance over
their informative values, whereas exclusively informative utterances
acquire a linguistically marginal status.
In the “weak” phase of argumentation in the language-system, argu-
mentation is still based on “facts,” but it is controlled by argumenta-
tive instructions related to the meaning of the sentence. In the “strong”
phase, however, the argumentative no longer simply controls the informa-
tive, but supersedes it: the informative becomes not only entirely sub-
ordinated to the argumentative, it is even derived from it. If argumenta-
tion (i.e. argumentative orientation) is (at least to some extent) inherent
to language, then utterances merely describing reality or reporting about
it are linguistically marginal: they use language only as the medium of
transmission. Consequently, if argumentation is inherent to language,
