Page 56 - 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. 56
What Do We Know about the World?
this medium can in no way be (argumentatively) neutral: argumentative
variables (even accumulation or juxtaposition of variables if necessary)
guide discourse in a quite specific direction, regardless of the representa-
tive or informative content conveyed in and by the discourse.
If we turn to Ducrot’s conceptualization of topoi now, what does it
mean that some topos is a) general, b) common and c) scalar?
It means that it is a) a general (and, at the same time, very abstract)
scheme or matrix allowing a multitude of particular conclusions, which
are not obligatory or binding in a way syllogism or logical deduction is. To-
pos (i.e. referring to a topos or applying it) can allow some conclusion, but
it does not bind the speaker to that conclusion. Therefore, our addressee
(and with this we have arrived at b)) can recognize the validity or appro-
priateness of the topos employed in our conclusion, without necessarily
agreeing with it. He/she may find some other topos more appropriate to
the situation, and may use it to support a different conclusion instead.
The assumption that topoi are common (within a specific commun-
ity, ranging from small cultural or political sub-groups to the nation as
a whole) only means that some community recognizes their validity,
or validity and justifiability of the conclusions based on those topoi. It
does not imply that every member of the community would necessarily
use the same topoi in identical (or similar) situations. The application of
some topos, or a conclusion stipulated by this topos, can always be refuted
by applying some other topos to support a different conclusion.
If we try to apply such conceptualization of topoi to our examples
(7) and (8)
(7) Janez worked little. > He may not succeed (in passing the exam)
(8) Janez worked a little. > He may succeed (in passing the exam)
we can see that the argumentative string (7) applies or refers to some to-
pos5 such as
T1 The less we work, the smaller the likelihood of success,
and that (7) applies this topos weakly. Whereas the argumentative string
in (8) applies (also weakly) some topos such as
T2 The more we work, the greater the likelihood of success.
Why do we say that argumentative strings (7) and (8) apply topoi T1
and T2 weakly? Or more precisely, how do we define “weakly” and its
antipode “strongly”? That is where Ducrot’s third concept, the concept
of scalarity (c) comes in.
5 In other words, the argumentative string in question is constructed on a topos or, by the very transi-
tion from the argument to the conclusion (re)constructs a topos.
this medium can in no way be (argumentatively) neutral: argumentative
variables (even accumulation or juxtaposition of variables if necessary)
guide discourse in a quite specific direction, regardless of the representa-
tive or informative content conveyed in and by the discourse.
If we turn to Ducrot’s conceptualization of topoi now, what does it
mean that some topos is a) general, b) common and c) scalar?
It means that it is a) a general (and, at the same time, very abstract)
scheme or matrix allowing a multitude of particular conclusions, which
are not obligatory or binding in a way syllogism or logical deduction is. To-
pos (i.e. referring to a topos or applying it) can allow some conclusion, but
it does not bind the speaker to that conclusion. Therefore, our addressee
(and with this we have arrived at b)) can recognize the validity or appro-
priateness of the topos employed in our conclusion, without necessarily
agreeing with it. He/she may find some other topos more appropriate to
the situation, and may use it to support a different conclusion instead.
The assumption that topoi are common (within a specific commun-
ity, ranging from small cultural or political sub-groups to the nation as
a whole) only means that some community recognizes their validity,
or validity and justifiability of the conclusions based on those topoi. It
does not imply that every member of the community would necessarily
use the same topoi in identical (or similar) situations. The application of
some topos, or a conclusion stipulated by this topos, can always be refuted
by applying some other topos to support a different conclusion.
If we try to apply such conceptualization of topoi to our examples
(7) and (8)
(7) Janez worked little. > He may not succeed (in passing the exam)
(8) Janez worked a little. > He may succeed (in passing the exam)
we can see that the argumentative string (7) applies or refers to some to-
pos5 such as
T1 The less we work, the smaller the likelihood of success,
and that (7) applies this topos weakly. Whereas the argumentative string
in (8) applies (also weakly) some topos such as
T2 The more we work, the greater the likelihood of success.
Why do we say that argumentative strings (7) and (8) apply topoi T1
and T2 weakly? Or more precisely, how do we define “weakly” and its
antipode “strongly”? That is where Ducrot’s third concept, the concept
of scalarity (c) comes in.
5 In other words, the argumentative string in question is constructed on a topos or, by the very transi-
tion from the argument to the conclusion (re)constructs a topos.
