Page 57 - 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. 57
argumentation as poliphony: one speaker, several voices 57
Ducrot initially defined “strongly” and “weakly” as more or less
heuristic devices:
- to apply a topos strongly means that there are only few arguments
that could be stronger than the one used;
- to apply a topos weakly means that there are only few arguments that
could be weaker than the one used.
However, is it possible to define the values ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ in a
conceptually more strict linguistic manner?
Let us assume, for the sake of the demonstration, that we operate
with a two-part argument: let us label the first part of the argument A,
and the second B. We shall say that in this case the following two defin-
itions apply:
1. Argument A is stronger than B, if: “B, and even A” holds true.
2. Argument A is weaker than B, if: “B, and at best/at worst A” holds
true.
Now we should test these definitions on two examples:
A B
(10) This is a cold, or at worst a flu. > Don’t worry!
A B
(11) This is pneumonia, or at best a flu. > Take care!
Utterance (10) obviously applies some topos such as:
T3 The less we are ill, the less reason to worry
and utterance (11)
T4 The more we are ill, the more reason to worry.
The A arguments are, in the light of our definition, stronger than
the B arguments, which means that, if the given conclusion proceeds
from B, it must also proceed (and with greater probability) from A. In
other words, both utterances apply “their” topoi strongly. With regard to
argumentative scales that could be constructed in accordance with our
knowledge of the force of arguments in both cases we can say that both
utterances apply their topoi in the direction of argumentative scales;
therefore, they strive toward the stronger application of topoi.
Ducrot initially defined “strongly” and “weakly” as more or less
heuristic devices:
- to apply a topos strongly means that there are only few arguments
that could be stronger than the one used;
- to apply a topos weakly means that there are only few arguments that
could be weaker than the one used.
However, is it possible to define the values ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ in a
conceptually more strict linguistic manner?
Let us assume, for the sake of the demonstration, that we operate
with a two-part argument: let us label the first part of the argument A,
and the second B. We shall say that in this case the following two defin-
itions apply:
1. Argument A is stronger than B, if: “B, and even A” holds true.
2. Argument A is weaker than B, if: “B, and at best/at worst A” holds
true.
Now we should test these definitions on two examples:
A B
(10) This is a cold, or at worst a flu. > Don’t worry!
A B
(11) This is pneumonia, or at best a flu. > Take care!
Utterance (10) obviously applies some topos such as:
T3 The less we are ill, the less reason to worry
and utterance (11)
T4 The more we are ill, the more reason to worry.
The A arguments are, in the light of our definition, stronger than
the B arguments, which means that, if the given conclusion proceeds
from B, it must also proceed (and with greater probability) from A. In
other words, both utterances apply “their” topoi strongly. With regard to
argumentative scales that could be constructed in accordance with our
knowledge of the force of arguments in both cases we can say that both
utterances apply their topoi in the direction of argumentative scales;
therefore, they strive toward the stronger application of topoi.
