Page 59 - 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. 59
argumentation as poliphony: one speaker, several voices 59
sented as expected to enhance the force of the preceding argument. In
Žagar (2010: 133–162), I described this mechanism triggered by (some)
argumentative indicators (connectives, particles or operators) as creating
certain argumentative expectation (and respective argumentative indica-
tors as triggers of argumentative expectation).
Therefore, if we want to avoid the application of some topos T3’ The
less we are ill, the more reason to worry (which could be general, but hard-
ly common), and thus recover the argumentative balance, we must intro-
duce an additional argumentative variable in example (11’), for example:
(11’’) This is pneumonia, even only a flu. > Don’t worry!
or even (!)
(11’’’) This is pneumonia, maybe even only a flu. > Don’t worry!
We could say that if only mitigates and modifies the argumentative
orientation of even, then maybe (argumentatively) mitigates a potential
logical disparity between co-ordinately related “propositional elements”.
Namely, if an illness is pneumonia, then it is not a flu, and vice versa;
however, if we mitigate both assertions with maybe, we place them “be-
tween the brackets” and outside the logical system where they can be
either true or false.
A few more words about conceptual bases of topoi. What really is a
topos? How does it function? Topos functions as a warrant (in Toulmin’s
terms) authorizing the move from A(rgument) to C(onclusion) by indi-
cating a link between two general properties, P and Q, connected with A
and C respectively. Let us take another one of Ducrot’s favourite exam-
ples:
(12) It’s warm (Argument). Let’s go for a walk (Conclusion).
According to Ducrot, the topos that authorizes the move from A to
C (in that particular case) could be reconstructed as
T5 The more it is warm, the more pleasant it is to go for a walk,
and relates two qualities, P (“the warmth”), connected to A, and Q (“the
pleasantness of a walk”), connected to C.
These two qualities are gradual or scalar (i.e., could be represented as
scales), which means that the more we go up one scale (P), the more we
go up the other (Q): the more it is warm, the more pleasant it is to go for
a walk. But is that true? Isn’t there a point where the warmth (an exces-
sive warmth, for example) makes it unpleasant to go for a walk? Which
means that from such a critical point the topos T5 couldn’t be applied any
more. Doesn’t that make it non-valid? Not necessarily (topoi are general,
sented as expected to enhance the force of the preceding argument. In
Žagar (2010: 133–162), I described this mechanism triggered by (some)
argumentative indicators (connectives, particles or operators) as creating
certain argumentative expectation (and respective argumentative indica-
tors as triggers of argumentative expectation).
Therefore, if we want to avoid the application of some topos T3’ The
less we are ill, the more reason to worry (which could be general, but hard-
ly common), and thus recover the argumentative balance, we must intro-
duce an additional argumentative variable in example (11’), for example:
(11’’) This is pneumonia, even only a flu. > Don’t worry!
or even (!)
(11’’’) This is pneumonia, maybe even only a flu. > Don’t worry!
We could say that if only mitigates and modifies the argumentative
orientation of even, then maybe (argumentatively) mitigates a potential
logical disparity between co-ordinately related “propositional elements”.
Namely, if an illness is pneumonia, then it is not a flu, and vice versa;
however, if we mitigate both assertions with maybe, we place them “be-
tween the brackets” and outside the logical system where they can be
either true or false.
A few more words about conceptual bases of topoi. What really is a
topos? How does it function? Topos functions as a warrant (in Toulmin’s
terms) authorizing the move from A(rgument) to C(onclusion) by indi-
cating a link between two general properties, P and Q, connected with A
and C respectively. Let us take another one of Ducrot’s favourite exam-
ples:
(12) It’s warm (Argument). Let’s go for a walk (Conclusion).
According to Ducrot, the topos that authorizes the move from A to
C (in that particular case) could be reconstructed as
T5 The more it is warm, the more pleasant it is to go for a walk,
and relates two qualities, P (“the warmth”), connected to A, and Q (“the
pleasantness of a walk”), connected to C.
These two qualities are gradual or scalar (i.e., could be represented as
scales), which means that the more we go up one scale (P), the more we
go up the other (Q): the more it is warm, the more pleasant it is to go for
a walk. But is that true? Isn’t there a point where the warmth (an exces-
sive warmth, for example) makes it unpleasant to go for a walk? Which
means that from such a critical point the topos T5 couldn’t be applied any
more. Doesn’t that make it non-valid? Not necessarily (topoi are general,
