Page 65 - 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. 65
argumentation as poliphony: one speaker, several voices 65
One particle, five utterers, and a crucial question: is there a limit to the
number of utterers we can have within a single utterance or argumentative
string? Ducrot’s answer is: no, in principle there could be an unlimited
number of utterers. My opinion is: we should be careful, and not multiply
utterers beyond the point that the analysis (still) allows for. In the given
example, I don’t see any justification for distinguishing between U3 and
U4. Such a distinction could only be made hypothetically, ideally; never-
theless, it is not supported by the given data. The use of the particle tou-
jours (at least) only tells us that the argument is weak (thus supporting
the viewpoint of U3), but there is no indication that the argument is con-
sidered so weak that it loses every argumentative value. In other words, if
the polyphonic analysis is to be taken seriously (and as we saw, it can be a
very useful tool for pragmatic analysis), we should stick to the given empir-
ical data, not to the could-be “data”.
With that in mind, let us have another look at example (12):
(12) It’s warm (Argument). > But I’m tired (Conclusion),
a string used to answer, and reject, a suggestion for a walk.
According to Ducrot (1996/2009), there are at least four utterers in
that argumentative string: U1 and U2 are related to, “It’s warm” (argu-
ment), and U3 and U4 to, “I’m tired” (conclusion). U1 describes the weath-
er by saying, “It’s warm”. “It’s warm” is thus – don’t forget that somebody
suggested a walk – represented as an argument in favour of a walk, and U1
is supporting its argumentation by summoning a topos like:
T8 The warmer it is, the more pleasant it is to go for a walk.
Then another utterer, U2, comes in, and from U1’s point of view
concludes with the walk. U3, whose voice can be heard in the segment
“I’m tired”, by the very fact of introducing his/her (counter)argument by
but, agrees with T8, namely that in warm weather it is pleasant to go for
a walk. But s/he is building her/his (counter)argument on a different to-
pos, a topos we could reconstruct like:
T9 Less one’s physical state is good, less pleasant it is to go for a walk.
So, in giving “I’m tired” as an argument for not going for a walk, the
physical state is being represented as a property making a walk unpleasant.
And finally, Ducrot concludes his analysis, there is a U4 who concludes
from U3’s point of view not to walk.
In Žagar (1997) I criticised such an analysis by saying: if U2 concludes
something from U1’s point of view, and U4 concludes something from
U3’s point of view, why do we need U2 and U4 at all? They could have well
One particle, five utterers, and a crucial question: is there a limit to the
number of utterers we can have within a single utterance or argumentative
string? Ducrot’s answer is: no, in principle there could be an unlimited
number of utterers. My opinion is: we should be careful, and not multiply
utterers beyond the point that the analysis (still) allows for. In the given
example, I don’t see any justification for distinguishing between U3 and
U4. Such a distinction could only be made hypothetically, ideally; never-
theless, it is not supported by the given data. The use of the particle tou-
jours (at least) only tells us that the argument is weak (thus supporting
the viewpoint of U3), but there is no indication that the argument is con-
sidered so weak that it loses every argumentative value. In other words, if
the polyphonic analysis is to be taken seriously (and as we saw, it can be a
very useful tool for pragmatic analysis), we should stick to the given empir-
ical data, not to the could-be “data”.
With that in mind, let us have another look at example (12):
(12) It’s warm (Argument). > But I’m tired (Conclusion),
a string used to answer, and reject, a suggestion for a walk.
According to Ducrot (1996/2009), there are at least four utterers in
that argumentative string: U1 and U2 are related to, “It’s warm” (argu-
ment), and U3 and U4 to, “I’m tired” (conclusion). U1 describes the weath-
er by saying, “It’s warm”. “It’s warm” is thus – don’t forget that somebody
suggested a walk – represented as an argument in favour of a walk, and U1
is supporting its argumentation by summoning a topos like:
T8 The warmer it is, the more pleasant it is to go for a walk.
Then another utterer, U2, comes in, and from U1’s point of view
concludes with the walk. U3, whose voice can be heard in the segment
“I’m tired”, by the very fact of introducing his/her (counter)argument by
but, agrees with T8, namely that in warm weather it is pleasant to go for
a walk. But s/he is building her/his (counter)argument on a different to-
pos, a topos we could reconstruct like:
T9 Less one’s physical state is good, less pleasant it is to go for a walk.
So, in giving “I’m tired” as an argument for not going for a walk, the
physical state is being represented as a property making a walk unpleasant.
And finally, Ducrot concludes his analysis, there is a U4 who concludes
from U3’s point of view not to walk.
In Žagar (1997) I criticised such an analysis by saying: if U2 concludes
something from U1’s point of view, and U4 concludes something from
U3’s point of view, why do we need U2 and U4 at all? They could have well
