Page 130 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 130
four critical essays on argumentation
is not concerned with evaluating what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. CDA ...
should try to make choices at each point in the research itself, and
should make these choices transparent.1 It should also justify the-
oretically why certain interpretations of discursive events seem
more valid than others.
One of the methodical ways for critical discourse analysts to min-
imize the risk of being biased is to follow the principle of trian-
gulation. Thus, one of the most salient distinguishing features of
the DHA is its endeavour to work with different approaches, mul-
ti-methodically and on the basis of a variety of empirical data as
well as background information. (Wodak ibid.)
One of the approaches DHA is using in its principle of triangulation
is argumentation theory, more specifically the theory of topoi. In the first
chapter, I am concerned with the following questions: how and in what way
are topoi and, consequentially, argumentation theory, used in DHA as one
of the most influential schools of CDA? Other approaches (e.g., Fairclough
1995, 2000, 2003, or van Leeuwen 2004, 2008; van Leeuwen, Kress 2006) do
not use topoi at all. Does such a use actually minimize the risk of being bi-
ased, and, consequentially, does such a use of topoi in fact implement the
principle of triangulation?
Judging from the works we analysed in the first chapter, there are no
rules or criteria how to use topoi or how to detect topoi in the discourse/
text; the only methodological precept seems to be, ‘anything goes’! If so,
why does CDA need triangulation? And what happened to the principle
stipulating that CDA ‘should try to make choices at each point in the re-
search itself, and should make these choices transparent?’
We have seen identical and similar bundles of topoi for different pur-
poses or occasions; we have seen different bundles of topoi for identical and
similar purposes or occasions; we have seen different bundles of topoi for
different occasion; and we have seen pretty exotic bundles of topoi for pret-
ty particular and singular purposes. Which leads us to a key question: can
anything be or become a topos within DHA? And, consequentially, what ac-
tually, that is, historically, is a topos?
If a topos is supposed to connect an argument with a conclusion, as
all the relevant DHA publications claim, one would expect that at least a
minimal reconstruction would follow, namely, what is the argument in the
quoted fragment? What is the conclusion in the quoted fragment? How is
130
is not concerned with evaluating what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. CDA ...
should try to make choices at each point in the research itself, and
should make these choices transparent.1 It should also justify the-
oretically why certain interpretations of discursive events seem
more valid than others.
One of the methodical ways for critical discourse analysts to min-
imize the risk of being biased is to follow the principle of trian-
gulation. Thus, one of the most salient distinguishing features of
the DHA is its endeavour to work with different approaches, mul-
ti-methodically and on the basis of a variety of empirical data as
well as background information. (Wodak ibid.)
One of the approaches DHA is using in its principle of triangulation
is argumentation theory, more specifically the theory of topoi. In the first
chapter, I am concerned with the following questions: how and in what way
are topoi and, consequentially, argumentation theory, used in DHA as one
of the most influential schools of CDA? Other approaches (e.g., Fairclough
1995, 2000, 2003, or van Leeuwen 2004, 2008; van Leeuwen, Kress 2006) do
not use topoi at all. Does such a use actually minimize the risk of being bi-
ased, and, consequentially, does such a use of topoi in fact implement the
principle of triangulation?
Judging from the works we analysed in the first chapter, there are no
rules or criteria how to use topoi or how to detect topoi in the discourse/
text; the only methodological precept seems to be, ‘anything goes’! If so,
why does CDA need triangulation? And what happened to the principle
stipulating that CDA ‘should try to make choices at each point in the re-
search itself, and should make these choices transparent?’
We have seen identical and similar bundles of topoi for different pur-
poses or occasions; we have seen different bundles of topoi for identical and
similar purposes or occasions; we have seen different bundles of topoi for
different occasion; and we have seen pretty exotic bundles of topoi for pret-
ty particular and singular purposes. Which leads us to a key question: can
anything be or become a topos within DHA? And, consequentially, what ac-
tually, that is, historically, is a topos?
If a topos is supposed to connect an argument with a conclusion, as
all the relevant DHA publications claim, one would expect that at least a
minimal reconstruction would follow, namely, what is the argument in the
quoted fragment? What is the conclusion in the quoted fragment? How is
130
