Page 15 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 15
topoi in critical discourse analysis
Conference.4 In addition to the above definition, Richardson (2004: 230)
talks of topoi ‘as reservoirs of generalised key ideas from which specific
statements or arguments can be generated’.
Surprisingly, both definitions take the concept of topos/topoi as some-
thing self-evident, generally known and widely used, as, for example,
bread, table, engine, to write, to clean up, and many other everyday obvi-
ousnesses. Nevertheless, topos/topoi is one of the most controversial, even
unclear, concepts in the history of rhetoric and argumentation as I will il-
lustrate below..
Also, one could wonder about the purpose and the (ontological) status
of the two definitions: are topoi ‘content-related warrants’ or are they ‘gen-
eralised key ideas’? Because warrants are much more than just ‘key ideas’;
they demand much more to be able to secure the transition from an argu-
ment to a conclusion than just being ‘generalised ideas’, namely, a certain
structure, or mechanism, in the form of an instruction or a rule. While
ideas, or generalised ideas, lack at least a kind of mechanism the warrants
are supposed to possess in order to be able to connect the argument to the
conclusion.
Let us proceed step by step.
How topoi are found ...
In the above-mentioned publications, we get to see the lists of the(se) topoi.
In the chapter ‘The Discourse-Historical Approach’ (Wodak 2006: 74), we
read that ‘the analyses of typical content-related argument schemes can be
carried out against the background of the list of topoi though incomplete
and not always disjunctive’, as given in the following table:
1. Usefulness, advantage
2. Uselessness, disadvantage
3. Definition, name-interpretation
4. Danger and threat
5. Humanitarianism
6. Justice
4 The paper was published in Critical Discourse Studies 6, no. 4 (2009), under the title
‘Recontextualising fascist ideologies of the past: right-wing discourses on employ-
ment and nativism in Austria and the United Kingdom’. In this paper, I am referring
to the manuscript version.
15
Conference.4 In addition to the above definition, Richardson (2004: 230)
talks of topoi ‘as reservoirs of generalised key ideas from which specific
statements or arguments can be generated’.
Surprisingly, both definitions take the concept of topos/topoi as some-
thing self-evident, generally known and widely used, as, for example,
bread, table, engine, to write, to clean up, and many other everyday obvi-
ousnesses. Nevertheless, topos/topoi is one of the most controversial, even
unclear, concepts in the history of rhetoric and argumentation as I will il-
lustrate below..
Also, one could wonder about the purpose and the (ontological) status
of the two definitions: are topoi ‘content-related warrants’ or are they ‘gen-
eralised key ideas’? Because warrants are much more than just ‘key ideas’;
they demand much more to be able to secure the transition from an argu-
ment to a conclusion than just being ‘generalised ideas’, namely, a certain
structure, or mechanism, in the form of an instruction or a rule. While
ideas, or generalised ideas, lack at least a kind of mechanism the warrants
are supposed to possess in order to be able to connect the argument to the
conclusion.
Let us proceed step by step.
How topoi are found ...
In the above-mentioned publications, we get to see the lists of the(se) topoi.
In the chapter ‘The Discourse-Historical Approach’ (Wodak 2006: 74), we
read that ‘the analyses of typical content-related argument schemes can be
carried out against the background of the list of topoi though incomplete
and not always disjunctive’, as given in the following table:
1. Usefulness, advantage
2. Uselessness, disadvantage
3. Definition, name-interpretation
4. Danger and threat
5. Humanitarianism
6. Justice
4 The paper was published in Critical Discourse Studies 6, no. 4 (2009), under the title
‘Recontextualising fascist ideologies of the past: right-wing discourses on employ-
ment and nativism in Austria and the United Kingdom’. In this paper, I am referring
to the manuscript version.
15
