Page 18 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 18
four critical essays on argumentation
Topos of core and periphery
Topos of European and national identity
Topos of Europe as a Future Orientation
Modernatisation topos
Topos of the Polish national mission in the European Union
Topos of joining the EU at any cost
Topos of preferential treatment.
How these topoi were ‘identified’, and what makes them ‘the topoi’—
and not just simply ‘topoi’—, we do not get to know; Krzyzanowski just lists
them as such. Is there another list that helped them to be identified? If so, it
must be very different from the lists we have just mentioned. Maybe there
are several different lists? If so, who constructs them? When, where, and,
especially, for what purpose and how? Is there a kind of a grid, conceptual
or in some other way epistemological and/or methodological, that helps us/
them to do that? If so, where can we find this grid? How was it conceptual-
ly constructed? And if there is no such grid, how do we get all these differ-
ent lists of topoi? By casuistry, intuition, rule of thumb? Are they universal,
just general, or maybe only contingent?
Judging from the lists we have just seen, there are no rules or criteria;
the only methodological precept seems to be: ‘anything goes’!7 If so, why
do they (i.e. CDA) need triangulation? And what happened to the princi-
ple 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. This leads us to a key question: can
7 It is interesting to observe that in his plenary talk at the CADAAD 2008 confer-
ence (University of Hertfordshire), Teun van Dijk emphasized: ‘CDA is not a meth-
od, CDA is not a theory ... CDA is like a movement, a movement of critical scholars.’
But then he added: ‘And they will use all the methods we know in various domains
and schools of discourse analysis (see: http://www.viddler.com/explore/cadaad/vid-
eos/4/; 5th and 6th minute).’ ‘Anything goes’ should therefore be interpreted and
understood in a much more narrow sense, namely, as ‘any method goes’. In other
words, if a particular scholar or a particular school is using a certain method, the
rules and principles of this chosen method should be followed.
18
Topos of core and periphery
Topos of European and national identity
Topos of Europe as a Future Orientation
Modernatisation topos
Topos of the Polish national mission in the European Union
Topos of joining the EU at any cost
Topos of preferential treatment.
How these topoi were ‘identified’, and what makes them ‘the topoi’—
and not just simply ‘topoi’—, we do not get to know; Krzyzanowski just lists
them as such. Is there another list that helped them to be identified? If so, it
must be very different from the lists we have just mentioned. Maybe there
are several different lists? If so, who constructs them? When, where, and,
especially, for what purpose and how? Is there a kind of a grid, conceptual
or in some other way epistemological and/or methodological, that helps us/
them to do that? If so, where can we find this grid? How was it conceptual-
ly constructed? And if there is no such grid, how do we get all these differ-
ent lists of topoi? By casuistry, intuition, rule of thumb? Are they universal,
just general, or maybe only contingent?
Judging from the lists we have just seen, there are no rules or criteria;
the only methodological precept seems to be: ‘anything goes’!7 If so, why
do they (i.e. CDA) need triangulation? And what happened to the princi-
ple 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. This leads us to a key question: can
7 It is interesting to observe that in his plenary talk at the CADAAD 2008 confer-
ence (University of Hertfordshire), Teun van Dijk emphasized: ‘CDA is not a meth-
od, CDA is not a theory ... CDA is like a movement, a movement of critical scholars.’
But then he added: ‘And they will use all the methods we know in various domains
and schools of discourse analysis (see: http://www.viddler.com/explore/cadaad/vid-
eos/4/; 5th and 6th minute).’ ‘Anything goes’ should therefore be interpreted and
understood in a much more narrow sense, namely, as ‘any method goes’. In other
words, if a particular scholar or a particular school is using a certain method, the
rules and principles of this chosen method should be followed.
18
