Page 19 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 19
topoi in critical discourse analysis
anything be or become a topos (at least within DHA)? And, consequential-
ly, what actually (i.e. historically) is a topos?
Before we try to answer these questions, let us have a look at how the
above-mentioned topoi are used in the respective works, listed at the begin-
ning of the book.
... And how topoi are used
In Discourse and Discrimination (Reisigl, Wodak 2001: 75), as well as in ‘The
Discourse-Historical Approach’ (Wodak 2006: 74), we can find, among
others, the following identical definition of the topos of advantage:
The topos of advantage or usefulness can be paraphrased by
means of the following conditional: if an action under a specific
relevant point of view will be useful, then one should perform it
[...] To this topos belong different subtypes, for example the topos
of ‘pro bono publico’ (‘to the advantage of all’), the topos of ‘pro
bono nobis’ (‘to the advantage of us’), and the topos of ‘pro bono
eorum’ (‘to the advantage of them’).
And then the definition is illustrated by the following example:
In a decision of the Viennese municipal authorities [...], the refus-
al of a residence permit is set out as follows:
Because of the private and family situation of the claimant, the re-
fusal of the application at issue represents quite an intrusion into
her private and family life. The public interest, which is against the
residence permit, is to be valued more strongly than the contrasting
private and family interests of the claimant. Thus, it had to be de-
cided according to the judgement.
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
the above-mentioned topos connecting the two, and what is the argumenta-
tive analysis of the quoted fragment? Unfortunately, all these elements are
missing; the definition and the quoted fragment are all that there is of the
supposed argumentative analysis.
And this is the basic pattern of functioning for most of these works.
At the beginning, there would be a list of topoi and a short description for
19
anything be or become a topos (at least within DHA)? And, consequential-
ly, what actually (i.e. historically) is a topos?
Before we try to answer these questions, let us have a look at how the
above-mentioned topoi are used in the respective works, listed at the begin-
ning of the book.
... And how topoi are used
In Discourse and Discrimination (Reisigl, Wodak 2001: 75), as well as in ‘The
Discourse-Historical Approach’ (Wodak 2006: 74), we can find, among
others, the following identical definition of the topos of advantage:
The topos of advantage or usefulness can be paraphrased by
means of the following conditional: if an action under a specific
relevant point of view will be useful, then one should perform it
[...] To this topos belong different subtypes, for example the topos
of ‘pro bono publico’ (‘to the advantage of all’), the topos of ‘pro
bono nobis’ (‘to the advantage of us’), and the topos of ‘pro bono
eorum’ (‘to the advantage of them’).
And then the definition is illustrated by the following example:
In a decision of the Viennese municipal authorities [...], the refus-
al of a residence permit is set out as follows:
Because of the private and family situation of the claimant, the re-
fusal of the application at issue represents quite an intrusion into
her private and family life. The public interest, which is against the
residence permit, is to be valued more strongly than the contrasting
private and family interests of the claimant. Thus, it had to be de-
cided according to the judgement.
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
the above-mentioned topos connecting the two, and what is the argumenta-
tive analysis of the quoted fragment? Unfortunately, all these elements are
missing; the definition and the quoted fragment are all that there is of the
supposed argumentative analysis.
And this is the basic pattern of functioning for most of these works.
At the beginning, there would be a list of topoi and a short description for
19
