Page 20 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 20
four critical essays on argumentation
each of them (some of the quoted works would avoid even this step): first,
a conditional paraphrase of a particular topos would be given, followed by
a short discourse fragment (usually from the media) illustrating this con-
ditional paraphrase (in Discourse and Discrimination, pp. 75–80), but with-
out any explicit reconstruction of possible arguments, conclusions, or topoi
connecting the two in the chosen fragment. After this short theorethical
(or ‘theorethical’) introduction, different topoi would just be referred to by
names throughout the book, as if everything has already been explained in
these few introductory pages.
It is interesting to observe how the functioning of these topoi is de-
scribed (especially in Discourse & Discrimination, which is the most thor-
ough in this respect): topoi are mostly ‘employed’ (p. 75), or ‘found’ (p. 76),
when speaking about their supposed application in different texts, but also
‘traced back (to the conclusion rule)’ (p. 76) or ‘based on (conditionals)’ (p.
77), when speaking about their possible frames of definitions. How topoi
are ‘based on (conditionals)’, or ‘traced back (to the conclusion rule)’, and
how these operations relate to argument(s) and conclusion(s) that topoi are
supposed to connect is not explained.
Consider another interesting example, this time from Discourse of
Politics in Action (Wodak 2009: 97). In subsection 4.1, Wodak examines
the discursive construction of MEP's identities, especially whether they
view themselves as Europeans or not. At the end of the subsection, she
summarizes:
Among MEPs8 no one cluster characteristics is particularly prom-
inent; however, most MEPs mention that member states share a
certain cultural, historical and linguistic richness that binds
them together, despite differences in specifics; this topos of di-
versity occurs in most official speeches (Weiss, 2002). Among the
predicational strategies employed by the interviewees, we see re-
peated reference to a common culture and past (topos of history,
i.e. shared cultural, historical and linguistic traditions; similar so-
cial models) and a common present and future (i.e. European so-
cial model; ‘added value’ of being united; a way for the future).
Morover, if identity is to some extent ‘based on the formation of
sameness and difference’ (topos of difference; strategy of estab-
lishing uniqueness; Wodak et al., 1993: 36–42), we see this in the
8 Members of the European Parliament (IŽŽ).
20
each of them (some of the quoted works would avoid even this step): first,
a conditional paraphrase of a particular topos would be given, followed by
a short discourse fragment (usually from the media) illustrating this con-
ditional paraphrase (in Discourse and Discrimination, pp. 75–80), but with-
out any explicit reconstruction of possible arguments, conclusions, or topoi
connecting the two in the chosen fragment. After this short theorethical
(or ‘theorethical’) introduction, different topoi would just be referred to by
names throughout the book, as if everything has already been explained in
these few introductory pages.
It is interesting to observe how the functioning of these topoi is de-
scribed (especially in Discourse & Discrimination, which is the most thor-
ough in this respect): topoi are mostly ‘employed’ (p. 75), or ‘found’ (p. 76),
when speaking about their supposed application in different texts, but also
‘traced back (to the conclusion rule)’ (p. 76) or ‘based on (conditionals)’ (p.
77), when speaking about their possible frames of definitions. How topoi
are ‘based on (conditionals)’, or ‘traced back (to the conclusion rule)’, and
how these operations relate to argument(s) and conclusion(s) that topoi are
supposed to connect is not explained.
Consider another interesting example, this time from Discourse of
Politics in Action (Wodak 2009: 97). In subsection 4.1, Wodak examines
the discursive construction of MEP's identities, especially whether they
view themselves as Europeans or not. At the end of the subsection, she
summarizes:
Among MEPs8 no one cluster characteristics is particularly prom-
inent; however, most MEPs mention that member states share a
certain cultural, historical and linguistic richness that binds
them together, despite differences in specifics; this topos of di-
versity occurs in most official speeches (Weiss, 2002). Among the
predicational strategies employed by the interviewees, we see re-
peated reference to a common culture and past (topos of history,
i.e. shared cultural, historical and linguistic traditions; similar so-
cial models) and a common present and future (i.e. European so-
cial model; ‘added value’ of being united; a way for the future).
Morover, if identity is to some extent ‘based on the formation of
sameness and difference’ (topos of difference; strategy of estab-
lishing uniqueness; Wodak et al., 1993: 36–42), we see this in the
8 Members of the European Parliament (IŽŽ).
20
