Page 21 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 21
topoi in critical discourse analysis
frequent referral to Europe, especially in terms of its social mod-
el(s), as not the US or Asia (most prominently Japan).
In trying to reconstruct the ‘topological’ part of this analysis, three
topoi are mentioned: topos of diversity, topos of history, and topos of dif-
ference. Surprisingly, only the topos of history is listed and (sparingly) ex-
plained in the list of topoi on p. 44: ‘Topos of History—because history
teaches that specific actions have specific consequences, one should per-
form or omit a specific action in a specific situation.’ The absence of the oth-
er two should probably be accounted for with the following explanation on
pages 42–43:
These topoi have so far been investigated in a number of stud-
ies on election campaigns (Pelinka, Wodak 2002), on parliamen-
tary debates (Wodak, van Dijk 2000), on policy papers (Reisigl,
Wodak 2000), on ‘voices of migrants’ (Krzyzanowski, Wodak
2008), on visual argumentation in election posters and slogans
(Richardson, Wodak, forthcoming[9]), and on media reporting
(Baker et al. 2008).
But in the study ‘on visual argumentation in election posters and slo-
gans’, for example, the(se) topoi are not discussed at all; they are presented
as a fixed list of names of topoi, without any explanation of their function-
ing, while the authors (Richardson and Wodak) make occasional refer-
ence to their names—not to the mechanism of their functioning!—just as
Wodak does in the above example from The Discourse of Politics in Action.
Therefore, if a topos is to serve the purpose of connecting an argument
with a conclusion, as the respective works emphatically repeat, one would
expect at least a minimal reconstruction - but there is none. What we have
could be described as referring to topoi or evoking them or simply men-
tioning them, which mostly seems to serve the purpose of legitimating the
(already) existing discourse and/or text analysis, but gives little analytical-
or theorethical-added value in terms of argumentation analysis.
When I speak of reconstruction, what I have in mind is at least a min-
imal syllogistic or enthymemetic structure of the following type (as an ex-
ample, I am using another topic from The Discourse of Politics in Action
9 A version of this paper later appeared under the title ‘The Impact of Visual Racism:
Visual Arguments in Political Leaflets of Austrian and British Far-Right Parties’
(Richardson, Wodak 2009).
21
frequent referral to Europe, especially in terms of its social mod-
el(s), as not the US or Asia (most prominently Japan).
In trying to reconstruct the ‘topological’ part of this analysis, three
topoi are mentioned: topos of diversity, topos of history, and topos of dif-
ference. Surprisingly, only the topos of history is listed and (sparingly) ex-
plained in the list of topoi on p. 44: ‘Topos of History—because history
teaches that specific actions have specific consequences, one should per-
form or omit a specific action in a specific situation.’ The absence of the oth-
er two should probably be accounted for with the following explanation on
pages 42–43:
These topoi have so far been investigated in a number of stud-
ies on election campaigns (Pelinka, Wodak 2002), on parliamen-
tary debates (Wodak, van Dijk 2000), on policy papers (Reisigl,
Wodak 2000), on ‘voices of migrants’ (Krzyzanowski, Wodak
2008), on visual argumentation in election posters and slogans
(Richardson, Wodak, forthcoming[9]), and on media reporting
(Baker et al. 2008).
But in the study ‘on visual argumentation in election posters and slo-
gans’, for example, the(se) topoi are not discussed at all; they are presented
as a fixed list of names of topoi, without any explanation of their function-
ing, while the authors (Richardson and Wodak) make occasional refer-
ence to their names—not to the mechanism of their functioning!—just as
Wodak does in the above example from The Discourse of Politics in Action.
Therefore, if a topos is to serve the purpose of connecting an argument
with a conclusion, as the respective works emphatically repeat, one would
expect at least a minimal reconstruction - but there is none. What we have
could be described as referring to topoi or evoking them or simply men-
tioning them, which mostly seems to serve the purpose of legitimating the
(already) existing discourse and/or text analysis, but gives little analytical-
or theorethical-added value in terms of argumentation analysis.
When I speak of reconstruction, what I have in mind is at least a min-
imal syllogistic or enthymemetic structure of the following type (as an ex-
ample, I am using another topic from The Discourse of Politics in Action
9 A version of this paper later appeared under the title ‘The Impact of Visual Racism:
Visual Arguments in Political Leaflets of Austrian and British Far-Right Parties’
(Richardson, Wodak 2009).
21
