Page 23 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 23
topoi in critical discourse analysis
European Union: it argues [!] that Poland has a unique role as a
‘bridge’ between Europe’s East and West. Then, the topos of past
and future also constructs [!] Polish national identifications, yet
within the dichotomy between collective ‘scope of experience’
and ‘horizon of expectations’ (Koselleck, 1989). While this topos
is used to emphasize that the Polish past might have been trou-
bled and negative [...], it insists [!] that the Polish ‘European’ future
will be almost entirely positive and peaceful.
Unlike the previously elaborated [sic!] topoi, the topos of mod-
ernisation clearly stands out and reaches beyond [!] the construc-
tions of national identification. It focuses [!] mostly on present-
ing the European Union as carrying some unique modernising
force which would help reform Polish state and society. The topos
of modernisation is therefore frequently tied to the topos of the
EU as a national necessity and to the topos of the EU as a national
test of which both construct the ‘power’ of the Union over Poland
in a similar way. By implying that the Union is characterised by
some unique principles and standards of social and political or-
ganisation [...], the topos of modernisation, contrary to the previ-
ous ones, constructs a very positive image of the Union to the det-
riment of Poland, which is portrayed in a negative way.
Surprisingly, we learn that topoi in this rather long excerpt are ‘elabo-
rated’, while Krzyzanowski does not even touch on them, let alone define
them or give a possible pattern of their functionning (as Reisigl and Wodak
do in the first part of Discourse and Discrimination). In his analysis, the
words and phrases that are labeled topoi not only do not serve to connect
the arguments and the conclusions, but act on their own: they can be argu-
ments and/or conclusions, sometimes even both. Actually, it is rather diffi-
cult to identify what arguments and conclusions could be in this text. Even
more, they are clearly and openly antropomorphized, since they ‘seek’,
‘head back’, ‘argue’, ‘construct’, ‘insist’, ‘reach beyond’ and ‘focus’ (if we
stay with the quoted part of the article), but they hardly connect anything.
In their seminal work Traité de l'argumentation: La nouvelle rhétori-
que (1958/1983: 112–113) Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca bit-
terly comment on the degeneration of rhetoric in the course of history, but
what we see in the above quote goes a step further: it is not just degenera-
tion, it is pure vulgarisation and abuse of one of the most important and
23
European Union: it argues [!] that Poland has a unique role as a
‘bridge’ between Europe’s East and West. Then, the topos of past
and future also constructs [!] Polish national identifications, yet
within the dichotomy between collective ‘scope of experience’
and ‘horizon of expectations’ (Koselleck, 1989). While this topos
is used to emphasize that the Polish past might have been trou-
bled and negative [...], it insists [!] that the Polish ‘European’ future
will be almost entirely positive and peaceful.
Unlike the previously elaborated [sic!] topoi, the topos of mod-
ernisation clearly stands out and reaches beyond [!] the construc-
tions of national identification. It focuses [!] mostly on present-
ing the European Union as carrying some unique modernising
force which would help reform Polish state and society. The topos
of modernisation is therefore frequently tied to the topos of the
EU as a national necessity and to the topos of the EU as a national
test of which both construct the ‘power’ of the Union over Poland
in a similar way. By implying that the Union is characterised by
some unique principles and standards of social and political or-
ganisation [...], the topos of modernisation, contrary to the previ-
ous ones, constructs a very positive image of the Union to the det-
riment of Poland, which is portrayed in a negative way.
Surprisingly, we learn that topoi in this rather long excerpt are ‘elabo-
rated’, while Krzyzanowski does not even touch on them, let alone define
them or give a possible pattern of their functionning (as Reisigl and Wodak
do in the first part of Discourse and Discrimination). In his analysis, the
words and phrases that are labeled topoi not only do not serve to connect
the arguments and the conclusions, but act on their own: they can be argu-
ments and/or conclusions, sometimes even both. Actually, it is rather diffi-
cult to identify what arguments and conclusions could be in this text. Even
more, they are clearly and openly antropomorphized, since they ‘seek’,
‘head back’, ‘argue’, ‘construct’, ‘insist’, ‘reach beyond’ and ‘focus’ (if we
stay with the quoted part of the article), but they hardly connect anything.
In their seminal work Traité de l'argumentation: La nouvelle rhétori-
que (1958/1983: 112–113) Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca bit-
terly comment on the degeneration of rhetoric in the course of history, but
what we see in the above quote goes a step further: it is not just degenera-
tion, it is pure vulgarisation and abuse of one of the most important and
23
