Page 31 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 31
topoi in critical discourse analysis
Which brings us a bit closer to how topoi might be used in DHA. In the
works quoted in this paper, the authors never construct or reconstruct ar-
guments from the discourse fragments they analyse—despite the fact that
they are repeatedly defining topoi as warrants connecting arguments with
conclusions; they just hint at them with short glosses. And since there is
no reconstruction of arguments from concrete discourse fragments under
analysis, hinting at certain topoi, referring to them or simply just mention-
ing them, can only serve the purpose described by Rubinelli as ‘putting
the audience in a favourable frame of mind.’ ‘Favourable frame of mind’ in
our case—the use of topoi in DHA—would mean directing a reader’s atten-
tion to a ‘commonly known or discussed’ topic, without explicitly phras-
ing or reconstructing possible arguments and conclusions. Thus, the reader
can never really know what exactly the author had in mind and what ex-
actly he/she wanted to say (in terms of (possible) arguments and (possible)
conclusions).
Topoi, 2000 years later
Let us jump from the ‘old’ rhetoric to the ‘new’ rhetoric now, skipping more
than 2000 years of ‘degeneration of rhetoric’, as Chaim Perelman puts it in
his (and L Olbrechts-Tyteca’s) influential work Traité de l'argumentation: La
nouvelle rhétorique.
Topoi are characterised by their extreme generality, says Perelman
(1958/1983: 112–113), which makes them usable in every situation. It is the de-
generation of rhetoric and the lack of interest for the study of places that has
led to these unexpected consequences where ‘oratory developments’, as he
ironically calls them, against fortune, sensuality, laziness, etc., which school
exercises were repeating ad nauseam, became qualified as commonplaces
(loci, topoi), despite their extremely particular character. By commonplac-
es we more and more understand, Perelman continues, what Giambattista
Vico called ‘oratory places’, in order to distinguish them from the plac-
es treated in Aristotle’s Topics. Nowadays, commonplaces are character-
ised by banality which does not exclude extreme specificity and particular-
ity. These places are nothing more than Aristotelian commonplaces applied
to particular subjects, concludes Perelman. That is why there is a tendency
to forget that commonplaces form an indispensable arsenal in which every-
body who wants to persuade others should find what he is looking for.
And this is exactly what seems to be happening to the DHA approach
to topoi as well. Even more, the works quoted in the first part of the chapter
31
Which brings us a bit closer to how topoi might be used in DHA. In the
works quoted in this paper, the authors never construct or reconstruct ar-
guments from the discourse fragments they analyse—despite the fact that
they are repeatedly defining topoi as warrants connecting arguments with
conclusions; they just hint at them with short glosses. And since there is
no reconstruction of arguments from concrete discourse fragments under
analysis, hinting at certain topoi, referring to them or simply just mention-
ing them, can only serve the purpose described by Rubinelli as ‘putting
the audience in a favourable frame of mind.’ ‘Favourable frame of mind’ in
our case—the use of topoi in DHA—would mean directing a reader’s atten-
tion to a ‘commonly known or discussed’ topic, without explicitly phras-
ing or reconstructing possible arguments and conclusions. Thus, the reader
can never really know what exactly the author had in mind and what ex-
actly he/she wanted to say (in terms of (possible) arguments and (possible)
conclusions).
Topoi, 2000 years later
Let us jump from the ‘old’ rhetoric to the ‘new’ rhetoric now, skipping more
than 2000 years of ‘degeneration of rhetoric’, as Chaim Perelman puts it in
his (and L Olbrechts-Tyteca’s) influential work Traité de l'argumentation: La
nouvelle rhétorique.
Topoi are characterised by their extreme generality, says Perelman
(1958/1983: 112–113), which makes them usable in every situation. It is the de-
generation of rhetoric and the lack of interest for the study of places that has
led to these unexpected consequences where ‘oratory developments’, as he
ironically calls them, against fortune, sensuality, laziness, etc., which school
exercises were repeating ad nauseam, became qualified as commonplaces
(loci, topoi), despite their extremely particular character. By commonplac-
es we more and more understand, Perelman continues, what Giambattista
Vico called ‘oratory places’, in order to distinguish them from the plac-
es treated in Aristotle’s Topics. Nowadays, commonplaces are character-
ised by banality which does not exclude extreme specificity and particular-
ity. These places are nothing more than Aristotelian commonplaces applied
to particular subjects, concludes Perelman. That is why there is a tendency
to forget that commonplaces form an indispensable arsenal in which every-
body who wants to persuade others should find what he is looking for.
And this is exactly what seems to be happening to the DHA approach
to topoi as well. Even more, the works quoted in the first part of the chapter
31
