Page 63 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 63
fallacies: do we ‘use’ them or ‘commit’ them? ...
politicians’ lives, and the topos of difference combined with the
discursive strategy of singularization, which serves to construct
herself as unique. (Wodak ibid.: 105)
And this is the excerpt Wodak’s analysis refers to:
(Example 4 (Text 3.28)), 9 lines out of 22:
—1 I mean I know that —— even on / on a: national level
—2 I mean there are very many politicians all sorts in all parties
——
—3 that prefer to / to meet the / the —— eh / the citizens through
– media
—4 eh —— / so I know that I’m not that sort.
—5 so I prefer to meet the people. ——
—6 it / it could be hard but it’s more interesting.
—7 and that’s the way I learn all the time—a lot.
__8 ... and a (xx) of —— / I met so very many politicians ——
during my —— living
__9 years (Wodak ibid.: 104–105)
When comparing the excerpt and the analysis, a few questions come
to mind. First, where in the excerpt could all these topoi and fallacies men-
tioned in the ‘analysis’ be found in the first place? What constitutes them
as topoi and fallacies? How do topoi ‘combine’ with fallacies (or discursive
strategies), what exactly is meant by that? Wodak would leave all these cru-
cial questions unanswered.
But if the reader of her book is left without these answers (if it is not
clearly showed in the analysis and in the excerpt where the topoi and fal-
lacies are, and what constitutes them as topoi and fallacies), what can we
learn from such an ‘analysis’? What is its added value, its explanatory force
in terms of cognition and comprehension?
If we try to find answers in the text itself, we can easily see that MEP
3 is saying I know that [...] there are very many politicians [...] that prefer to
meet the citizens through media (lines 1–3), I prefer to meet people (line 5).
And what I, as a reader, can conclude from this is that MEP 3 is express-
ing a purely personal experience, with no intention of generalization. (She
is saying: I know —— very many politicians (not all). In her own view,
she knows the situation, and that is all that she is saying.) So, where is the
fallacy of Hasty Generalization? The analyst should point to it, show how
63
politicians’ lives, and the topos of difference combined with the
discursive strategy of singularization, which serves to construct
herself as unique. (Wodak ibid.: 105)
And this is the excerpt Wodak’s analysis refers to:
(Example 4 (Text 3.28)), 9 lines out of 22:
—1 I mean I know that —— even on / on a: national level
—2 I mean there are very many politicians all sorts in all parties
——
—3 that prefer to / to meet the / the —— eh / the citizens through
– media
—4 eh —— / so I know that I’m not that sort.
—5 so I prefer to meet the people. ——
—6 it / it could be hard but it’s more interesting.
—7 and that’s the way I learn all the time—a lot.
__8 ... and a (xx) of —— / I met so very many politicians ——
during my —— living
__9 years (Wodak ibid.: 104–105)
When comparing the excerpt and the analysis, a few questions come
to mind. First, where in the excerpt could all these topoi and fallacies men-
tioned in the ‘analysis’ be found in the first place? What constitutes them
as topoi and fallacies? How do topoi ‘combine’ with fallacies (or discursive
strategies), what exactly is meant by that? Wodak would leave all these cru-
cial questions unanswered.
But if the reader of her book is left without these answers (if it is not
clearly showed in the analysis and in the excerpt where the topoi and fal-
lacies are, and what constitutes them as topoi and fallacies), what can we
learn from such an ‘analysis’? What is its added value, its explanatory force
in terms of cognition and comprehension?
If we try to find answers in the text itself, we can easily see that MEP
3 is saying I know that [...] there are very many politicians [...] that prefer to
meet the citizens through media (lines 1–3), I prefer to meet people (line 5).
And what I, as a reader, can conclude from this is that MEP 3 is express-
ing a purely personal experience, with no intention of generalization. (She
is saying: I know —— very many politicians (not all). In her own view,
she knows the situation, and that is all that she is saying.) So, where is the
fallacy of Hasty Generalization? The analyst should point to it, show how
63
