Page 14 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 14
four critical essays on argumentation
One of the methodical ways for critical discourse analysts to min-
imize the risk of being biased is to follow the principle of trian-
gulation. Thus one of the most salient distinguishing features of
the DHA is its endeavour to work with different approaches, mul-
timethodically and on the basis of a variety of empirical data as
well as background information. (Wodak ibid.)
One of the approaches DHA is using in its principle of triangulation
is argumentation theory, more specifically the theory of topoi. In this arti-
cle, I will be concerned with the following questions: how and in what way
are topoi and, consequentially, argumentation theory, used in DHA as one
of the most influential schools of CDA? Other approaches (e.g. Fairclough
(1995, 2000, 2003) or van Leeuwen (2004, 2008; van Leeuwen, Kress 2006))
do not use topoi at all. Does such a use actually minimize the risk of being
biased, and, consequentually, does such a use of topoi in fact implement the
principle of triangulation?
Argumentation and CDA
Within argumentation theory, Wodak continues (ibid.: 74),
‘topoi’ or ‘loci’ can be described as parts of argumentation which
belong to the obligatory, either explicit or inferable premises. They
are the content-related warrants or ‘conclusion rules’ which con-
nect the argument or arguments with the conclusion, the claim.
As such, they justify the transition from the argument or argu-
ments to the conclusion. (Kienpointner, 1992: 194)
We can find the very same definition3 in The Discursive Construction of
National Identity (Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, Liebhart 1999: 34), in Discourse
and Discrimination (Reisigl, Wodak 2001: 75), in The Discourse of Politics
in Action (Wodak 2009: 42), in Michal Krzyzanowski's chapter ‘On the
‘Europeanisation’ of Identity Constructions in Polish Political Discourse
after 1989’, published in Discourse and Transformation in Central and
Eastern Europe (Galasinska and Krzyzanowski 2009: 102), and in John E.
Richardson's paper (co-authored with R. Wodak) ‘The Impact of Visual
Racism: Visual arguments in political leaflets of Austrian and British far-
right parties’ (manuscript: 3), presented at the 2008 Venice Argumentation
3 It should be noted that Kienpointner’s definition is a hybrid one, grafting elements
from Toulmin (1958) onto Aristotelian foundations.
14
One of the methodical ways for critical discourse analysts to min-
imize the risk of being biased is to follow the principle of trian-
gulation. Thus one of the most salient distinguishing features of
the DHA is its endeavour to work with different approaches, mul-
timethodically and on the basis of a variety of empirical data as
well as background information. (Wodak ibid.)
One of the approaches DHA is using in its principle of triangulation
is argumentation theory, more specifically the theory of topoi. In this arti-
cle, I will be concerned with the following questions: how and in what way
are topoi and, consequentially, argumentation theory, used in DHA as one
of the most influential schools of CDA? Other approaches (e.g. Fairclough
(1995, 2000, 2003) or van Leeuwen (2004, 2008; van Leeuwen, Kress 2006))
do not use topoi at all. Does such a use actually minimize the risk of being
biased, and, consequentually, does such a use of topoi in fact implement the
principle of triangulation?
Argumentation and CDA
Within argumentation theory, Wodak continues (ibid.: 74),
‘topoi’ or ‘loci’ can be described as parts of argumentation which
belong to the obligatory, either explicit or inferable premises. They
are the content-related warrants or ‘conclusion rules’ which con-
nect the argument or arguments with the conclusion, the claim.
As such, they justify the transition from the argument or argu-
ments to the conclusion. (Kienpointner, 1992: 194)
We can find the very same definition3 in The Discursive Construction of
National Identity (Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, Liebhart 1999: 34), in Discourse
and Discrimination (Reisigl, Wodak 2001: 75), in The Discourse of Politics
in Action (Wodak 2009: 42), in Michal Krzyzanowski's chapter ‘On the
‘Europeanisation’ of Identity Constructions in Polish Political Discourse
after 1989’, published in Discourse and Transformation in Central and
Eastern Europe (Galasinska and Krzyzanowski 2009: 102), and in John E.
Richardson's paper (co-authored with R. Wodak) ‘The Impact of Visual
Racism: Visual arguments in political leaflets of Austrian and British far-
right parties’ (manuscript: 3), presented at the 2008 Venice Argumentation
3 It should be noted that Kienpointner’s definition is a hybrid one, grafting elements
from Toulmin (1958) onto Aristotelian foundations.
14
