Abstract
Topos is an important concept both in rhetorical and dialectical forms of argumentation theories. In dialectical theories, topos often signifies a kind of argument scheme, divorced from the context. In rhetoric, topos is intimately connected with the invention of argument for specific contexts. Long lists of topoi therefore fill the rhetorical handbooks. These lists are heuristic guides helping students to learn a habit of thinking by which they will be able to creatively find arguments for the occasion. In the rhetorical tradition, the art of finding arguments for and against a position is taught in the twin rhetorical exercises refutation and confirmation. They belong to the progymnasmata, a set of preliminary exercises designed to teach students the art of rhetoric. Both refutation and confirmation are built around a set of topoi which function both as heuristic guides and as analytical tools. These topoi are ‘the clear’, ‘the persuasive’, ‘the possible’, ‘the logical’, ‘the appropriate’ and ‘the advantageous’. Each of these topoi is accompanied by its opposite so that the student will look both for the clear and the unclear, for the persuasive and the unpersuasive, for the possible and the impossible, the logical and the illogical, the appropriate and the inappropriate, the advantageous and the disadvantageous. The students begin by clarifying the issue and defining the terms. Secondly they look to the audience for whom the position would be persuasive. They continue to consider the physical world and its limitations. Fourthly, they consider the formal relationship between the propositions in the argument. Finally they consider the appropriate conventions in the rhetorical situation and the advantage for which the different participants argue. The method is critical as well as creative, actively engaging the possible objections from the opposing side. This is a sophistic method of teaching argumentation and it has been at the heart of the rhetorical tradition ever since antiquity. The article compares this rhetorical method of teaching argumentation to modern dialectical theories and claims that the rhetorical topoi are better for teaching argumentation to students than modern approaches to argumentation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Apthonius. (2003). Progymnasmata. In G. Kennedy (Ed. & Trans.), Progymnasmata: Greek textbooks of prose composition and rhetoric (pp. 89–127). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Aristotle. (1991). Aristotle on rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. Kennedy, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bitzer, L. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1–14.
Cicero. (1933). Academica. (H. Rackham, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press.
Crosswhite, J. (2008). Awakening the topoi: Sources of invention in the New Rhetoric’s argument model. Argumentation and Advocacy, 44, 169–184.
Fleming, J. D. (2003). The very idea of a progymnasmata. Rhetoric Review, 22, 105–120.
Garssen, B. (2001). Argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 81–99). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Hermogenes. (2003). Progymnasmata. In G. Kennedy (Ed. & Trans.). Progymnasmata: Greek textbooks of prose composition and rhetoric (pp. 73–88). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Isocrates. (1929). Antidosis. In G. Norlin (Ed.), Isocrates in three volumes. Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press.
Kraus, M. (2007). From figure to argument: Contrarium in Roman rhetoric. Argumentation, 21, 3–19.
Lausberg, H. (1998). Handbook of literary rhetoric: A foundation for literary study. Leiden: Brill.
Leff, M. (2006). Up from theory: Or I fought the topoi and the topoi won. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 36, 203–211.
Marrou, H. I. (1956). The history of education in antiquity (G. Ward, Trans.). New York: Sheed and Ward.
Mendelson, M. (2001). Quintilian and the pedagogy of argument. Argumentation, 15, 277–293.
Perelman, Ch, & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Quintilian, M. F. (1920–1922). The Institutio Oratoria (4 Vols., H. E. Butler, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press.
Rubinelli, S. (2006). The ancient argumentative game: Topoi and loci in action. Argumentation, 20, 253–272.
Sprague, R. K. (1972). The older Sophists: A complete translation by several hands of the fragments in “Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker”, ed. by Diels-Krantz. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Theon, A. (2003). Progymnasmata. In G. Kennedy (Ed. & Trans.). Progymnasmata: Greek textbooks of prose composition and rhetoric (pp. 1–88). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2001). Fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 135–164). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1, 479–497.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20, 381–392.
van Rees, M. A. (2001). Argument interpretation and reconstruction. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 165–199). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Vico, G. (1990). On the study of methods of our time. (E. Gianturoco, Trans.) Ithaca: Cornell University Press. (Original work published in 1709).
Wagemans, J. (2011). Argument schemes, topoi, and laws of logic. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings from the seventh international conference of the international society for the study of argumentation (pp. 1934–1939). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Wodak, R., et al. (1999). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Zagar, I. (2011). The use and misuse of topoi: Critical discourse analysis and discourse-historical approach. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings from the seventh international conference of the international society for the study of argumentation (pp. 2032–2046). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Eriksson, A. (2012). Argumentative Topoi for Refutation and Confirmation. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 22. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4040-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4041-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)