Argumentation (2006) 20:15–28 Ó Springer 2006

DOI 10.1007/s10503-005-1458-y

The Value of Topoi

J. P. ZOMPETTI

Department of Communication
Illinois State University
Campus Box 4480
Normal
IL 61790-4480
U.S.A
E-mail: jpzompe@ilstu.edu

ABSTRACT: Despite VancilÕs (1979) proclamation over twenty years ago that topoi have
been abandoned in argument theory, this essay contends that topoi should have a vital
role in contemporary argumentation theory. Four key areas are identified where topoi are
(or can be) essential tools for argumentation: Locating argument, building argument,
development of critical thinking, and argument pedagogy. As a result, teachers and
students of argument can both benefit from a (re)discovery of topoi.

KEY WORDS: topoi, loci, Aristotle, argument peadagogy

Argument schemes, typologies, topographies and topoi have been the

center of attraction for many argument scholars (Braet, 2004). Inter-
estingly, however, topoi (sopoi), as a subject, have been discussed in
ways that generally do not account for their utility in everyday argu-
ment. Although topoi were meant by Aristotle (1960, 1991) to be a
means for locating and building argument, they have largely been
studied for their descriptive merit, distinguished from their convoluted
accounts by Aristotle (Ochs, 1966, p. 36), or related to other fields of
study. In other words, very little has been said for what topoi can
actually be used for – their aid in the construction and delivery of
arguments, enhancing critical thinking, and argument pedagogy.
Since ancient Greece and Rome, much has been written about
topoi (Ochs, 1966). Their usefulness in our everyday speech, writing,
and arguments has become less of a concern than has their historical
and cultural significance to the ancient Greek traditions and the
scholarship of rhetoric in general. Despite their usefulness as ‘search
criteria’ for locating argument (Kienpointner, 1997, p. 226), topoi
have largely been abandoned as a useful, contemporary way of look-
ing at argument. While much has been written about topoi, Vancil’s
(1979) proclamation that topoi are largely unnoticed by argument
scholars and practitioners resonates today. What has been said of
topoi has mainly focused on historical, descriptive or semantic
perspectives on topoi rather than discussions on their utility for
16 J. P. ZOMPETTI

contemporary argumentation theory. Nevertheless, previous studies of

topoi will not only help us to see what remains to be said about to-
poi, but they may also help us to understand why we should high-
light their utility even more.
Perhaps the best known and referenced discussion of topoi occurs
with Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969). They go to great lengths
in attempting to resuscitate the value of topoi, or as they call them
from the Roman tradition, loci.1 According to Perelman and Ol-
brechts-Tyteca, loci have become less important in argument peda-
gogy, largely because their general applicability to any given
conversation has caused them to lose any specific value. In other
words, loci are too commonplace. However, Perelman and Olbrechts-
Tyteca rightly suggest that widespread usefulness may make the study
of loci mundane, but even more important. As they argue, ‘our con-
cern is with the fact that all audiences, of all kinds, have to take loci
into account . . . We are obliged to discuss them at some length so that
the concept of locus will be, for all our readers, more than just an
empty frame’ (p. 85). And go to great lengths they do, by spending a
large portion of their book examining different loci. In so doing, Perel-
man and Olbrechts-Tyteca testify to the importance of loci. However,
their larger project, as important as it is, is centered on ways to frame
arguments to the audience; a manual for highlighting different proce-
dures of effective rhetoric. Loci, as part of this larger process, are in-
tended to enhance the rhetorical force of the speaker. An important
attribute, to be sure, but little discussion occurs on the utility of loci
for the reasons I am discussing here.
An extremely valuable and interesting study of topoi was done by
Ochs (1966). He wrote his dissertation to offer an ‘overview’ of classi-
cal rhetorical topics. He sketches the history and development of topi-
cal discussions from Corax to Aristotle, Cicero to Quintilian, and
others. Ochs’ study is quite comprehensive and offers a valuable his-
torical account of how the teaching and use of commonplace argu-
ments emerged, especially since ‘nowhere in the literature of rhetorical
theory can today’s student find an overview of the topics’ (p. 1). This
being his purpose, it is unfair to expect Ochs to also discuss the value
of topoi for our contemporary purposes. In fact, while Ochs does sug-
gest that topoi are useful pedagogical tools, he declares that ‘topics do
not provide the orator with premises for rhetorical argument’ (p. 43),
but they do give us a ‘classification of arguments’ (p. 45).
In another valuable contribution to the study of topoi, Kienpointner
(1997) wrote about the different methods for finding argument, or the
art of invention (ars inveniendi), which include topoi, along with stasis,
debate theory, and encyclopedic systems. He concludes that using
these systems in combination offer the best approach to finding
 VALUE OF TOPOI 17

arguments. While useful, Kienpointner does not specifically detail how

topoi can locate argument, nor, since he is concentrating on inventio,
does he discuss the other benefits of topoi.
Other scholars have discussed the strategic nature of topoi. De Pater
(1968) argues that topoi serve two purposes – a selective function and
a guarantee function. The latter concerns itself with using a topic to
connect a conclusion with a previous premise, much like the function
articulated by Kienpointner (1997). The first function of topoi (the
selective function), however, ‘is a device to find arguments within a
possible set of types of arguments’ (Walton, 1996, p. 5). In other
words, the topoi are a system of categorizing arguments that can be
used to prioritize their strategic strength. Eemeren et al. (1996) also
describe how topoi can be used as ‘argumentation techniques’ to tacti-
cally advance an argument over one’s opponent. In what they call a
‘tactical aid,’ Eemeren et al. suggest that topoi can allow a person to
maneuver an argument in such a way as to force their opponent to
contradict themselves, among other things (1996, p. 38).
In the tradition of ‘argument in language,’2 Bruxelles et al. (1995)
describe topoi as a system of topographical classifications, aimed pri-
marily, in agreement with Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, at being
efficacious in persuading the audience. Additionally, the works of Jost
(1991), Fahenstock and Secor (1991), and Miller (1987) discuss specific
topoi (idia) as suiting a very narrow purpose for argument theory.
With some absences of how topoi are useful for contemporary argu-
mentation theory, I aim to discuss their utility in several ways. Among
other things, the concept of topoi illustrates quite nicely the intersec-
tion between ‘traditional’ theory (sophia) with ‘contemporary’ practice
(praxis). More specifically, topoi help us in locating and building argu-
ments, developing our critical thinking skills, and aiding in argument
instruction. As such, this paper will emphasize these four important
functions of topoi and end with some general conclusions about the
relationship between topoi and argument pedagogy.

1. CONTEXTUALIZING TOPOI

Topoi – often referred to as loci, commonplaces, topics and even

‘spheres’ (Rieke and Sillars, 1993, pp. 25-26) – are essentially a clas-
sification system of issues pertaining to argument. As described by
Aristotle, topoi are argument systems that allow specific arguments to
be made under the method of enthymemes, or partial syllogisms. In
what has been argued as Aristotle’s only definition of the term
(Solmsen, 1929, p. 164), Aristotle offers us an example: ‘To amplify
and to deprecate is not an element of an enthymeme (I call the same
thing ‘‘element’’ and ‘‘topic;’’ for an element or a topic [is a heading]
18 J. P. ZOMPETTI

under which many enthymemes fall.)’ (Aristotle, 1991, p. 214).

According to Aristotle, topoi are the ‘heads for arguments on those
various matters which a speaker will find it useful or necessary to
treat’ (1932, p. 158). Along those lines, Hill and Leeman characterize
topoi as the ‘lines of argument’ in order to achieve clash in an issue
of controversy (1997, p. 165). As a form of identifying argument,
Aristotle contended that there were two types of topoi: general
(koinoi) and specific or particular (idia). Specific topoi are the general
facts and ideas that every speaker should know relating to the three
main areas of rhetoric: epideictic, forensic, and deliberative speech.
Knowing the size of the enemy’s infantry, for example (as Aristotle
himself used) would be an expected koinoi for deliberative, or politi-
cal, speech. Since idia are essentially the premises of arguments ra-
ther than the arguments themselves, some scholars have suggested
that idia are not topoi at all, but rather specific enthymemes (Smith,
1989; McAdon, 2003).
Of the ‘general’ topoi (koinoi), Aristotle described the following 28
topoi as occurring in everyday argument: opposites, identical results
and antecedents, inflections, altered choices, correlative terms, attrib-
uted motives, more and less, incentives and deterrents, time, incredible
occurrences, definition, conflicting facts, induction, slander, existing
decisions, cause to effect, turning opponent’s utterances, meaning of
names, part to whole, comparable actions, simple consequences, course
of action, criss-cross consequences, previous mistakes, inward thoughts
with outward display, division, proportional results, and ambiguous
terms (Aristotle, 1991, pp. 190–204). The general and the specific are
important to distinguish, since idia are used for topic-specific argu-
ments (and usually presumptive conjunctions to conclusions) and koi-
noi are categories for any general argument (Ochs, 1969). Covino and
Jolliffe (1995) explain:
Of idia, Aristotle says, ‘for example, in physics there are premises from which there
is neither an enthymeme nor a syllogism applicable to ethics; and in ethics [there
are] others not useful in physics.’ As an example of the koinoi topoi, he cites ‘the to-
pos of the more and the less,’ noting that a rhetor can invent enthymemes based on
the relationship of more and less in both an argument about justice, and one about
an entirely different subject, such as physics (quoted in Kemp, 1995, np.)
It is important to note that topoi can aid the rhetor in producing
enthymemes – the classic syllogism with a missing premise or conclu-
sion (McAdon, 2003). In fact, according to Aristotle, the enthymeme
is the natural way of articulating topoi, and topoi are the methods of
arriving at the enthymemes (1991, p. 189). Regarding Kemp’s discus-
sion of general and specific topoi, both genres of topoi help to locate
and identify the type or lines of argument, whether it is a more general
form that can be found in all rhetoric, or the more particularized
arguments located in specialized rhetoric.
 VALUE OF TOPOI 19

Despite Aristotle’s intentions, his classifications of topoi remained

ambiguous (Arthos, 2000). In fact, the distinction between specific and
general topoi was complicated and confusing. Leff (1983, pp. 23–4)
has argued that Aristotle’s description of topoi is ambiguous and
bewildering. While Kennedy agrees, he suggests that Aristotle ‘thinks
of arguments visually and assumes that others will understand’ how
the topoi relate to arguments (1996, p. 173).
While this confusion exists, others nevertheless followed Aristotle in
their discussion of topoi.3 Cicero discussed topoi, but referred to them
as loci, or ‘places where arguments lurk’ (Cicero, 1962, p. 334). As he
refers to Aristotle’s conception of topoi, Cicero’s loci are solely meant
to describe a method for locating arguments (inventio), rather than
constructing them. Of course, once a student knows how to hunt for
arguments, they can then utilize a similar method in their own speech-
making. Thus, loci can be instrumental for Cicero’s canon of invention
(Rolfe, 1932, p. 133). In fact, Cicero (1942, p. 175) suggested that
knowledge of all loci are important for the rhetorician so we can ‘use
our judgment and always reject the weak ones and sometimes omit
those of too general application or of too little relevance.’ Following
Cicero, Quintilian described loci as the ‘seats of arguments,’ which are
vital components for persuasion (Covino and Joliffe, 1995). In Quintil-
ian’s Institutio de Oratoria (book xxii), he describes the characteristics
of accomplished public speaking as bonus vir, or the good man [sic]
speaking well. Here, too, we find the importance of learning how to
locate specific arguments so that they may influence the speaker’s abil-
ity to speak well (Quintilian, 1920, p. 5). Others have, of course, spo-
ken about topoi, including Boethius,4 but they have mainly echoed
what I have reviewed here. Further, since the classical period, few
have attempted to use the concept of topoi to improve argumentation
theory.
Just by reviewing the definition of topoi may make it seem obvi-
ous that topoi are important in argument theory. However, topoi
are perhaps the most overlooked and under-utilized concept in argu-
mentation theory. While many argument theorists and debate text-
book authors refer to topoi, it is often only in passing reference.
Vancil, in 1979, made a similar argument about the waning of topoi
in contemporary argument theory, but since then no revitalization
of topoi has taken place. While some theorists discuss topoi specifi-
cally, they do not apply topoi’s relevance to current pedagogical or
argumentation practices (Wallace, 1972; Zagacki, 1992). Neverthe-
less, I argue that topoi still have tremendous utility for contempo-
rary argumentation, including two aspects of Cicero’s five canons of
rhetoric – inventio (locating argument) and dispositio (building
argument).
20 J. P. ZOMPETTI

2. LOCATING ARGUMENT

Topoi as forms of argument both serve to help us locate issues for

argument as well as prepare us to engage in types of arguments,
although we must be clear that locating and building arguments are
quite distinct functions of topoi (Tallmon, 1997). Locating arguments,
inventio, entails being able to foreshadow what possible arguments will
be relevant to a given proposition. Building arguments, dispositio (as
discussed below), requires the necessary means to formulate the proper
elements and substance for the delivery of argument. Topoi, according
to Aristotle, are the places, or ‘special regions the orator hunts for
arguments as a hunter pursues game. Knowing where a particular
kind of game (or argument) is to be found, he [sic] will hunt for it
there’ (1932, p. 155). The definition of topoi helps to describe their
most basic function: to locate argument. Using topoi can aid us in dis-
covering and identifying arguments by remembering the classification
of general topoi (koinoi). Keeping those topoi in mind allows us to no-
tice arguments where we would otherwise probably miss them. Kien-
pointner (1997, p. 227) calls topoi ‘search formulas’ that are
‘formulated at a very abstract level and thus help to select arguments
for any subject. They rely on relationships of identity, similarity, dif-
ference, contrasts, subsumption, causality, analogy, etc.’ Topoi, then,
are akin to a decoding system, allowing the researcher to scan material
to allow the topoi to pinpoint specific and general types of arguments.
One of the most frustrating procedures for any new student, scholar
or debater is the task of researching a complicated and controversial
topic. While researchers often have a thesis statement or even research
questions before embarking on their research journey, they often
quickly become overwhelmed with the amount of material available to
them. Of course, even when material is narrowed and located, the
arguments contained within the research material may also appear to
be abundant, confusing, unorganized, and even foreign. What is a re-
searcher to do? My proposal is that if researchers were skilled in the
typology of topoi, then locating the important arguments for one’s
project would not seem as difficult. Topoi can be used to begin the
search for arguments, even with little knowledge about the specific to-
pic at-hand. Furthermore, researchers would not overlook as many
key arguments as they currently do. According to Ochs (1966, p. 2),
researchers who explore ‘this single component of invention,’ may then
‘be able to talk about the ‘‘finding of suitable arguments’’ with more
precision and with an improved understanding of both the system and
its users.’ Topoi can help a researcher focus in their work as well as
safeguard against potentially missed arguments.
Despite Vancil’s (1979) skepticism that topoi tend to be an outdated
argument system, I believe they offer us many useful qualities,
 VALUE OF TOPOI 21

including a way of locating argument. Knowing the general topoi, for

example, can help researchers to locate ‘cause to effect’ elements to an
issue. When one researches the arguments on health care reform, for
example, one will undoubtedly stumble onto the ‘cause to effect’ argu-
ment of heightened consumer costs as a result of implementing mas-
sive health care initiatives. The other general topoi operate in the same
fashion – such as part to whole, correlative terms, or opposites – that
can aid the researcher in locating the particularized and intricate ele-
ments to a broader argument.

3. BUILDING ARGUMENT

Similar to Aristotle, Rieke and Sillars (1993) characterize topoi as

‘commonplaces’ which ‘are lines of argument or places from which
arguments can be built’ (p. 24). Perelman (1982, p. 29) and Perelman
and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) call them ‘loci’ that can be seen as ‘head-
ings under which arguments can be classified.’ With this, we may view
topoi as simultaneously providing an area to finding argument and
also the beginnings of a process to build argument.
Topoi offer a classification system not only to find argument, but
also to construct argument. Especially with ‘general’ topoi, a rhetor
can engage in a series of argumentative constructions in a moment’s
notice. Topoi, then, are tools for constructing and refuting arguments.
We commonly see the use of ‘definitions’ as a way of arguing the rele-
vancy of issues, ‘turning opponent’s utterances’ by way of offensively
flipping an opponent’s arguments against themselves, and ‘incentives
and deterrents’ when people weigh advantages versus disadvantages.
Thus, topoi provide a way of forging theory with contemporary speak-
ing and arguing.
More generally, however, topoi can serve to prepare the rhetor for
more advanced argument construction than would occur without topoi
or some other similar argument classification system. Once a person is
familiar with topoi, they also become familiar with the most common
types of arguments possible on any given subject. Of course, this does
not mean that other types of arguments (that are not listed under the
topoi) cannot exist, but it does suggest that knowing topoi can ac-
quaint a person with a standard set of commonly used argument
styles. Topoi can be used to strengthen and build arguments in a cou-
ple of ways. First, they help the speaker anticipate types of arguments
which might be expected. This, in-turn, strengthens the arguments al-
ready being presented. Topoi also help the speaker anticipate what
arguments opponents might make, thereby preparing preemptive or
refutative arguments. Thus, knowing topoi can help the speaker be
thorough and comprehensive in their approach to the specific topic.
22 J. P. ZOMPETTI

If we return to the health care issue, for example, a researcher or

rhetor will not only locate arguments more quickly by using topoi, but
they will also be able to actually make or form arguments concerning
the health care issue – even without researching – if they are familiar
with topoi. Since topoi include the most commonly used forms of argu-
ments, one only need know a basic amount of information concerning
an issue of controversy to convert that knowledge into one or many of
the different types of topoi. Using topoi in this way has the potential to
radically transform the way we engage in argument pedagogy. Particu-
larly with limited preparation events, rhetors involved in impromptu,
extemporaneous speaking, debate, business, politics, etc., can easily use
topoi as a foil to project well-articulated arguments on issues where lit-
tle research or time has been invested in the development of the argu-
ments. Additionally, rhetors can use topoi as a starting point for
constructing arguments to aid in their development of more intricate
and prepared arguments. These are brief examples for how topoi can
function as a tool for argument construction.

4. DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL THINKING

Before I discuss the importance of topoi to critical thinking, I should

first define what I mean by ‘critical thinking.’ Critical thinking, while
appearing to be universally understood as important, can be a com-
plex process and has many definitions.5 For my purposes, I define crit-
ical thinking as the cognitive process of rational consideration of
multiple ideas and perspectives of an issue for the purpose of achiev-
ing understanding, resolving conflict, solving problems, or attaining
persuasion. My view of critical thinking is largely influenced by Elder
and Paul (1994, p. 34–35) who state that ‘critical thinking is best
understood as the ability of thinkers to take charge of their own
thinking. This requires that they develop sound criteria and standards
for analyzing and assessing their own thinking and routinely use those
criteria and standards to improve its quality.’ In a related way, we
might agree that ‘a critical thinker must be able to assess reasons and
their ability to warrant beliefs, claims and actions properly’ (Siegel,
1988, p. 34). When we discuss critical thinking, we should be mindful
that reflecting on multiple perspectives to an argument enables us to
view an issue of controversy with more clarity as well as with more
knowledge to make an informed decision.
Perhaps one of the most important areas in argument training and
education as a whole is critical thinking skills. The growing popularity
of critical thinking instruction is a testament to its importance (e.g.,
the recent mandate of teaching critical thinking in California public
schools). Critical thinking allows an individual to explore and
 VALUE OF TOPOI 23

understand the multiple sides of issues. It helps people make decisions

that are informed, well thought-out, and well implemented. Critical
thinking also enables people to question issues that normally seem
obvious in order to uncover hidden meanings, agendas, and purposes.
In short, critical thinking empowers individuals to process information
quickly in organized ways to maximize the use of such information,
hopefully for the betterment of the individuals involved and/or the
community as a whole. In an age when information is rapidly prolifer-
ating and our time to process it remains constant, critical thinking
skills are absolutely critical for everyone, especially researchers and
rhetors.
If we agree that critical thinking is important, we may ask the ques-
tion: How do we develop our critical thinking skills? Surely there are
numerous ways for individuals to develop and/or heighten their critical
thinking skills. However, one benefit to learning topoi is to also im-
prove one’s critical thinking skills. Let me begin by quoting Eemeren,
Grootendorst and Henkemans that the ‘point of departure [i.e., build-
ing argument] is of great significance for the argument’s success and
hence for its rhetorical soundness. In the interests of effective argu-
mentation, arguers are therefore wise to consider carefully what status
the audience is likely to accord to certain premises, to select the pre-
mises with great care, and to choose their words for the maximum ef-
fect’ (1996, p. 105). With this in mind, we can see that both locating
and building argument (qualities that we have already examined) help
to produce another benefit of topoi knowledge, i.e., the ability to cog-
nitively process the relative value of arguments pertaining to an issue
of controversy. As such, topoi enable us to weigh the merits and disad-
vantages of those arguments surrounding the issue of controversy.
Reflecting briefly on the definition above, this process, then, seems to
a priori meet our definition of ‘critical thinking.’
Topoi offer us a systematic, organized process whereby we can ac-
quire, interpret, manage and use information (in the form of argu-
ments) critically. Some scholars claim that arguments cannot be
objectively analyzed or judged. However, topoi, as a part of Aristotle’s
description of both rhetoric and dialectic, enable us to see ‘generally
accepted opinions’ as ‘those which commend themselves to all or to
the majority of the wise – that is, to all of the wise or to the majority
or to the most famous and distinguished of them’ since ‘dialectic was
the use of reasoning to draw logical consequences from premises that
are generally accepted opinions’ (Walton, 1999, p. 71). If topoi provide
a means to organize our thoughts and information, then they also im-
prove our critical thinking skills. If topoi help us to identify and
understand arguments quickly, then they also enhance that aspect of
critical thinking. If topoi allow us to formulate arguments which
24 J. P. ZOMPETTI

strengthen our positions on key issues, then they also bolster our criti-
cal thinking skills of improved decision-making and the requisite sup-
port for those decisions. Quite simply, because topoi help us to identify
and build arguments, topoi also help in developing critical thinking
skills. We would also do well to remember Cicero’s (1942, p. 175)
claim that knowledge of all loci allow us to choose the strongest from
the weakest and the most appropriate from the least. Indeed, accord-
ing to Inch and Warnick (2002, p. 5), critical thinking includes ‘devel-
oping and applying criteria for evaluation.’ Since critical thinking
skills require an advanced method of identifying and constructing
argument where individuals can process information and then use it
effectively, topoi appear to be an obvious and simple solution to our
needs in heightening our critical thinking skills.
Thus, topoi represent the most common ways of approaching any to-
pic. As a result, they enable any critical thinker the ability to discern the
benefits and disadvantages to any given topic. By questioning a propo-
sition from the standpoint of topoi, and by questioning from different
perspectives using topoi, the critical thinker can analyze and then weigh
the merits and drawbacks to the proposition. For example, someone
may not be knowledgeable about issues pertaining to space exploration,
but they may be well-versed in topoi. If a proposition read, ‘space
exploration is necessary for the future of humanity,’ the thinker could
immediately begin to examine the proposition with the use of topoi,
regardless of any specific knowledge pertaining to space exploration.
On one hand, we could say that exploration is necessary due to Earth’s
limited resources (cause and effect), or we might argue that overpopula-
tion on this planet exacerbates disease risks (simple consequences). Both
of these explanations are part of Aristotle’s rubric of koinoi.

5. ARGUMENT PEDAGOGY

Teaching argument requires methods for imparting highly specialized

techniques onto participants. Many areas require instruction, such as
preparation of arguments, outlining, organization, delivery, etc. For
argument pedagogy, the use of worksheets, lectures, demonstrations,
drills, and specific examples often help relate the esoteric information
of a particular topic to students and speakers. While these methods
and others are extremely useful, none offer an instructor the ease and
utility of topoi when teaching issues relating to argument.
In general, topoi help to ease the instruction process. While the var-
ied argument-related activities are difficult and time-consuming, topoi
offer a relatively easy approach to argument identification and con-
struction. For the beginning student, speaker or rhetor, topoi provide
a possible list to check when searching for arguments during research.
 VALUE OF TOPOI 25

The topoi also aid in the construction of arguments during preparation

and delivery of speeches. Topoi have been used successfully to teach
subjects such as English composition (Bilsky et al., 1953), communica-
tion (Infante, 1971), literary interpretation (Pullman, 1994), law (Feter-
is, 2001), debate (Sovacool, 2003), and writing (Kirch, 1996). As a
rhetor becomes more advanced, topoi often seem second nature, yet
their use is still very much a part of the advanced arguer’s routine.
Occasionally, the rhetor may need to revisit the different topoi in order
to specialize or clarify certain elements to their preparation or speech.
By using topoi in this way, arguers can greatly improve their abilities
to speak and argue. In so doing, their confidence will improve, and the
process of arguing will become less intimidating.
Topoi are adaptive pedagogical tools that enable the instruction
of most subjects (Haynes, 1996; Arthos, 2000; Wolfe, 2003). By
‘adaptive,’ we mean that topoi are instructional tools that can be
applied to a variety of situations and learning sets. In other words,
teaching the general topoi (koinoi) may enable students from a vari-
ety of disciplines to probe more deeply into the issues of contro-
versy surrounding their areas of study. The use of topoi during
teaching can help reduce the amount of frustration and anxiety that
frequently occurs when learning how to formally argue. In addition,
using topoi may also reduce the time it takes to teach certain issues,
thereby freeing up critical space necessary to spend on other needy
items. The topoi can also be seen as building blocks to more ad-
vanced argument theory, such as stock issues, stasis, and fallacies.
For a variety of reasons, then, topoi can aid in the pedagogy of
argument.

6. CONCLUSIONS

While the use of topoi has become less and less over the years, this pa-
per is an attempt to draw attention to the utility of topoi. Sometimes,
as we argue, we lose sight of the forest when we are looking at the
trees. In terms of argument theory, I think we have also lost sight of
how to approach issues such as the location and construction of argu-
ment. Finding and making arguments may seem simple to many, but
to many students and professionals arguments are frustrating, intimi-
dating, complex and insurmountable. Topoi are vital for both locating
and building argument. However, they are more than just connections
between premise and conclusion (building argument) or inventio (locat-
ing argument). They also help us with critical thinking and with teach-
ing argument. Moreover, we would do well to know how topoi are
helpful with building and locating arguments in contemporary argu-
mentation. They are useful and important because they help us
26 J. P. ZOMPETTI

uncover deeper meanings in arguments, they help us teach argument

more successfully, they help us to generate arguments more quickly
and effectively, they help us to build upon and strengthen current
arguments, they help us to understand and recognize arguments, and
they help us to critique and refute arguments more efficiently and in a
more productive manner.
I have discussed at least four benefits to using topoi in contempo-
rary argumentation theory: locating arguments, constructing argu-
ments, developing critical thinking skills, and coaching argumentation
and debate. In these and other ways, topoi should be (re)discovered as
useful devices in our quest to improve our argument pedagogy. As I
described during the discussion on teaching, topoi simplify argument
pedagogy for both beginning and advanced arguers. The use of topoi
can be instrumental to any task we face regarding argument instruc-
tion. Even using topoi ourselves when we advertise our classes to stu-
dents or discuss our teaching to administrators can have an enormous
impact. In short, topoi can have very important implications to our
pedagogy.
In an age that simultaneously has less students learning about
argumentation than ever before but who also need to learn it more
than ever before, we short-change ourselves by forgetting the system
of topoi. If we are to attract students to our classes, improve the
critically thinking abilities of our citizens, and relate our very impor-
tant endeavors to the common person as well as to administrators,
we must not forget how we arrived at where we are. We must not
forget how we can define, locate, and make the elements that we
spend our lives exploring – arguments. And, we must not forget the
main reason why Aristotle wrote The Rhetoric in the first place: to
provide a usable guide to easy arguing so that anyone can practice
rhetoric. Topoi help us to remember these very important aspects of
argumentation.

NOTES

1
Secondary sources that examine Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s discussion of loci can
be found with van Eemeren et al. (1996) and Wallace (1972).
2
For more on the ‘language in argument’ (also known as the ‘argument within language’)
discussion, including the relationship between topoi and semantics, see Raccah (1990) and
Varzi (1999).
3
Green-Pedersen (1984) thoroughly examines and traces the development of topoi (loci)
from Aristotle to Boethius and through the Middle Ages. For more on Boethius and topoi,
see Leff (1983).
4
Ibid; Garssen (2001, p. 83).
5
Current views on the different aspects and definitions of critical thinking are diverse. See
Ennis (1989), Fowler (1996), and Verlinden (2005).
 VALUE OF TOPOI 27

REFERENCES

Arthos, J.: 2000, Locating the Instability of the Topic Places: Rhetoric, Phronesis and
Neurobiology, Communication Quarterly 48, 272–292.
Bilsky, M., H. McCrea, R. E. Streeter and R. M. Weaver: 1953, Looking for an Argu-
ment, College English 14, 210–216.
Braet, A. C.: 2004, The Oldest Typology of Argumentation Schemes, Argumentation 18,
127–148.
Bruxelles, S., O. Ducrot and P. Raccah: 1995, Argumentation and the Lexical Topical
Fields, Journal of Pragmatics 24, 99–114.
Cicero, M. T.: 1942, De Partitone Oratoria , Loeb, New York(H. M. Hubbel, Trans.).
Cicero, M. T.: 1962, De Inventione , Loeb, New York(H. M. Hubbell, Trans.).
Covino, W. A. and D. A. Joliffe: 1995, Rhetoric, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Elder, L. and R. Paul: 1994, Critical Thinking: Why we Must Transform our Teaching,
Journal of Developmental Education 18, 34–35.
De Pater, W. A.: 1968, ÔLa fonction du lieu et de l’instrument dans les TopiquesÕ, in
G. E. L. Owen (ed.), Aristotle on Dialectic: The Topics, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 164–188.
Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst and F. S. Henkemans: 1996, Fundamentals of
Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary
Developments, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Ennis, R. H.: 1989, Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity, Educational Researcher 18,
4–10.
Fahenstock, J. and M. Secor: 1991, ÔThe Rhetoric of Literary CriticismÕ, in Bazerman
Charles and Paradis James, (ed.), Textual Dynamics of the Professions: Historical and
Contemporary Studies of Writing in Professional Communities, University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison, WI, pp. 76–96.
Feteris, E. T.: 2001, ÔArgumentation in the Field of LawÕ, in Frans H. van Eemeren, (ed.),
Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam,
pp. 201–225.
Fowler, B.: 1996, ‘Critical thinking definitions’, [on-line]. Available: http://www.kcmet-
ro.cc.mo.us/longview/ctac/definitions.htm.
Garssen, B.: 2001, ÔArgument SchemesÕ, in Frans H. van Eemeren, (ed.), Crucial Concepts
in Argumentation Theory, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp. 81–99.
Green-Pedersen, N. J.: 1984, The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages: The Com-
mentaries on Aristotle’s and Boethius’ Topics, Philosophia Verlag, München.
Haynes, C.: 1996, ‘Inside the Teaching Machine: Actual Feminism and (Virtual) Peda-
gogy. Computers, Writing, Rhetoric and Literature, 2’, [on-line]. Available: http://
www.cwrl.utexas.edu/currents/cwrl/v2n1/haynes/.
Hill, B. and R. W. Leeman: 1997, The Art and Practice of Argumentation and Debate,
Mayfield, Mountain View, CA.
Inch, E. S. and B. Warnick: 2002, Critical Thinking and Communication: The Use of
Reason in Argument, 4 ed. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Infante, D. A.: 1971, The Influence of a Topical System on the Discovery of Argument,
Speech Monographs 38, 125–28.
Jost, W.: 1991, ‘Teaching the Topics: Character, Rhetoric, and Liberal Education’,
Rhetoric Society Quarterly 21, 1–16.
Kienpointner, M.: 1997, On the Art of Finding Arguments: What Ancient and Modern
Masters of Invention Have to Tell us About the ‘Ars Inveniendi’, Argumentation 11,
225–236.
Kirch, A.: 1996, A Basic Writer’s Topoi for Timed Essay Tests, Journal of Basic Writing
15, 112–124.
28 J. P. ZOMPETTI

Kemp, J. D.: 1995, Dec. 1, Topoi, [on-line]. Available: http://www.Irc.gatech.edu/gallery/

rhetoric/noframes/terms/topoi.html.
Kennedy, G. A.: 1996, ÔReworking Aristotle’s RhetoricÕ, in C. L. Johnstone (ed.), Theory,
Text, Context: Issues in Greek Rhetoric and Orator, State University of New York
Press, Albany, pp. 169–188.
Leff, M.: 1983, The Topics of Argumentative Invention in Latin Rhetorical Theory from
Cicero to Boethius, Rhetorica 1, 23–45.
McAdon, B.: 2003, Probabilities, Signs, Necessary Signs, Idia, and Topoi: The Confusing
Discussion of Materials for Enthymemes in the Rhetoric, Philosophy and Rhetoric 36,
223–248.
Miller, C.: 1987, Aristotle’s ‘special Topics’ in Rhetorical Practice and Pedagogy, Rhetoric
Society Quarterly 17, 61–70.
Ochs, D. J.: 1966, The Tradition of the Classical Doctrines of Rhetorical Topoi, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Iowa.
Ochs, D. J.: 1969, Aristotle’s Concept of Formal Topics, Speech Monographs 36, 419–425.
Perelman, C.: 1982, The Realm of Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre
Dame, IN.
Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argu-
mentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.
Pullman George, L: 1994, Rhetoric and Hermeneutics: Composition, Invention, and
Literature, JAC 14, 367–387.
Quintilian, M. B.: 1920, The Institutes of Oratory (H. E. Butler, Trans.), Harvard Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
Raccah, P. Y.: 1990, Modelling Argumentation and Modeling with Argumentation,
Argumentation 4, 447–483.
Rieke, R. D. and M. O. Sillars: 1993, Argumentation: Critical Decision Making, Harper
Collins, New York.
Rolfe, M.: 1932, Cicero and His Influence, Longmans, Green, & Co, New York.
Siegel, H.: 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking and Education,
Routledge, New York.
Smith, R.: 1989, Aristotle: Prior Analytics, Hackett, Indianapolis.
Solmsen, F.: 1929, Die entwicklung der Aristotelischen Logic und Rhetorik, Neue Phi-
logische Untersuchungen IV, 151–164.
Sovacool, B.: 2003, The Use of Topoi in Academic Debate, Wayne State University
Publishing (Master’s Thesis), Detroit, MI.
Tallmon, J. M.: 1997, ‘Retooling the topoi’, [on-line]. Available: http://www2.dsu.
nodak.edu/users/jtallmon/retooling.htm, (accessed January 12, 2005).
Vancil, D. L.: 1979, Historical Barriers to a Modern System of Topoi, Western Journal of
Speech Communication 43, 26–37.
Varzi, A. C.: 1999, An Essay in Universal Semantics, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Verlinden, J.: 2005, Critical Thinking and Everyday Argument, Wadsworth, Toronto.
Wallace, K. R.: 1972, Topoi and the Problem of Invention, Quarterly Journal of Speech
58, 387–395.
Walton, D.: 1996, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ.
Walton, D.: 1999, The New Dialectic: A Method of Evaluating an Argument Used for
Some Purpose in a Given Case, ProtoSociology 13, 70–91.
Wolfe, J.: 2003, ‘A Method for Teaching Invention in the Gateway Literature Class’,
Pedagogy 3.3, 399–425.
Zagacki, K. S.: 1992, Rhetoric, Topoi, and Scientific Revolution, Philosophy & Rhetoric
25, 59–78.