Abstract

An argumentative text can be reconstructed as an argumentative discussion between a protagonist and an antagonist. However, such a text is usually not a literal report of a discussion. It is the author of the text who determines how issues are presented, how claims are modeled, how the development of the discussion is presented. Especially when a text has embedded discourse voices that can fulfill the roles of protagonist or antagonist, the author of the text can strongly suggest a specific assignment, suppressing alternatives. In this article examples are presented that show how an author exploits linguistic means—a strategic choice of causal connectives—to suggest a specific reconstruction. The question is raised whether a derailment of this behavior of the author should be characterized as committing the fallacy of the straw man.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2010-11-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-010-9189-0
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (1)

  1. Argumentation
Also cites 4 works outside this index ↓
  1. Pit, M. 2006. Determining subjectivity in text: The case of backward causal connectives in Dutch. In: Discour…
  2. From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantics structure
  3. Talmy, L. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. In: Cognitive Science 12: 49–100.
  4. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discuss…