Argumentation Nov 2010 Open Access

Modeling the Protagonist: The Strategic Use of Discourse Voices

Paul Van den Hoven

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
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
discourse analysis
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (10) · 1 in this index

  1. Houtlosser, P. 1995. Standpunten in een kritische discussie. Dissertation UvA. IFOTT Studies in language use 22.
  2. Pit, M. 2006. Determining subjectivity in text: The case of backward causal connectives in Dutch. In: Discour…
     ↗
  3. W Spooren (1990)
    Spooren, W., and J. Jaspers. 1990. Tekstoperaties en tekstperspectieven. Gramma/TTT 14: 195–220.
    Gramma/TTT
  4. Stukker, N. 2005. Causal marking across levels of language structure. A cognitive semantic analysis of causal…
  5. EE Sweetser (1990)
    From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantics structure
     ↗
Show all 10 →
  1. Talmy, L. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. In: Cognitive Science 12: 49–100.
     ↗
  2. PJ Hoven van den (2006)
    van den Hoven, P.J. 2006. Causale connectieven in argumentatietheoretisch perspectief. Taalbeheersing 28(4): …
    Taalbeheersing
  3. FH Eemeren van (1984)
    Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discuss…
     ↗
  4. Eemeren et al. (2000)
    Rhetorical Analysis Within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework
    Argumentation
  5. A Verhagen (2005)
    Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition
CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. Computers and Composition Jun 2026
    Historicizing critical discourse about emergent tools and technologies across 40 years of Computers and Composition ↗
    Meghan Velez; Kara Taczak; Matthew D. Bryan
    discourse analysis digital rhetoric
  2. Argumentation May 2026
    Do You Want to Build a Straw Man?: Evidentiary and Argumentative Modes of the Straw Man Fallacy ↗
    Eugen Octav Popa
    discourse analysis assessment
  3. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly May 2026
    Communicating Diversity and Inclusion in LinkedIn Job Advertisements ↗
    Rashid Ashraf; Said Badreddine; Mohamed I. Albeshr; Hamsa Al Ammari; Malik Muhammad Sheheryar Khan; Pranav Naithani
    discourse analysis professional writing race and writing
  4. Written Communication May 2026
    Untold Pushbacks: Synthesizing Discourse-Based and Phenomenological Interviewing to Explore Tacit Knowledges of Black and Latinx Writers ↗
    Ray Rosas
    discourse analysis
  5. Argumentation Apr 2026
    Jennifer Schumann, The pragmatics of straw man fallacies: An experimental approach, Cham, Springer 2025, 273 p ↗
    Jos Hornikx
    discourse analysis