The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters: The Case of Causal Connectives

Abstract

While the role of discourse connectives has long been acknowledged in argumentative frameworks, these approaches often take a coarse-grained approach to connectives, treating them as a unified group having similar effects on argumentation. Based on an empirical study of the straw man fallacy, we argue that a more fine-grained approach is needed to explain the role of each connective and illustrate their specificities. We first present an original corpus study detailing the main features of four causal connectives in French that speakers routinely use to attribute meaning to another speaker (puisque, étant donné que, vu que and comme), which is a key element of straw man fallacies. We then assess the influence of each of these connectives in a series of controlled experiments. Our results indicate each connective has different effects for the persuasiveness of straw man fallacies, and that these effects can be explained by differences in their semantic profile, as evidenced in our corpus study. Taken together, our results demonstrate that connectives are important for argumentation but should be analyzed individually, and that the study of fallacies should include a fine-grained analysis of the linguistic elements typically used in their formulation.

5 Do non-native readers rely on connectives? The processing of coherence relations in L2

“…Firstly, one could assume that non-native readers should benefit from the presence of connectives, as the clear-cut and valuable instructions of connectives could strongly release cognitive resources otherwise used to infer coherence relations. However, as discussed above, connectives are also known to be complex linguistic elements that can carry multiple functions and have nuanced pragmatic overtones (e.g., Schumann et al, 2020), which makes them, potentially, more complicated for L2 learners. Thus, their potential benefit for online processing -while being well-documented in L1 research (Millis and Just, 1994;Sanders and Noordman, 2000) -appears rather open in L2.…”

Good and Ought in Argumentation: COVID-19 as a Case Study

“…For instance, participants may be inclined to assent to (6a) or (6b) simply because they assent to the idea that wearing masks in public is good and/or something that they ought to do. This is why, in addition to instances of argumentation involving specific policies and actions, we have included in our study stimuli over which the participants cannot be opinionated, because they lack sufficient information in order to form an opinion of their own (for a similar approach, see Schumann et al, 2021):…”

Studying Discourse from Corpus and Experimental Data: Bridging the Methodological Gap

“…Therefore, I focus on seven research papers which represent different mixed-method scenarios and illustrate some of the challenging issues that I addressed in the previous section. Priority was given to studies that are i) recent (the oldest in the sample was published in 2011, unlike the seminal studies by Pander Maat & Sanders [2001], Stukker et al [2008] or Sanders [1997]), ii) focused on discourse relations (unlike Fox Tree [2015] or Döring & Repp [2020], which deal with non-relational discourse markers and modal particles) and iii) varied in the type of experimental task (all the other papers use some kind of offline acceptability task, as in Andersson [2019], Andersson & Spenader [2014], Asr & Demberg [2015] or Schumann et al [2021]).…”