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, etant donne 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.

中文翻译：

---

谬误的语言表述很重要：因果连接词的例子

虽然话语连接词的作用早已在论证框架中得到承认，但这些方法通常对连接词采取粗粒度的方法，将它们视为对论证具有相似影响的统一群体。基于对稻草人谬误的实证研究，我们认为需要一种更细粒度的方法来解释每个连接词的作用并说明它们的特殊性。我们首先展示了一项原始语料库研究，详细介绍了法语中四个因果连接词的主要特征，说话者经常使用这些因果连接词将意义归因于另一个说话者（puisque、etant donne que、vu que 和 comme），这是稻草人谬误的一个关键要素。然后，我们在一系列受控实验中评估每个连接词的影响。我们的结果表明，每个连接词对稻草人谬误的说服力都有不同的影响，这些影响可以通过语义特征的差异来解释，正如我们的语料库研究所证明的那样。总之，我们的结果表明，连接词对于论证很重要，但应该单独分析，并且谬误的研究应该包括对其表述中通常使用的语言元素的细粒度分析。