Determining Linguistic Criterias Between One`s Discourses of the Truth and Deception

Abstract

Being able to discriminate two kinds of discourses,truth and lie are very significant for forensic science. Linguistic has a critical value at this point. For this reason, in their study ‘’Between Thinking and Speaking-Linguistic tools for detecting a fabrication’’R.Dilmon et al. tried to describe the linguistic differences between the discourse of truth and discourse whose objective is to mislead. However, there are problems in that study: the motivation to lie came from preliminary instructions (was not natural), and the discourse examined was a conversation (not a full text). The current study has a significance in terms of overcoming these problems. Solving the problem is achieved through an unconstructed data. In relation to this, 30 criminal cases which the guilt of the criminal is proved or the criminals confess his/her guilt in the Turkish TV programme “Müge Anlı ile Tatlı Sert” in between the years of 2015 and 2018 are analysed in terms of her/his discourse of deception before s/he convicted and her/his discourse of truth after s/he convicted to figure out linguistic criteria which differentiate between the discourses of truth and deception. Examination is constructed in the following areas: semantic,syntax,morphology,speech prosody and discourse.

1. Introduction

The discourse of deception refers to the act of causing someone to believe something that is untrue, it has a purpose which is to deceive the listener.The deception situation can be real or close to the reality but it carries words that out of the context s/he speaks. In this study, we will show which linguistic criteria differentiate between the discourse of truth and of deception and apart from this; the psychological motivations involve the deception process.A number of studies dealing with the psychological motivations behind lying or deception have addressed the speaker’s process. Davis states that when an indivual tells a lie, s/he most likely shows a strong psychological response because of the fear that emergence of the lie. Elad who studies polygraph examinations develops the opinions of Davis in his studies and presents three theories that can be helpful how to detect an individual when s/he is lying.

A.The conditioned response theory

B. The conflict theory

C. The theory of punishment or of the threat of punishment

Additional to these ideas related to deception, Knapp et al. present a list of behavioral and emotional phenomena influencing the deceiver: 

1. nervousness and lack of patience; 
2. basic restraint or reservation regarding what is said; 
3. exaggerated behavior that digresses from normal discourse response patterns; 
4. insecurity or vagueness; 
5. incompatibility between external behavior and internal emotions.

These phenomena came to exist by speakers who intended to conceal something or to deceive others. This study will show how these characteristics affect the language of the speaker and cause her/him to reveal signs informing that s/he is not telling the truth. We try to detect any attempt to deceive or mislead in the process of speaker’s language through using linguistic cues. Fraser states that there is a difference between the language of an individual when he is not telling the truth and his normal, truthful language. The difference results in a change in the normal elements of the speaker’s everyday language.

Until 1980' , few studies dealt with verbal cues in differentiating discourses between truth and deception. After that, prosody of speech and linguistic examinations were focused to determine deception. For last two or three decades, examinations were made in terms of morphology, syntax, semantics and discourse to find out cues. Dulaney states that when individual was lying response time was shorter, there were fewer special words, a smaller number of verbs in the past tense, and a faster speech rhythm. There have been many gaps in studies which dealt with discourse of deception. Dulaney indicates that he examines his subjects in an interview setting and they respond to structured questions. This situation does not allow for examinations of entirety of discourse. The questions themselves leads how they should answer. The individual invention factor is this study's missing point. There have been some inadequacies in a linguistic examination of a computer mediated text of deception. The problem is that a small number of criteria were examined motivation for lie was not natural, discourse was written on computer.

On the basis of previous studies, there is a need research which includes comprehensive definition of linguistic manipulation, scientific examinations, different research population, the creation of motivation to use artifice, deceiver with room to maneuver, an entire discourse, comparison of between discourse of truth and discourse of invention, an examination of variety of linguistic areas and linguistics tools to distinguish truth and invention situations. These requirements were objectives of R.Dilman et al.'s study. This study has drawbacks. The problem is that the motivation to lie came from instructions.

In this paper we will examine discourses through television programme recorders. ‘Muge Anlı ile Tatlı Sert’ is a live television program that tries to find lost people, to solve murder cases and helps the emergence of guilty. This programme includes journalist, who is also moderator of programme , an attorney, a psychologist and forensic scientist.

2. Aim of The Study

This study aims to find out linguistic criteria differentiate between the discourse of the truth and the discourse of the deception.

3. Research Question

How do Linguistics criteria differentiate between her/his discourse of deception before s/he convicted and her/his discourse of truth after s/heconvicted in 30 different criminal cases in “Müge Anlı ile Tatlı Sert” ?

4. Data and Methodology

30 criminal cases which the guilt of the criminal is proved or the criminals confess his/her guilt in the Turkish TV programme ‘Muge Anlı ile Tatlı Sert’ in between the years of 2015 and 2018 are analysed in terms of her/his discourse of deception before s/he convicted and her/his discourse of truth after s/he convicted . These 30 criminal cases that we collect consists of 15 females and 15 males. The criminals are analysed through all programme recordings which they participated. Both the discourse of truth and deception of the 30 criminals in these programme recordings are examined in terms of their semantic,syntax,morphology,speech prosody and discourse characteristics. To find out these 5 features 43 verbal criteria which R.Dilmon et al., developed in his study ‘’Between Thinking and Speaking-Linguistic tools for detecting a fabrication’’.

5. Conclusion

In order to achieve the purpose ‘determine linguistic criteria which differentiate between the discourse of the truth and the discourse of the deception’,30 criminal cases which the guilt of the criminal is proved or the criminals confess his/her guilt in ‘Muge Anlı ile Tatlı Sert’ TV programme are analysed in terms of her/his discourse of deception before s/he convicted and her/his discourse of truth after s/he convicted. This study supports the findings of the and overcomes the problem of that study that we mentioned before via using an unconstructed data. Moreover, The current article provides a linguistic test to determine the criminal for forensic and forensic linguistics.Because of the fact that, the speaker cannot control the linguistic processes, it is pragmatically worthwhile to use the linguistic examination to distinguish between truth and deception.

References

1. Davis, Richard C., 1961. Psychological responses as a means of evaluating information. In: Biderman, Albert D., Herbert, Zimmer (Eds.), The Manipulation of Human Behavior. J. Wiley, New York, pp. 142–168.
2. Dilmon, R. (2009). Between thinking and speaking—Linguistic tools for detecting a fabrication. Journal of Pragmatics,41(6), 1152-1170. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.032
3. Dulaney Jr, Earl F., 1982. Changes in language behavior as a function of veracity. Human Communication Research 9, 75–82.
4. Elad, Eitan, 1988. Ivchun psychophysiologi bemivchan HAPACHAM (‘pirtei chakira muchmanim’) [Psychophysiological detection in the details of an undercover investigation examination]. Doctoral Dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
5. Hancock, Jeffrey T., Curry, Lauren, Goorha, Saurabh, Woodworth, Michael, 2005. Automated linguistic analysis of deceptive and truthful synchronous computer-mediated communication. In: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. pp. 1–10.
6. Fraser, Bruce, 1991. Questions of witness credibility. In: Working Papers Series Program on Negotiation. Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3–91.
7. Fraser, Bruce, 1994. No conversation without misrepresentation. In: Parret, Herman (Ed.), Pretending to Communicate. W. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 143–153.
8. Knapp, Mark L., et al., 1974. An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Communication Research 1, 15–29