Linguistics and Deception Detection (DD): A Work in Progress
Linguistic Deception Detection DD is a well-established part of forensic linguistics and an area that continues to attract attention on the part of researchers, self-styled experts, and the public at large. In this article, the various approaches to DD within the general field of linguistics are exa...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sciendo
2021-12-01
|
| Series: | Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2021-0011 |
| _version_ | 1819093576832778240 |
|---|---|
| author | Christiansen Thomas Wulstan |
| author_facet | Christiansen Thomas Wulstan |
| author_sort | Christiansen Thomas Wulstan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Linguistic Deception Detection DD is a well-established part of forensic linguistics and an area that continues to attract attention on the part of researchers, self-styled experts, and the public at large. In this article, the various approaches to DD within the general field of linguistics are examined. The basic method is to treat language as a form of behaviour and to equate marked linguistic behaviour with other marked forms of behaviour. Such a comparison has been identified in other fields such as psychology and kinesics as being associated with stress linked to the attempt to deceive, typically in such contexts as examined here. Representative authentic examples of some of the most common linguistic indicators of deception that have been identified are discussed, dividing them into two general categories which we here introduce: language as revealer and language as concealer. We will argue that linguistic analysis for DD should be conducted relative to the subject’s individual linguistic patterns of behaviour, not on absolutes related to broad generalisations about what is supposedly normal or unmarked in the population at large. We will also briefly discuss some structured methods for linguistic analysis for DD and the prospect that technology and artificial intelligence will provide the means to automate and digitalise the linguistic DD process. We maintain that caution is advisable when considering these, as DD will, in all probability, always remain a work in progress, with the need for a flexible human evaluator ready to take into account many different aspects of the individual subject and the case in question. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T23:13:43Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-2361c7ae57fa42e29b348c560650351d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2199-6059 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T23:13:43Z |
| publishDate | 2021-12-01 |
| publisher | Sciendo |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric |
| spelling | doaj.art-2361c7ae57fa42e29b348c560650351d2022-12-21T18:46:58ZengSciendoStudies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric2199-60592021-12-0166216920010.2478/slgr-2021-0011Linguistics and Deception Detection (DD): A Work in ProgressChristiansen Thomas Wulstan0University of SalentoLinguistic Deception Detection DD is a well-established part of forensic linguistics and an area that continues to attract attention on the part of researchers, self-styled experts, and the public at large. In this article, the various approaches to DD within the general field of linguistics are examined. The basic method is to treat language as a form of behaviour and to equate marked linguistic behaviour with other marked forms of behaviour. Such a comparison has been identified in other fields such as psychology and kinesics as being associated with stress linked to the attempt to deceive, typically in such contexts as examined here. Representative authentic examples of some of the most common linguistic indicators of deception that have been identified are discussed, dividing them into two general categories which we here introduce: language as revealer and language as concealer. We will argue that linguistic analysis for DD should be conducted relative to the subject’s individual linguistic patterns of behaviour, not on absolutes related to broad generalisations about what is supposedly normal or unmarked in the population at large. We will also briefly discuss some structured methods for linguistic analysis for DD and the prospect that technology and artificial intelligence will provide the means to automate and digitalise the linguistic DD process. We maintain that caution is advisable when considering these, as DD will, in all probability, always remain a work in progress, with the need for a flexible human evaluator ready to take into account many different aspects of the individual subject and the case in question.https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2021-0011deception detectionforensic linguisticslinguistic analysis |
| spellingShingle | Christiansen Thomas Wulstan Linguistics and Deception Detection (DD): A Work in Progress Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric deception detection forensic linguistics linguistic analysis |
| title | Linguistics and Deception Detection (DD): A Work in Progress |
| title_full | Linguistics and Deception Detection (DD): A Work in Progress |
| title_fullStr | Linguistics and Deception Detection (DD): A Work in Progress |
| title_full_unstemmed | Linguistics and Deception Detection (DD): A Work in Progress |
| title_short | Linguistics and Deception Detection (DD): A Work in Progress |
| title_sort | linguistics and deception detection dd a work in progress |
| topic | deception detection forensic linguistics linguistic analysis |
| url | https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2021-0011 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT christiansenthomaswulstan linguisticsanddeceptiondetectionddaworkinprogress |