Tweet
OK, perhaps it is time for some forensic linguistics.
"Two main linguistic strategies have been identified in deceptive written witness statements (Picornell, 2012). The first strategy follows a prolix & personal approach. Here, the deceiver’s aim is to be cooperatively vague. The narrative is verbose and highly personal, with over half of clauses containing first person singular pronouns. Contrary to previous studies which find that liars use less first person pronouns than truth tellers, their very high use (50%+ of clauses) is a key characteristic of the deceptive strategy. However, the pronouns do not all carry the same weight. Alternative self-references to I are manipulated, giving an impression of immediacy associated with truth telling, but which instead allows the author to be removed from the action. High use of my is a characteristic of this deceptive strategy; the author is still present, but only as the owner of something. In spite of the highly personal nature of the statement, the author remains non-committal. Nearly a third of clauses contain word classes (such as negation, cognition words, verb strings and vague pronoun references) associated with ambiguity or subjective information, the sort of language which pads out a narrative without contributing much that is relevant. The narrator intends to appear helpful by providing a detailed account of the event in which he or she appears to be highly immediate, but renders the information safe through the use of ambiguity and subjective information.”
Analysing Deception in Written Witness Statements, Isabel Picornell PhD
Linguistic Evidence in Security, Law and Intelligence (LESLI), Volume 1, No. 1 (2013)
and
"Narratives as a Progression of Episodes
Credibility arises from addressees believing that the reportable event did indeed occur in real time (Labov, 2001). To achieve this, narrators have to introduce a chain of events that explain how the reportable event came about in order to get their theory of causality across to their audience.
Narrators use segmentation markers as grammatical signals to manage the flow of information in their story and facilitate readers’ understanding of events. These segmentation markers are created by deviating from standard sentence structures to rarer (marked) forms. Marked sentence structures are defined as those sentences that have an initial adjunct, subordinate clause or phrase, or prepositional phrase with an adverbial function (McEwen & Prideaux, 1997).
The creation of marked sentence structures is always deliberate and always context sensitive. These sentence structures serve to divide narratives into episodes, alerting readers to changes in continuity in the narrative. They highlight information contained in the sentence, drawing readers’ attention to major changes in topic (i.e., people and place) (example A), or to temporal shifts in the narrative (examples B and C); then serves to signal the temporal order of lesser events within a larger episode. Marked structures also highlight information the narrator considers important (examples D and E).
Episode segmentation markers are important as they reflect the narrators’ own subconscious decision to break the continuity of the narrative. Excessive narrative fragmentation is associated with artificial timelines commonly found in deceptive narratives. When a sequence of events is imagined or when temporal lacunae occur, the continuity of the narrative breaks down. Narratives fragment into multiple short episodes because the events described are not anchored in real time (Picornell, 2012)"
The Flexible Liar: a strategy for deception detection in written witness statements, Isabel Picornell PhD, CFE
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (2013) , paper
'I then went out and bought some cigarettes, Players No 3, and the Evening Express from Mr Hodgson, Post Office, Maiden Lane,
on the way to my young lady's house. When I was turning the corner by the Post Office I remembered that I had promised to call
for my accumulator at Hignetts in West Derby Road, Tuebrook. I went there and got my accumulator and then went down
West Derby Road and along Lisburn Lane to Mrs Williamsons, 49, Lisburn Lane, and saw her. We had a chat about a 21st birthday party
for about 10 minutes and then I went to 7, Missouri Road, and remained there till about 11 to 11.30pm when I went home.'
on the way to my young lady's house. When I was turning the corner by the Post Office I remembered that I had promised to call
for my accumulator at Hignetts in West Derby Road, Tuebrook. I went there and got my accumulator and then went down
West Derby Road and along Lisburn Lane to Mrs Williamsons, 49, Lisburn Lane, and saw her. We had a chat about a 21st birthday party
for about 10 minutes and then I went to 7, Missouri Road, and remained there till about 11 to 11.30pm when I went home.'
"Two main linguistic strategies have been identified in deceptive written witness statements (Picornell, 2012). The first strategy follows a prolix & personal approach. Here, the deceiver’s aim is to be cooperatively vague. The narrative is verbose and highly personal, with over half of clauses containing first person singular pronouns. Contrary to previous studies which find that liars use less first person pronouns than truth tellers, their very high use (50%+ of clauses) is a key characteristic of the deceptive strategy. However, the pronouns do not all carry the same weight. Alternative self-references to I are manipulated, giving an impression of immediacy associated with truth telling, but which instead allows the author to be removed from the action. High use of my is a characteristic of this deceptive strategy; the author is still present, but only as the owner of something. In spite of the highly personal nature of the statement, the author remains non-committal. Nearly a third of clauses contain word classes (such as negation, cognition words, verb strings and vague pronoun references) associated with ambiguity or subjective information, the sort of language which pads out a narrative without contributing much that is relevant. The narrator intends to appear helpful by providing a detailed account of the event in which he or she appears to be highly immediate, but renders the information safe through the use of ambiguity and subjective information.”
Analysing Deception in Written Witness Statements, Isabel Picornell PhD
Linguistic Evidence in Security, Law and Intelligence (LESLI), Volume 1, No. 1 (2013)
and
"Narratives as a Progression of Episodes
Credibility arises from addressees believing that the reportable event did indeed occur in real time (Labov, 2001). To achieve this, narrators have to introduce a chain of events that explain how the reportable event came about in order to get their theory of causality across to their audience.
Narrators use segmentation markers as grammatical signals to manage the flow of information in their story and facilitate readers’ understanding of events. These segmentation markers are created by deviating from standard sentence structures to rarer (marked) forms. Marked sentence structures are defined as those sentences that have an initial adjunct, subordinate clause or phrase, or prepositional phrase with an adverbial function (McEwen & Prideaux, 1997).
The creation of marked sentence structures is always deliberate and always context sensitive. These sentence structures serve to divide narratives into episodes, alerting readers to changes in continuity in the narrative. They highlight information contained in the sentence, drawing readers’ attention to major changes in topic (i.e., people and place) (example A), or to temporal shifts in the narrative (examples B and C); then serves to signal the temporal order of lesser events within a larger episode. Marked structures also highlight information the narrator considers important (examples D and E).
Episode segmentation markers are important as they reflect the narrators’ own subconscious decision to break the continuity of the narrative. Excessive narrative fragmentation is associated with artificial timelines commonly found in deceptive narratives. When a sequence of events is imagined or when temporal lacunae occur, the continuity of the narrative breaks down. Narratives fragment into multiple short episodes because the events described are not anchored in real time (Picornell, 2012)"
The Flexible Liar: a strategy for deception detection in written witness statements, Isabel Picornell PhD, CFE
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (2013) , paper
Comment