Skip to main content

A Lie or Not a Lie, That Is the Question. Trying to Take Arms Against a Sea of Conceptual Troubles: Methodological and Theoretical Issues in Linguistic Approaches to Lie Detection

  • 258 Accesses

Abstract

In spite of the obvious relevance of linguistically given testimony in legal processes (Sect. 1), the state of veracity evaluation is widely felt to be unsatisfactory. Starting out from a discussion of the very concept of lying (Sect. 2), the paper discusses the range of popular psychological test procedures that include linguistic components and then focuses on methodological issues attendant on the use of individual linguistic diagnostic ʻcuesʼ to either truth or lies (Sect. 3). Finally, the paper zeroes in (Sect. 4) on discussing in some detail a sample case from witness interviews in cases of sexual assault, using the discussion to exemplify the notion of the genre in establishing baseline concepts and, more generally, the central relevance of an interactionist pragmatic approach in meaning-making in this type of very specific forensic context (Sect. 5).

Keywords

  • Baseline
  • Cues
  • Forensic linguistics
  • Discourse
  • Genre
  • Lying
  • Particles
  • Pragmatics
  • Psychology
  • Witness interviews

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-84330-4_6
  • Chapter length: 53 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-84330-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    LIWC is the abbreviation for Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, a tool to be used for scientific purpose; also see Chap. 5.

  2. 2.

    See Fobbe (In press), for a linguistically based criticism of the somewhat naive application of the category ʻpronounʼ in deception detection.

  3. 3.

    See the sentence of the Bundesgerichtshof, BGH 30.7.1999 1 StR 618/98.

  4. 4.

    Fitzpatrick et al. (2015, p. 32) translate as: ʻStatement validity analysisʼ.

  5. 5.

    Vrij reports an average error rate of 30% in laboratory studies (Vrij, 2005, p. 32).

  6. 6.

    Steller and Köhnken (1989, p. 235) report that in 90 % of the by then known cases, the judge had followed the expert’s evaluation. The courts’ trust in the Content Criteria has recently been extensively criticised (Geipel, 2021, pp. 84–100).

  7. 7.

    Sporer et al. (2021, p. 25) conclude: ʻ[…] both the CBCA and RM can be applied to different domains, with some criteria showing larger validities in some domains than others.ʼ

  8. 8.

    Actually, the example consists of two sentences: ʻI went to Sainsbury, to the “free from” section where I found the chocolate bar. It was 50p, and I paid with a £1 coin.ʼ

  9. 9.

    The category of ‘particlesʼ, as it is understood here refers to interactive discourse management only, such as pointing the hearer to types of shared knowledge, similar to expressions of stance (cf. Chap. 5 in this volume). This is only one aspect of the uses of particles, which are a homonymous category with several types of non-propositional functions. Cf. for German the entry for ‘Abtönungspartikelʼ in Hentschel (2010). It should also be pointed out that the studies mentioned in Sect. 3 variously refer to types of expressions under the term ‘particlesʼ that are different from the class of expressions discussed here. For a comprehensive discussion of discourse markers cf. Heine et al. (2021) especially § 1.1, pp. 6–16 that explicitly discusses the metatextual functions and function as processing instructions for discourse.

  10. 10.

    „Die Verwendung von „halt“ (Schwäbisch im Sinne von „eben“) wird aus der Verwandtschaft zum negativen Merkmal Klischees …heraus als neues verbales Warnsignal abgeleitet. „Halt“ und „eben“können nach der Operationalisierung des Merkmals Klischees …als Signalwort für eben dieses verstanden werden (z.B.“..wie man das halt so macht,…“ oder „…wie so eine Unfallstelle eben aussieht. Chaotisch und…“) (Hettler, 2012, p. 66, also p. 189 for further examples).

References

  • Adams, S. H., & Jarvis, J. P. (2006). Indicators of veracity and deception in analysis of written statements made to police. Speech language and the law. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 13, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.2006.13.1.1

  • Almela, A., Valencia-García, R., & Cantos, P. (2013). Seeing through deception: A computational approach to deceit detection in Spanish written communication. LESLI, 1, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.5195/lesli.2013.5

  • Arntzen, F., & Michaelis-Arntzen, E. (2011). Psychologie der Zeugenaussage. System der Glaubwürdigkeitsmerkmale. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., & Merckelbach, H. (2016). Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) cannot distinguish between truthful and fabricated accounts of a negative event. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C. E. (2014). When is a lie not a lie? When it’s divergent: Examining lies and deceptive responses in a police interview. International Journal of Language and the Law/Linguagem e Direito, 1(1), 122–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaski, C. (2013). Best practices and admissibility of forensic author identification. Journal of Law and Policy, 21(2). Brooklyn Law School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, B. S., Hugues, F. H., & Yuille, J. C. (2014). Evaluating truthfulness: Interviewing and credibility assessment. In W. Bruinsma & S. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1413–1426). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2

  • Douglis, A. (2018). Disentangling perjury and lying. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 29(2), 339–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eades, D. (2012). The social consequences of language ideologies in courtroom cross-examination. Language in Society, 41, 471–497. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404512000474

  • Ericsson, A., & Lacerda, F. (2007). Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 14(2), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.2007.14.2.169

  • Fitzpatrick, E., Bachenko, J., & Fornaciari, T. (Eds.). (2015). Automatic detection of verbal deception. https://doi.org/10.2200/s00656ed1v01y201507hlt029

  • Fobbe, E. (2011). Forensische Linguistik. Eine Einführung. Narr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fobbe, E. (In press). Linguistik und psychologische Täuschungsforschung—zum Problem der verbalen Lügenindikatoren am Beispiel der Selbst-Referenz. In M. Meiler & M. Siefkes (Eds.), Linguistische Methodenreflexion im Aufbruch. Beiträge zu einer aktuellen Diskussion im Schnittpunkt von Ethnographie und Digital Humanities, Multimodalität und Mixed Methods (Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen). De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foolen, A. (2019). Quo vadis pragmatics? From adaptation to participatory sense-making. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 39–46.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Geipel, A. (2021). Beweisführung und Lügenerkennung vor Gericht. Schöningh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgakopoulou, A. (2020). Small stories research and narrative criminology: ‘Plotting’ an alliance. In M. Althoff, B. Dollinger, & H. Schmidt (Eds.), Conflicting narratives of crime & punishment (pp. 1–19). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giltrow, J., & Stein, D. (2009). Genres in the Internet. Issues in the theory of genre. Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188.01gil

  • Greuel, L. (2001). Wirklichkeit, Erinnerung, Aussage. Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, K. J. (2019). Linguistic approaches to lying and deception. In J. Meibauer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of lying (pp. 56–70). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauch, V., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Masip, J., & Sporer, S. L. (2015). Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 307–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314556539 . pspr.sagepub.com

  • Hauch, V., Sporer, S., Masip, J., & Blandon-Gitlin, I. (2017). Can credibility criteria be assessed reliably? A meta-analysis of criteria-based content analysis. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000426

  • Hazard, D., & Margot, P. (2014). Forensic science culture. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1782–1795). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_534

  • Heffer, C. (2018). Narrative practices and voice in court. In J. Visconti (Ed.), Handbook of communication in the legal sphere (pp. 256–284). deGruyter Mouton.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Heffer, C. (2020). All bullshit and lies?: Insincerity, irresponsibility and the judgment of untruthfulness. Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H. (2021). The rise of discourse markers. CUP.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hentschel, E. (Ed.). (2010). Deutsche Grammatik. de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettler, S. (2006). Wahre und falsche Zeugenaussagen. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettler, S. (2012). Wahre und falsche Zeugenaussagen. Evaluation von Zeugenaussagen mit unterschiedlichem Wahrheitsgehalt mittels erweitertem Kanon inhaltlicher Kennzeichen. AV Akademikerverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. R. (2017). Telling it slant: Toward a taxonomy of deception. In J. Giltrow & D. Stein (Eds.), The pragmatic turn in law. Inference and interpretation in legal discourse (Mouton Series in Pragmatics) (pp. 23–55). De Gruyter/Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504723-002

  • Jaszczolt, K. (2019). Rethinking being Gricean: New challenges for metapragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 15–24.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88(1), 67–85.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, R. (1995). The epistemic ʻweilʼ. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivation. Linguistic perspectives (pp. 16–30). CUP.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinberg, B., Arntz, A., & Verschuere, B. (2019). Being accurate about accuracy in verbal deception detection. PLoS ONE, 14(8), e0220228. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220228

  • Kraft, E., Nikolaus, K., & Quasthoff, U. (1977). Die Konstitution der konversationellen Erzählung. Folia Linguistica, 11(3–4), 287–337. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1977.11.3-4.287

  • Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1997). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Journal of Narrative & Life History, 7(1–4), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.02nar

  • Linde, C. (2015). Memory in narrative. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction. Wiley. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi121

  • Luke, T. J. (2019). Lessons from Pinocchio. Cues to deception may be highly exaggerated. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 646–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619838258

  • Nahari, G., et al. (2019). ʻLanguage of liesʼ: Urgent issues and prospects in verbal lie detection research. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12148

  • Newman, E., Steven, J., & Loftus, E. (2014). False memories. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1555–1563). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_534

  • Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005010

  • Nicklaus, M., & Stein, D. A. (2020). The role of linguistics in veracity evaluation. International Journal of Language and Law, 9, 23–47. https://www.languageandlaw.eu/jll/issue/view/9

    Google Scholar 

  • Picornell, I. (2013). Analysing deception in written statements. LESLI, 1(1), 41–50.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Quijano-Sánchez, L., Liberatore, F., Camacho-Collados, J., & Camacho-Collados, M. (2018). Applying automatic text-based detection of deceptive language to police reports: Extracting behavioral patterns from a multi-step classification model to understand how we lie to the police. Knowledge-Based Systems, 149, 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.03.010

  • Smith, N. (2001). Reading between the lines: An evaluation of the Scientific Content Analysis technique (SCAN) (Police Research Series, 135). Great Britain, Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Khan, L. (2017). Telling stories: Credibility and the representation of social actors in Australian asylum appeals. Discourse & Society, 28(5), 512–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517710989

  • Sporer, S. (2004). 4. Reality monitoring and detection of deception. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Stömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 64–102). Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sporer, S., Manzanero, A. L., & Masip, J. (2021). Optimizing CBCA and RM research: Recommendations for analyzing and reporting data on content cues to deception. Psychology, Crime and Law, 27(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1757097

  • Steller, M. (1989). Recent developments in statement analysis. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Credibility Assessment (pp. 135–154). Maratea, Italy, 14–24 June 1988. Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7856-1_8

  • Steller, M., & Köhnken, G. (1989). Criteria-based statement analysis: Credibility assessment of children’s statements in sexual abuse cases. In J. D. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods for investigation and evidence (pp. 217–245). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stratman, J. (2016). A forensic linguistic approach to legal disclosures. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svartvik, J. (1968). The Evans statements. A case for forensic linguistics. Parts I and II. Almqvist & Wiksell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. J., Larner, S., Conchie, S. M., & Menacere, T. (2017). Culture moderates changes in linguistic self-presentation and detail provision when deceiving others. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170128

  • Undeutsch, U. (1967). Beurteilung der Glaubhaftigkeit von Aussagen. In U. Undeutsch (Ed.), Forensische Psychologie. Handbuch der Psychologie, 11 (pp. 26–181). Verlag für Psychologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verigin, B. L., Meijer, E. H., & Vrij, A. (2020). A within-statement baseline comparison for detecting lies. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13218719.2020.1767712 ; https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1767712

  • Volbert, R., & Steller, M. (2014). Glaubhaftigkeit. In T. Bliesener, F. Lösel, & G. Köhnken (Eds.), Lehrbuch der Rechtspsychologie (pp. 391–407). Huber. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-3-437-22902-2.00039-0

  • Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.3

  • Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit. Pitfalls and opportunities. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2015a). Cognitive approach to lie detection. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 207–227). Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A. (2015b). Verbal lie detection tools: Statement validity analysis, reality monitoring, and scientific content analysis. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 3–35). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118510001.ch1

  • Vrij, A., Fisher, R., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta-analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12088

  • Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2011). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11(3), 89–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610390861

  • Vrij, A., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. (2014). Eliciting reliable information in investigative interviews. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548592

  • Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2021). Combining verbal veracity assessment techniques to distinguish truth tellers from lie tellers. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a2

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Nicklaus .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nicklaus, M., Stein, D. (2022). A Lie or Not a Lie, That Is the Question. Trying to Take Arms Against a Sea of Conceptual Troubles: Methodological and Theoretical Issues in Linguistic Approaches to Lie Detection. In: Guillén-Nieto, V., Stein, D. (eds) Language as Evidence. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84330-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84330-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84329-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84330-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)