Linguistic characteristics of false statements (based on the material of American political discourse)
Baykova Alexandra Vasilyevna, Bukharov Valery Mikhailovich
Vyatka State University
Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University named after N. A. Dobrolyubov
Submitted: 09.06.2024
Abstract. In this article, the phenomenon of lying is considered in the discourse of political power. The purpose of the study is to identify the linguistic means by which false information is formed in the speech of American political figures. The scientific novelty of the undertaken research lies in the fact that for the first time the linguistic characteristics of false statements in political texts in English are described. The article describes the findings of a pilot study. The study used the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC-22) program for computer speech analysis. The program analyzed political statements classified as "true" and "false" on the Politifact.com website. Additionally, the study explored the lexical differences between the two types of statements in prepared speeches. The study revealed that false statements tend to have fewer first-person pronouns and more third-person pronouns compared to truthful statements. Additionally, false statements often include a higher number of words expressing negative emotions and negation. Furthermore, the length of sentences containing false information tends to be longer than those with true information.
Key words and phrases: американский политический дискурс, неискренний дискурс, ложные высказывания, подготовленная речь, лингвистические средства вербализации, American political discourse, insincere discourse, false statements, prepared speech, linguistic means of verbalization
Open the whole article in PDF format. Free PDF-files viewer can be downloaded .
References:
Andryukhina N. V. Narushenie propozitsii v neiskrennem diskurse // Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. 2018. № 4-1 (82). Ch. 1. https://doi.org/10.30853/filnauki.2018-4-1.12
Andryukhina N. V. Osobennosti aktual'nogo chleneniya neiskrennikh vyskazyvanii v angloyazychnykh politicheskikh tekstakh // Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. 2019. T. 12. Vyp. 9. https://doi.org/10.30853/filnauki.2019.9.41
Arendt Kh. Lozh' v politike: razmyshleniya o dokumentakh Pentagona // Politicheskaya kontseptologiya. 2022. № 2.
Arutyunova N. D. Diskurs // Lingvisticheskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar' / gl. red. V. N. Yartseva. M.: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, 1990.
Buller A. «Dilemma lzhi» v eticheskoi kontseptsii V. S. Solov'eva // Solov'evskie issledovaniya. 2013. Vyp. 4 (40).
Vodak R. Yazyk. Diskurs. Politika. Volgograd: Peremena, 2017.
Kant I. Kritika prakticheskogo razuma. SPb.: Nauka, 1995.
Kitaigorodskaya M. V., Rozanova N. N. Yazykovaya lichnost' v aspekte problem sudebnoi ekspertizy ustnoi rechi // Yazyk i lichnost' / otv. red. D. N. Shmelev. M.: Nauka, 1989.
Larionova M. V. Presuppozitsiya kak sposob manipulyativnogo vozdeistviya (na primere ispanskogo gazetno-publitsisticheskogo diskursa) // Vestnik MGIMO-Universitet. 2013. № 2.
Lenets A. V. Semioticheskie aspekty analiza lzhi // Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie. 2010. № 1.
Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopediya: v 4-kh t. / pod red. V. S. Stepina. M.: Mysl', 2001.
Plakhotnaya Yu. I. Pragmatika lzhi v politicheskom diskurse // Politicheskaya lingvistika. 2023. № 5 (101).
Plotnikova S. N. K osnovam sudebnoi lingvistiki: diskurs, predstavlyayushchii soboi obman // Yazyk v epokhu znakovoi kul'tury: tezisy dokl. mezhdunarodnoi nauch. konf. Irkutsk: IGPIIYa, 1996.
Surikova T. I. Lukavyi termin i ego pragmatika v obshchestvenno-politicheskom diskurse SMI // Politicheskaya lingvistika. 2017. № 3 (63).
Filonov L. B. Psikhologiya razvitiya kontakta mezhdu lyud'mi v usloviyakh zatrudnennogo obshcheniya: avtoref. diss. … d. filol. n. M., 1985.
Sheigal E. I. Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa. Volgograd: Peremena, 2016.
Barnds W. J. The Right to Know, to Withhold and to Lie. N. Y.: Council on Religion and International Affairs, 1969.
Basso E. B. In Favor of Deceit. A Study of Tricksters in an Amazonian Society. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1987.
Braun M. T., Van Swol L. M., Vang L. His Lips Are Moving: Pinocchio Effect and Other Lexical Indicators of Political Deceptions // Discourse Processes. 2015. Vol. 52 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.942833
Buller D. B., Burgoon J. K.Interpersonal Deception Theory // Communication Theory. 1996. Vol. 6.
Bülow-Müller A. M. Trial Evidence: Overt and Covert Communication in Court // International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 1991. Vol. 1 (1).
Burgoon J. K., Buller D. B., Dilman L., Walther J. B.Interpersonal Deception // Human Communication Research. 1995. Vol. 22.
Dijk T. A. van. The Study of Discourse // Discourse as Structure and Process: in 2 vols. / ed. by T. A. van Dijk. L., 1997. Vol. l. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction.
Ekman P. Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics and Marriage. N. Y.: Norton, 1985.
Fingarette H. Self-Deception. Studies in Philosophical Psychology. N. Y.: Humanities Press, 1969.
Goody J. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Grunenberg A. Lying and Politics. How to Rethink Arendt’s Reflections about Lying in the Political Realm // Russian Sociological Review. 2018. Vol. 17 (4).
Knapp M. L., Comadena M. A. Telling It Like It Isn’t: A Review of Theory and Research on Deceptive Communications // Human Communication Research. 1979. Vol. 5.
Koppett L. The Essence of the Game Is Deception: Thinking about Basketball. Boston: Little Brown, 1973.
Larson J. A. Lying and Its Detection: A Study of Deception and Deception Tests. Montclair: Patterson Smith, 1969.
Maddox D. Semiotics of Deceit: The Pathelin Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Newman M. L., Pennebaker J. W., Berry D. S., Richards J. M. Lying Words: Predicting Deception from Linguistic Styles // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2003. Vol. 29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005010
Pennebaker J. W. The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say about Us. N. Y.: Bloomsbury Press, 2011.
Pennebaker J. W., Booth R. J., Francis M. E. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC. Austin, 2007.
The Strategy of Deception: A Study in World-Wide Communist Tactics / ed. by J. J. Kirkpatrick. N. Y.: Farrar, Straus, 1963.
Toma C., Hancock J. T. What Lies Beneath: The Linguistic Traces of Deception in Online Dating Profiles // Journal of Communication. 2012. Vol. 62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01619.x
Van Swol L. M., Braun M. T., Malhotra D. Evidence for the Pinocchio Effect: Linguistic Differences between Lies, Deception by Omission, and Truth // Discourse Processes. 2012. Vol. 49. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.633331
Zhou L., Burgoon J. K., Nunamaker J. F., Twitchel D. Automating Linguistics-Based Cues for Detecting Deception in Text-Based Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communications // Group Decision and Negotiation. 2004. Vol. 13. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011944.62889.6f
Русский
