Abstract

Confronted with a trial, litigants tend to focus on disputed facts, and when their interests are threatened they may resort to deceptive statements in order to obtain a judgment in their favor. Making deceptive statements in the court, referred to in this paper as deceptive speech acts (henceforth, DSA), will affect court’s judgment, waste judicial resources and harm social justice. Therefore, detection of deceptive speech acts (henceforth, DDSA) is of considerable forensic interests in improving efficiency of courtroom trials and enforcing the authority of legal system. Based on seven authentic cases of Chinese courtroom trials, this study attempts to find out reliable linguistic deception indicators in Chinese courtroom context and establish a model of DDSA. As one of efficient cues to deception, linguistic manipulation enables liars to take deception strategies (i.e., concealment, falsification and distortion). Drawing on the notion of linguistic manipulation, a coding scheme is established, which shows that deception strategies are principally realized by six linguistic indicators (vagueness, generality, intensifiers, formulaic expressions, references to the other, and minimizing markers). Linguistic analyses are made to present how DDSA is achieved in each extract. This research sheds light on data-based studies on DDSA, and offers implications for other judicial practices, like police interrogations, and prosecutor’s questioning.

Highlights

  • Deception, a central characteristic of human life (Granhag & Stromwall, 2004), is a successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator considers to be untruthful (Vrij, 2008)

  • Based on seven authentic cases of Chinese courtroom trials, this study attempts to find out reliable linguistic deception indicators in Chinese courtroom context and establish a model of DDSA

  • Detection of deceptive speech acts (DDSA) will help improve efficiency of courtroom trials and enforce the authority of legal system, and to achieve the above goal, a feasible DDSA model needs constructing for judicial practices

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A central characteristic of human life (Granhag & Stromwall, 2004), is a successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator considers to be untruthful (Vrij, 2008). Litigants conceal or falsify some facts for their own benefits, for they might receive no or slight punishment when they lie or commit perjuries in court. This behavior, defined as DSA, harms judicial system and social justice and integrity. Relationships between senders and receivers (friends or strangers) and communication channels (text or face-to-face) exert great effect on sender’s propensity to deceive, receiver’s truth-bias and his or her ability to detect (Van Swol & Braun, 2014; Van Swol, Braun, & Malhotra, 2012)

Objectives
Methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call