New version page

Stanford CS 424P - Deceptive Language

Upgrade to remove ads
Upgrade to remove ads
Unformatted text preview:

ContentOverviewOn deceptionPerjuryLying and bullshittingRelevanceInformativity 1Informativity 2Kinds of deceptionLying is commonLiars on lyingMachines vs. humansCues to deceptionDePaulo et al. (2003) surveyNegation and negativityComplexityPronounsPronouns in WALS OnlineDisfluenciesAcoustic featuresDomain-specificityDifficult-to-extract features: Your ideasNewman et al.ExperimentsPredictive modelsResultsHancock et al.ExperimentDegrees of deceptivenessDeceptiveness by gender and categoryHypothesesPredictive modelEnos et al.ExperimentData selectionResultsFeaturesLooking for new dataPerjurersPolitifactReferencesDeceptive languageChris PottsLinguist 287 / CS 424P: Extracting Social Meaning andSentiment, Fall 2010Nov 2Overview On deception Cues to deception Newman et al. Hancock et al. Enos et al. Looking for new dataOverview1 On deception2 Cues to deception and truthfulness (drawing on the largemeta-survey of DePaulo et al. (2003)).3 Three studies:•Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, Richards: ‘Lying Words:Predicting Deception From Linguistic Styles’(Newman et al. 2003).•Hancock, Toma, Ellison, Lying in online data profiles(Toma et al. 2007, 2008; Toma and Hancock 2010).•Enos, Shriberg, Graciarena, Hirschberg, Stolcke, TheColumbia-SRI-Colorado Deception Corpus(Enos et al. 2007).4 Hunting for publicly-available data for deception research.Overview On deception Cues to deception Newman et al. Hancock et al. Enos et al. Looking for new dataOn deceptionDePaulo et al. (2003:74):We define deception as a deliberate attempt to misleadothers. Falsehoods communicated by people who aremistaken or self-deceived are not lies, but literal truthsdesigned to mislead are lies.Overview On deception Cues to deception Newman et al. Hancock et al. Enos et al. Looking for new dataPerjurySolan and Tiersma (2005:212–213) summarize the legal definition:Perjury consists of lying under oath: having sworn to tell thetruth, the witness speaks falsely. It is a serious crime, sincefalse testimony may cause the innocent to go to prison or allowthe guilty to go free.It is not normally a crime to lie. To commit perjury, a personmust first have taken an oath to testify truthfully. Federal lawalso requires that the person “willfully and contrary to suchoath states or subscribes any material matter which he doesnot believe to be true.” [. . . ] If the speaker did not know thatthe actual and asserted state of affairs were different, shewould have made a mere mistake.Not only must the accused make a false statement, but itmust be material. If the false statement relates to a minormatter or something that is unlikely to influence a trial or otherofficial proceeding, it does not constitute perjury, even thoughwe might still call the statement a lie.Overview On deception Cues to deception Newman et al. Hancock et al. Enos et al. Looking for new dataLying and bullshittingFania Pascal, from an anecdote in Rhees (1984), cited in Frankfurt1988:I had my tonsils out and was in the Evelyn Nursing Homefeeling sorry for myself. Wittgenstein called. I croaked: “Ifeel just like a dog chat has been run over.” He wasdisgusted: “You don’t know what a dog that has been runover feels like.”Frankfurt (1988:125):“Her statement is grounded neither in a belief that it istrue nor, as a lie must be, in a belief that it is not true. It isjust this lack of connection to a concern with truth — thisindifference to how things really are — that I regard as ofthe essence of bullshit.Overview On deception Cues to deception Newman et al. Hancock et al. Enos et al. Looking for new dataRelevanceBronston v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court in1973. Bronston had filed for bankruptcy. Under oath:Q: Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks,Mr. Bronston?A: No, sir.Q: Have you ever?A: The company had an account there for about six months, inZurich.The truth: Bronston also had a Swiss bank account in the past.The outcome: He was convicted of perjury, but the decision wasreversed by the Supreme Count (9-0), on the grounds that (i) heuttered no literal falsehood; and (ii) it was the lawyer’s job topursue the whole truth.Overview On deception Cues to deception Newman et al. Hancock et al. Enos et al. Looking for new dataRelevanceBronston v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court in1973. Bronston had filed for bankruptcy. Under oath:Q: Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks,Mr. Bronston?A: No, sir.Q: Have you ever?A: The company had an account there for about six months, inZurich.The truth: Bronston also had a Swiss bank account in the past.The outcome: He was convicted of perjury, but the decision wasreversed by the Supreme Count (9-0), on the grounds that (i) heuttered no literal falsehood; and (ii) it was the lawyer’s job topursue the whole truth.Overview On deception Cues to deception Newman et al. Hancock et al. Enos et al. Looking for new dataRelevanceBronston v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court in1973. Bronston had filed for bankruptcy. Under oath:Q: Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks,Mr. Bronston?A: No, sir.Q: Have you ever?A: The company had an account there for about six months, inZurich.The truth: Bronston also had a Swiss bank account in the past.The outcome: He was convicted of perjury, but the decision wasreversed by the Supreme Count (9-0), on the grounds that (i) heuttered no literal falsehood; and (ii) it was the lawyer’s job topursue the whole truth.Overview On deception Cues to deception Newman et al. Hancock et al. Enos et al. Looking for new dataRelevanceBronston v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court in1973. Bronston had filed for bankruptcy. Under oath:Q: Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks,Mr. Bronston?A: No, sir.Q: Have you ever?A: The company had an account there for about six months, inZurich.The truth: Bronston also had a Swiss bank account in the past.The outcome: He was convicted of perjury, but the decision wasreversed by the Supreme Count (9-0), on the grounds that (i) heuttered no literal falsehood; and (ii) it was the lawyer’s job topursue the whole truth.Overview On deception Cues to deception Newman et al. Hancock et al. Enos et al. Looking for new dataRelevanceBronston v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court in1973. Bronston had filed for bankruptcy. Under oath:Q: Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks,Mr. Bronston?A: No, sir.Q: Have you ever?A: The company had an account there for about six months, inZurich.The truth:


View Full Document
Download Deceptive Language
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Deceptive Language and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Deceptive Language 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?