Russian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of Linguistics2687-00882686-8024Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)1541110.22363/2312-9182-2017-21-1-183-202ArticlesСтатьиArticlesResearch ArticleTowards a New Linguistic Model for Detecting Political LiesНа пути к новой лингвистической модели определения политической лжиEl-ZawawyAmr MЭль-ЗававиАмр Мamrzuave@yahoo.comAlexandria UniversityУниверситет Александрии15122017211Discourse Analysis in the 21 st Century: Theory an d Practice (II)Дискурс-анализ в 21 веке: теория и практика (II)18320225022017Copyright ©; 2017, El-Zawawy A.M.Copyright ©; 2017, Эль-Завави А.М.Copyright ©; 2017, El-Zawawy A.2017El-Zawawy A.M.Эль-Завави А.М.El-Zawawy A.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/15411The present study addresses the problem of how the two US presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton use statements judged to be false by the Politifact site while delivering their campaign speeches. Two corpora of Clinton’s and Trump’s alleged lies were compiled. Each corpus contained 16 statements judged to be false or ridiculously untrue (‘pants on fire’) by the Pulitzer Prize Winner site Politifact. Some statements were accompanied by the video recordings where they appeared; others had no video recordings affiliated because they are either tweets or their events had not been recorded on Youtube or elsewhere. The present research made use of CBCA (Criteria-based Content Analysis) but as a stepping stone for building a new model of detecting lies in political discourse to suit the characteristics of campaign discourse. This furnished the qualitative dimension of the research. As for the quantitative dimension, data were analyzed using software, namely LIWC (Linguistic Inquiry & Word Count), and also focused on the content analysis of the deception cues that can be matched with the results obtained from computerized findings. When VSA (Voice Stress Analysis) was required, Praat was used. Statistical analyses were occasionally applied to reach highly accurate results. The study concluded that the New Model (NM) is not context-sensitive, being a quantitative one, and is thus numerically oriented in its decisions. Moreover, when qualitative analysis intervenes, especially in examining Politifact rulings, context plays a crucial role in passing judgements on deceptive vs. non-deceptive discourse.Настоящее исследование рассматривает проблему того, каким образом предвыборная речь американских кандидатов в президенты, Дональда Трампа и Хиллари Клинтон, вводит в заблуждение избирателей. Были составлены два корпуса возможных лжевысказываний Клинтон и Трампа, каждый из которых содержал 16 утверждений, признанных сайтом Politifact (победитель Пулитцеровской премии) ложными или не соответствующими действительности. Некоторые заявления сопровождались видеозаписями, в то время как другие - нет, поскольку являлись либо твитами, либо событиями, которые не были выложены на YouTube или иной ресурс. В данном исследовании применялся метод контент-анализа в качестве трамплина для построения новой модели определения лжи в политическом дискурсе в соответствии с характеристиками дискурса кампании, что обеспечило качественный аспект исследования. Что касается количественных данных, то они были проанализированы с помощью программного обеспечения LIWC (Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count), а также ориентировались на анализ содержания обманных сигналов, которые могли быть сопоставлены с результатами, полученными из компьютеризированных данных. Для анализа стрессовых изменений голоса использовалась программа Praat. Для достижения высокой точности результатов в некоторых случаях нашел применение и статистический анализ. В исследовании делается вывод о том, что новая модель не является контекстно-зависимой, будучи количественной, и, таким образом, численно ориентированной в своих решениях. Вместе с тем, качественный анализ, особенно при изучении положений проекта Politifact, показывает, что контекст играет решающую роль в определении дискурса как вводящего или не вводящего в заблуждение.ClintonTrumpLIWPolitifactLie detectionКлинтонТрамппрограммное обеспечение LIWCпроект Politifactопределение лжи1.All False statements involving Hillary Clinton (Accessed on August 02, 2016). Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false2.All False statements involving Hillary Clinton. (Accessed on August 03, 2016). Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements3.Anolli, L., & Ciceri, R. (1997). The Voice of Deception: Vocal Strategies of Naive and Able Liars. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 259-2844.Arciuli, J., Villar, G., & Mallard, D. (2009). Lies, Lies and More Lies. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2009), 2329-23345.Vrij A. (2000) Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons6.Benus, S., Enos, F., Hirschberg, J., & Shriberg, E. (2006, May). Pauses in Deceptive Speech. Speech Prosody, vol. 18, 2-57.DePaulo, B.M., Kashy, D.A., Kirkendol, S.E., Wyer, M.M. and Epstein J.A. (1996) Lying in Everyday Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 70, 979-9958.DePaulo, B.M., Lindsay, J.J., Malone, B.E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K. and Cooper, H. (2003) Cues to Deception. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129, 74-1189.Bonikowski, B., & Gidron, N. (2015). The Populist Style in American Politics: Presidential Campaign Discourse, 1952-1996. Social Forces, sov. 12010.Burgoon, J.K., & Qin, T. (2006). The Dynamic Nature of Deceptive Verbal Communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25(1), 76-9611.Burgoon, J.K., Hamel, L., & Qin, T. Predicting Veracity from Linguistic Indicators. Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (EISIC), 2012 European12.Connell, C. (2012) Linguistic Cues to Deception. MA thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. (Accessed on August 22, 2016). Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/ bitstream/handle/10919/32465/Connell_CA_T_2012rev.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y13.Corn, D. (2004). The lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the politics of deception. Crown14.Demenko, G. (2008, May). Voice Stress Extraction. Speech Prosody, 6-915.Donella, M. (1988) A Guide to American Campaign Language. (Accessed on July, 2016). Retrieved from: http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/dhm_archive/search.php?display_article= vn251languageed16.Ekman, P. (1991). Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage. WW Norton & Company17.Emrich, C.G., Brower, H.H., Feldman, J.M., & Garland, H. (2001). Images in Words: Presidential Rhetoric, Charisma, and Greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 527-55718.Fairclough, N. (2006) Tony Blair and the Language of Politics. UK: Routledge19.Frank, D.A., & McPhail, M.L. (2005). Barack Obama's Address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention: Trauma, Compromise, Consilience, and the (Im)possibility of Racial Reconciliation. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 8(4), 571-59320.Kangas, S.E. (2014). What Can Software Tell us About Political Candidates?: A Critical Analysis of a Computerized Method for Political Discourse. Journal of Language and Politics, 13(1), 77-9721.Kirchhübel, C., & Howard, D.M. (2013). Detecting Suspicious Behaviour Using Speech: Acoustic Correlates of Deceptive Speech - An Exploratory Investigation. Applied Ergonomics, 44(5), 694-70222.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, 665-67523.Pennebaker, J.W., Boyd, R.L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC 2015. UT Faculty/Researcher Works24.Pernet, C.R., & Belin, P. (2012). The Role of Pitch and Timbre in Voice Gender Categorization. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 2325.Picornell, I. (2013). Analysing Deception in Written Witness Statements. Linguistic Evidence in Security, Law and Intelligence, 1(1), 41-5026.Raskin, D., & Esplin, P. (1991). Statement Validity Assessment: Interview Procedures and Content Analysis of Children’s Statements of Sexual Abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 265-29127.Reynolds, E., & Rendle-Short, J. (2011). Cues to Deception in Context: Response Latency/Gaps in Denials and Blame Shifting. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 431-44928.Vrij, A., & Winkel, F.W. (1991). Cultural Patterns in Dutch and Surinam Nonverbal Behavior: An Analysis of Simulated Police/Citizen Encounters. Journal of Nonverbal behavior, 15(3), 169-18429.Wortham, S., Locher, M. (1999). Embedded Metapragmatics and Lying Politicians. Language & Communication, 19(2), 109-12530.Zhou, L., Burgoon, J.K., Twitchell, D.P., Qin, T.T., and Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. (2004) A Comparison of Classification Methods for Predicting Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 4, 139-16531.Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B.M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology.Vol. 14, 1-59. New York: Academic Press32.Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Downloaded from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat