Content analysis of witness testimony − between cognitive linguistics and forensic psychology
Katarzyna Liber
Uniwersytet JagiellońskiAbstract
This article attempts to investigate the legitimacy of including the linguistic perspective to the content analysis of witness testimony, which at the present time is being primarily developed in the area of forensic psychology. If we consider that at least part of the nineteen CBCA criteria included in the Statement Validity Assessment method seems to be rather inaccurate and ineffective, it cannot be treated as a credible and objective tool to be applied in the Polish forensic practice.
The article presents the former achievements of linguists in creating criteria for testimony content analysis and their definitions to possibly be applied in practice. It also presents the results of a diagnostic accuracy survey carried out on a Polish language material on the currently existing linguistic criteria and author’s new proposals.
Keywords:
testimony credibility assessment, testimony content analysis, Criteria- -Based Content Analysis, linguistic criteria, testimony credibilty assessment, testimony content analysis, Criteria-Based Content Analysis, linguistic criteriaReferences
Antas J. (2008): O kłamstwie i kłamaniu. Kraków. Google Scholar
Arciuli J., Mallard D., Villar G. (2010): “Um, I can tell you’re lying”: Linguistic markers of deception versus truth-telling in speech. „Applied Psycholinguistics” 31, s. 397–411. Google Scholar
Buchard M. (2009): Ocena wiarygodności dowodu z przesłuchania poznawczego w procesie karnym. „Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis” nr 3128, s. 175–180. Google Scholar
Choudchury F. (2014): Can language be useful in detecting deception? The linguistic markers of deception in the Jodi Arias interview. „Journal of Undergraduate Research”. Vol. 7 Issue 2, s. 78–92. Google Scholar
DePaulo B. M, Lindsay J. L., Malone B. E., Muhlenbruck B. E., Charlton K., Cooper H. (2003): Cues to deception. „Psychological Bulletin”, 129, s. 74–118. Google Scholar
Hauch V., Blandon-Gitlin I., Masip J., Sporer S. L. (2014): Are computers effective lie detectors? Meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. „Personality and Social Psychology Review” 1, s. 1–36. Google Scholar
Ludwin I.: Świadek w procesie karnym. (URL , dostęp: 15.02.2017. Google Scholar
Malska W. (2017): Wybrane statystyki nieparametryczne. „Edukacja – Technika – Informatyka“ nr 2(20), s. 111–117. Google Scholar
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), s. 666–675. Google Scholar
Pieszko-Sroka A. (2011): Czy zeznania są wiarygodne? Poszukiwanie metody ich oceny i rola psychologa w tym procesie. „Przegląd Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego” nr 5, s. 44–54. Google Scholar
Tabakowska E. (1995): Gramatyka i obrazowanie: wprowadzenie do językoznawstwa kognitywnego. Kraków. Google Scholar
Vrij A. (2009), Wykrywanie kłamstw i oszukiwania. Psychologia kłamania i konsekwencje dla praktyki zawodowej. Kraków. Google Scholar
Vrij A., Edward K., Roberts K. P., Bull R. (2000): Detecting Deceit via Analysis of verbal and Nonverbal Behavior. „Journal of Nonverbal Behavior” 24, s. 239–264. Google Scholar
Wojciechowski B. W. (2016): Analiza i ocena zeznań świadków. Sopot. Google Scholar
Zuckerman M., DePaulo B. M., Rosenthal R. (1981): Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. [W:] L. Berkowitz (red.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14). Nowy Jork, s. 1–59. Google Scholar
Uniwersytet Jagielloński
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
