Deception as an Institutional Discourse Practice: A Linguistic–Computational Model from Indian Courtrooms
##semicolon##
https://doi.org/10.66871/trf-j.v1i2.007##semicolon##
Institutional Deception##common.commaListSeparator## Forensic Linguistics##common.commaListSeparator## Legal Discourse Analysis##common.commaListSeparator## Strategic Ambiguity##common.commaListSeparator## Computational Linguistics##common.commaListSeparator## Deception Detectionसार
Conventional research on phoney speech in legal circumstances typically views deception as a moral or cognitive defect at the individual level that can be recognised by consistent linguistic indicators. By suggesting that deception is an institutionally created discourse practice that results from the interplay of cognitive load, procedural limitations, and power imbalances in courtroom communication, this research proposes a theoretical reorientation. The study uses a mixed-methods strategy that combines qualitative forensic analysis with natural language processing techniques applied to specific Indian criminal court rulings, drawing on forensic linguistics, discourse analysis, and computational language modelling. Patterns of strategic ambiguity, evasive coherence, emotional modulation, and pragmatic indeterminacy are found in the testimonies of witnesses and accused individuals. To track how institutional forces influence communication behaviour, computational methods such as sentiment trajectory mapping, stance identification, and lexical dispersion metrics are combined with careful language reading. The analysis shows that deceitful discourse in legal contexts functions more as an adaptive, situationally sensible tactic conditioned by juridical norms and interpretive authority than as a sign of personal dishonesty. This study offers a reusable analytical framework for forensic linguistics and legal discourse studies by modelling deception as a situated, procedural, and culturally mediated phenomenon. This framework has implications for judicial interpretation, evidentiary evaluation, and the moral use of computational tools in legal contexts.
##submission.citations##
Angeliki Lazaridou, Dinu, G., & Baroni, M. (2015). Hubness and Pollution: Delving into Cross-Space Mapping for Zero-Shot Learning. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/p15-1027
Chen, H., Miranda, R., Zeng, D. D., Demchak, C., & Therani Madhusudan. (2003). Intelligence and Security Informatics. Springer.
Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and Power in Court : a Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. Palgrave Macmillan.
Coulthard, M. (2007). An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203969717
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
Enard, W., Przeworski, M., Fisher, S. E., Lai, C. S. L., Wiebe, V., Kitano, T., Monaco, A. P., & Pääbo, S. (2002). Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Nature, 418(6900), 869–872. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01025
Fisher, S. E., & Scharff, C. (2009). FOXP2 as a molecular window into speech and language. Trends in Genetics, 25(4), 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2009.03.002
Fitzpatrick, E., Bachenko, J., & Fornaciari, T. (2015). Automatic Detection of Verbal Deception. In Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02158-9
Graham, S. A., & Fisher, S. E. (2013). Decoding the genetics of speech and language. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.11.006
Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (Eds.). (2004). The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511490071
Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2007). On Lying and Being Lied To: A Linguistic Analysis of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication. Discourse Processes, 45(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530701739181
Hancock, J. T., Woodworth, M. T., & Porter, S. (2011). Hungry like the wolf: A word-pattern analysis of the language of psychopaths. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(1), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02025.x
Juan Oyarzo Alvarado. (2023). Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.: Metaphor Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. Onomázein Revista de Lingüística Filología Y Traducción, 61, 249–254. https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.61.13
Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-Default Theory (TDT). Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x14535916
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), 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005010
Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. (2011). Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination (pp. 309–319). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/P11-1032.pdf
Plomin, R., & Kovas, Y. (2005). Generalist Genes and Learning Disabilities. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 592–617. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.592
Tiersma, P. (2012). A History Of The Languages Of Law. 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0002
Vernes, S. C., Newbury, D. F., Abrahams, B. S., Winchester, L., Nicod, J., Groszer, M., Alarcón, M., Oliver, P. L., Davies, K. E., Geschwind, D. H., Monaco, A. P., & Fisher, S. E. (2008). A Functional Genetic Link between Distinct Developmental Language Disorders. New England Journal of Medicine, 359(22), 2337–2345. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0802828
Vrij, A. (2011). Detecting Lies and Deceit : Pitfalls and Opportunities. John Wiley & Sons.
Wagner, A., & Cheng, L. (2011). Exploring courtroom discourse : the language of power and control. Ashgate.
