Stance-shifting in language used by sex offenders: Five case studies

Psychology, Crime and Law

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 357-379

  Lord, Vivian B ^a   Davis, Boyd ^a   Mason, Peyton ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

^b Linguistic Insights Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Agency; Attribution of blame; Offender typologies; Sex offenders; Stance shift analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 49749128100     PISSN: 1068316X     EISSN: 14772744     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10683160701770153     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Adams, P., Towns, A., & Gavey, N. (1995). Dominance and entitlement: The rhetoric men use to discuss their violence toward women. Discourse and Society, 6, 387-406.
2. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder, 4th edn revised. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
3. Anolli, L. ,Balconi, M., &Ciceri, R. (2001). Deceptive miscommunication theory (DeMiT): A new model for the analysis of deceptive communication. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication, Volume III of emerging communication: Studies on new technologies and practices in communications. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Retrieved 4 April 2005, from http://www.vepsy.com/communication/book3/ 3CHAPT_03.PDF.
4. Auburn, T., & Lea. S. (2003). Doing cognitive distortions: A discursive psychology analysis of sex offender treatment talk. British Journal of Social Psychology 42, 281-298.
5. Bavelas, J., & Coates, L. (2001). Is it sex or assault?: Erotic versus violent language in sexual assault trial judgments. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 10, 29-40.
6. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Biber, D. (2004). Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5, 107-136.
8. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson Education.
9. Bohner, G. (2001). Writing about rape: Use of the passive voice and other distancing text features as an expression of perceived responsibility of the victim. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 515-529.
10. Carpenter, R. (1986). The statistical profile of language behavior with Machiavellian intent or while experiencing caution and avoiding self incrimination. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 606, 5-17.
11. Chafe, W., & Johanna, N. (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12. Chantry, K., & Craig, R.J. (1994). MCMI typologies of criminal sexual offenders. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 1, 215-226.
13. Clift, R. (2006). Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10, 569-595.
14. Coates, L., & Wade., A. (2004). Telling it like it isn't: Obscuring perpetrator responsibility for violent crime. Discourse & Society, 15, 499-526.
15. Conley, J., & O'Barr, W. (1998). Just words: Law, language, and power. Chicago: University of Chicago.
16. Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial. New York: Palgrave.
17. Dale, A., Davies, A., & Wei, L (1997). Developing a typology of rapists' speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 653-669.
18. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The social construction of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43-63.
19. Davis, B., & Brewer, J. (1997). Electronic discourse: Linguistic individuals in virtual space. Albany, NY, SUNY Press.
20. Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L. (2001). Introduction: Evidentially and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 339-348.
21. Ehrlich, S. (2001). Representing rape: Language and sexual consent. London: Routledge.
22. Genette, G. (1988). Narrative discourse revisited. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
23. Georgi, A. (2006). Credo: (I believe): Epistemicity and the syntactic representation of the speaker [Abstract]. Retrieved 2 January 2007, from http://www.unistuttgart.de/linguistik/sfb732/activities/
24. Grammes, P., & Dietrich, R. (2002). Coherence in O.R. team and cockpit communication: A psycholinguistic contribution to applied linguistics. In J. Alatis, H. Hamilton, & A. Tan (Eds.), Papers from the Roundtable in Language and Linguistics 2000 (pp. 190-219). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
25. Groth, N.A., & Birnbaum, H. (1979). Men who rape. New York: Plenum.
26. Gumperz, J. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
27. Hancock, J.T., Curry, L., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2005). Automated Linguistic Analysis of Deceptive and Truthful Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii Internation Conference on System Sciences, 1-10. doi 10.1109/HICSS. 2005. 111
28. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Evaluative that constructions: Signaling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12, 39-63.
29. Johnstone, B. (1996). The linguistic individual: Self-expression in language and linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Kalichman, S.C., Craig, M.E., Shealy, L., Taylor, J., Szymanowski, D., & McKee, G. (1989). An empirically derived typology of adult rapists based on the MMPI: A cross-validation study. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2, 165-182.
31. Kellett, P.M. (1995). Acts of power, control, and resistance. In R. Whillock, & D. Slayden (Eds.), Hate speech (pp. 142-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Knight, R. A. (1999). Validation of a typology for rapists. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 303-330.
33. Knight, R.A., & Prentky, R.A. (1990). Classifying sexual offenders: The development and corroboration of taxonomic models. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws, & H.E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 23-28). New York: Plenum.
34. Knight, R.A., Carter, D.L., & Prentky, R.A. (1989). A system for the classification of child molesters: Reliability and application. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 3-23.
35. Knight, R.A., Warren, J.I., Reboussin, R., & Soley, B. (1998). Predicting rapist type from crime-scene variables. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 46-80.
36. Kolani, R. (1996). The secret agent: An ethical-stylistic study of agency and the rhetoric of dissociation in narrative. PhD dissertation, University of Texas-Dallas, Richardson, TX.
37. Langton, C., & Marshall, W.L. (2001). Cognition in rapists: Theoretical patterns by typological breakdown. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 6, 499-518.
38. Lea, S., & Auburn, T. (2001). The social construction of rape in the talk of a convicted rapist. Feminism & Psychology, 11, 11-33.
39. Maruna, S., & Mann, R.E. (2006). A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive distortions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 155-177.
40. Mason, P., & Davis, B. (2007). More than the words: Using stance-shift analysis to identify crucial opinions and attitudes in online focus groups. Journal of Advertising Research, 47, 496-506.
41. Mason, P., Davis, B., & Bosley, D. (2005). Stance analysis: When people talk online. In S. Krishnamurthy (Ed.), Innovations in e-marketing, II (pp. 261-282). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
42. Matoesian, G. (2001). Law and the language of identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. McCornack, S.A. (1997). The generation of deceptive messages: Laying the groundwork for a viable theory of interpersonal deception. In J.O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 91-126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus linguistics, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
45. Milner, R., & Webster, S. (2005). Identifying schemas in child molesters, rapists, and violent offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 425-439.
46. Monahan, B.A., Marolla, J.A., & Bromley, D.G. (2005). Constructing coercion: The organization of sexual assault. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 284-316.
47. Mushin, I. (2000). Evidentiality and deixis in narrative retelling. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 927-957.
48. Newman, M., Pennebaker, J., Berry, D., & Richards, J. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675.
49. O'Connor, P. (1995). Speaking of crime: 'I don't know what made me do it'. Discourse & Society, 6, 429-456.
50. O'Connor, P. (2000). Speaking of crime: Narratives of prisoners. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
51. Park, H.S., Dailey, R., & Lemus, D. (2002). The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research, 23, 562-577.
52. Porter, S., & Yuille, J.C. (1996). The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law & Human Behavior, 20, 443-458.
53. Precht, K. (2000). Patterns of stance in English. PhD dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Retrieved 27 January 2004, from www.kprecht.net/cv.htm
54. Precht, K. (2003). Stance moods in spoken English, attitude, emotion and evidentiality in British and American conversation, Text, 37, 239-257.
55. Prentky, R.A., & Burgess, A. W. (2000). Forensic management of sexual offenders. New York: Kluwer Academic.
56. Rayson, P. (2005) Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment. Computing Department, Lancaster University. Retrieved 17 April 2005, from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ucrel/wmatrix/
57. Richards, H.J., Washburn, J.J., Craig, R., Taheri, A., & Yanisch, D. (2004). Typing rape offenders from their offense narratives. Individual Differences Research, 2, 97-108.
58. Sarangi, S. (2003). Editorial: Evaluating evaluative language. Text, 23, 1-7.
59. Scully, D. (1990). Understanding sexual violence: A study of convicted rapists. New York: Routledge.
60. Scully, D., & Marolla, J. (1985). Convicted rapists' vocabulary of motive: Excuses and justification. Social Problems, 32, 530-544.
61. Shuy, R. (1998). The language of confession, interrogation and deception. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62. Singleton, D. (2002). Helping a jury understand witness deception. In J. Alatis, H. Hamilton, & A.H. Tan (Eds.), GURT 2000: Linguistics, language and the professions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
63. Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1987). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 205-216.
64. Thompson, S., & Hunston, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65. Vold, E. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in scientific articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 61-87.
66. Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001). Telling and detecting lies in a high-stake situation: The case of a convicted murderer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 187-203.
67. Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001a). Stereotypical verbal and nonverbal responses while deceiving others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 899-909.
68. Vrij, A., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2001b). People's insight into their own behavior and speech content while lying. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 373-389.
69. Ward, T., & Marshall., B. (2007). Narrative identity and offender rehabilitation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 279-299.
70. Warren, J.I., Reboussin, R., Hazelwood, R.R., & Wright, J.A. (1991). Prediction of rapist type and violence from verbal, physical and sexual scales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 55-67.
71. White, P. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23, 259-284.
72. Woodhams, J., & Grant., T. (2006). Developing a categorization system for rapists' speech. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 245-260.
73. Zhou, L., Burgoon, J., Nunamaker, J., & Twitchell, D. (2004). Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communications. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 81-106.