Scammer Strategies and Social Actions in Online Filipino Transactions

Kiarah Reyshylle Ibañez
{"title":"Scammer Strategies and Social Actions in Online Filipino Transactions","authors":"Kiarah Reyshylle Ibañez","doi":"10.53899/spjrd.v29i1.395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As technology has developed newer and faster forms of communication, the internet has also become a convenient medium for scammers to interact with their targets. Since deception is understudied from a linguistic perspective, this paper investigated the persuasive strategies and linguistic markers of scammers and analyzed the social actions of both scammers and their targets—all of whom are users of the Filipino language. This qualitative study employed digital conversation analysis in analyzing ten conversations between scammers and their targets—all of which were failed scams. The results showed that scammers used emotion, credibility, and logic in persuading their targets. The following linguistic markers were found in their utterances: (1) pronouns that are personal, exclusive, inclusive, noncommittal, impersonal, and ambiguous; (2) negation used for denial, non-existence, refusal, discouragement, inability, loss, contrast, clarification, and correction; (3) emotion words expressing happiness, astonishment or amusement, worry, doubt or fear, shame, regret or inadequacy, and fondness, and lastly, (4) cognitive verbs indicating equivocation, and expression of knowledge or understanding. Furthermore, the social actions of the scammers and the targets were categorized into four sequences that generally involved certain actions: (1) pre-offer (asking about and providing details), (2) insert (expressing doubt and explaining), (3) offer (offering or asking for money/info, and rejecting), and (4) post-offer (insisting, showing aggression, or conceding and retaliating or interrogating). Although all conversations resulted in the targets’ rejection of the scammers’ offer, which undermines social solidarity, dispreference is seen as a beneficial response in conversations involving scams.","PeriodicalId":396377,"journal":{"name":"Southeastern Philippines Journal of Research and Development","volume":"78 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southeastern Philippines Journal of Research and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53899/spjrd.v29i1.395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As technology has developed newer and faster forms of communication, the internet has also become a convenient medium for scammers to interact with their targets. Since deception is understudied from a linguistic perspective, this paper investigated the persuasive strategies and linguistic markers of scammers and analyzed the social actions of both scammers and their targets—all of whom are users of the Filipino language. This qualitative study employed digital conversation analysis in analyzing ten conversations between scammers and their targets—all of which were failed scams. The results showed that scammers used emotion, credibility, and logic in persuading their targets. The following linguistic markers were found in their utterances: (1) pronouns that are personal, exclusive, inclusive, noncommittal, impersonal, and ambiguous; (2) negation used for denial, non-existence, refusal, discouragement, inability, loss, contrast, clarification, and correction; (3) emotion words expressing happiness, astonishment or amusement, worry, doubt or fear, shame, regret or inadequacy, and fondness, and lastly, (4) cognitive verbs indicating equivocation, and expression of knowledge or understanding. Furthermore, the social actions of the scammers and the targets were categorized into four sequences that generally involved certain actions: (1) pre-offer (asking about and providing details), (2) insert (expressing doubt and explaining), (3) offer (offering or asking for money/info, and rejecting), and (4) post-offer (insisting, showing aggression, or conceding and retaliating or interrogating). Although all conversations resulted in the targets’ rejection of the scammers’ offer, which undermines social solidarity, dispreference is seen as a beneficial response in conversations involving scams.
菲律宾在线交易中的骗子策略和社会行动
随着技术的发展,通信方式也越来越新颖、快捷,互联网也成为了骗子与目标群体互动的便捷媒介。由于从语言学角度对欺骗行为的研究不足,本文调查了骗子的说服策略和语言标记,并分析了骗子及其目标群体(均为菲律宾语使用者)的社交行为。这项定性研究采用了数字对话分析法,分析了骗子与目标对象之间的十段对话,所有这些对话都是失败的骗局。结果显示,骗子在说服目标时使用了情感、可信度和逻辑。在他们的对话中发现了以下语言标记:(1) 人称代词、排他代词、包容代词、非承诺代词、非人格代词和模棱两可的代词;(2) 用于否认、不存在、拒绝、气馁、无能、损失、对比、澄清和纠正的否定词;(3) 表达快乐、惊讶或娱乐、担忧、怀疑或恐惧、羞愧、遗憾或不足以及喜爱的情感词;最后,(4) 表示模棱两可、表达知识或理解的认知动词。此外,骗子和目标对象的社交行为被分为四个序列,一般涉及某些行为:(1) 要约前(询问和提供细节),(2) 插入(表示怀疑和解释),(3) 要约(提供或索要金钱/信息和拒绝),(4) 要约后(坚持、表现出攻击性或让步和报复或质问)。虽然所有对话的结果都是目标对象拒绝骗子的提议,从而破坏了社会团结,但在涉及诈骗的对话中,"不理会 "被视为一种有益的反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信