形容词与欺骗:语言学理论视角

IF 2.1
Willem B. Hollmann , Mathew Gillings
{"title":"形容词与欺骗:语言学理论视角","authors":"Willem B. Hollmann ,&nbsp;Mathew Gillings","doi":"10.1016/j.acorp.2025.100150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study addresses the challenge of deceptive opinion spam, a growing concern for e-commerce and consumer trust. Building on established psychological theories of deception and focusing on hotel reviews, we expand current approaches by incorporating a Radical Construction Grammar (RCG; Croft, 1990, 1991, 2001, 2022) perspective on adjectives. Traditional part-of-speech taggers define adjectives largely through morphological and syntactic criteria, lumping property modifiers together with property predicates. Based on Croft’s more refined framework, we suggest that the cognitive load associated with property words used attributively (e.g., <em>the <u>white</u> door</em>) is higher than in predicative positions (e.g., <em>the door is <u>white</u></em>). We analyse a subset of the Deceptive Opinion Spam Corpus (DOSC) and find attributive property words to be significantly more frequent in truthful reviews, whereas predicative forms show no variation. This distinction proved more effective than a traditional POS-tagger based definition of adjectives in separating authentic from fake reviews. The manual coding required for the RCG-based approach was resource-intensive, but even modest accuracy gains could be crucial in high-stakes scenarios. Future work should investigate whether a Croftian approach can be operationalised through automated taggers and whether these findings extend to other deceptive contexts. The paper highlights the benefit of a more theoretically grounded view of linguistic categories in forensic settings. A truly interdisciplinary effort that draws on advanced linguistic theory as much as on psychological theories of deception, and operationalises the approach computationally, thus promises to yield efficient and more effective deception detection systems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72254,"journal":{"name":"Applied Corpus Linguistics","volume":"5 3","pages":"Article 100150"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adjectives and deception: A view from linguistic theory\",\"authors\":\"Willem B. Hollmann ,&nbsp;Mathew Gillings\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.acorp.2025.100150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This study addresses the challenge of deceptive opinion spam, a growing concern for e-commerce and consumer trust. Building on established psychological theories of deception and focusing on hotel reviews, we expand current approaches by incorporating a Radical Construction Grammar (RCG; Croft, 1990, 1991, 2001, 2022) perspective on adjectives. Traditional part-of-speech taggers define adjectives largely through morphological and syntactic criteria, lumping property modifiers together with property predicates. Based on Croft’s more refined framework, we suggest that the cognitive load associated with property words used attributively (e.g., <em>the <u>white</u> door</em>) is higher than in predicative positions (e.g., <em>the door is <u>white</u></em>). We analyse a subset of the Deceptive Opinion Spam Corpus (DOSC) and find attributive property words to be significantly more frequent in truthful reviews, whereas predicative forms show no variation. This distinction proved more effective than a traditional POS-tagger based definition of adjectives in separating authentic from fake reviews. The manual coding required for the RCG-based approach was resource-intensive, but even modest accuracy gains could be crucial in high-stakes scenarios. Future work should investigate whether a Croftian approach can be operationalised through automated taggers and whether these findings extend to other deceptive contexts. The paper highlights the benefit of a more theoretically grounded view of linguistic categories in forensic settings. A truly interdisciplinary effort that draws on advanced linguistic theory as much as on psychological theories of deception, and operationalises the approach computationally, thus promises to yield efficient and more effective deception detection systems.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Corpus Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"5 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100150\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Corpus Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666799125000334\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Corpus Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666799125000334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项研究解决了欺骗性意见垃圾邮件的挑战,这是对电子商务和消费者信任日益关注的问题。在已建立的欺骗心理学理论的基础上,我们将重点放在酒店评论上,通过结合激进结构语法(RCG; Croft, 1990, 1991, 2001, 2022)对形容词的观点来扩展当前的方法。传统的词性标注器主要通过形态和句法标准来定义形容词,将属性修饰语和属性谓词混在一起。基于Croft的更精细的框架,我们认为与属性词相关的认知负荷(例如,白色的门)高于谓语位置(例如,门是白色的)。我们分析了欺骗性意见垃圾语料库(DOSC)的一个子集,发现定语属性词在真实评论中明显更频繁,而谓语形式则没有变化。事实证明,在区分真实评论和虚假评论方面,这种区分比传统的基于post -tagger的形容词定义更有效。基于rgc的方法所需的手工编码是资源密集型的,但是在高风险的场景中,即使是适度的准确性提高也可能是至关重要的。未来的工作应该研究Croftian方法是否可以通过自动标记器操作,以及这些发现是否可以扩展到其他欺骗性背景。这篇论文强调了在法医环境中对语言类别进行更有理论基础的观点的好处。这是一项真正跨学科的研究,它借鉴了先进的语言学理论和欺骗心理学理论,并通过计算将方法付诸实践,从而有望产生更高效、更有效的欺骗检测系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Adjectives and deception: A view from linguistic theory
This study addresses the challenge of deceptive opinion spam, a growing concern for e-commerce and consumer trust. Building on established psychological theories of deception and focusing on hotel reviews, we expand current approaches by incorporating a Radical Construction Grammar (RCG; Croft, 1990, 1991, 2001, 2022) perspective on adjectives. Traditional part-of-speech taggers define adjectives largely through morphological and syntactic criteria, lumping property modifiers together with property predicates. Based on Croft’s more refined framework, we suggest that the cognitive load associated with property words used attributively (e.g., the white door) is higher than in predicative positions (e.g., the door is white). We analyse a subset of the Deceptive Opinion Spam Corpus (DOSC) and find attributive property words to be significantly more frequent in truthful reviews, whereas predicative forms show no variation. This distinction proved more effective than a traditional POS-tagger based definition of adjectives in separating authentic from fake reviews. The manual coding required for the RCG-based approach was resource-intensive, but even modest accuracy gains could be crucial in high-stakes scenarios. Future work should investigate whether a Croftian approach can be operationalised through automated taggers and whether these findings extend to other deceptive contexts. The paper highlights the benefit of a more theoretically grounded view of linguistic categories in forensic settings. A truly interdisciplinary effort that draws on advanced linguistic theory as much as on psychological theories of deception, and operationalises the approach computationally, thus promises to yield efficient and more effective deception detection systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Corpus Linguistics
Applied Corpus Linguistics Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
70 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信