The Language and Culture Debate

Shaules, Joseph

doi:10.1007/978-981-15-0587-4_8

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The term was introduced by linguistic anthropologists Paul Friedrich (1989) and Michael Agar (1994). The central idea is that a language is culture bound and much more than a code to label objects found in the world (Shaules 2019).…”

Section: Culture and Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Deception detection in text and its relation to the cultural dimension of individualism/collectivism

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automatic deception detection is a crucial task that has many applications both in direct physical and in computer-mediated human communication. Our focus is on automatic deception detection in text across cultures. In this context, we view culture through the prism of the individualism/collectivism dimension, and we approximate culture by using country as a proxy. Having as a starting point recent conclusions drawn from the social psychology discipline, we explore if differences in the usage of specific linguistic features of deception across cultures can be confirmed and attributed to cultural norms in respect to the individualism/collectivism divide. In addition, we investigate if a universal feature set for cross-cultural text deception detection tasks exists. We evaluate the predictive power of different feature sets and approaches. We create culture/language-aware classifiers by experimenting with a wide range of n-gram features from several levels of linguistic analysis, namely phonology, morphology and syntax, other linguistic cues like word and phoneme counts, pronouns use, etc., and token embeddings. We conducted our experiments over eleven data sets from five languages (English, Dutch, Russian, Spanish, and Romanian), from six countries (United States of America, Belgium, India, Russia, Mexico, and Romania), and we applied two classification methods, namely logistic regression and fine-tuned BERT models. The results showed that the undertaken task is fairly complex and demanding. Furthermore, there are indications that some linguistic cues of deception have cultural origins and are consistent in the context of diverse domains and data set settings for the same language. This is more evident for the usage of pronouns and the expression of sentiment in deceptive language. The results of this work show that the automatic deception detection across cultures and languages cannot be handled in unified manners and that such approaches should be augmented with knowledge about cultural differences and the domains of interest.

show abstract

Section: Culture and Languagementioning

confidence: 99%