“No mortal can keep a secret. If his lips are silent, he

chatters with his fingertips; betrayal oozes out of him at

every pore.”

(Freud,1905, p. 94)

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 5

1. Background on facial expressions and gaze in talk

1.1 The origins of the research on non-verbal communication ...................... 8

1.2 Non-verbal communication and interaction ............................................ 10

1.3 Universals of non-verbal communication and culture ............................ 13

1.4 Categorization of facial expressions ....................................................... 16

1.5 Emotions and cognition in conversation ................................................. 20

1.6 Contextualization .................................................................................... 24

1.7 Defining deception: philosophy of language and politeness in lying ..... 26

1.8 Communicative strategies linked to deception ....................................... 27

1.9 FEs in deceptive and non-deceptive interaction...................................... 33

2. Methodology ................................................................................................ 34

2.1 Data ........................................................................................................ 34

2.2 Process .................................................................................................... 35

3. Results and discussion ................................................................................ 37

3.1 Non-deceptive communicative strategies ................................................... 37

3.1.1 Barack Obama ..................................................................................... 38

3.1.2 Jim Carrey ........................................................................................... 39

3.1.3 Lady Gaga ........................................................................................... 41

3.2 Deceptive communicative strategies ........................................................... 42

3.2.1 Deception in politics: Bill Clinton ...................................................... 42

3.2.2 Deception in politics: Anthony Weiner .............................................. 45

2

3.2.3 FEs and deception in an informal context: Film ‘Prayers for Bobby’ 46

3.2.4 Deceptive communicative strategies in forensic context: TV series

‘Lie to me’ .................................................................................................... 47

4. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 56

References ......................................................................................................... 61

3

List of tables and figures

Table 1: Eight common lie gestures .................................................................. 29

Table 2: Non-deceptive behaviors .................................................................... 37

Figure 1: Neutral expression ............................................................................. 16

Figure 2: Forehead contraction ......................................................................... 17

Figure 3: Sadness .............................................................................................. 17

Figures 4, 5, 6: Anger ........................................................................................ 17

Figures 7, 8, 9: Fear and surprise ...................................................................... 18

Figure 10: Contempt ......................................................................................... 18

Figures 11, 12: Fake and true happiness ........................................................... 19

Figure 13: Ambiguous sad mouth ..................................................................... 25

Figures 14, 15: Concentration and bad gaze ..................................................... 25

Figure 16 : Eyebrows flash ............................................................................... 26

Figure 17: Obama’s eyebrow flash ................................................................... 39

Figure 18: Obama’s concentration ................................................................... 39

Figure 19: Carrey’s forehead contraction ........................................................ 40

Figure 20: Carrey’s imitations ......................................................................... 41

Figure 21: Lady Gaga’s eye winking ............................................................... 41

Figure 22: Lady Gaga’s poker face .................................................................. 42

Figure 23: Clinton’s deceptive speech ............................................................. 43

Figure 24: Clinton TV announcement ............................................................. 44

Figure 25: Clinton’s self-contempt ................................................................... 45

Figure 26: Anthony Weiner lying ................................................................... 45

Figure 27: Anthony Weiner’s apology ............................................................. 46

Figure 28: Bobby’s brother’s guilt .................................................................... 47

4

Figure 29: Non-congruent eyebrow flash ......................................................... 48

Figure 30: Genuine smile .................................................................................. 50

Figure 31: Memory processing ......................................................................... 51

Figure 32: Absence of cognitive action ........................................................... 51

Figure 33: Neck-scratch .................................................................................... 53

Figure 34: Nose touch ...................................................................................... 54

Figure 35: Lie to me credits .............................................................................. 60

5

Introduction

Facial expressions (FEs hereinafter) and gaze are one of the most important

and communicative tools that humans have. The understanding of the semiotic

meanings that these non-verbal components of interaction entail is very

prominent in both psychology and linguistics, as well as in all the human

sciences1. As Pease & Pease (2004: 9) point out in their book The definitive

book of body language:

Albert Mehrabian, a pioneer researcher of body language in the 1950s, found

that the total impact of a message is about 7% verbal (words only) and 38%

vocal (including tone of voice, inflection and other sounds) and 55% non-

verbal.

I am convinced, as many researchers are, that language cannot be studied in

isolation.

Research in this field began with Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) work The

Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals which introduced the fact that

human beings maintain in their genetic code some particular influence from the

animal instincts through centuries. Some of these instincts, even if only present

in the subconscious, modify our behavior; body language is therefore one of

those.

According to Dynel (2011: 424) human interaction is built through

simultaneous communication channels which constitute multimodality:

[…] proxemics (physical distance in communication: intimate, social, personal,

and public); chronemics (time in communication, e.g., time spent together,

punctuality, etc.); haptics (touch in communication); kinesics (movement,

posture, gesture, facial expression and gaze); paralanguage (also called

vocalics, nonverbal aspects of speech, or prosody inclusive of tone, pitch and

1 Semiotic studies focus on signs, their structure and processing (Eco, 1975). Non-verbal

communication is part of semiotics as it conveys messages which can influence the hearer’s

behavior.

6

accent); olfactics (smells); oculesics (eye movements); physical appearance

(clothing, hairstyle, fragrance, etc.); and artefacts (manipulable objects).

The key point here is understanding that body language cannot be

completely controlled by the speaker, and thus it reflects the genuine part of

behavior. From a linguistics perspective, this study can improve

communication in both standard and multicultural situations.

It is then quite relevant to continue this kind of study for the awareness that

it gives to people. The knowledge of kinesics (which comprises facial

expressions and gaze) is important because of the visual feedback it provides.

This enables us to understand the speaker/hearer relationship, the focus of

attention and the speaker’s attitudes, intentions and emotions. Once a speaker

has acquired sensitivity towards this subject, his/her skills to establish,

maintain and organize conversations will be improved.

Facial expressions and gaze are used by speakers unconsciously when they

communicate, and can supply, emphasize or complete the speech act. They can

even constitute a message by themselves, for example when they occur in

silence. In translating, the speaker and the hearer can use this tool to better

understand what one says and means, the modality of a speech act and the

underlying intentions.

Ekman (2008) maintains that there are seven universal facial expressions in

human beings. Moreover, by videotaping a speaker there can be revealed what

he calls a microexpression which is uncontrollable, but occurs only for a few

instants. I believe that the fact that these semiotic elements are universal can be

considered a key to communication through cultures and to unite. Thus, it is

also a way to shed light on interaction and shatter deceit.

On the basis of Ekman’s (2008) categorization of facial expressions, I will

first analyze and compare their type and quantity, and the exchange of gaze

during video-recorded face-to-face interaction in TV movies and interviews;

this data will show the dynamics that non-verbal communication (NVC

7

hereinafter) plays in these cases. It will also be necessary to look at the

different communicative contexts from a sociolinguistic and pragmatic point of

view. I will then focus on the phenomenon of deception, following again

Ekman’s (2011) notions. To do this, I am going to take into consideration a TV

series entitled Lie to me, as it is directly inspired by this kind of research, and

even though it is taken to the extreme, it is based on scientific evidence. In the

U.S.A, the research on deception has been largely applied to forensic contexts

to help the police catch criminals and find out when they lie, thus improving

justice in courts as well. This analysis will be based on conversation transcripts

associated with TV show images.

This type of research could be beneficially employed in several settings and

contexts such as police interrogation, psychotherapy, arts, medicine, neurology

and with speakers that have communicative difficulties like autism, or with all

kinds of patients. To give another example, the study of facial expressions is

obligatory for cinema and theater actors. It is also fundamental in

communication through computers as emoticons (i.e. drawn faces which can be

included in cell phone and chat messages as shown in the image below) can

enhance the expressiveness of messages, as well as all other sources of

communication and information in general, such as television and

advertisement.

Facebook emoticons

(Google images)

8

Chapter 1 – Background on facial expressions and gaze in talk

1.1 The origins of research on non-verbal communication

Research on this topic began with Charles Darwin (1809-1882) who wanted to

demonstrate that the human race evolved from animals. This is now largely

accepted, but at the time he was writing it was not. Darwin wanted to

investigate the true origins of mankind, and compare the human species with

the other ones present on the planet.

In his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals Darwin

started asking himself whether the cause of a muscle movement was emotional,

mental, neurological or if it could be influenced by blood pressure and so on.

He comments as follows about Sir. C. Bell’s third scientific publication in 1844

(1872: 34):

He does not try to explain why different muscles are brought into action under

different emotions; why, for instance, the inner ends of the eyebrows are

raised, and the corners of the mouth depressed, by a person suffering from grief

and anxiety.

Some other important experiments were done by the French neurologist

Duchenne in 1862 in Archives Generales de Medicine (Darwin, 1872). First he

passed an electric current through the nerves of the hands, then he started

analyzing each separate muscle in the face. Some very significant information

emerged from his studies, namely that there are certain muscles that are not

under the separate control of the will. Another experiment involved an old man

whose facial skin was not completely sensitive, and by galvanizing different

nerves he was able to categorize other areas. In particular, he discovered what

is still called orbicularis oculi, the muscle which surrounds the eyes, and which

is activated only by a genuine smile. This last element will be analyzed more in

detail later with reference to Ekman’s (2008) research.

9

Therefore, neither emotion nor a certain muscle can be artificially activated

by will, even if memories and imagination can recreate a determined mental

state.

This research went on to argue whether it was always a single muscle that

was activated in relation with a single emotion. Of course, it is not like that

because the muscle structure is far more articulated. Furthermore, the nervous

action is not dictated only by emotions, but is also influenced by the physical

body and by thoughts and cognition. For instance, high pressure can make the

muscles contract more, and when we protect our eyes from sunrays,

concentrate on something or feel stressed out, our face changes.

Darwin then used these theories about the expression of emotions to argue

for his main field of research which is Evolutionism. He debated this idea with

both religious people and scientists. The former believed in the biblical concept

of Creationism. Following this idea and the previous scientific theory, species

(man of course included) came into existence in their contemporary conditions.

Arguing against this, Darwin stated that apes possess the same facial muscles

that humans have, and that these muscles do not have only an expressive

purpose. In humans, as well as in monkeys, some expressions such as

uncovering the teeth under the influence of rage is explainable solely if we

assume that we descend from a common progenitor.

In the two images below, we see monkeys’ facial expressions: the left one

shows fear, while the right one depicts happiness.

(Pease & Pease, 2004)

Mead (1909, 1934) stated that animals seem to communicate via a quasi-

symbolic way. The facial gesture that indicates a threatening attitude allows the

10

other animal to defend itself, to escape or to show submission. The latter is

shown by a smile (Pease & Pease, 2004).

Another notion concerned what Ekman (2008) confirmed nowadays, i.e.,

the differences between cultures for these expressions. Darwin (1872) had the

intuition of looking at non-Europeans to see if the same gestures and

expressions were displayed by everyone. This experiment would have proven

their truthfulness and the fact that they are innate and instinctive. We now

know that most emotional FEs are universal. Nevertheless, FEs not only

express emotions, but also attitudes which can be willingly conveyed.

Gestures, for instance, are much more influenced by culture (although, not all

of them) and thus are conventional, just like language.

1.2 Non-verbal communication and interaction

In the last twenty years, NVC has been incorporated with other disciplines

apart from biology and other natural sciences. Psychology is the most

prominent in this case, but even in interactional sociolinguistics a broader

understanding of the subject is needed. The connection with linguistics is the

fact that to every speech act usually a body motion pattern corresponds.

When we deal with this subject, it is fundamental to not generalize, and

hence to not create stereotypes. Context, culture, subjectivity and

intersubjectivity (as social behavior) must be taken into consideration (Kendon,

1973). Clearly, this type of analysis requires video recording, which permits

the repeated and detailed study of the seen but unnoticed.

NVC is useful in both completing an utterance and contradicting it. For

instance, it would be unusual to see a speaker laughing without smiling (it

would instead convey sarcasm). NVC can be easily noticed by switching off

the TV volume, by watching someone at a distance or in a closed space. In this

way, the focus of attention would not be directed towards the verbal message.

Even other ‘surface impressions’ about the speaker can allow us to

understand more than we think. Elements such as the accent acquired, the

11

clothes we wear, the furnishing and arrangements of the office or the house in

which we live in can give us clues about someone. These are all part of a

communicative action. In this case, even cigarettes and glasses are included

(Pease & Pease, 2004).

I firstly want to introduce and discuss the role of visible behavior in

interaction considered from a proxemics point of view (Kendon, 1973). This

refers to how physical arrangements can convey the speakers’ attitudes towards

each other. These attitudes mostly depend on how many communication

channels are displayed or accessible. The closer we are, the more intimate the

conversation is. The extreme case we can think of is that of two lovers. In a

couple, speakers can touch, smell and hear each other’s warmth and breathing

rate. In a casual personal encounter, we have access to vision, touch and

hearing, while in a social-consultative or public context only vision and hearing

are available. Hence, these communication channels can be willingly denied to

a speaker or, of course, made accessible depending on the context,

relationships and situations.

According to Kendon (1973), there are several ‘systems’ in a conversation

of which the speaker might not even be conscious, even though he conducts a

successful interaction. For instance, if a speaker wants to talk with a specific

person, he/she has to make sure to address the right person with gaze and

positioning. Then, he/she has to show his/her availability to talk and figure out

if his/her listener is available too. Once the conversation has been established,

he/she has to maintain it by keeping his/her main attention on the speaker,

remaining in a certain ‘frame’, turn-taking appropriately and not showing

boredom or over-excitement by what is being said.

Following Mondada (2009), the first step to initiate an interaction is to

achieve mutual orientation of bodies and gaze. In this context there seems to be

a non-verbal indirect ‘request’ for communication, and, as Goffman (1963, p.

88-89) stated:

12

co-present persons can either mutually proffer civil inattention, mutually

adjusting in an ‘unfocused interaction’, or initiate a ‘focus interaction’,

mutually orienting in a face engagement or an encounter (becoming then co-

participants).

When speakers have then captured each other’s attention, we can talk of

gathering, or as Kendon (1973) refers to it, a focus gathering. Again Kendon

(1990: 209), defines what he called an F-formation as ‘‘a sustained spatial and

orientational relationship in which the space between them (the speakers) is

one to which they have equal, direct and exclusive access’’2. In a gathering, it

is possible to understand the social differences and hierarchies from the

positioning of the people in the group, and from who is interacting with whom,

and even by the initial hand-shake type. The image below shows a typical F-

formation.

(Pease, 2004)

When two speakers speculate about each other and show ‘attention signals’,

it seems that what they say and think is probably coherent. Head nods, mutual

gaze, same posture and gestures are all signals of reciprocal agreement

(Tannen, 1986). On the other hand, some other features can be noticed in

speakers in a negative attitude towards each other or towards what is being

said. Arms and legs can be said to form a barrier between the speakers, or

openness/closure towards someone, as well as missing eye-contact or

orientation (Tannen, 1986). Yu (2011: 2973) describes these phenomena as

follows:

2 The letter F refers to ‘face’. The focus gathering and the F-formation are a proxemics

arrangement of the speakers’ position that allows all the communicative channels to be

displayed.

13

(the gestures displayed by the hearer during frustration are) head shaking,

putting one hand under the chin, bending down her head, blinking her eyes,

turning head away, and ending eye contact with Jason (the other speaker). She

(the hearer) displays a disappointed facial expression, while moving the finger

of her right hand randomly over the table.

Clearly, it is always necessary to contextualize NVC. For instance, crossing

arms and legs can be due to the cold weather. Furthermore, missing eye-contact

can be caused by hesitation (or cognitive processing) (Ekman, 2008), or as

Tannen (1986) considers it, a sign of non-involvement or that the speaker is

about to take the floor in conversation.

1.3 Universals of non-verbal communication and culture

Much research has been conducted on whether NVC is innate, cultural or

universal. Several experiments among different cultures and in comparison

with apes have been very useful in solving this doubt. It has been demonstrated

that gestures and other body movements are conventional, like natural

language itself, meaning that they are acquired through culture. Italian

gesturing, for example, is typically very or over-expressive in relation to other

nations.

Research has now demonstrated that cultural differences are many, but the

basic body language signals are the same everywhere. For instance, ‘‘when

people are happy they smile, […] nodding the head is almost universally used

to indicate ‘yes’’’(Pease & Pease, 2004: 17-18). These behaviors have a

genetic root. NVC derived in us as an instinctual and instrumental feature that

nature established.

In these images, both the animal and the human are sneering: a not-so-

friendly sign. (Pease & Pease, 2004)

14

Ekman (2008) investigated the field which concerns the universality of

NVC even further. He analyzed what he calls a culture in ‘visual isolation’,

meaning that this population has never had a contact with other cultures. The

population of New Guinea has been isolated in a way that has not permitted it

to take inspiration from other cultures. In fact, in the Western world we have

access to visual means such as television, which allow us to compare and

simulate different communicative customs. By analyzing the New Guineans’

FEs Ekman demonstrated that facial expressions are inborn in all human

beings. Of course, it is necessary to state that this similarity is only valid for

natural emotions. In this sense, the basic emotions that can be communicated

are universal, and not all facial expressions have this purpose. Some of them

are in fact managed, and others, like head nods to say ‘ok’ are specifically

cultural (Ekman, 2008). The Bulgarians, to give an example, use this

movement for ‘no’(Pease & Pease, 2004). In our society, many utterances are

linked to and completed by the face. For instance, apart from the tone of voice,

irony can be conveyed by the face.

The photographs below, taken by Ekman in New Guinea show the same

facial movements that we would see in the Western world, respectively for

sadness and happiness (Ekman, 2008).

The universality of facial expressions has been criticized by many. In spite

of this, Ekman (2008) could definitely demonstrate with his experiments that

there are six basic emotions which are conveyed with the same muscles:

15

sadness and agony

anger

fear

surprise

contempt and disgust

happiness

On the other hand, there are those expressions which are only relevant to a

certain culture or, to be clearer, managed in a certain way. In the photo on the

left (below), Gordon Brown displays the English stiff-upper-lip; as Pease &

Pease (2004: 116) states:

this gesture relates to pursuing the lips to control the face so that the facial

expressions are reduced and as little emotion as possible is shown. […] This

habit led to a small mouth being a superiority signal among the English […]

when they feel they are intimidated by inferior people, and is often

accompanied by extended eye blinks.

In the photo on the right (below), Lady Diana is showing the sideways-

looking-up smile. By using this FE ‘‘she engendered parental male feelings,

and captivated the hearts of people everywhere’’ (Pease & Pease, 2004: 78).

(Pease & Pease, 2004)

Ekman and Friesen (2008) also investigated Asian cultures to further

articulate and demonstrate the universality of FEs. What has been observed is

that FEs in Japanese people, for example, are dissimulated in different contexts

from Western cultures. The two researchers discovered in fact that when they

16

are not alone, Japanese people cover any negative emotion and show a smile

instead. Such a behavior could be considered as a form of deception, but it is

also a cultural reflection of politeness.

1.4 Categorization of facial expressions

In 1978 Ekman and his colleague Friesen filled in the first face atlas to measure

anatomical face movements (Ekman, 2008). They published FACS3 which is

still used by many scientists in different fields of study. The FACS is a

computer program which can decode and measure every facial movement.

Even the smallest facial action is categorized by this software and assigned to

an emotion. It is used as an enhancement of human emotional intelligence and

empathy.

The girl photographed below (Figure 1) is Ekman’s daughter. With a lot of

exercise she could eventually simulate the basic facial expressions. I will use

this image as a neutral control in relation to the other emotions.

Figure 1: Neutral expression

In a neutral expression there is no facial movement and thus no emotion is conveyed

Pease & Pease (2004) observes that there are 25,000 possible combinations

of muscles that form certain expressions, while Ekman counts 10,000 of them.

Of course, similar to what occurs with pronouncing sounds in language, FEs

are never given in the same precise way (here I am referring to the

physiological aspect). I am going now to show a relatively detailed

categorization of the main ones. It is necessary to keep in mind that expressions

could be partial (emerging only in one part of the face), asymmetrical (only on

one side of the face. This detail sometimes is sign of deception) or mixed

(more than one emotion can be experienced).

3 Acronym for Facial Action Coding System.

17

Figure 3: Sadness Figure 2: Forehead contraction

Sincere sadness always shows these facial movements

Sadness and torment appear in correspondence with the so-called horseshoe

that emerges in the center of the forehead. This facial movement is often used

to complete an expressive utterance, it can in fact add emphasis to the verbal

message (Figure 2).

The forehead contraction is provoked only by sadness, hence we recognize

deception from its absence. This movement is accompanied by a lowering of

the eyelids, raising the inner ends of the eyebrows and by pointing downwards

the external corners of the mouth (Figure 3).

(from the left) Figures 4, 5, 6: Anger

Sincere anger always shows these facial movements

Anger appears in correspondence with the lowering of the eyebrows, the

straining of the lower eyelids and the lifting of the upper eyelids (Figure 4). It

can even be expressed by the mouth and the jaw only. The jaw is brought

forward and the lips are tightened. The images in figures 5 and 6 are from

Ekman’s face. Figure 6 shows how this emotion would be conveyed during

speech.

18

(from the left) Figures 7, 8, 9: Fear and surprise

Sincere fear and surprise always shows these facial movements

Fear and surprise are very difficult to recognize because of the slight

differences that distinguish them. It should be pointed out that there are no

fixed expressions as a whole that always manifest an emotion. The muscles are

not moving simultaneously together. The lower eyelids are usually strained,

while the upper ones are raised (see Figure 7). The eyebrows converge together

and the corners of the mouth are pushed to the side, (see Figure 8). Surprise, on

the other hand, shows the typical eyebrows flash (which will be further

contextualized in another section) where the eyes are wide open and the jaw is

dropped (Figure 9).

Figure 10: Contempt

Sincere contempt always shows these facial movements

Contempt is shown by the curling of the nose and raising the lower lip

upwards (Figure 10). This movement usually occurs with only one corner of

the mouth. It can be distinguished from disgust.

19

Positive emotions are much more similar to one another than the negative

ones. As was observed by the Neurologist Duchenne (see section 1.1), the

muscle that contracts during pleasure, happiness and joy is the orbicularis oculi

(it creates the so-called ‘crow’s feet’). As for the other emotions, the absence

of this contraction is a evident sign of deception. Concerning smiles, we have a

range of social behaviors of politeness in which it is better to smile. In this case

we talk about a ‘social smile’, which is not used as a lie, but is a way to convey

politeness. For this reason, smiles very often are used to cover or hide another

emotion that is emerging. There are therefore many combinations. Below are

two pictures depicting Ekman during a fake or forced smile (Figure 11) and a

real one (Figure 12).

(from the left) Figures 11, 12:

Fake and true happiness

Sincere and fake happiness are distinguishable through the use of the muscle around

the eyes

I will specify the uses that these expressions can have in other contexts in

the section 1.6.

These emotions are not the only ones to be considered as conveyed through

FEs. Ekman also included envy, guilt and shame. The latter differ from the

other ones due to some manifestation and duration contingencies. A speaker in

fact, is never willing to show these emotions. They did not develop in

evolution and there is not a precise signal to recognize them apart from

lowering the head combined with a negative emotion. Moreover, these

emotions, especially shame, form a sequence of sensations and the facial

movements can assume different combinations.

20

1.5 Emotions and cognition in conversation

Tannen (1986) described what she called conversational style, that is, the way

we talk from a pitch, speed and intonation point of view (vocal stress is also

fundamental in relation to emotivity, following Ekman (2008)). I believe that

this concept is also valid for facial expressions, gaze and the emotions

conveyed in talk. A speaker can choose whether to isolate him or herself inside

the communication, and what to communicate and how. When people interact,

they decide whether to be very expressive or not at all. In the images below,

depicting Marilyn Monroe and John F. Kennedy, we can see how FEs differ in

different individuals, depending also on the ‘conversational style’ and on the

attitude that the speaker wants to express. John F. Kennedy wants to convey

seriousness, while Marilyn Monroe shows happiness and attractiveness.

(Pease & Pease, 2004)

Many times even silence may convey what Tannen (1986: 13) calls

metamessage, or an implication. Facial expressions and gaze are fundamental

in this framework. When speakers have a face-to-face interaction, also the

cognitive part of discourse must be considered. Building on the book Las cosas

del decir by Brancafort and Valls (2007), communication is done through

inferences and implications. Such cognitive processes are accomplished by the

context and the psychosocial dynamics. When faced with an ambiguous

utterance, the brain does not search for all the possible interpretations, but it

finds the most accessible one with the minimum processing cost. FEs can

improve this process.

Other communicative tools are pragmatic presupposition and the cognitive

context. The former is the speakers’ previous shared knowledge (relationship

21

between them, situation, cognitive frame etc.), while the latter is the hypothesis

conjunction that is used to interpret the utterance (Brancafort and Valls, 2007).

I believe that FEs are a prominent element in this framework as well.

Futhermore, even indirect speech can be contexualized and understood with

tone of voice and FEs. This all is valid for both normal interaction, in order to

mitigate misunderstandings, and for deception.

Even if the basic emotions are universal, each individual, depending on

conversational style (also determined by culture, age, sex and subjectivity),

will show many emotions during conversation, or may display what is called

poker face4 (see also Figure 1). Of course, this is about the intensity and the

modality with which a speaker communicates with the face. The same

phenomenon occurs with emoticons in telematic communication as some

people use them and others do not.

Different contexts then manipulate the way we act. In a formal environment,

it would be inappropriate to smile eccessively, to show boredom or to avoid

eye contact, while it would not be accepted in a friendly interaction to show

apathy. In these cases, it is necessary dissimulate certain emotions. The way

these behaviors are constructed depends, as stated for Asians (Ekman, 2008),

on the social customs.

I believe the face is the most communicative tool that speakers have. Even a

baby who has still not acquired language uses this instrument to give input or

feedback to his parents. Apart from this he/she uses crying and laughter only.

When children grow up, they observe non-verbal behavior to orient and

discriminate ambiguities in language.

Similar to this process is what occurs with L25 learning. Crawford

Camiciotti states (2007: 35):

4 The so-called poker face refers to the total absence of face movements during the homonym

card game. It is a strategy aimed at winning the game by not disclosing any information about

the card one is holding. 5 Second or foreign language.

22

non-verbal signals may actually contribute more to meaning than words and

that in case of a discrepancy between verbal and non-verbal meaning, the latter

is interpreted predominantly.

Moreover, the emotions conveyed by NVC can create the right conditions

for information acquisition. On this point, regarding normal conversation,

Tannen (1986) also talks about the relation between gaze and speakers’

involvement. Building again on Crawford Camiciottoli’s (2007) experiments,

her results have shown that gaze was always steady towards the audience

during lectures. Gross (2012) conducted an experiment concerning L2. She

argues that thinking and speaking in a foreign language provide a certain

psychological distance towards language processing, and thus allows the

individual to think in a sharper and more accurate way. In my opinion,

considering what is stated, when speaking a second language, FE analysis also

should be more precise. It is also true that when telling a lie there is

psychological distance from what is said (as I will specify in section 1.8).

Hence, I think that catching a liar would be harder if the speaker is talking in a

foreign tongue.

Facial expressions are also very useful for the study of mental disorders

such as autism. Arguing whether NVC was inborn or learned through culture

Pease & Pease (2007: 17) quotes: ‘‘evidence has been collected from

observation of blind people (who could not have learned non-verbal signals

through a visual channel)’’. In this sense, studying their behavior is

constructive for other speakers. The situation must be different for deaf and

dumb people who can rely on this source of information permitting them to

contextualize the utterance. Then, of course, the latter can lip read or, if

available, communicate through ASL (acronym for American Sign Language).

Furthermore, FEs help us to give pertinence and modality to the utterance.

Even deixis (spatial and personal, i.e. to indicate a place, a speaker, or to

address a certain speaker) is conveyed by them, by both a certain kind of gaze

or a head movement. Pease & Pease (2004) listed some head movements such

23

as head up (signal of superiority, fearlessness, arrogance or even neutral

attitude, i.e. the typical ‘look down my nose’ at someone), head tilt

(submission signal), head down/peering-over-the-glasses (negative,

judgemental or aggressive attitude), head shrug (submissive and apologetic

attitude). However, lowering the head and looking down is a sign of guilt.

Facial expressions are definitely a key to communicate with the most clarity.

(Pease & Pease, 2004)

Social gaze area (shown in the drawing on the left) has been

proven to be a triangular area on the other speaker’s face. It

occurs 90% of the gaze time. The second type is the intimate

gaze, across the eyes and below the chin to lower parts of the

hearer’s body. The last one is the power gaze, between the eyes and the

forehead, which occurs in a very serious situation. Another gaze behavior

which occurs during arguments or when one is being attacked is the power

stare. This behavior strategy is used to defend onself and generally provokes an

unnerving effect on the interlocutor. (Pease & Pease, 2004).

(Pease & Pease, 2004)

Concerning gaze direction and eye contact, we should refer

to the cognitive part of conversation. As the image on the

left shows, different eye directions are equivalent to

different mental actions. Looking to the left is equivalent to

memory processing, recalling a sound/picture or talking to

onself. On the other hand, looking to the right is mainly a

sign of imagination, but it also occurs when recalling a feeling. Ekman (2008)

states that looking down expresses sadness, but also shame, guilt and tiredness.

In this sense, we can see whether contradictions between words and gaze

occur. For instance, if someone is asked to describe something that happened in

the past and answers looking to the right, he is not likely to be remembering it,

but making it up, and thus, lying.

24

1.6 Contextualization

(Pease & Pease, 2004)

When it comes to conversation, FE and NVC must always be

put into the right communicative context, meaning that both

the cognitive and emotional means could signal something

else, or they can be referred to external elements. Crossing

legs and arms can reveal a defensive attitude, but not when

the weather is cold (see image on the left).

By context we mean the nature of the exchange of the conversation,

referring to, if it is the first talk ever or a formal meeting and so on. The

relationship history is what happened before and what they expect to happen

next. Turn-taking in conversation is the expression that may be manifested

when the speaker is talking or listening. Finally, congruence, the emotion

communicated is aligned with what is being said or not (Ekman, 2008).

Ekman (2008) is well-aware of the emotional causes to which FE/NVC can

be related.

automatic evaluators (subconscious reaction)

talk about a past emotional event

the recollection of a past emotion felt

imagination

empathy

other people’s instruction on how an emotion should feel

social norm violation

intentional assumption of the emotion (what occurs with dissimulated and

FEs done on purpose)

25

These last concepts about the origin of emotions can be very useful to

mitigate misunderstandings, especially when evaluating an FE. Ekman (2008)

refers to this eventual emotional source misinterpretation as the Othello Error6.

Figure 13: Ambiguous sad mouth

(Ekman, 2008)

This figure shows a typical sad mouth position, but it can convey different messages if

it is willingly assumed

The signal of an emotion must be clear to mitigate ambiguities. Based on

my experience, and from some questions that I asked both Italian and English

people, an expression like the one above (Figure 13) can be interpreted as

sadness to communicate appreciation, insecurity, surprise or to ‘comment’ on

something complex. The different interpretation modalities of this expression

make it very ambiguous. To avoid misunderstandings a speaker can rely on the

context.

Anger as well can be double-faced. In fact, if it is slightly appearing, as in

the image on the left, it can signify that the speaker is only concentrated. The

image on the right, on the contrary, is well-defined anger (the ‘bad-gaze’). An

expression in between these two, would instead be an interrogative gaze.

(from the left) Figures 14, 15: Concentration and bad gaze

(Ekman, 2008)

If anger is shown in a low way it can convey concentration

A final example relative again to eyebrows, given by both Ekman (2008)

and Pease & Pease (2004), regards the eyebrow flash (as shown in the images

below):

6 In Shakespeare’s tragedy Othello kills his wife because he misinterprets her sadness as felt

for her presumed lover’s death. In reality, she was sad because Othello did not believe her to be

innocent.

26

(Pease & Pease, 2004) (Ekman, 2008)

Figure 16 : Eyebrows flash

Research (Pease & Pease, 2004; Ekman, 2008) has demonstrated that this

gesture occurs when the speaker knows the answer to a question even if it can

be a part of a surprise expression. The other case, a convergence of the

eyebrow downwards (as described for the expression ‘in between’ the two

images above for anger) is an interrogative gesture, used when the speaker

does not know the answer.

FEs have also been proven by Ekman (2008) to be a means to catch liars

in various contexts. The main idea is that, as NVC in general, FEs are not

completely controllable by the individual. In this sense, dissimulated emotions

can leak some information that can reveal the lie.

1.7 Defining deception: philosophy of language and politeness in lying

The definition of deception has been debated by many researchers and

philosophers during the years. Burgoons and Buller (1994: 155) define it as

follows: ‘‘Deception is a deliberate act perpetrated by a sender to engender in a

receiver beliefs contrary to what the sender believes is true to put the receiver

at a disadvantage’’. Dynel (2011) confirms this definition and further specifies

that deception is dependent on the speaker’s beliefs, namely on his/her

untruthfulness and not on what is objectively false (lacking in truth, or

ignorance). However, the two cases may and do frequently coincide. Ekman

(2008) also states that an individual may not even be aware of being deceptive,

meaning that he/she is deceived into believing something that subconsciously

he/she does not believe to be true. The latter is the case in which an individual

27

is self-deceived. This might occur when a person wants to believe something to

feel reassured (e.g. ‘everything is fine’ when actually it is not7).

Hardin (2010) investigated the concept of lie in Hispanic cultures,

suggesting that culture also makes this concept a bit opaque. Culture here

mainly means the social norms or politeness. On this last concept Tannen

(1986) argues that being indirect is considered deceptive communication, but

not in every culture (it also depends on the individual). In reality, this strategy

is used for building rapport and respect, or for self-defence. When being

indirect, a speaker wants the hearer to understand concepts without telling

him/her explicitly. In this way, the speakers gain understanding and empathy

towards each other. Self-defence is also interpreted as a white lie, which can

either be told to protect or not to offend the hearer with some uncomfortable

truth. She further considers assumptions as omissions which are taken for

granted by both speakers, but these are not lies. On the other hand, there are

intentional omissions, which are considered deceptive. Tannen (1986: 51) also

states: ‘‘irony, sarcasm and figures of speech are such devices […], the

defensive benefit is in the ability to retreat: ‘I was only joking’’’. Moreover,

telling two different aspects of the same topic (both true) is to be considered a

kind of lie, as well as the omission of information.

1.8 Communicative strategies linked to deception

Deception leaks out through several means. It can be physiological, cognitive,

linguistic or emotional. On the physiological level, a speaker can blush, sweat

or have cold hands8. Increasing the number of gulps of saliva (especially when

lying and feeling tension) is usually noticeable only with men for they have an

enlarged Adam’s apple. The eye pupils can dilate when one is stimulated by

something, also erotic, and when arriving at the solution of a problem. Vrij

(1996: 65) quotes: ‘‘it is emphasized that deceiving causes physiological

reactions, such as high blood pressure, increased heart rate, and increased

7 This may also be referred to as being in denial.

8 The reason for this is that blood flushes to the legs for the person to be ready to escape

(Ekman, 2008).

28

respiration rate’’. Cognitive aspects in deception concern memory, reactivity,

information processing and so on. Linguistic aspects are instead the words

used, hesitation, morphosyntactics and psychological distance, whilst the

emotional ones reflect over pratically all of the previous. In fact, these elements

are all interrelated. For example, a feeling like shame can make one blush, or a

strong emotion like fear reduces the capacity to think clearly.

When examining a speaker’s speech, the first aspect to look at to see if

he/she is lying is congruence. If the body language is not congruent with the

verbal message, it is likely that he/she is lying. If a child lies, he/she will

probably cover her mouth with one or both hands (see image on the below).

(Pease & Pease, 2004)

When getting older, this gesture is more controlled, and

instead of covering the whole mouth with the hand/s, the

fingers rub lightly around it. In an adult, it is as if the brain

instructs the hand to cover the mouth in an attempt to cover

the deceitful words. The latter is exactly what contributed to unmasking Bill

Clinton when answering the questions about Monica Lewinsky in front of the

Grand Jury (see image below) (Pease & Pease, 2004). It must be stated that,

apart from this gesture, he dispayed other emblems

and cues of deceit. One of these regards language

itself which I will explain further in the data section.

This gesture is also associated with doubt,

uncertainty or exaggeration (Pease & Pease, 2004).

As both Ekman (2008) and Pease & Pease (2004)

confirm, body language clusters are like words. They have to be considered in

the whole, like language syntax, and not in isolation. When one recognizes a

gesture or FE that seems to give away a lie, several elements must be

considered before being sure that information is held back. Body language

cannot be faked and lies are hard to tell effectively. Still, Pease & Pease (2004)

affirms that the so-called ‘professional liars’, such as politicians, lawyers,

29

actors and television announcers have refined their body gestures. First, they

practice what the required emotion feels like, and second, they reduce their

gesturing.

Pease & Pease (2004) listed eight common lie-gestures (see Table 1). These

cues must also be contextualized as one may be actually scratching oneself, or

the weather is hot and so on. On the other hand, Vrij (1996) states that gestures

and movements can decrease in liars.

Type of gesture Explanation

1) The mouth cover The same as stated above. Even the

hearer can display this gesture when

he/she does not believe what is being

said.

2) The nose touch/itchy nose

(confirmed also by Ekman (2008)),

also called ‘Pinocchio Effect’

It occurs when lying as certain

chemicals are released, causing tissue

inside the nose to swell (it also occurs

with anxiety, sadness or anger).

3) The eye rub As the mouth cover, it is an attempt to

cover oneself from the ‘bad news’ or

to avoid eye-contact, whether it is the

hearer or the speaker who tells them.

The ‘see/speak/hear no evil’ three

wise monkeys example suits this well.

4) The ear grab9 It relates to the concept stated above,

which in children becomes a hands-

over-both-ears.

5) The neck scratch It is characteristic of the person who

says ‘I’m not sure I agree’ and signals

doubt or uncertainty.

9 This may have other meanings in different cultures. For example, in Italy it indicates that

someone is effeminate or gay.

30

6) The collar pull It is used by a speaker who suspects

he/she has been caught.

7) Finger-in-the-mouth Like biting the finger nails or smoking

cigarettes, it is an attempt for self-

reassurance as it recalls the mother’s

breast of childhood.

8) Crossing arms and legs It indicates a defensive attitude and

closure and thus can indicate deceit.

Table 1: Eight common lie gestures

Cognitive clues (generated by thoughts) for detecting deception include

contradictions in exposing an alibi. Even when telling a complex story twice, a

speaker can forget certain elements without lying. In alternative, the

interrogator can ask him/her to say things backwards to test if the memories

were real. Another element is hesitation. If the speaker knows the answer,

he/she will give it naturally, but if not, he/she will need to make it up and thus

hesitate. A speaker can also hesitate because of the hearer’s over-suspicious

attitude. Furthermore, behavioral changes may occur with deception, in

particular the ones related to a topic-shift. In addition, a spontaneous reaction

may signal a fabrication or that the speaker already prepared an alibi. Burgoon

and Buller (1994: 179) state: ‘‘some behaviors produced deception by time

interactions, indicating that the influence of deception did not remain static

over the course of the interaction’’. A way to test whether an individual is

remembering or not is to check which way he/she is gazing. For memory (as

stated in section 1.5) the gaze should be directed towards the left. This means

that if the hearer is asked about a past experience and he/she gazes towards the

right, he/she is likely to be lying. It is fundamental here to state that both

Ekman (2008) and Pease & Pease (2004) maintain that when a speaker is lying

he/she can either avoid eye contact or, on the contrary, maintain it steady. Liars

in fact need to check out if the hearer is believing them.

31

Linguistic ways of lying (also related to the cognitive ones) are the lapsus

(which is itself a leakage of information) and the oratorical pull10

(Ekman,

2011). Convoluted language and diflections11

and pauses or language mistakes

also usually occur in relation to the absence of a prepared alibi, or with

negative emotions, mostly fear (Ekman, 2011). The best strategy, I believe,

when trying to unmask a lie, is to use complete questions, and not partial ones

(yes/no questions).

American social psychologist Pennebaker (2011) published the book The

Secret Life of Pronouns which explains different types of linguistic features

linked to deception. The first one refers to what Pennebaker calls

performatives. This occurs when a speaker, despite the fact that he/she is

telling a lie, has the intention to make the listener believe that it is actually true.

Performatives include statements as ‘I want you to believe’ or ‘I want you to

know’.

The most precise way for finding out a linguistic lie though, is with I-words.

Pennebaker concludes by saying that the central concept is that when people

are telling the truth they use the words I/my a lot. When lying, speakers try to

psychologically distance themselves from what is being said, as if they do not

own what they say. For example, when a speaker lies he/she will use more

demonstratives like in the utterance ‘that woman/those people’.

Here I would like to suggest that if a speaker uses an L2, both the cognitive

effort to translate and the psychological distance that this carries (with

reference to Gross (2012)), would make it even harder to spot a liar. A person

working in an embassy, for example, would have to interview many incoming

foreigners and immigrants and needs to check which are the real attitudes of

the latter.

10

It is similar to the lapsus. It occurs when an individual is overwhelmed by an emotion and do

not realize that he/she is revealing something that later regrets. 11

This refers to when a speaker avoids answering a question directly.

32

Concerning FE and emotions, there are precise muscles (listed in section

1.4) that are activated in relation to each emotion. These muscles cannot be

activated if the emotion is not actually felt. In this sense, even if a speaker

pretends to feel a certain feeling, he/she will not show the right expression.

Therefore, the absence of these involuntary movements can be a sign of an

artifact. In a true smile, the orbicularis oculi is always contracted (see fig. 11,

12), and smiles are the most frequent signal that is artificially produced to

dissimulate other emotions. It is important to state that FEs can appear in an

asymmetrical way with each side of the face showing a different attitude. This

is also a sign of dissimulation, even though it occurs with what Paese & Pease

(2004) calls the twisted smile. The latter also conveys sarcasm in the Western

world. The falsity of sadness and torment can be recognisable if the internal

eyebrow extremity and the forehead are not contracted (see fig. 2). Fake anger

may not show the thinning of lips (see fig. 5). Contempt and disgust are usually

displayed by raising the lower lip upwards (fig.10).

The usual emotions felt by a liar, still following Ekman (2008), are first the

fear of being caught, occurring mainly when the eventual loss is of high

significance. The second one is guilt, only if the lie is not justified. For

example, in advertising people are sometimes authorized to lie and so do not

feel this emotion. The third one is the ‘pleasure of the deceit’, the pleasure that

one feels when succeding in the lie and controlling others’ knowledge. All

other emotions can also be felt while telling a lie and the individual could feel

contempt for himself or for the hearer.

On the other hand, it is extremely important to keep in mind again the

Othello Error (Ekman, 2008). A speaker can in fact feel fear both because

he/she is guilty, and thus does not want to be caught, or because he/she is

innocent, and thus afraid of being blamed on a wrong judgement.

Another element is the timing with which FEs occur. They can appear very

fast or slowly and their reliability depends on the congruence and coherence

with the speed of the conversation.

33

The most important tool to spot a liar is probably what Ekman (2008: 220)

called leakage. As stated previously, emotions are not always controllable, at

least not completely. If a speaker wants to suppress an emotion, it will still

show up through some means. Ekman and Friesen (2008: 221) made an

important discovery about leakage: microexpressions. Microexpressions last

from 1/25 to 1/5 of a second and they can be seen by the naked eye if one

knows exacly what to look for. Their source is both conscious and

subconscious, meaning that they are either willingly hidden or subconsciously

repressed. Considering that it is not possible to know which one of them is the

right source, they need to be further investigated and contextualized.

1.9 FEs in deceptive and non-deceptive interaction

In the previous sections we have seen what is the communicative role of FEs

and gaze in normal and deceptive interaction. This knowledge allows speakers

to get to the core of communication by avoiding misunderstandings and

unmasking bad intentions. FEs and gaze complete the speech act and

sometimes even replace it. They convey irony and are useful for L2 teaching. I

am convinced that a linguist has to be aware of these means of communication.

Detecting deception, on the other hand, is fundamental in enhancing

communicative competence and awareness in various types of interaction.

Unfortunately, the research on deception is still lacking precise conclusions

and the results are very ambiguous and complex. Detecting deception involves

many communication channels. Its multimodality makes it one of the hardest

accomplishments. A liar can be detected through FEs, gaze, gestures, body

language, cognition, physiology, emotions and language itself. I believe that

linguistic research must be carried on both in a verbal and non-verbal

perspective to allow society to communicate clearly, reduce criminality and

terrorism and engender honesty in all works of life.

34

Chapter 2 - Methodology

2.1 Data

My analysis focuses on deceptive and non-deceptive behaviors in interaction.

The latter was analyzed through three face-to-face interviews in the American

talk show David Letterman Show. This talk show, also called Late show with

David Letterman, mainly consists of interactions between Letterman, the

interviewer, and a celebrity. The topics which they talk about usually concern

pop culture, current events and politics. Letterman often makes jokes with

these celebrities during the show to create a comfortable atmosphere. The

characters examined represent three different social roles. The differences of

their status and position within society reflect in different attitudes and

expressiveness in their way of talking. I chose these people so as to have an

overview of different conversational styles. The first one is the current

president of the U.S.A Barack Obama, the second is the actor Jim Carrey and

the third is the singer Lady Gaga. By analyzing these three people that come

from such different backgrounds, it is possible to observe how FEs differ in

each individual.

Concerning deceptive behaviors in interaction, the data used comes both

from real life and TV shows and movies. The real life part was observed with

politicians false declarations in journalism and jury trial interviews. The first

speech to be analyzed is taken from the famous case of the ex-President of the

U.S.A Bill Clinton. He was suspected of having had an affair with Monica

Lewinsky and went through different jury trials. The second one concerns

Anthony Weiner, who is a former U.S. Representative who served New York's

9th congressional district from January 1999 until June 2011. Weiner was at

the center of a sexual scandal. The journalists interviewed them both when

denying what happened and when admitting the facts12

. The politicians’

speeches come both from standard question-answer interviews between the

journalist and the politician and from press conference.

12

All the journalists’ interviews that I used come from YouTube.

35

Other examples of deceptive behaviors come from a movie called Prayers

for Bobby and the TV series Lie to me. In the movie, it is clearly shown how

deception could present itself in an informal family context. In this movie, the

younger brother Bobby tells his elder brother that he is homosexual, but he

asks him to keep it secret. In fact, Bobby knows that his parents, who are

extremely conservative Christians, would not accept it. His brother, being very

worried about him and his troubled behavior in relation to this, actually tells his

parents. The scene I chose is the one in which Bobby finds out about his

brother’s betrayal. The FE, head position and gaze shown by Bobby’s brother

coincide with what Ekman (2008, 2011) associates with guilt. Even if it is a

simulated action I believe that in real life we could encounter the same

behavior.

Concerning the TV series Lie to me, it is important to state that it is based

on scientific evidence. In this sense, even if it is acted and simulated, the

deceptive behaviors shown would appear in real life to be the same as the ones

represented. The context is mainly forensic or police interrogations, but I also

included scenes that come from daily interaction. The scenes I chose show how

deception leaks out through different communicative channels. For example, is

represented deception through gestures, cognition and eye movements and FEs.

All of this data should give a bigger picture of the interplay of FEs in

interaction.

2.2 Process

The data collected consist of conversation transcripts and screenshots which

illustrate FEs. I transcribed the conversations of the scenes I chose13

.

For the non-deceptive interaction, the method of analysis involves both

quantitative and qualitative processes. On a quantitative level, I counted the

exchange of gaze between the interviewees and the interviewer, head nods, as

13

The transcript is purely verbal, and does not include paralinguistic features. (Jefferson, G.

1984).

36

well as natural and intentional FEs. I then further examined which kind of FEs

are displayed and shown the most by the interviewees during the interaction.

To interpret the FEs correctly, I compared them with Ekman’s (2008) manual.

Concerning the deceptive interaction in real life, I took into consideration

all the techniques proposed in the first chapter, including FEs, gestures,

cognition and linguistic structures (the pronouns uttered). In the politics

interviews I analyzed deceptive communicative strategies following Ekman

(2008, 2011), Pease & Pease (2004) and Pennebaker (2011). In this section the

type of analysis is only qualitative.

For the analysis for deceptive interaction in simulated dialogue, for the

movie, I only considered FEs and thus only followed Ekman (2008). In

contrast, for the analysis of the TV series, I followed both Ekman (2008, 2011)

and Pease & Pease (2004). To do this, I compared what these authors state in

their academic writings with the interactions of the TV series to confirm its

scientific validity.

The motivation for my method of analysis is that there is no other way to be

able to analyze NVC. The only possibility is in fact to observe and compare.

Ekman (2008), for example, also used this type of analysis. His experiments

consisted of repeated measurements of FEs by video-recorded tapes. Ekman

(2008) could in the end determine by observing slow-motion videos and

images which are the precise muscles brought into action and the movements

that relate to different emotions. I followed the same patterns for my own

analysis. The videos I observed were later compared many times with Ekman’s

(2008) FEs manual. Later I captured computer screenshots of the precise

behaviors that were important for this study.

37

Chapter 3 – Results and discussion

3.1 Non-deceptive communicative strategies

In Table 2 below I have get out the number of the four non-verbal behaviors

focused on in my study (gaze exchange, head nods, natural and intentional

FEs) of three different people interviewed on the David Letterman Show. The

first one is President Barack Obama, the second one is the actor Jim Carrey and

the third is the singer Lady Gaga. I have chosen these character for their

different public roles.

Gaze

exchange

Head

nods

Natural

FEs

Intentional

FEs

Obama 74 3 16 5

Carrey 71 12 26 30

Lady Gaga 60 6 8 19

Table 2: Non-deceptive behaviors

The table counts these actions in a ten-minute time frame per person. I

observed the exchange of gaze between the interviewer David Letterman and

the interviewees, head nods, natural and intentional FEs. I would like to clarify

the distinction between natural and intentional FEs. As natural FEs I mean

facial actions like smiling during laughter and anger during concentration or

other emotions. The intentional FEs are willingly controlled communicative

actions. These can be a perplexed expression, a simulation of somebody’s else

FE or sadness (forehead contraction) to emphasize the utterance and so on. The

intentional FEs are usually used to convey irony during speech. They constitute

also semiotic messages that substitute the same words as a ‘bad gaze’ (similar

to Figure 15). In this sense, when the interviewee is asked an uncomfortable

question, he/she would use this non-verbal behavior as an indirect way to avoid

answering and to make the interviewer realize that his/her attitude is not polite

(see Section 1.3. Ekman 2008; Pease & Pease 2004).

38

As would have been predictable, the actor Jim Carrey is the one who

performed more actions with his face and head. On the other hand, the

President Barack Obama performed fewer FEs.

3.1.1 Barack Obama

In the first interview, Barack Obama has a very serious attitude. His FEs are

mostly natural and are used while he is talking to concentrate. At the same

time, he looks down (see Figure 18). Another natural facial action that he uses

is the eye-brow flash (see Figure 17). As stated in the first chapter, this

movement indicates that the speaker knows the answer to the question (see

Figure 16). A third FE is the smile during laughter. Here, the intentional FEs

that he shows are always displayed to simulate a certain attitude. The President,

as the other individuals analyzed, always conveys irony with the latter. For

example, in the utterance ‘by the way, does anyone feel cold in here?’, which is

ironical being in a TV studio. To complete the utterance he speaks with

eyebrows down, as in a very concentrated and serious attitude. Obama’s gaze

exchange is the highest of all (see Table 2). I believe this is mostly to convey

attention and involvement in the interview. His gaze is always steady on

Letterman and a few times even on the audience.

In this interview, David Letterman asks President Obama different

questions. Most of the topics verge on political issues such as the economy.

Even if the conversation is mostly serious it includes some humor.

The FE displayed by the President during the utterance ‘that means’ is

shown in Figure 17. In a non-deceptive interaction such as in this, the eyebrow

flash is congruent with the verbal message because the speaker knows the

answer to the question. In this case in fact, I believe the President not to be

deceptive due to the congruence between verbal and non-verbal messages.

39

Figure 17: Obama’s eyebrow flash

In this second scene, Obama talks about the economy again. The FE shown

in Figure 18 is displayed during the utterance ‘even when the economy’. This

FE could be ambiguous if considered in isolation. It can be an angry FE (see

Figure 4, 5, 6), but it conveys concentration if contextualized (see Figure 14).

To avoid ambiguities in FEs, it is always fundamental to consider the context

(see Section 1.6).

Figure 18: Obama’s concentration

3.1.2 Jim Carrey

Jim Carrey of course scored the highest with FEs, especially with the

intentional ones (see Table 2). While he is talking, he displays every kind of

emotion to give emphasis to the utterances. He goes from sadness to anger and

then to happiness and so on. Of course he conveys a lot of irony and speech

emphasis with facial actions (see Figure 19 for sadness). He often simulates

other people’s speech and behavior (see Figure 20). The natural FEs are smiles

during laughter and eyebrows down when concentrating. His gaze exchange

also occurs very often both with Letterman and the audience.

40

In this interview, Letterman asks the actor Jim Carrey about his private life

and career. The conversation is entirely comical. 14

L: How you have a grandson?

C: I do..

L: Ah! That’s crazy! Isn’t it?!

C: It’s fantastic!

L: How do you ..you have a GRANDson? That’s wonderful..

C: Man! ..well, my daughter was born when I was ten! … no .. ah .. I

just had this thing for the teacher (FE)…

The FE shown in Figure 19 is used to give emphasis and irony to the

utterance. The forehead contraction, however, is very difficult to realize on

command. Actors like Carrey are of course trained to reproduce this

movement. Moreover, this movement, as stated in the first chapter (see Figure

3), is usually displayed in relation to sadness. As in Figure 18, this could be an

ambiguous FE, but the context clarifies the message (see section 1.6).

Figure 19: Carrey’s forehead contraction

In this second scene, the actor talks about his grandson during a hockey

game. The FE shown in Figure 20 is willingly controlled by the actor. The

communicative strategy is that of completing the utterance with this FE as to

convey humor. The actor is in fact imitating his grandson’s FE when asking for

ice-cream, taking it to the extreme.

C: (imitating his grandson) And then he’s like: ‘are we gonna get some

ice-cream? We’re gonna get some ice-cream, aren’t we?’

14

Letterman (L), Carrey (C).

41

Figure 20: Carrey’s imitations

3.1.3 Lady Gaga

During the interview, Lady Gaga was also being very ironic. Most of her FEs

are intentional or even dissimulated. Her only natural FEs are smiles during

laughter. Differing from the other two speakers, she apparently never is serious

or concentrated. She conveys a lot of irony with disgust, perplexity, surprise

and even with a poker face (see Figure 22). For instance, she says many funny

things dissimulating her laughter with a poker face, appearing very sarcastic.

Her gaze exchange occurs less than Carrey and Obama’s (see Table 2), and is

directed towards the audience most of the time.

The singer Lady Gaga talks about when she was a waitress. She says that

she used to flirt with clients to get as many tips as possible.

Lady Gaga: And then you find out they have their girlfriends sitting

next to them and ask you ‘why are you looking at my boyfriend?’ and

you answer ‘well ..you know ..it’s just the wine (FE)’.

The FE and gaze in Figure 21 complete the utterance by conveying irony. In

this way the singer is being very sarcastic. Her FE and gaze say ‘it was not for

the wine that I was watching them actually’.

Figure 21: Lady Gaga’s eye winking

In this second scene, Letterman asks her if her parents are also in some way

involved in music, and she replies ‘they sing in the shower’.

42

The FE in Figure 22 represents what is called a poker face. By using this

expression of seriousness during a joke she conveys sarcasm. Of course, by

doing so, she is also dissimulating a smile which manifests itself later in

laughter.

Figure 22: Lady Gaga’s poker face

3.2 Deceptive communicative strategies

3.2.1 Deception in politics: Bill Clinton

In this section, I am going to analyze deceptive communicative strategies in

politicians’ speeches. The first one that I am taking into consideration is the ex-

president of the U.S.A Bill Clinton. In this famous declaration the President

denies having had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Months later, he

confessed that it was actually true. At the press conference he stated as follows:

I want to say one thing to the American people…I want you to listen to

me…I am going to say this again…I did not have sexual relations with

that woman….this Lewinsky.

Pennebaker (2011) explains that what he said was technically true, but the

content was not. Another detail that gave his lie away was the psychological

distance expressed by the demonstratives that and this in relation to the subject

(see Section 1.8). The President’s statement about Lewinsky was intended to

be believed, and from a philosophical, logical and linguistic perspective it was

true, even though the content of the speech is not true (for the first part of the

speech is sincere e.g. ‘I want you to listen to me’). The latter is in fact what

Pennebaker calls performatives. These are typical linguistic styles intended to

emphasize the desire of the speaker to be believed, but are actually a worried

attempt to convince the hearer that what he/she says is true.

43

Concerning his FE, seen in Figure 23, it seems to me a mixture of a

dissimulated smile (it could also be a ‘pleasure for deceit’ smile) with contempt

(probably towards his lies) and forehead contraction which conveys a worried

attitude (see Figures 3, 10 and 11, 12). These are also the usual emotions that a

liar would be likely to feel during a deceptive communicative strategy (see

section 1.8).

Figure 23: Clinton’s deceptive speech

In another speech, the President gave his apologies in a TV announcement

about his affair with Lewinsky on August 17, 1998. I analyzed the transcript of

his speech to compare it with the deceptive one. I counted the I-words such as

I, my and myself in 4.14 minutes. As this is an apology, I expect the President

to be sincere.

My results show how linguistic style can actually reveal a deceptive

communicative strategy confirming what Pennebaker (2011) states about it

(see Section 1.8). The president used in fact exactly 45 I-words during his

speech. There would be approximately 10 I-words per minute. This relatively

high frequency of personal pronouns confirms his sincerity. The high use of

personal pronouns reveals in fact that, the speaker is psychologically close

towards what is being said. As we will see in section 3.2.2 with Anthony

Weiner, a deceptive speech does not usually include personal pronouns.

His FE, in Figure 24, shows sadness and regret during the whole

announcement. I would suggest that these feelings are felt because of the lies

told and the problems created for others.

44

Figure 24: Clinton TV announcement

In another TV speech the president shows a very interesting FE during his

apology:

I agree with those who have said that in my first statement after I

testified that I was not contrite enough.. I don’t think there is a fancy

way to say that I have sinned ..It is important to me that everybody who

has been hurt knows that the sorrow I feel is genuine ..first and most

important my family, also my friends, my staff, my cabinet, Monika

Lewinsky and her family.. and the American people..(same FE)..I have

asked all for my forgiveness .. but I believe that to be forgiven, more

than sorrow is required ..at least two more thing ..first, genuine

repentance, and determination to change and to repair breaches of my

own making […]

During this speech, we can notice again many I-words which convey

psychological closeness towards what is being said. Again, this being a case of

apology, we would of course expect the President to be sincere. His sincerity is

confirmed again by the linguistic style and high use of personal pronouns (see

section 1.8).

The President’s FE seen in Figure 25 shows a typical self-contempt

expression. The head-down movement shows shame and guilt (he does that not

only to read his notes) and the corners of his mouth are pushed aside and

downwards. This can convey both sadness and contempt (see Figures 3 and 10;

see also Section 1.4, 1.8). I counted 9 FEs like the one in Figure 25 in 1.18

minutes of speech. I believe these feelings to be directed towards himself and

his actions.

45

Figure 25: Clinton’s self-contempt

3.2.2 Deception in politics: Anthony Weiner

The exact same pattern seen with Clinton seems to repeat itself with the case of

Anthony Weiner in the New York Congress in 2011. Weiner was also at the

center of a sexual scandal. When denying his affair he stated as follows:

We’re trying to find out whether ..w ..where that photograph came from

..and whether it was manipulated or whether part of it was from

something that wasn’t in my account.

Weiner’s FE seen in Figure 24 shows sadness because of the forehead

contraction (see Figure 2), and his gaze is likely to be one of fear (see Figure

7). The direction of his gaze is always pointed downwards as in guilt (see

Section 1.8).

Figure 26: Anthony Weiner lying

His general attitude is very worried, and his speech production is slow and

hesitating. Moreover this is reflected in language mistakes and repetitions

(‘whether ..w ..where’). The linguistic style does not include I-words. The only

pronoun used in relation to himself is my in ‘my account’. Again, like Clinton,

Weiner refers to the subject with a demonstrative (‘that photograph’)

A substantial difference in the way he is using words and the FE displayed

can be immediately noticed in his apology:

46

I’d like to make it clear that I made terrible mistakes, and I hurt people

that I care about the most and I’m deeply sorry ..I opened eyes with

myself, my family, my constituents, my friends and supporters and the

media.

As we can see here, in the deceptive speech the politician did not use I-

words. They were, on the other hand, used repeatedly in the honest speech (10

times). This confirms again what Pennebaker (2011) states about deception in

word choice. Moreover, when lying, the politician hesitated a lot, whilst in the

honest speech he was very fluent. This confirms what has been theorized

previously in Section 1.8.

The FE seen in Figure 27 is, this time, more relaxed and with a slight sign

of contempt (see Figure 10). His gaze is always directed towards the audience

which conveys involvement with the people that he is speaking to.

Figure 27: Anthony Weiner’s apology

3.2.3 FEs and deception in an informal context: Film ‘Prayers for Bobby’

In this scene, Bobby’s brother has just told his parents that his brother has

come out about his homosexuality, and has also tried to kill himself15

.

B: (enters in the room) Hey ..what’s going on?

M: Is there a problem you need to tell us about?

B: No…(perplexed FE)

M: Bobby ...If there’s something wrong, you need to share with your

family

(Bobby turns and looks at his brother) (FE)

B: (to his brother) How could you!?

Br: Bobby…

B: I’m gonna kill you!

15

Bobby (B), brother (Br), mother (M).

47

In this scene it is clear that, without Bobby’s brother’s FE and gaze, shown in

Figure 28, the conversation would not make sense. There is a process of

inference by which Bobby understands that his brother did not keep the secret,

thus lying. Bobby’s brother’s head is inclined downwards while his gaze points

upwards. This is clearly a sign of guilt. The corners of his mouth are pointed

aside as in contempt (see Figures 10 and 25).

Figure 28: Bobby’s brother’s guilt

As Ekman (2008, 2011) states, actors are able to reproduce certain facial

movements by recalling the required emotion. I would suggest that, even if it is

simulated in a film, this is how a real life interaction would occur. We can see

in fact that Bobby’s brother’s FE and gaze are the same ones that would appear

in deceptive behavior.

3.2.4 Deceptive communicative strategies in forensic context: TV series ‘Lie

to me’

The TV series Lie to me is based upon scientific evidence. The scientific

advisor is Ekman himself. The deceptive communicative strategies that follow

are the most typical ones. Even if these are simulated behaviors, they also

occur in real life and have been studied with accuracy. Moreover, I checked if

the same behaviors are academically acceptable by comparing them with

Ekman’s (2008 ,2011) and Pease & Pease’s (2004) writings.

48

In this first scene, a man is accused of knowing about an illegal trade that

brought three girls to suicide. When he denies this he shows the facial action

shown in Figure 29 during the dialogue presented below16

.

Figure 29: Non-congruent eyebrow flash

Dl: You exploited these women, and then you threatened them. Then

you threw them out into the street.

La: How many more had to die before you’d stop. Ten? Twenty?

Am: What these girls did after they were done working for me has

nothing to do with me. How could I know they’d kill themselves? (FE)

Ama: My client will plead guilty to opening a new business without a

license. These other trumped-up accusations are ridiculous. You’ve got

ten minutes to file your paperwork before we walk out of here.

La: (to Lightman) Can I talk to you for a second?

(they go out)

La: I was hoping the threat was gonna get something out of him, but we

can’t actually charge him with depraved heart. We’d have to be able to

prove he knew those women were gonna commit suicide.

Dl: He knew. When he asked how he could’ve known those women

were gonna jump, his eyebrow went up. Eyebrows up means you know

the answer to your own question.

La: (ironically) His eyebrows went up. Did he also click his heels three

times? That’s not evidence. We need evidence.

Dl: I’m telling you. He knew those girls were gonna jump.

La: We have no proof.

In this scene, we can see how NVC can contradict the utterance. The

eyebrow flash appears in relation to when the individual knows the answer, as

explained by the expert. The deception is unmasked by observing the

congruence between verbal and non-verbal clues. A comparison can be made

with Figure 17. Obama’s eyebrow flash is congruent with his speech which is

16

Dr. Lightman (Dl, deception expert), dr. Lightman’s Attorney (La), accused man (Am),

Accused man’s attorney (Ama).

49

an explanation of a concept. On the other hand, in this case, the eyebrow flash

should not occur as the speaker is denying knowing the answer. The speaker

should rather assume a concentrated FE as in Figure 14, and thus appear like

Obama (Figure 18). On the other hand, if the speaker displays the eye-brow

flash during an utterance like ‘of course I know that’ he/she is likely to be lying

(see Figure 29). This last conclusion is stated in section 1.6 and 1.8. When

observing NVC in relation to deception, the first step is to look for congruence.

If body language conveys some different attitude from the verbal message, the

former is to be considered genuine and not the latter.

I included the conversation that they had afterwards to show also how these

techniques cannot always prove someone’s guilt. This depends mostly on the

legal system in which they are applied.

In the next scene, we can observe what a genuine smile would look like. I

think this distinction between different smiles is important to understand many

communication differences.

In the next scene, Dr. Lightman’s colleague Torres is interrogating a

prostitute suspected of having an affair with a politician, as shown in the

dialogue below17

.

T: So are most of you clients, uh, regulars or one-offs?

Sp: Mostly, um, regulars, actually.

T: Maybe Julian and I could, um ..that’s my boyfriend. Maybe we’ll

become one of your regulars. Are you free next Friday night?

Sp: No Fridays. I, uh, I have, um, a regular (FE) on Fridays.

(Later, in the office).

T: I don’t think the congressman was doing anything nasty to her. She

had this little smile about her Friday nights with him ..like she has real

feelings for the guy.

G: Was there a wrinkling around her eyes when she smiled?

T: Um ..yeah, there was!

G: Then it was real. In a fake smile, there’s no eye wrinkling.

17

Suspected prostitute (Sp), Torres (T), Gillian (G, forensic psychologist).

50

In this scene, we can see how a genuine smile (see Figure 30) could perhaps

have strong relevance for the speech. In this case, the forensic scientists

understand that the suspected girl felt something real for the client. Later in the

episode, they find out that this last individual is in fact her father, who she can

only see in secrecy, and not as a client. The genuine smile played an important

role in this context. In a daily interaction it could be useful to understand

whether something that one says or does is appreciated by the hearer or not.

Recognizing a genuine smile can be a strong instrument for respecting

politeness. (Also see Figure 11, 12).

Figure 30: Genuine smile

I am now going to consider deception from a cognitive perspective,

especially with gaze direction. As stated in Section 1.5, each gaze direction

usually holds a precise cognitive action. Looking towards the left is, for

instance, connected with memory processing. One of the typical strategies used

in deception is to have a steady gaze towards the hearer to check if he/she is

believing what is being said. Of course, this can be relatively true. Most of the

time a liar feels guilty for his/her deception and thus he/she is likely to avoid

eye-contact or to look downwards (see Section 1.8).

In the scene below, Dr. Lightman and Gillian interrogate a student about the

death of his teacher. The student James was caught by the police while running

away from her house the night she was found dead. The gaze direction shown

in Figure 31 is usually related to memory processing. While Figure 32 shows a

steady gaze, which represents the absence of cognitive processing. The two

experts ask James some preliminary questions to have a base-line of the boy’s

behavior (or as I called it, conversational style. See Section 1.3, Tannen, 1986).

51

The main behavior that they notice is the eye-movement because his FEs are

not very expressive. The dialogue that follows illustrate the communicative

strategy used by the experts to unmask an eventual lie18

J: Look, I told the police everything. Okay?

G: Tell us why you think you’re here James.

J: I was out for a run, and the police thought I was running from them.

So they arrested me.

Dl: I heard you made your school’s track team.

J: I didn’t ..MAKE it. They don’t have tryouts.

Dl: What was your best race this year?

J: (looks at left side) I don’t know ..um ..probably against Jefferson last

week. Why?

L: I ran hurdles myself. 110 meters. How’d your quads feel during the

race?

J: (looks at left side again) ..um ..good, I guess.

L: And what about on your run the night you were arrested?

J: (steady gaze) I felt fine.

G: Your teacher, Ms. McCartney, was found dead in her home. Have

you ever been to her house before?

J: (disappointed attitude) No, I never been to her house before.

Figure 31: Memory processing

Figure 32: Absence of cognitive action

18

Dr. Lightman (Dl), Gillian (G), James (J).

52

Later in the episode, they explain that his steady gaze was actually a sign of

a lie. This is because a liar needs to check if the hearer believes what he/she

utters, or that the speaker is actually not remembering anything.

Of course, human science is never exact and precise. Eye movements

depend on the speaker’s conversational style and subjectivity (see section 1.3,

1.5). Nevertheless, the brain should produce this movement under natural and

genuine conditions. To test the boy’s conversational style, Lightman first

establishes a base-line by asking him few normal questions (about sports).

Once Lightman has seen the way the boy usually speaks, he can clarify his eye

movements and behavior.

Another issue to keep in mind is the Othello Error (see Section 1.6). In this

case for instance, the boy was not guilty of his teacher’s death but rather of

spying on her by hiding in front of her house. His deceptive communicative

strategy was thus intended not to hide the main crime for which he was being

investigated, and his steady gaze was to check that Dr. Lightman and Gillian

believed his innocence. James was actually scared, but about being wrongly

accused.

I am now going to analyze two of the main lying gestures listed in Table 1.

The first one is the neck scratch. This gesture, as the collar pull, is usually

associated with deception for it is a sign of frustration and anxiety (see Table 1,

number 5 and 6; section 1.8).

In the scene below, Dr. Lightman and Gillian are going to buy something to

eat during their lunch-break. The sandwich seller that they encounter begins to

take their orders, but is suddenly interrupted. The scene is represented below19

:

Dl: I’ll have a falafel sandwich, please.

G: An Italian ice. Grape.

(prepares the sandwich with naked hands)

Dl: You wash your hands today?

S: Uh, yeah, of course. (Neck-scratch)

19

Dr. Lightman (Dl), Gillian (G), seller (S).

53

Dl: Do you have any kind of pain in your neck?

S: Uh, no, why. (no gestures)

Dl: People touch it when they lie. It’s a classic manipulator.

S:…(continues)

Dl: You been to the bathroom today?

G: Cal (Dr. Lightman)…

S: Uh, no. (starts with the same gesture but suddenly stops)

Dl: Oh great. (they leave)

In this scene, we can see how a deceptive communication strategy is

unmasked through the neck-scratch, shown in Figure 33. After the first time

that the seller moves in that way Dr. Lightman asks him if that gesture is

caused by some kind of pain to contextualize it (as stated in section 1.6, the

context is very important when analyzing NVC). When Lightman realizes that

the gesture is not provoked by something else he understands that it is in fact a

sign of deception. The seller also hesitates before giving the first answer (Uh).

Figure 33: Neck-scratch

Another typical lying gesture is the nose touch (see Table 1, number 2;

section 1.8). This gesture also is provoked by anxiety. The nose, during this

emotion, produces in fact a certain substance that makes it itch.

In the scene below Dr. Lightman meets Gillian’s husband and begins to talk

with him informally20

Dl: You gotta work night?

Gh: Yeah, deputy director’s in Jakarta. Um, it’s 9:30 in the morning

there. All our clocks run on this time. (Nose touch)

Dl: Oh.. that sucks. Still looking for your glasses?

20

Dr. Lightman (Dl), Gillian’s Husband (Gh).

54

Gh: Yeah, I can’t believe they weren’t in the restaurant. I thought I

brought them with me.

Dl: See you. They must be at home.

Gh: See you.

In this scene, there is another type of error that could be made about NVC. In

the following scenes of the TV show, Lightman follows Gillian’s husband

because he thinks he lied. Lightman sees him with a woman and thinks that she

is his lover. What he discovers later by talking to Gillian is that her husband’s

nose touch (see Figure 34) was actually due to cocaine addiction. Gillian’s

husband actually lied about going to work because he was going to a

rehabilitation center and the woman he was with was actually his doctor. So he

actually lied to cover his real purpose, probably because he was ashamed. The

nose touch was not related to deception in this case. Again, the context must

always be taken into consideration, even at a physiological level. It is clear that

NVC can be very ambiguous in relation to verbal interaction.

Figure 34: Nose touch

To conclude this chapter, I confirm many of the theoretical concepts

anticipated in the first chapter. For instance, that conversational style changes

in many ways the manner in which FEs are conveyed but not the FEs

themselves. What I mean is that we all smile in the same way (with the same

facial movements), but we can decide the intensity and the timing of it. When a

smile is intentional, it can be a social smile, it can convey irony or sarcasm or it

can even dissimulate another emotion that a speaker may want to hide. On the

other hand, if the smile is not intentional it is related to a genuine positive

emotion. Gaze exchange conveys involvement as Tannen (1986) states, and it

seems common both to the celebrities and the President in this case. The social

55

role of the three people that I have chosen underlines the differences that can

occur in the management of FEs during an interaction, and this is also true for

deceptive interaction. It is not surprising that the President is less expressive

than the actor and the singer, while the common aspect seems to be gaze. In

deceptive interaction these subjective varieties must always be taken into

consideration, even if we can rely on universals.

56

Chapter 4 – Conclusions

My analysis took into consideration many different contexts in order to have a

bigger picture of the non-verbal communicative strategies that can be adopted

during face-to-face interaction. The data collected concerned non-deceptive

and deceptive utterances in a talk show, in press conferences, in a movie and in

a TV series. The results were very interesting.

The analysis of non-deceptive behaviors shows how a speaker can

communicate only non-verbally in some occasions. These strategies reveal an

inferential way of exchanging semiotic messages. In the David Letterman

Show’s interviews, we can see how a speaker can convey irony and sarcasm

with facial actions and gaze. The way this happens is very significant for

completing an utterance and clarifying the verbal message. FEs also serve as a

way to imitate someone else’s behavior, as we have seen with the actor Jim

Carrey.

To interpret such semiotic elements correctly, it is fundamental to always

contextualize them. For example, an FE like the one in Figure 18 is not to be

considered as anger. On the contrary, it seems that this non-verbal behavior is

likely to occur when a speaker is concentrating on some concept.

Another element to be aware of is subjectivity, of course. Table 2 clearly

shows how different speakers can vary their conversational style and

expressiveness depending on their personality. When communicating though, it

seems that the exchange of gaze is almost universal. The social gaze area

(meaning the area of the face to where a speaker looks during face-to-face

interaction, see Section 1.5) allows the speakers to convey mutual attention

with gaze exchange, and the quantity of gaze exchange is proportional to the

amount of this mutual attention and involvement.

A base-line should always be built in relation to subjectivity before being

able to communicate correctly. In this sense, a speaker must have an idea of the

hearer’s conversational style. In this way, he/she can detect with precision

57

every feedback during talk, and of course, he/she must take into consideration

the context. This kind of study can be compared to clinical psychology. It is in

fact full of varieties that must be considered. Every individual has his/her own

personality and way of expressing him or herself. An actor like Jim Carrey is

very communicative. He is able to convey all sorts of information with his FEs

and body language with high accuracy. I believe that a linguist should also be

able to communicate in such a sophisticated way and should be able to read

these semiotic actions. However, being obsessed with FEs and gaze is well-

known by psychologists to be a sign of paranoia. It is therefore important not to

over-estimate the analysis of these behaviors during talk, deception included.

When it comes to deceptive communicative strategies, subjectivity is again

very relevant. An individual can have a precise way of expressing him or

herself. A nose touch cannot always be an effective way of spotting a lie. A

speaker can use this gesture very often in isolation, for example caused by a

habit. We cannot jump to conclusions as with a law of physics when it comes

to human sciences.

Moreover, it is also well-known by psychologists that certain individuals do

not have some emotions. These, being psychopaths, cannot be caught when

lying, because their reactions are almost neutral or non-existing in

communication. The sense of guilt, for example, cannot be felt by these

individuals. The whole technique of spotting lies would be useless in this case.

Another difficulty arises with individuals like actors or with those who believe

in their own lies. Being in denial can be pushed so far by someone that he/she

can end up completely believing something that he/she does not actually

believe.

Nevertheless, the techniques that are used by forensic psychologists to spot

deception are very accurate. This type of science is precise when it comes to

the facial actions that cannot be controlled by a speaker. The human

subconscious can often betray a dissimulation and this is fundamental for the

detection of the leakage of information.

58

The way by which NVC can contradict the verbal message is also very

relevant. As we have seen with the eye-brow flash, it can be congruent with

words or not. For example, in Figure 17 Obama displays it when answering a

question that he knows, while in Figure 29 the accused man contradicts the

verbal message ‘how could I’ve known they’d kill themselves’ with the same

behavior.

Considering deception in different contexts allowed me to understand its

universality in communication. What I mean is that, both in politics and in

informal contexts there is a way to spot lies. The behaviors that are normally

displayed by the speakers are almost the same in all situations.

However, I believe that, when a lie or a leakage is unmasked in a normal

interaction, the best strategy is just to take it into account without saying

anything at all or not to say anything directly. For instance, ‘is there something

else that you would like to tell me about how you feel?’, or ‘I had the

impression that you felt something else, and not only what you said’. There are

also several politeness concepts to keep in mind. If conversations were always

completely truthful there would not even be politeness. FEs reveal information

that is not put into words. Often this information is not willingly revealed and

can be a strategy used not to offend or hurt someone. When a speaker is able to

read body language, he/she has always to be tactful and understand when it is

necessary to bring to the surface something that the other speaker is not

communicating directly. Every time a speaker/hearer sees an emotion which is

not ‘translated into words’, he/she is receiving information that the other

speaker/hearer did not openly state. For this reason, there are several politeness

tips to be aware of, and maybe indirectness is the best way to ask about these

non-verbal behaviors. Of course, in a forensic context, politeness is not to be

considered.

Unfortunately, when it comes to criminals, a microexpression or other

behavioral clues are not enough. To demonstrate that someone is guilty, more

59

concrete proof is required. In fact, NVC can also be very misleading in most

cases.

The type of research carried out in this study could be further incremented

with methods of analysis that are more precise and accurate. Unfortunately, the

only method of study of NVC is observation, but I believe that with current

technologies this observation could be very detailed. The results of this study

can be further developed and amplified. For example, other different contexts

and types of interaction could be taken into consideration. Concerning

deceptive interaction, some real life interviews that would include statistics

could be carried out. By video-taping some speakers during a deceptive

communicative strategy, we could eventually determine with precision and in

an experimental way which are the most typical behaviors of this type of

interaction.

The current topic analysis is very particular. I believe that it can be

extremely useful for understanding both deceptive and non-deceptive

communication. Especially for deception, a stronger and scientific affirmation

of this discipline could effectively change and improve many aspects of society

and social relationships. It would not only guarantee transparency in politics,

but in every facet of communication. The unmasking of various deceptive

strategies can of course interfere with many informal and polite relationships,

but can help a genuine communication when the stakes are high for everybody.

For example, a white lie is acceptable and necessary in friendly relationships

but, in a more formal situation as in politics, deception is not acceptable.

In conclusion, based on my research and the results obtained, I can confirm

what Ekman (2008, 2011), Pease & Pease (2004) and Pennebaker (2011) have

stated about these topics. I would also like to mention that Paul Ekman is also

named in the Lie to me credits (see Figure 36), which I believe helps to

confirm the validity and authenticity of the TV series that I used for my

analysis.

60

Figure 35: Lie to me credits

61

References

Blancafort, H. Valls, A. (2007) Las cosas del decir. Manual de anàlisis del discurso.

Ariel.

Burgoon, K. Buller, D. (1994) Interpersonal deception: iii. effects of deceit on

perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics, Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior 18(2), Human Sciences Press.

Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2007) The Language of Business Study Lectures: A

Corpus-Assisted Analysis. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Philadelphia.

Darwin, C. (1872) The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. New York d.

Appleton and company. 34.

Dynel, M. (2011) Pragmatics & Cognition, Volume 19, Number 3, 422-447(26).

Ekman, P. (2008) Te lo leggo in faccia. Edizioni AMRITA: Torino.

Ekman, P. (2011) I volti della menzogna. GIUNTI: Milano.

Eco, U. (1975) Trattato di semiotica generale. Bompiani: Milano.

Freud, S. (1905). Fragments of an analysis of a case of hysteria. Collected papers

(Vol. 3). New York: Basic Books (Reprinted in 1959).

Goffman, E. (1963) Behavior in Public Places. Free Press, New York.

Gross, J. (2012, November 25) Reasoning is sharper in a foreign language. Scientific

American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/

Hardin, K. (2010) The Spanish notion of Lie: Revising Coleman and Kay, Journal of

pragmatics. Department of Modern Foreign languages, USA: One Bear Place.

Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription Notation, in J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.),

Structures of Social Interaction (pp. ix-xvi). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kendon, A. (1973) The role of visible behavior in the organization of social

interaction, Social communication and movement ACADEMIC PRESS, London and

New York, 1973, 29-74.

Kendon, A. (1990) Spatial organization in social encounters: the F-formation system,

in Kendon Adam Conducting interaction, Cambrige University Press, Cambrige New

York Melbourne Sydney Port Chester, 209-237.

Mead, H. (1909). Social psychology as a counterpart to physiological psychology.

Psychological Bulletin, 6, 401–408.

Mead, H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

62

Mondada, L. (2009) Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic

analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space, Journal of

Pragmatics 41, 1977–1997.

Pease, A. Pease, B. (2004) The definitive book of body language. Great Britain: Orion

Books.

Pennebaker, J. (2011) Secret life of pronouns, Bloomsbury Press, New York.

Tannen, D. (1986) That's Not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or

Breaks Relationships. USA: Vitago Press.

Vrij, A. Semin, R. (1996) Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception,

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 20(1).

Yu, C. (2011) The display of frustration in arguments: A multimodal analysis,

Journal of Pragmatics 43, 2964–2981.