A STUDY OF DECEPTION IN RED SPARROW MOVIE 2018

 
A STUDY OF DECEPTION IN RED SPARROW MOVIE 2018
A STUDY OF DECEPTION IN RED SPARROW
                        MOVIE 2018

         Submitted to the Department of Language Studies,
Graduate School of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Education

                                BY:
                QURNIA WIYASA NUGRAHAENI
                           S.200 170 011

            DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE STUDIES
                      GRADUATE SCHOOL
      MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
                                2019

                                  i
A STUDY OF DECEPTION IN RED SPARROW MOVIE 2018
ii
i
A STUDY OF DECEPTION IN RED SPARROW MOVIE 2018
iiiii
A STUDY OF DECEPTION IN RED SPARROW MOVIE 2018
iv
iii
A STUDY OF DECEPTION IN RED SPARROW MOVIE 2018
A STUDY OF DECEPTION IN RED SPARROW MOVIE 2018

                               ABSTRACT

In communication, sometimes people produce deceptive statements in order
to be a good image in front of the others. This was curious thing to be
investigated. Therefore, this research aimed to explore the deception
categories and the motives used by people. This research was qualitative
study. The data were the deception utterances of the main character;
Dominika Egorova in Red Sparrow movie 2018. The result showed that
from 40 scenes, there were 30 speech events included as deception. Totally
from 30 speech events there were 79 deceptive statements. 8 statements
were included as falsification category (10%). 29 statements were included
as concealment category (37%). Equivocation were 36 statements (46%)
and 6 statements (8%) were in understatement category. There were three
main motives of deception found in this movie. Totally, there were 38
deception motives. 23 conversations included as Self-focused motive. For
partner-focused motive, there were 2 conversations. There were 13
conversations included as relationship-focused motive. A person deceived in
order to establish contact toward some people, to create good self-image, to
avoid conflict and good relationship. The finding concluded that deception
and the motives need to be studied further.

Keywords: Pragmatics, Interpersonal Deception, Red Sparrow Movie 2018

                               ABSTRAK

Dalam berinteraksi terkadang, seseorang melakukan suatu penipuan untuk
pencitraan didepan orang lain. Ini merupakan suatu kasus yang menarik
untuk dikaji. Oleh sebab itu, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menyelidiki
tentang penipuan dan juga motifnya. Ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif
yang subjeknya adalah tokoh utama Dominika Egorova pada film Red
Sparrow 2018. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa 79 percakapan
merupakan ujaran penipuan. Pada film Red Sparrow, terdapat 4 kategori
penipuan. Delapan ujaran merupakan kategori pemalsuan (10%). 29 ujaran
merupakan kategori penyembunyian (37%). Kategori penyangkalan adalah
yang terbesar yaitu 36 statements (46%) dan 6 ujaran merupakan kategori
pengurangan informasi (8%). Hasil juga menunjukkan bahwa terdapat 3
motif penipuan dalam film tersebut. Dari 38 percakapan, 23 percakapan
termasuk motif pribadi. Untuk motif pasangan terfokus ada 2 percakapan.
Yang terakhir, ada 13 percakapan yang termasuk motif relasi terfokus.
Penipuan terjadi untuk membangun hubungan dengan yang lain, pencitraan,
dan menghindari konflik. Penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa penipuan dan
motifnya perlu untuk dikaji lebih lanjut.

Keywords: Pragmatik, Penipuan antar diri, film Red Sparrow 2018

                                     1v
1. INTRODUCTION
       In interpersonal communications, people need everything run well as
 expectation. Actually, there are a lot of people try to hide the truth
 information from the other people. People have possibility to lie in daily life
 such as about their job, personal identity, deceitful about their problem and
 else. There are so many reasons to lie. Perhaps, they use deception in
 conversation in order to give good self image or hide the truth about
 themselves. For example is phenomenon from Red Sparrow movie. She
 deceived that she was a translator in Embassy. Actually, she was a Russian
 spy that had a mission to investigate about the American agent. She
 intentionally deceived in order to get closer to Nate the CIA agent. So,
 according to Buller and Burggon (1996) one of the deception characteristics
 is the statement is irrelevant to the real context.
       Therefore, that phenomenon is investigated in pragmatics field.
 Pragmatics is a part of linguistics that analyzed about language meaning and
 the context (Levinson, 1983). It is used to investigate the meaning of what
 people said and what the contextual background of the speech. This research
 used theories for the basis of this research; pragmatics, speech act,
 Interpersonal Communication Theory and Interpersonal Deception Theory
 (IDT).
       There were also some previous studies that investigated deception.
 Such as studies by Burgoon et.al (2003), Zhou et.al (2004), and Farisha &
 Sakkeel (2015) that only investigated deception in generally, such as
 prediction in computer-mediated communication, the factors when people
 lying and the rank of how often people deceived in communication. The
 others previous studies are Newman (2003) and Hancock et.al (2008) which
 explained that when told true and when told false stories every person had
 different linguistic styles and linguistic pattern.
       The research aims to investigate and explore about how people use
 deception statements or utterances in conversation and what the motives
 they use deception statements. This research is important because until now
 there is limited research that investigates deeper about deception utterances

                                      2
in a movie. This research tries to strengthen and prove the theory and
  previous studies about deception in detail. This present research also gives
  the newest study in Red Sparrow movie because until now there is no
  research has investigated toward that movie. This research proposed two
  research questions; the main character deceptive statements and the main
  character’s motives of her deception. Based on that previous study and the
  phenomena, this research aims to conduct a research entitled: A Study of
  Deception in Red Sparrow Movie 2018.
2. METHODS
        The type of this research was descriptive qualitative research. In this
  research, the object of research was the deception or lying statements that
  are used by the main character Dominika Egorova in the Red Sparrow
  movie 2018. This research explored the main character Dominica Egorova
  in the Red Sparrow movie 2018. Here, the research focused on main
  character’s speech, expression and actions in the movie. The data was text
  or documents were taken from conversation utterances of main character.
  The primary data sources were the scripts or quotes from conversation of the
  main characters and screenshots of the scenes. The secondary data sources
  such as from website, article, internet sources and other related sources. The
  documentation was done by watching attentively and taking notes. Those
  notes were done in descriptive and reflective notes. The research used some
  steps to analyze the data such as involving collecting the data, reducing data,
  presenting the data and drawing conclusion. This research used data source
  triangulation and theoretical triangulation.
3. RESULTS
  3.1 Deception Category
         It can be concluded totally from 30 scenes there were 79 deceptive
  statements. There were some speech events that had more than one
  deceptive statement. Eight (8) statements were included as falsification
  category. It meant that falsification had 10% from 79 deceptive statements.
  For concealment category there were 29 statements. It had 37% from 79
  deceptive statements. Equivocation category was the biggest number; 36

                                      3
statements. It had 46% from 79 deceptive statements. There was no
exaggeration or hyperbole category. The last, 6 statements was in
understatement category. It meant understatement category had 8% from 79
deceptive statements.
3.1.1 Falsification Category
          Dominika Egorova did some falsification statements such as gave
  fake identity, fake job, fake account, fake evidence and else. For example
  in Scene 17 Conversation 1, finally Dominika went to Budapest to get
  closer and investigate Nate Nash the American agent. In Budapest, she
  stayed with Marta (ex-Sparrow) in an apartment. The setting was in an
  apartment. Marta knew that Dominika name was Katerina not Dominika.
  This conversation involved Dominika and Marta. Marta gave warning
  about their boss. Dominika would work with Chief Volontov in the
  station office (SVR inferior in Budapest). This was friendly chat without
  tension speech. The channel of the conversation was verbal speech in
  Russia accent. The genre was friendly chat.
      (50:40) (50:42)    Situation    : “(DOG BARKING)”
      (51:00) (51:01)    Marta        :“You must be Katerina.”
      (51:01) (51:02)    Dominika     : “Hello.”
      (51:03) (51:05)    Marta        : “You're pretty.”

          Falsification was used by Dominika in order to do her mission
  without any problem. Dominika falsified by using fake identity in
  Budapest as Katerina Zubkova. When Marta said “You must be
  Katerina”, Dominika just said “Hello”. Implicitly, it indicated that
  Dominika did not have any problem with the name. She could deceive
  smoothly without emotional leakage. This was Ivan’s planning and
  Dominika should do that for her mother, besides she also thought how to
  go away from Ivan.
3.1.2 Concealment Category
          In concealment category, Dominika Egorova concealed and hid
  the truth information. They are such as her relation with Nate, the real
  planning and else. One example in scene 28 conversation 1, Dominika
  brought to CIA agent in order to know Dominika was lying or not about

                                 4
her agreement. The setting was in CIA hideout. There were Dominika,
  Nate, Trish and Marty. They used Deception Detector to know about it.
  They wanted to know about her seriousness.
         For the first, Marty just asked about daily activities. Then, it
  became more specific until they got negotiation. Everything run well,
  Dominika succeeded to hide the true. There was no emotional leakage
  that was showed by Dominika. She concealed and just said “The answer
  is no.” when Marty asked about her sexual intercourse. That was
  Concealment; she hid the true about crucial things. There were some
  deceiving from Dominika; about her willingness to work with CIA, her
  emotional involved and also about the money that she wants. That was
  appropriate with the dialogue below:
  (01:27:50) (01:27:51)    Marty         : “That's what you're trained
                                         for.”
  (01:27:51) (01:27:52)    Marty         : “Anybody ever tell you that...”
  (01:27:52) (01:27:54)    Dominika      : “Why do you need to know,
                                            bratok?”
  (01:27:55) (01:27:56)    Marty         : “Big brother?”
  (01:27:56) (01:27:58)    Trish         : “Please answer the question.”
  (01:27:58) (01:28:00)    Trish         : “We'd need to know if you're
                                            emotionally involved.”
  (01:28:00) (01:28:01)    Dominika      : “The answer is no.”
  (01:28:05) (01:28:06)    Nate          : “So, are you satisfied?”

         After Dominika was investigated, she requested money to make a
  deal; she wanted much money to transfer in Vienna account. In the end,
  they agreed for working together for the Swan mission. This conversation
  was in serious manner. This was verbal and used yes or no questions.
  This was editorial chat in getting information.
3.1.3 Equivocation Category
         One example is in scene 23 conversation 2. By hearing
  Dominika’s conversation with Ivan, Marta was so mad with her. Marta
  assumed Dominika took over her mission; Swan. Marta felt Dominika
  was deceiving her. This conversation was in the living room of their
  apartment. The situation was in high tension. She had prepared her gun.

                                   5
But Dominika could apprehend her angry. She offered for working
  together.
         This conversation was serious chat and had high tension. This
  was verbal in face to face manner. This was informal chat. Equivocation,
  she equivocated that she did it for helping Marta to get the money
  whereas she only took the benefit from it. Finally, Marta did not have a
  choice because she also needed the money. That was appropriate with the
  dialogue below:
   (01:14:41) (01:14:42) Marta    : “(GUN COCKING)”
   (01:14:46) (01:14:50) Marta    : “I've waited a lifetime for
                                    something like Swan.”
   (01:14:50) (01:14:52) Marta    : “I worked a year developing her.”
   (01:14:53) (01:14:55) Marta    : “She's not yours to trade.”
   (01:14:55) (01:14:57) Dominika : “Now you have the money to make
                                    the exchange.”
   (01:14:57) (01:14:59) Dominika : “I will make sure you get the
                                    credit.”
   (01:14:59) (01:15:02 Dominika : “I just need more time. Please.”

3.1.4 Understatement Category
         In scene 25 conversation 3, the deception statement was included
  as Understatement category, Dominika answered the detective questions
  was not complete and clear enough. She was silent for all detectives’
  statements. That was appropriate with the dialogue below:
   (01:19:54) (01:19:56)     Detective : “You know something, don't
                                          you?”
   (01:19:58) (01:20:00)     Detective : “Whoever it is you're shielding...”
   (01:20:00) (01:20:03)     Detective : “whoever you are scared of...”
   (01:20:03) (01:20:05)     Detective : “we can protect you.”
   (01:20:04) (01:20:05)     Dominika : “May I go?”

         On arriving in the apartment after in Vienna, Dominika found that
  Marta was dead. Actually, the SVR assassin did it. He killed Marta for
  warning Dominika so she could keep secrets. The conversation was in
  police station. The conversation involved Dominika and a Budapest
  detective. In police, Dominika tried to hide all of the things about Marta
  and about herself. She deceived and told that she did not know
  everything about Marta.

                                 6
By reducing and concealing the real information, Dominika asked
   to go home because it was not necessary to talk too much there. Finally,
   she could go from that detective. This was verbal speech and face to face
   manner. This was serious and tension chat. This conversation was
   informal chat and had little bit sarcastic from Dominika. This
   conversation was riddle chat which was made by Dominika because she
   did not answer the questions clear enough.
3.2 Deception Motives
       From three main motives, all of them were found in Red Sparrow
movie. There were self-focused motive, partner-focused motive and
relationship-focused motive. It be concluded totally there were 38 motives
of deception. There were several scenes that had more than one motive.
There were 23 conversations included as Self-focused motive. It had score
61%. For partner-focused motive, there were 2 conversations. It had 5%
score. The last, there were 13 conversations included as relationship-focused
motive. It had 34% score. She deceived in order to establish contact toward
some people, to create good self-image, to avoid conflict and good
relationship.
3.2.1 Self-focused Motive
          Dominika Egorova deceived in order to create self-image and
   protect herself from anger, criticism and else. The example was in Scene
   5 Speech Event 1 (Monolog 1). Dominika defense and protect herself
   from accusation. That was appropriate with the dialogue.
  (16:14) (16:16)    Dominika  : “There's been an accident at the
                                   Bolshoi Theatre.”
  (16:17) (16:19) Dominika : “Women's locker room, Please hurry.”
         Narrated, this was the first deceptive statement of the main
   character has been produced. She deceived about the accident in the
   Bolshoi Theatre. She concealed the truth from the police that she was the
   actor of Sonya and Konstantin accident. She did not want police knew
   about it; it could be worse if the police knew the truth. She tried to
   defense herself. She avoided the harm thing and protected herself image.
   She just said “There's been an accident at the Bolshoi Theatre”.

                                  7
Dominika tried to protect herself from accusation so it was not necessary
  for her to confess her brutalism. That was Dominika’s motive. She
  deceived because of self-focused motive. This is the motive to protect
  individual from anger or criticism and/or to protect self image from harm
  thing. She protected herself from accusation so she did not have
  obligation to give information or became witness in this accident.
3.2.2 Partner-focused Motive
         According to Buller and Burgoon (1996), partner-focused motive
  is a trick to avoid hurting spouses, to help partners to improve or retain
  their self-esteem, to avoid couples worry, and to protect partner
  relationships with third parties. The example is in scene 33 conversation
  2, Dominika went back to Budapest. She was back to Nate. Nate was so
  glad Dominika went back to him. He was so worried about her. When
  Nate asked about her next planning, she said that she wanted to go to
  America where she could be saved. In fact, she said it because she did
  not want Nate became worry about her. That was appropriate with the
  conversation below:
     (01:51:32) (01:51:35)    Nate        : “They just let you go? Why would
                                             they do that?”
     (01:51:35) (01:51:38)    Dominika    : “Because I told them that you
                                             would trust me now.”
     (01:51:39) (01:51:41)    Dominika    : “Enough to give me the name of
                                             the mole.”
     (01:51:44) (01:51:46)    Nate        : “But you know that I can't do
                                             that.”
     (01:51:46) (01:51:48)    Dominika    : “Of course I do.”
     (01:51:49) (01:51:50)    Nate        : “So what next, then?”
     (01:51:50) (01:51:52)    Dominika    : “I want to go to America...”
     (01:51:53) (01:51:55)    Dominika    : “where I can be safe. Please.”
     (01:51:57) (01:51:57)    Nate        : “All right.”
     (01:51:57) (01:51:58)    Dominika    : “And my mother?”
     (01:51:59) (01:52:02)    Nate        : “It'll take some time, but we can
                                             get her out, yeah.”

         It was not only self-focused motive but also was included as
  Partner-focused motive because Dominika did not want Nate became
  worry. In fact, Dominika wanted to trap Ivan because he was the director
  of these entire situations. She wanted much more money; she deceived

                                  8
for her mother. There was no resettlement; the money was used for
  trapping Ivan. Finally, Nate agreed about transferring some money. By
  Nate’s sympathy, she could get closer again and took the benefit.
3.2.3 Relationship-focused Motive
          Based on Buller and Burgoon (1996), relationship-focused motive
  means that using deceptions to limit harm to relationships by avoiding
  conflict or relational trauma. The example is in Scene 7 Conversation 1,
  this scene was not only self-focused motive but also included as
  Relationship-focused motive. Dominika deceived Ustinov in order to win
  his trust and to get closer to Ustinov. She aimed to make good
  relationship with him, so she could get information for the mission. That
  was appropriate with the dialogue below:
    (20:07) (20:10)    Ustinov        : “There is no such thing as luck.”
    (20:10) (20:12)    Ustinov        : “Just like you being here.”
    (20:13) (20:15)    Ustinov        : “There is no friend, is there?”
    (20:18) (20:20)    Ustinov        : “Tell me the real reason you are here.”
    (20:31) (20:32)    Dominika       :”(DRINKS BEFORE ANSWERING)
                                        I came to see you”
    (20:32) (20:35)    Ustinov        : “And what is it you want from me?”
    (20:35) (20:38)    Dominika       : “All I ever wanted was to be a dancer.”
    (20:55) (20:57)    Dominika       : "I'm not like them...”
    (20:58) (21:00)    Dominika       : "and I never will be...”
    (21:01) (21:02)    Dominika       : "because I'm special."
    (21:05) (21:07)    Dominika       : “I want to be special again.”

          Here, Ustinov knew that real reason was not about waiting friends
  but purposely Dominika wanted to meet him. When her deception was
  broken up by Ustinov, she tried to think the other reason and she did it.
  By saying about she wants, finally Ustinov wanted to help her with
  requirement she had to serve him. Here, her motive to get his trust was
  successful.
3.3 Discussion
       In interpersonal    communication,      sometimes    people    produce
deceptive statements in order to be a good person in front of the other. At
least, people do deception for protecting themselves from harm things when
interact with the others. That is appropriate with Buller and Burgoon (1996),

                                  9
they stated that deception is the deliberate manipulation of information,
behavior, and imagery to make others believe in false conclusions or beliefs.
       There are also some people do deceptions to get benefits from the
others. They manipulate true message or create fake information to get the
main information from the recipients. Such as the research from Burgoon et
al (2003), Zhou et al (2004) and Meibauer (2011) explained that people
deceived in order to interact with other and get benefits from it. People
deceived the other intentionally. Those research investigated deception in
generally.
       Different with previous research above, this present research focused
more about deception category and the motive. Based on this research,
people consciously deceive in several ways. They are falsification data or
information, concealing information and also equivocating or twisting the
fact. The other ways are hyperbole the information and understatement or
limitation the information for the receiver.
       Based on the data, the using of deception categories could be
investigated from the context of the conversations. The result is consistent
with the previous study by Picornell (2013) that the deception cues are not
always consistent. It depends on the context and the relation of each others.
It is also almost same with previous study by Gupta et.al (2013) that types
of deception can be used to attain more than one belief manipulation goal.
The result is also consistent with the previous studies by Newman (2003)
and Hancock et.al (2008) which explained that when told true and when told
false stories every person had different linguistic styles, linguistic pattern.
       In Red Sparrow, the main character should change her identity from
Dominika Egorova became Katerina Zubkova when she did a mission in
Budapest. During in Budapest she used Katerina Zubkova even with her
boss Volontov and her partner Marta. This result of this research is
consistent with the previous study by Warkentin et.al (2010) report that real
name, photo and presence of real-world contacts are usually hidden by
people in social media.

                                    10
The other deception category is concealment. Concealment is usual
category which is used by people. Based on data analysis, in Red Sparrow
there is also some concealment that was done by Dominika Egorova.
According to Buller and Burgoon (1996) naturally concealment which is
often used by people in daily life. One example, when the main character
attacked her friends in Bolshoi theatre. After attacking them, she called
police and said that there was an accident in Bolshoi theatre. In order not to
become suspected, she gave fast report moreover she did not say about her
identity. The result is equal with previous study by Moreno et.al (2016) that
studied about processing of social lies. People concealed by using positive
statements and it did not influent the increasing detection in deception
detector.
       The other was Equivocation; people tried to avoid the receiver’s
unbelievable. Avoidance is intended for the recipient to believe that the
communicator does not perform an act or believe that the communicator
performs the right deed (Buller and Burgoon, 1996). Obscuring, avoiding,
pretending, twisting and also equivocating are included as equivocation
category. Based on data analysis, there were several equivocations. For
example, in the first mission Dominika purposely met Ustinov in Hotel
Andarja. She said that she was there for waiting a friend but Ustinov broke
up her deception; there was no friend there. So, Dominika pretended that she
was there to meet him, she needed a help to become special again like
before. There was an emotional leakage from Dominika; seemed nervous
and took few minutes (drank before saying her equivocation) to say the
other reason.
       According to data analysis, there are several statements included as
understatements category. Understatement means that people give limited
data or information moreover they can decrease the data, so the others do
not know the fact. For example based on data analysis, understatement was
occurred when Dominika gave her witness to detective after her partner
Marta was dead. She did not answer all detective’s statements and
questions. Dominika minimized her statement and almost did not answer all

                                  11
the questions. That is little bit different with the previous study by Picornell
(2013), but the main point is same that to detecting deception in written
witness statements, it could see from linguistic strategy that used by a
witness.
       According to Buller and Burgoon (1996), the basic motive why
people do deception is because they are in crucial or pressure situation. The
data showed that the three motives were occurred in Red Sparrow movie.
Based on Buller and Burgoon (1996), every deceptive utterances have own
motives, one of them is Self-focused motive. Self-focused motive means
that people are using tricks to improve or protect their self-image, want to
protect themselves from anger, shame, or criticism. In this research,
Dominika Egorova did do self-focused motive in her action.
       One example, when she got anger from Marta because she stole the
information about Boucher, she pretended that she tried to help Marta in
getting money. Here, she was defense herself from anger. Dominika tried to
protect her and her own planning. Self-focused motive occurred when
Dominika tried to protect herself. She avoided for getting anger or harm
thing from Marta, because Marta had been ready with her gun.
       The other example, when Dominika was asked by Ivan to do a
mission in Budapest. She just said “yes, Uncle” for all Ivan commands and
statements. Here, Dominika deceived in order to protect herself from Ivan’s
suspicion. She gave good self-image so Ivan can trust her. Self-focused
motive is also included as basic motive in deception. Those results of this
research are consistent with the previous study by Farisha and Sakkeel
(2015). Their study gave report that deception arises from human’s
psychology needs; avoid pain and increase pleasure.
       There are also partner-focused motive was found in this research.
Based on Buller and Burgoon (1996), Partner-focused motives is using
tricks to avoid hurting spouses, to help partners to improve or retain their
self-esteem, to avoid couples worry, and to protect partner relationships
with third parties. In Red Sparrow movie, Dominika went back to Nate after
getting interrogation from SVR. When Nate asked about her next planning,

                                   12
she said that she wanted to go to America where she could be saved. In fact,
 she said it because she did not want Nate became worry about her. She also
 wanted to finish her own planning to trap Ivan. The result is consistent with
 previous study by Cole (2001) that people assumed that their partner might
 not deceive and more honest than themselves.
          People can do deception to establish relationship. In this research,
 there are some relationship-focused motives which motivate Dominika
 Egorova as the main character did deceptions. One example based on data
 analysis is when Dominika had first meeting to Nate Nash the CIA agent.
 She falsified that she was a translator for the Embassy. In fact, she
 purposely came to Budapest for investigating him; as an SVR agent. She
 tried to establish contact Nate, so she could get closer to him and got his
 trust.
          The result of this research is consistent with previous study by
 Burgoon (2015) that showed sender factors, context factors and relationship
 factors that should enable predictions of deception will be more effortful. It
 means relationship also the important factors for deceiving to be successful
 or not. That equals with the study was done by Mc Nelis (2013). Mc Nelis
 studied about the relational deception. The results showed that male
 participants and participants who spend more than 11 hours or more on
 Facebook per week, write reporting individually which indicates that fraud
 on romantic relationships on Facebook tends to be very high. It means that
 the participants deceived in order to create good self-image, avoid conflict
 and establish good relationship with others.
4. CONCLUSION
          First, in Red Sparrow movie, the main character Dominika Egorova
 did some deception when she became an agent. From 40 speech events,
 there were 30 included as deception. There were falsification category,
 concealment category, equivocation category and understatement category.
 It can be concluded totally from 30 scenes there were 79 deceptive
 statements. Eight statements were included as falsification category (10%).
 Dominika Egorova did some falsification statements such as gave fake

                                    13
identity, fake job, fake account, fake evidence and else. For concealment
category there were 29 statements (37%). For concealment category,
Dominika Egorova concealed and hid the truth information. Equivocation
category was the biggest number; 36 statements (46%). Dominika Egorova
equivocated and pretended when her deceptions were broken up by the other
characters. The last, 6 statements was in understatement category (8%).
       Second, it be concluded totally there were 38 motives of deception.
There were several scenes that had more than one motive. There were 23
conversations included as Self-focused motive (61%). Dominika Egorova
deceived in order to create self-image and protect herself from anger,
criticism and else. For partner-focused motive, there were 2 conversations
(5%). The last, there were 13 conversations (34%) included as relationship-
focused motive. She deceived in order to establish contact toward some
people, to create good self-image, to avoid conflict and good relationship.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Buller, D & Burgoon, J. (1996). Communication Theory: Interpersonal
    Deception Theory. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol.
    12 (2), P: 13-16. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.com/pdf
    accessed on April 28th 2018

Burgoon, J. (2015).When is Deceptive Message Production More Effortful
    than Truth-Telling?A Baker’s Dozen of Moderators. Fronteirs in
    Psychology, Vol 6. Retrieved from https://www.frontierain.org/pdf
    accessed on April 29th 2018

Burgoon, J. & Stoner, G & Bonito, J & Dunbar, N.E. (2003). Trust and
    Deception in Mediated Communication. Hawaii International
    Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’03) 0-7695-1874-5/03.
    Retrieved from https://www.IEEE.Xplore/html/pdf accessed on April
    29th 2018

Cole, T. (2001). Lying to The One You Love: The Use of Deception in
    Romantic Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
    Vol. 18 (1): P.107-129. DePaul University: SAGE Publications.
    Retrieved from https://www.academica.edu/pdf accessed on April 29th
    2018

Farisha, A. & Sakkeel, K. (2015). Psychology of Lying. The International
    Journal of Indian Psychology, Vol. (2). Retrieved from
    http://www.ijip.in/pdf accessed on April 24th 2018
                                  14
Gupta, S., Sakamoto, K. & Ortony, A. (2013). Telling it like it isn't: A
   Comprehensive Approach to Analyzing Verbal Deception. London:
   College Publications

Hancock, J.T. & Curry, L. & Goorha, S. & Woodworth, M. (2008). On
   Lying and Being Lied To: A Linguistic Analysis of Deception in
   Computer-Mediated Communication. Discourse Processes, Vol.45:
   P.1-23. doi: 10.1080/01638530701739181. Retrieved from E-mail:
   jeff.hancock@cornell.edu/pdf accessed on April 25th 2018

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
    Press

McNelis, M.J. (2013). Relational Deception: ‘Til Facebook Due Us Part.
   Alabama: Auburn University Press

Meibauer, J. (2011). On lying: intentionality, implicature, and imprecision.
   Intercultural Pragmatics, Vol. 8(2): P.277-292. Retrieved from
   https://meibauer@uni-mainz.de/pdf accessed on April 24th 2018

Moreno, E. & Casado, P. & Loeches, M. (2016). Tell me sweet little lies:
   An event-related potentials study on the processing of social lies. Cogn
   Affect Behav Neurosci. Psychonomic Society, Inc. Retrieved from
   https://www.emmoreno@ucm.es/html/pdf accessed on April 25th 2018

Newman, M. (2003). Lying Words: Predicting Deception from Linguistic
   Styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (PSPB), Vol. 29 (5):
   P. 665-675. Retrieved from https://www.academica.edu/pdf accessed on
   April 29th 2018

Picornell, I. (2013). Analysing Deception in Written Witness Statements.
    Linguistics Evidence in Security Law and Intelligence, Vol. 1 (1).
    Retrieved from https://lesli-journal.org accessed on April 25th 2018

Warkentin, D. & Woodworth, M. & Hancock, J.T. & Cormier, N. (2010).
   Warrants and Deception in Computer Mediated Communication. CSCW
   2010. Retrieved from https://www.academica.edu/pdf accessed on April
   29th 2018

Zhou, L. & Burgoon, J. & Twitchell, D. & QIN, T & Nunamaker, J. (2004).
   A Comparison of Classification Methods for Predicting Deception in
   Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of Management
   Information Systems 2004, Vol. 20 (4): P.139–165. Retrieved from
   https://www.hicss.hawaii.edu/HICSS36/apahome36/pdf accessed on
   April 29th 2018

                                 15
You can also read
Next slide ... Cancel