APPROACHING A LINGUISTIC PROFILE OF POTENTIAL CHILD SEXUAL AGGRESSORS: ANALYSIS OF ONLINE TEXTUAL INTERVENTIONS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Each speaker has linguistic characteristics conditioned by the circumstances of contact. In forensic linguistics, applied linguistics, and corpus linguistics it is considered that regularity can be recognized as a specific modus operandi, and this usually corresponds to communities that share the same purpose, with equally precise subjects, and by means of specific linguistic strategies. In this article, an approach to a linguistic profile corresponding to potential sexual offenders of infants is carried out to obtain a constant linguistic behavior that subsequently allows its recognition in online conversations. The methodology used in this study is empirical and based on the natural language analysis proposed by Rayson's corpus linguistics. Through it, the linguistic behavior in online textual communication extracted from a corpus (with prior processing) is analyzed. It consists of five conversations, in which the lexical frequency was established to generate seventeen thematic modules. Finally, regularity was found in the first seven interventions, which points to a specific linguistic behavior: a linguistic profile that could lead to a timely recognition of online identities that represent a danger to children.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Responsibility of the authors:
The authors are responsible for the ideas and data collected in the manuscripts. They are additionally accountable for the fidelity of the information, the correction of the citations, the right to publish any material included in the text, and the presentation of the manuscript in the format required by the Journal (WORD template). A manuscript forwarded to CHAKIÑAN must not have been published before, nor must it have been submitted to another means of publication.
Copyright:
Published articles do not necessarily compromise the viewpoint of the CHAKIÑAN JOURNAL. The Journal is aligned to the policy of the licence de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-No comercial 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC 4.0). Each author retains the right to the paper published in the Chakiñan journal.
Privacy statement
The personal data and email addresses entered in this magazine will be used exclusively for the purposes stated by the publication and will not be available for any other purpose or person.
How to Cite
Share
References
Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Pennebaker, J. W., & Schler, J. (2007). Mining the Blogosphere: Age, gender and the varieties of self-expression. First Monday, 12(9). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i9.2003
Artículo 202. 1931, de 14 de agosto, de Nuevo Código Publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación, texto vigente. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, México. Últimas reformas publicadas DOF 21-06-2018.
Bauman, R. (2000). Language, Identity, Performance. Pragmatics, 10(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.1.01bau
Brookes, G. & McEnery, T. (2020). Corpus Linguistics. En S. Adolphs & D. Knight (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of English Language and Digital Humanities. (pp. 378-404). Taylor & Francis.
Calsamiglia, H., & Tusón, A. (2001). Las cosas del decir. En H. Calsamiglia & A. Tusón (Eds.), Manual de análisis del discurso (pp. 27-61). Ariel.
Centro Virtual Cervantes. (2008). Diccionario de términos clave de Español Lengua Extranjera. Conversación. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/diccio_ele/diccionario/conversacion.htm
Chiang, E. (2019). Rhetorical moves and identity performance in online child abuse interactions [Tesis de doctorado, Universidad de Aston]. Repositorio de la Universidad de Aston. https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/39062/1/Chiang_E._2018_Redacted.pdf
Chiang, E., & Grant, T. (2019). Deceptive Identity Performance: Offender Moves and Multiple Identities in Online Child Abuse Conversations. Applied Linguistics, 40(4), 675-698. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy007
Cheng, W. (2009). Describing the extended meanings of lexical cohesion in a corpus of SARS spoken discourse. En J. Flowerdew & M. Mahlberg (Eds.). Lexical Cohesion and Corpus Linguistics [Benjamins Current Topics] (pp. 65-83). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Colmenares-Guillén, L. E., Hernández, J. L., & De Jesús, J. (2020). Análisis del Iter Criminis de la pornografía infantil en Facebook. Revista Visión Criminológica-Criminalística, 8(31), 9-15. https://revista.cleu.edu.mx/new/descargas/2003/Articulo06_.pdf
Criminal Justice Impectorates. (2014). Inspecting policing in the public interest, Her Majesty´s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). An inspection of undercover policing in England and Wales. https://bit.ly/3nsACEi
Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2022). Designing and Evaluating Language Corpora: A Practical Framework for Corpus Representativeness. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/designing-and-evaluating-language-corpora/references/FD9201C173C7BAD1561A29C976E0947E#
Esteva, M. (2016). La prueba en el proceso penal: La relevancia de la Lingüística Forense en la prueba pericial [Trabajo de pregrado, Universidad de Salamanca]. Repositorio de la Universidad de Salamanca. https://gredos.usal.es/bitstream/handle/10366/131740/TFG_ESTEVA_BELOSO_Maria.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Ehrlich, S. (2007). Normative Discourses and Representations of Coerced Sex. En J. Cotterill (Ed.). En The Language of Sexual Crime (pp. 126-138). Editorial Palgrave Macmillan.
Goffman, E. (1955). On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
Grant, T., & Macleod, N. (2012). Whose Tweet? Author analysis of micro-blogs and other short-form messages. En Proceedings of the International Association of Forensic Linguists’ Tenth biennial conference, July 2011. Centre for Forensic Linguistics. Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Grant, T., & Macleod, N. (2016). Assuming Identities Online: Experimental Linguistics Applied to the Policing of Online Paedophile Activity. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 50-70. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv079
Greenlee, M. (2012). I object, or did it? En Proceedings of the International Association of Forensic Linguists’ Tenth biennial conference, July 2011. Centre for Forensic Linguistics. Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Interpol. (2023). Delitos contra menores. https://www.interpol.int/es/Delitos/Delitos-contra-menores
Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (2014). The Discourse reader. (3rd. ed.). Routledge Reprinted.
Jenkins, M. & Dando, C. J. (2012). Computer-mediated investigative interviews: a potential screening tool for the detection of insider threat. En Proceedings of the International Association of Forensic Linguists’ Tenth biennial conference, July 2011. Centre for Forensic Linguistics. Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Kaplan, N. (2004). Nuevos desarrollos en el estudio de la evaluación en el lenguaje: La Teoría de la Valoración. Boletín de Lingüística, (22), 52-78. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=34702203
May-Chahal, C., Mason, C., Rashid, A., Walkerdine, J., Rayson, P., & Greenwood, P. (2014). Safeguarding cyborg childhoods: Incorporating the on/offline behaviour of children into everyday social work practices. British journal of social work, 44(3), 596-614. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs121
MacMartin, C., & Wood, L. A. (2007). Sentencing Sexual Abuse Offenders: Sex Crimes and Social Justice. En J. Cotterill (Ed.), En The Language of Sexual Crime (pp. 180-197). Editorial Palgrave Macmillan.
MacLeod, N. & Wright, D. (2020). Forensic linguistics. En S. Adolphs & D. Knight (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of English Language and Digital Humanities (pp. 360-377). Taylor & Francis.
Ng, E. (2013). Garment, or upper-garment? A matter of interpretation? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 26(3), 597-613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-012-9290-9
O’Keeffe, A., & Breen, M. (2007). At the Hands of the Brothers: a Corpus-based Lexico grammatical Analysis of Stance in Newspaper Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse Cases. En J. Cotterill (ed.). En The Language of Sexual Crime, (pp. 217-236). Reino Unido: Editorial Palgrave Macmillan.
Perverted-Justice. (22 Sep 2008/2019). Ceasing decoy operations, Deck convicted again. http://www.perverted-justice.com/index.php
Rashid, A., Baron, A., Rayson, P., May-Chahal, C., Greenwood, P., & Walkerdine, J. (2013). Who am I? Analyzing digital personas in cybercrime investigations. Computer, 46(4), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1109/mc.2013.68
Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519-549. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06ray
Rayson, P. (2015). Computational tools and methods for corpus compilation and analysis. En D. Biber, & R. Reppen (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 32-49). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.003
Rayson, P., Mariani, J., Anderson-Cooper, B., Baron, A., Gullick, D., Moore, A., & Wattam, S. (2016). Towards Interactive Multidimensional Visualisations for Corpus Linguistics. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics, 31(1), 27-49. https://doi.org/10.21248/jlcl.31.2016.200
Rojas, L. C., & Suárez, M. T. (2008). El lenguaje como instrumento de poder. Cuadernos de Lingüística Hispánica, (11), 49-66. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=322227496005
Sacks, H. (2010). Lectures on conversation. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (2015). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation (A. Korbut, Trad.). Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review, 14(1), 142-202. https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2015-1-142-202
Schegloff, E. A. (2012). Sequence Organization in Interaction: Volume I: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (2003). Approaches to discourse (2a. ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Sierra, G., Hernández, T., Sánchez, B., & Ramos, S. (2020). Atribución de autoría: ¡El Móndrigo! Bitácora del Consejo Nacional de Huelga. https://interactivo.eluniversal.com.mx/online/pdf-20/PDF-informe-atribucion-autoria-may2020.pdf
Stefanowitsch, A. (2020). Corpus linguistics: A guide to the methodology. Language Science Press. https://zenodo.org/record/3735822
Tannen, D., Hamilton, E. H., & Schiffrin, D. (2015). The handbook of discourse analysis (2a. ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Tannen, D. (2016). La relatividad de las estrategias lingüísticas: repensando el poder y la solidaridad en el género y en la dominación. La manzana de la discordia, 3(2), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.25100/lamanzanadeladiscordia.v3i2.1466
Tomblin, S. (2012). Investigating formulaic language as a marker of Authorship. En Proceedings of The International Association of Forensic Linguistics' Tenth Biennial Conference, July 2011. Centre for Forensic Linguistics. Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Turell, T., M. (2010). Los retos de la lingüística forense en el siglo XXI. Universidad de Alicante.
Tusón, A. (2016). Lenguaje, interacción y diferencia sexual. Enunciación, 21(1), 138-151. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5623346
Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse studies: Discourse as structure and process v. 1: A multidisciplinary introduction. SAGE Publications Ltd.