Semantic Components that Define a Lie - Case Study Example

Semantic Components that Defines a Lie (In our own language) 1. Introduction A statement according to the result of study of Coleman and Kay is not a lie if one of its three features is missing. There should be a false statement, intent to deceive, and knowledge of falsity. However, for Holland & Quinn our cultural understandings, knowledge, and evidence affects our perception of a lie and therefore not limited to the three features presented by Coleman and Kay. The following section discusses the definition of lie in English and in our native language. The objective is to determine the semantic components that define the meaning of lying in our own language and find similarities or differences between them. 2. The Definition of Lie in English Coleman and Kay (1981) view lying in terms of prototype and it contains three important features- a false statement, intent to deceive, and knowledge of falsity. For these authors, all these features must be present to consider a statement a lie. This means that a speaker believes a statement is a lie, the person who gave the statement intends to deceive the other person, and the statement given is actually false. A statement therefore is not a lie when one of them is missing and people equivocate if two of the features are present. Moreover, lying is viewed as mere probabilities that correspond to the distribution of features in a given situation (Cotterill 2004) and “a matter of more or less” (Holland & Quinn 1987, p.43). Holland and Quinn (1987) agrees that lie is basically attached in a simplified or prototypical schema of some parts of human experience (p.44) and this is the reason why a prototype definition is required. A truth-conditional semantics according to Holland & Quinn (1987) believed that people know that propositional content of true statements but knowledge has many socially acceptable sources that could separate knowledge from “clean and falsifiable facts” (p.46). For instance, we are aware that promises are not always fulfilled but most people still treat them as honourable because of some ritual aspects of oaths or promises in their culture. Lying is therefore affected by our cultural understanding and based on knowledge and evidence. A false statement is a lie when the statement occurs in a prototypical speech setting and naturally given by “our understanding of our cultural models of knowledge and discourse” (Holland & Quinn 1987, p.50). 3. Definition of Lie in Our Language “Values depend on beliefs” (Cobern 1998, p.182). In our language, basic beliefs may bear explicitly or implicitly on the kinds of questions being asked, as well as the kinds of answers that will be counted tolerable. Some of them are open to reconsideration while others are not. Our values are generally based on beliefs and those who value truth-telling and honesty may do so because they we believe that lying is morally incorrect, spiritually evil, and hateful to God. However, we also believe that it is all right to lie in order to save someone or to do good. This is because some lies might be told to help a person or an institution. For instance, a nurse lying to help patients by telling them they will be all right and they are not sick as they really are. We believe in the concept that “Not all lies are immoral” (Kidwell & Martin 2004, p.158). This is similar to a ‘white lie’ in which the speaker wants to be beneficial, but believes the truth would not be beneficial and therefore says what is intended “to be beneficial but not true” (Stigler et al. 1990, p.92). Our people normally obey the rules, our beliefs usually have adequate justification, and they are generally true. The most common semantic components of lying in our culture is belief, falsify, the intention to deceive another person or persons, and using deception to harm someone. 4. Belief In our language, to consider one’s statement as a lie requires that the perpetrator believes that ‘X’, but intends to make another person think that it is not ‘X’. It means that the person making the statement is very much aware that what he is talking about is not true but trying to make someone believe that it is true. A smallest lie in our language requires that one intend to produce in another the effect of some kind of mental misrepresentation at least to some extent. We also believe that a person who can lie is someone who knows the characteristics of false beliefs and knows how to use them. However, we do not call a person lying if our belief is not justified by some form of evidence. For instance, we do not readily consider a statement a lie if we do not have any knowledge that it is actually false. Normally, we consider every statement as true unless we know beforehand the actual truth or found it out later. Similar to English, our definition of lie also depends if the speaker believes that the statement is false and if the receiver knows that it is not true. 5. Objective falsehood “Objective falsehood is the most important feature of a lie” (Flanagan 1998, p.102). In our language, objective falseness of what is said makes a material falsehood. For instance, if a person tells somebody what he believes is false then we consider that person formally making objective falsehood. According to (Rickaby 2007; Ross 2008; Dymond 2008), it is the will to utter what is false that makes a formal falsehood. Similarly, our language recognises that a formal falsehood is a lie particularly when one utters it with the intention of deceiving For instance, ‘X’ commences with the desire to please that makes him flatter ‘Y’ with whom he wishes to stand well. In this situation, lying involves much more than ‘X’s’ wrong moral attitude toward ‘Y’ as it also involves ‘X’ moral attitude toward the truth. In contrast, in our language a statement is not a lie so long as the error is an unconscious one. According to Colish (1985), lying statements may or may not be objectively false because it is the speaker’s intention that is the criterion of the lie. Therefore, if ‘X’ makes a mistake in good conscience then ‘X’ is telling falsehood. In the same way, if ‘X’ intends to tell a lie even what ‘X’ says is objectively accurate, ‘X’ is a liar. 6. Intent to Deceive “Lying is to create a false or misleading impression” (Ford 1999, p.24) and there are dissimilarities between trying to lie or to speak honestly (Craig 1998). A statement made with the intent to deceive another person is considered a lie in our language. A person who intentionally delivers false information or “statements that are partly true and partly false” (Barnes 1994, p.12) to another person who believes it is a liar. For instance, in order to justify being late in school, ‘X’ told his teacher that there had been a terrible accident on the highway. Technically, ‘X’ is correct but ‘X’ only told his teacher half the truth because the accident ‘X’ is talking about occurred on the other side of the highway on which ‘X’ was travelling. In this situation, ‘X’ successfully deceived his teacher who readily accept his lying as true. 7. Intent to Harm by Deception The evil, harm, and justifiability of any incident of not telling truth according to Sugarman & Weiss (2000) depend on its objective, its consequences, and the availability of choice (p.137). In our language, the capacity to tell the smallest lie requires more than just the capacity of the speaker to tell a lie. It actually requires intent to deceive and intent to do harm by deception. With the exception of gossip or reports of misinformation that one believes to be true, the act of lying with the intent deceive and to do harm involves concealment of the truth to gain advantage of others. For instance, say ‘X’ is a car sales representative and told buyer ‘Y’ that the car was driven by a woman only on weekends to shop, when ‘X’ actually both the car from a speed hungry and careless young adult, is telling an outright lie and deceiving ‘Y’. ‘X’ may also engage in concealment if he tells ‘Y’ that he is not sure who is actually driving the car. Lies meant to harm or take advantage of another person are in a different class in our language. It is separate from social white lies or lies meant to help someone. 8. Conclusion In English, as observed by authors Coleman and Kay, lie has there important features that must be present to consider a statement a lie- a false statement, intent to deceive, and knowledge of falsify. These three components are also present in our language to define a lie with the addition of lying with the intent to harm by deception. The common components of a lie in our language is belief, falsify, the intention to deceive, and intent to do harm by deception. However, contrary to Coleman and Kay’s definition, they are not necessarily should be present to consider a statement a lie as determination depends on the acceptability of the act based on our moral and spiritual beliefs. 9. Work Cited List Barnes J. A., (1994), A pack of lies: towards a sociology of lying, UK: Cambridge University Press Cobern W. W. (1998), Socio-cultural perspectives on science education: an international dialogue, The Netherlands: Springer Coleman L. (1992), Prototype semantics, in W. Bright (ed), International Encylopedia of Linguistics, US: Oxford University Press, 3:289-90 Colish M. L. (1985), The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages: Stoicism in Christian Latin thought through the sixth century, The Netherlands: BRILL Cotterill J. (2004), Language in the Legal Process, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Craig E., (1998), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, UK: Taylor & Francis Dymond J. (2008), Essays on the principles of morality: and on the private and political rights and obligations of mankind, US: Harper & Brothers- 1855, Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Feb 15, 2008 Flanagan O. (1998), Self Expressions: Mind, Morals, and the Meaning of Life, US: Oxford University Press Ford C. V. (1999), Lies! Lies!! Lies!!!: The Psychology of Deceit, US: American Psychiatric Publishing Holland D. C. & Quinn N, (1987), Cultural models in language and thought, US: Cambridge University Press Kay P. (1981), Prototype Semantics: the English word lie, US: Language, 57:26-44 Kidwell R. E. & Martin C. L., (2004), Managing organizational deviance, US: SAGE Rickaby J. (2007), Moral Philosophy, US: BiblioBazaar LLC Ross J. E. (2008), Christian Ethics: A Textbook of Right Living, US: University of Texas Stigler J. W., Shweder R. A. & Herdt G. H. (1990), Cultural psychology: essays on comparative human development, US: Cambridge University Press, 1990, US Sugarman J, & Weiss B. D., (2000), Ethics in primary care, US: McGraw-Hill Professional Read More

This is similar to a ‘white lie’ in which the speaker wants to be beneficial, but believes the truth would not be beneficial and therefore says what is intended “to be beneficial but not true” (Stigler et al. 1990, p.92). Our people normally obey the rules, our beliefs usually have adequate justification, and they are generally true. The most common semantic components of lying in our culture is belief, falsify, the intention to deceive another person or persons, and using deception to harm someone. 4. Belief In our language, to consider one’s statement as a lie requires that the perpetrator believes that ‘X’, but intends to make another person think that it is not ‘X’.

It means that the person making the statement is very much aware that what he is talking about is not true but trying to make someone believe that it is true. A smallest lie in our language requires that one intend to produce in another the effect of some kind of mental misrepresentation at least to some extent. We also believe that a person who can lie is someone who knows the characteristics of false beliefs and knows how to use them. However, we do not call a person lying if our belief is not justified by some form of evidence.

For instance, we do not readily consider a statement a lie if we do not have any knowledge that it is actually false. Normally, we consider every statement as true unless we know beforehand the actual truth or found it out later. Similar to English, our definition of lie also depends if the speaker believes that the statement is false and if the receiver knows that it is not true. 5. Objective falsehood “Objective falsehood is the most important feature of a lie” (Flanagan 1998, p.102). In our language, objective falseness of what is said makes a material falsehood.

For instance, if a person tells somebody what he believes is false then we consider that person formally making objective falsehood. According to (Rickaby 2007; Ross 2008; Dymond 2008), it is the will to utter what is false that makes a formal falsehood. Similarly, our language recognises that a formal falsehood is a lie particularly when one utters it with the intention of deceiving For instance, ‘X’ commences with the desire to please that makes him flatter ‘Y’ with whom he wishes to stand well.

In this situation, lying involves much more than ‘X’s’ wrong moral attitude toward ‘Y’ as it also involves ‘X’ moral attitude toward the truth. In contrast, in our language a statement is not a lie so long as the error is an unconscious one. According to Colish (1985), lying statements may or may not be objectively false because it is the speaker’s intention that is the criterion of the lie. Therefore, if ‘X’ makes a mistake in good conscience then ‘X’ is telling falsehood.

In the same way, if ‘X’ intends to tell a lie even what ‘X’ says is objectively accurate, ‘X’ is a liar. 6. Intent to Deceive “Lying is to create a false or misleading impression” (Ford 1999, p.24) and there are dissimilarities between trying to lie or to speak honestly (Craig 1998). A statement made with the intent to deceive another person is considered a lie in our language. A person who intentionally delivers false information or “statements that are partly true and partly false” (Barnes 1994, p.12) to another person who believes it is a liar.

For instance, in order to justify being late in school, ‘X’ told his teacher that there had been a terrible accident on the highway. Technically, ‘X’ is correct but ‘X’ only told his teacher half the truth because the accident ‘X’ is talking about occurred on the other side of the highway on which ‘X’ was travelling. In this situation, ‘X’ successfully deceived his teacher who readily accept his lying as true. 7. Intent to Harm by Deception The evil, harm, and justifiability of any incident of not telling truth according to Sugarman & Weiss (2000) depend on its objective, its consequences, and the availability of choice (p.137).

Read More