This article deals with the strategies the storyteller uses to influence the listener’s perception and thinking. It is based on qualitative research, which examined the narratives of 12 men who killed their female partners. After entering prison, the murderer attempts to salvage some part of his social image. He does this using an assortment of means in two areas: the content of the narrative and its linguistic style. In terms of content, all the storytellers present themselves as extremely positive and their wives as very negative. With respect to language, the killers use verbs that distance them from responsibility, they hedge, repeat words and phrases to persuade, and use figures of speech they expect will impress their listeners. This artificial discourse is cunningly interwoven in terms of content and story art to recreate an alternative reality of a man who is normative and whom society can accept.
AbadiA. (1986). “AVAL” Compared to “ELA”—A logical pragmatic description. Leshonenu, 41, 95-109. (in Hebrew)
2.
AbulafiaJ. (2005). The social construction of victimization among prisoners (Doctoral dissertation). Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University. (In Hebrew)
3.
AdamsP. J.TownsA.AlisonJ.GaveyN. (1995). Dominance and entitlement: The rhetoric men use to discuss their violence towards women. Discourse & Society, 6, 387-406.
4.
AnscombreJ. C.DucrotO. (1977). Deux mais en Français? [Two “but”s in French?] Lingua, 43, 23-40.
5.
ArgamanO. (2003). Passive knowledge compared to active usage of “beautiful words” among modern-Hebrew native speakers. Hebrew and Sister Languages, B-C, 151-169. (in Hebrew)
6.
AronA.AronN. E. (1986). Love as the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York, NY: Hemisphere.
7.
AustinJ. L. (1961). Philosophical papers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
AzarM. (1980). Aval, Ela and Ela Sh—in contemporary Hebrew. Leshonenu, 45(b), 133-148. (in Hebrew)
9.
BrunerJ. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
BrunerJ. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1-21.
11.
CanterD. V.CaouriC.IoannouM. (2003). The facet structure of criminal narratives. In LevyS.ElizurD. (Eds.), Facet theory: Towards cumulative social science (pp. 27-38). Ljubljana, Slovenia: Univerza v Ljubljani.
12.
CavanaghK.DobashE. R.DobashR. P.LewisR. (2001). Remedial work: Men’s strategic responses to their violence against intimate female partners. Sociology, 35, 695-714.
13.
ChouekaY. (1997). Rav-Milim: A comprehensive dictionary of modern Hebrew. Tel Aviv, Israel: Steimatsky. (in Hebrew)
14.
CreswellJ.HansonW.Clark PlanoV.MoralesA. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 236-264.
15.
DascalM.KatrielT. (1977). Between semantics and pragmatics: The two types of “BUT”—Hebrew “AVAL” and “ELA.”Theoretical Linguistics, 4, 143-172.
16.
De CremerD.MulderL. (2007). A passion for respect: On understanding the role of human needs and morality. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38, 439-449.
17.
DePauloB. M.StoneJ. I.LassiterG. D. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-112.
18.
DilmonR. (2004). Linguistic differences between lie and truth in spoken Hebrew (Doctoral dissertation). Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University. (in Hebrew)
19.
DilmonR. (2007). Fiction or fact? Comparing true and untrue anecdotes. Hebrew Linguistics, 59, 23-42. (in Hebrew)
20.
DobashR. E.DobashR. P. (2011). What were they thinking? Men who murder an intimate partner. Violence Against Women, 17, 111-134.
DulaneyE. F.Jr.(1982). Changes in language behavior as a function of veracity. Human Communication Research, 9, 75-82.
23.
DunnJ. L. (2008). Accounting for victimization: Social constructionist perspectives. Sociology Compass, 2, 1601-1620.
24.
EdwardsD. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London, England: Sage.
25.
ElishaE.IdisisY.TimorU. (2010). Typology of intimate partner homicide. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 495-516.
26.
FischerW.GoblirschM. (2006). Biographical structuring: Narrating and reconstructing the self in research and professional practice. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 28-36.
27.
FraserB. (1994). No conversation without misrepresentation. In ParretH. (Ed.), Pretending to communicate (pp. 143-153). Berlin, Germany: W. de Gruyter.
28.
FritscheI. (2002). Account strategies for the violation of social norms: Integration and extension of sociological and social psychological typologies. Journal for Theory of Social Behavior, 32, 371-394.
29.
FruchtmanM. (2000). Lomar zot aheret [Saying it Differently]. Beer-Sheva, Israel: Ben-Gurion University Publications. (in Hebrew)
30.
FryeN. (1957). Anatomy of criticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
GergenK.GergenM. (1987). Narrative of relationships. In MacGheeM.ClarkeD.BurnettR. (Eds.), Accounting for relationships (pp. 269-288). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
32.
GiorgyA. (1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
33.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.
34.
GoffmanE. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York, NY: Doubleday.
35.
GoffmanE. (1971). Relation in public: Micro studies in the public order. New York, NY: Basic Books.
36.
GreenbergJ. (2008). Understanding the vital human quest for self-esteem. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 48-55.
37.
GrossS. R. (1998). Update: American public opinion on the death penalty—It is getting personal. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1448-1475.
38.
HallidayM. A. K. (1985). Introduction to functional grammar. London, England: E. Arnold.
39.
HancockJ.CurryL.GoorhaS.WoodworthM. (2005). Automated linguistic analysis of deceptive and truthful synchronous computer-mediated communication. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii.
40.
HodgeR.KressG. (1993). Language as ideology. New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
KnappM. L.HartR. P.DennisH. S. (1974). An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 1, 15-29.
42.
KvaleS. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
LabovW. (2003). Uncovering the event structure of narrative. In TannenD.AlatisJ. E. (Eds.), Linguistics, language, and the real world: Discourse and beyond (pp. 63-83). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
LabovW.WaletzkyJ. (1967). Narrative analysis. In HelmJ. (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12-44). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
46.
LamnekS. (2003). Individual violence justification strategies. In HeitmeyerW.HaganJ. (Eds.), International handbook of violence research (pp. 1113-1127). London, England: Kluwer.
47.
LeaS. (2007). A discursive investigation into victim responsibility in rape. Feminism & Psychology, 17, 495-514.
48.
LozaW.ClementsP. (1991). Incarcerated alcoholics and rapists’ attributions of blame for criminal acts. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 23, 76-83.
49.
Lucius-HoeneG.DeppermannA. (2000). Narrative identity empiricized: A dialogical and positioning approach to autobiographical research interview. Narrative Inquiry, 10, 199-222.
50.
MarshallI. H. (1981). Correctional treatment processes: Rehabilitation reconsidered. In RobergR. R.WebbV. J. (Eds.), Critical issues in corrections: Problems, trends and prospects. St. Paul, MN: West.
51.
MarunaS. (2001). Making good. How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
52.
MarunaS.CopesH. (2005). What have we learned in five decades of neutralization research?Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 32. 221-320.
53.
McAdamsD. P.DiamondA.de AubinE.MansfieldE. (1997). Stories of commitment: The psychosocial construction of generative lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 678-694.
54.
MeadG. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
56.
MerrickE. (1999). An exploration of quality in qualitative research. In KopalaM.SuzukiL. A. (Eds.), Using qualitative methods in psychology (pp. 25-36). London, England: Sage.
57.
MeyJ. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
58.
MillsC. W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review, 5, 904-913.
59.
MoustakasC. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
NewmanD. M. (1995). Sociology—exploring the architecture of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
61.
NewmanM. L.PennebakerJ. W.BerryD. S.RichardsJ. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675.
62.
NicholsonN. S. (2010). Sentencing convicted murderers: Convicted murderers’ allocutions or leniency pleas at sentencing hearings. In CoulthardM.JohnsonA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 232-248). New York, NY: Routledge.
63.
NirR. (1984). Language, medium and message. Jerusalem, Israel: Pozner. (In Hebrew)
64.
NirR. (1996). The political slogan as a unit of discourse: The 1996 Knesset elections. Helkat Lashon, 24, 8-27. (in Hebrew).
65.
NordhielmC. L. (2003). A levels-of-processing model of advertising repetition effects. In ScottL. M.BatraR. (Eds.), Persuasive imagery: A consumer response perspective (pp. 91-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
66.
PogrebinM.StreteskyP. B.UnnithanN. P. (2006). Retrospective accounts of violent events by gun offenders. Deviant Behavior, 27, 479-501.
67.
PolkinghorneD. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In ValleR. S.HallingS. (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41-60). New York, NY: Plenum.
68.
PolkinghorneD. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 2-23.
69.
PresserL. (2009). The narratives of offenders. Theoretical Criminology, 13, 177-200.
70.
RiessmanC. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
71.
RosenbergM. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.
72.
RosenthalG. (1993). Reconstruction of life stories: Principles of selection in generating stories for narrative biographical interviews. In JosselsonR.LieblichA. (Eds.), The narrative study of lives (pp. 59-91). London, England: Sage.
73.
RotenbergM. (1987). Re-biographing and deviance. New York, NY: Praeger.
74.
SapirA. (1987). The LSI course on scientific content analysis (SCAN). Phoenix, AZ: Laboratory for Scientific Investigation.
75.
SchwarzwaldO. (1979). The distinction between incomplete and impersonal sentences. Leshonenu La’am, 30, 15-21. (In Hebrew)
76.
SchwarzwaldO. (2001). Modern Hebrew. Muenchen, Germany: Lincom Europa.
77.
ScottM.LymanS. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62.
78.
ShkediA. (2003). Milim hamenasot laga’at [Words of meaning: Qualitative research—Theory and practice]. Tel Aviv, Israel: Ramot. (in Hebrew)
79.
SlussD. M. (2011). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 34, 9-32.
80.
StokoeE. (2010). I’m not gonna hit a lady: Conversation analysis, membership categorization and men’s denial of violence towards women. Discourse & Society, 21, 59-84.
81.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics on qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London, England: Sage.
82.
SykesG.MatzaD. (1957). Techniques of neutralization. American Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.
83.
ThompsonC.LocanderW.PollioH. (1989). Putting consumer experience back into consumer research: The philosophy and method of existential-phenomenology. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 133-146.
84.
TimorU. (2008). An informal approach to delinquents and their victims: An alternative to standard punishment. In RonelN.JaishankarK.BensimonM. (Eds.), Trends and issues in victimology (pp. 32-56). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
85.
UgelvikT. (2012). Prisoners and their victims: Techniques of neutralization, techniques of the self. Ethnography, 13, 259-277.
86.
van DijkT. A. (1997). The study of discourse. In van DijkT. A. (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (pp. 1-34). London, England: Sage.
87.
WardT.MarshallB. (2007). Narrative identity and offender rehabilitation. International Journal of Offender therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 279-297.
88.
WatzlawickP. (1976). How real is real? Confusion, disinformation, communication. New York, NY: Vintage.
89.
WeberM. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: Free Press.
90.
WoodJ. T. (2004). Monsters and victims: Male felons’ accounts of intimate partner violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 555-576.
91.
WowkM. T. (1984). Blame allocation, sex and gender in murder interrogation. Women’s Studies International Forum, 7, 75-82.
92.
YairT. (2005). I do not long to use drugs. Panim: Journal for Culture, Society and Education, 33, 30-39. (In Hebrew)
93.
YoungsD.CanterD. V. (2013). Offenders’ crime narratives as revealed by the narrative roles questionnaire. International Journal of Offender therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 289-331.
94.
ZelditchM. (2001). Theories of legitimacy. In JostJ. T.MajorB. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice and intergroup relations (pp. 33-53). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
