## 6 Results and Discussion
### Experiment II: Victims vs. Threat
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Annotators Say _Victims_**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Annotators Say _Threat_**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Annotators and**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**but BETO Predicts _Threat_**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**but BETO Predicts _Victims_**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BETO Agreement**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Total**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Parities**} & **Coalición Canaria** & **Obs.** & 14 & 10 & 127 & 151 \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Adj. Res.** & 0.4 & \(-\)0.7 & 0.2 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & **UU** & **Obs.** & 22 & 2 & 130 & 154 \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Adj. Res.** & 2.7 & \(-\)3.3 & 0.3 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & **PP** & **Obs.** & 11 & 40 & 330 & 381 \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Adj. Res.** & \(-\)4.6 & 2.0 & 1.9 & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**PSOE**} & **Obs.** & 42 & 29 & 324 & 395 \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Adj. Res.** & 1.8 & \(-\)0.6 & \(-\)0.9 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Obs.** & 36 & 38 & 317 & 391 \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Adj. Res.** & 0.6 & 1.4 & \(-\)1.5 & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total (Obs.)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{125} & 119 & 1228 & 1472 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Relation between the type of confusion and political parties. Chi-square test with adjusted standardised residual. of confusion is the opposite: humans label is _Vvictim_ and the model labels predicts _Threat_. With PSOE, the socialist center-left party, the type of confusion goes in the same direction as with IU but is not statistically significant. This result leads us to think that the model's confusion is based on the fact that politics use the same words for different purposes trying to avoid the label of xenophobic. This rhetorical strategy could be detected by humans that make an inference about the intentionality of the speaker, but computational models have more difficulties to detect it. There is a great deal of research about how the human communication process occurs and which role the inference of the speaker's intentionality plays [93, 94, 95]. We think that one interesting approach to a further exploration of the computational linguistic difficulties is the one that [PERSON] and colleague suggest in their Pragmatic of Human Communication Theory [96]. They suggest that the study of human communication can be subdivided into three areas: (i) _syntactic_--problems of transmitting information (a matter of mathematical logic), (ii) _semantic_--meaning of communication (a matter of philosophy of science), and (iii) _pragmatic_--communication affecting behaviour (a matter of psychology). While a clear conceptual separation of the three areas is possible, they are nevertheless interdependent. The same act of communication can express a content (then the question is \"what\" is being said and, therefore, we would be in the area of syntactic or semantic) but also the same act of communication can express a personal or a social relationship (the question is \"how\" is being said and, therefore, we would be in the psychology area). Following this reasoning, [PERSON] said that humans communicate both digitally and analogically. _Digital concept_ refers to humans conveying meanings by using words (syntactic and semantics) and _analogical concept_ refers to when humans convey relational content. For the analogical level, [PERSON] mentions nonverbal communication, posture, gesture, facial expression, voice inflection, rhythm, and cadence of words, etc. From a psychosocial point of view, we can reinterpret this definition of the analogical level of communication that [PERSON] identifies [96], in the broadest sense of the ability that allows humans to capture the level of the social relations that is behind the words. Using this human ability, people infer the speaker's intentionality in a sentence. For instance, when one speaker say \"It is a humanitarian drama, more than 300 hundred boats had arrived at the Canarian Island this summer\", the reader infers that for this speaker, the important part of the message is the second one, that means: \"Spain can not accept more immigrants\".