translate the following paragraphs into Chinese. Linguists have amply examined the language of lying and deception. Many 
of them have attempted to find linguistic cues while lies are taking place. For 
instance, Knapp, Hart, and Dennis (1974) find that a deceiver has a tendency 
to use shortened messages, fewer factual declarations and more linguistic ambiguity and repeated double declarations, fewer group markers (‘we’, ‘our’, ‘all of 
us’) with more markers of diminishment (‘few’, ‘a little’, ‘hardly’), more markers of the other (‘they’), fewer personal declarations, and fewer self-references. 
Dulaney (1982) discovers through interviews that a liar uses fewer unique words 
with larger type-token ratios and smaller perceptual-cognitive activity measures, 
a smaller number of verbs in the past tense, and a faster speech rhythm. Steller 
and Koehnken (1989) find such common indicators of deception as claiming 
loss of memory, unusual and superfluous details, spontaneous corrections, and 
sudden complications regarding a relevant episode. Dilmon (2009) argues that, 
due to the uncontrollable cognitive and emotional processes, a fabricated narrative shows an overuse of collocations and idioms, many repetitions of details, 
and a larger-than-usual number of emotive words. Further studies also show a 
mixture of truths and lies in deceptive communication, such as concealing the 
lies within a discourse of truth and in non-deceptive contexts (Galasinski, 2000; 
Palena, Caso, & Vrij, 2019), or presenting partial truths or taking words out of 
their original context (Dilmon, 2009).
A few studies are devoted to fraud cases. Shuy (2016) might be the first one 
to conduct a thorough investigation on the language of fraud. He examines a 
variety of fraud cases, such as government contract fraud, money laundering, 
etc., and assembles the speech events, schemas, agendas, speech acts, conversational strategies, and smaller language units of sentences, phrases, words, and 
sounds as linguistic evidence in each fraud case. Other studies focus on e-mail 
fraud in particular. Blommaert and Omoniyi (2006) point out that the genres of 
e-mail fraud are of two types: administrative-formal and narrative. The former 
resorts to technical and procedural registers and the latter seeks personal rapport 
and involvement in style. However, the grassroots level of literacy reflected in 
the emails points to obvious fraud. Following their research, Eggington (2008) 
examines one fraud email in detail to show how linguistic knowledge can detect 
deceptive language. Chiluwa (2009, 2010) conducts thick analysis on the linguistic features of the mails and reveals that the writers apply pragmatic strategies 
such as socio-cultural greeting formulas, self-identification, confidence building, 
narrativity, and action prompting strategies to sustain the interest of the receivers. The most frequent speech act is the representative act, the act of describing, stating, asserting, or claiming. Freiermuth (2011) notices that the scammer likes 
to pose as a refugee, a financial officer, a lottery official, or a company member 
offering a too-good-to-be-true job. He further analyses the rhetorical moves used 
and points out that all moves are meant to build solidarity with the mark and play 
to the mark’s egocentrism.
Previous literature has shed some light on the discursive construction of lying, 
deception, and fraud. One study even touches upon the identity constructed in 
email fraud. The current research intends to go further in three respects. First, 
we try to link a host of linguistic devices with fabricated identities. We will argue 
that scammers’ deployment of language only works when the language is consistent with the fabricated identity. Second, we will account for the construction of 
different identities from the perspective of linguistic adaption, hence being able 
to subsume the wide range of discursive practice under one theoretical umbrella. 
Third, we will uncover fraud cases in the context of contemporary China involving a variety of occasions, in the hope of expanding the scope of fraud research.