translate the following paragraphs into Chinese.  5. A modus operandi that will allow the prevaricator room to maneuver—the subjects were asked to tell two stories from their past, one of them true and the other not, in whatever order they like. Apart from this instruction, they
received no other suggestions as to subject matter, length, or any other issue of the story’s substance. Neither did the
interviewer interrupt in any way in the course of the telling of the story. This approach finds support in the writings
of Blum-Kulka and Liebes (1993), who claim that the richest source of linguistic information is texts produced by
interviewees, and not responses to the structured questions of the interviewer.
6. An entire discourse to examine—as stated previously, the interviewer did not interrupt the flow of the story. The
result was entire stories, as their tellers chose to shape them and fill them with content. These stories represent
complete discourse units for examination in the research.
7. A comparison of the discourse of invention with the discourse of truth (the ‘‘calibration’’ of the examination
instrument)—the present study is similar to the polygraph examination, which measures changes in a subject’s
blood pressure, pulse rate, breathing, and the skin’s electrical conductivity when he is answering ‘‘cold’’ questions
(questions without any emotional load) and compares them with questions touching on the deeds of which he is
suspect (Elad, 1988): each subject’s false story is examined in comparison with each of his other stories. The assumption is that the true stories indicate the subject’s ordinary, ‘‘normal’’ language, while the stories of deception
indicate a deviation from that normal language. The study examines what those deviations are, in which linguistic
areas they are included, and what psychological reasons cause them.
8. An examination of a variety of linguistic areas—previous studies dealt with a partial linguistic examination of the
lie. This study attempts to embrace a wide range of the areas of linguistic examination: morphology, syntax,
semantics, discourse analysis, and prosody. In each of these areas, a large number of criteria likely to differentiate
between the discourse of truth and of invention were examined. Some of the criteria have not been examined or
identified in previous studies, but were nevertheless examined here in order to make certain that every possible
differentiating area was indeed examined.
9. An examination of the linguistic tools found to significantly distinguish between truth and untruth in a real situation
of invention—the results of the research on the stories of the subjects with no criminal background—that is, the
criteria found to significantly differentiate between truth and fabrication in the first part of the study—were checked
against the testimonies of five criminals obtained from the police. These testimonies are considered by the police to
be false, thus providing the study with an authentic situation of deception for examination.
The current study has two objectives. The first is to conduct a comprehensive and extensive examination of the
linguistic criteria that differentiate between the discourse of truth and of invention in the Hebrew language. The second
is to attempt to produce a primary test of the cognitive and emotional functions involved in the latter type of discourse.
2. Method   2.1. Subjects
Taking part in the study were 48 native Hebrew speakers (23 men and 25 women) between the ages of 20 and 45
(average age: 30.4; standard deviation: 5.3), all with at least a high school education. The experimental population was
heterogeneous, consisting of about 48% males and 52% females. About 21% of the subjects had only a high school
education, and 79% had some higher education. Approximately 60% describe themselves as religious, and 40% as not
religious.
All of the subjects volunteered to participate in the study.
2.2. Instruments
In view of the lack of a prepared system of linguistic instruments for the analysis of the language of truth and of
invention, in the initial stage the measures were assembled from the foreign literature and adapted to Hebrew.
In addition, an attorney, a police investigator, a military police investigator, and two psychologists who had worked for
the police were interviewed, in order to identify characteristics they use intuitively to ascertain when an individual
under investigation or a witness is lying. From the information gathered from them, a list of 43 verbal criteria for
examination was constructed in the following areas: morphology (the tense system, pronouns, and persons), syntax
(word order, conjunctions, etc.), semantics (registers, obscurity, generality, etc.), discourse (distraction techniques,
misrepresentation, persuasion, etc.), and speech prosody (pauses, repetitions, exclamations, and so on). Table 1
itemizes the criteria for the linguistic examination.