translate the following paragraphs into Chinese.  There have been a number of inadequacies in studies that have dealt with the discourse of deception. Dulaney
(1982) is critical of the inconsistent definitions of the lie or of deception presented in studies that preceded his, and of
their investigative methods, which do not provide the deceiver with room to maneuver and do not manage to arouse in
him any real motivation to deceive. The research of Dulaney himself (Dulaney 1982:77–78), in which he attempts to
avoid the drawbacks of his predecessors, falls short in that he examines his subjects in an interview setting
(they respond to structured questions). Such a situation does not allow for the examination of the entirety of the
discourse; moreover, it is likely that the questions themselves suggest to the respondents how they should answer.
What is lacking here is the factor of individual invention. Steller and Koehnken (1989) examine testimony about sexual
harassment. The linguistic criteria they found are: admission of loss of memory, unusual details, superfluous details,
spontaneous corrections, and sudden complications regarding the episode (Landry and Brigham, 1992; Tully, 1998).
In their examination, they focus only on children, a very specific area of investigation. The studies that examine the
validity of this method for adults (Landry and Brigham, 1992; Sporer, 1997) found that this method works only when
there are non-verbal clues to help the person trying to detect deception; moreover, the results are merely satisfactory,
since the success rate was somewhat random. Hollien (1990) uses lexical breakdown to investigate deception (Type￾token ratio, or TTR), and finds less linguistic diversity when a person is practicing deception. This is only one area of
investigation. Identifying additional criteria from other areas is likely to produce better results in the discovery of a lie.
The investigation of Miller and Burgoon (1996) attempts to characterize the ability of auditors or readers to detect
deception, and not the actual techniques of linguistic concealment used by the speakers.
In a linguistic examination of a computer mediated text of deception, Hancock et al. (2005) found that the discourse
of deception used more words, gave rise to more questions that the addresser asked the addressee, used fewer first￾person pronouns, more negative words (used by liars without heightened motivation), and more sense words.
The problems in this study are that a small number of criteria were examined, the discourse being studied was written
(on a computer), the motivation to lie came from preliminary instructions (was not natural), and the discourse
examined was a conversation (not a full text).
From the foregoing, it is evident that there is a need for research which will include: a comprehensive definition of
linguistic manipulation; an examination that is scientific rather than based on hunches2; a diversified research
population; the creation of motivation to use artifice; a modus operandi to give the person intent on manipulation room
to maneuver; an entire discourse to examine (without interruption by an interviewer); a comparison of the discourse of
invention with the discourse of truth (the ‘‘calibration’’ of the examination instrument); an examination of a variety of
linguistic areas; and an examination of the linguistic tools found to significantly distinguish between truth and untruth
in a real situation of misrepresentation.
This study’s objective is to satisfy all of these requirements, as follows:
1. A comprehensive definition of deception—such a definition is suggested in the introduction to this paper.
2. An examination that is scientific rather than based on hunches—this study represents a scientific investigation of 48
subjects. Each of these told four stories, three stories of truth (for an explanation of why three stories were examined
rather than one, see below) and one, an invention. The study compares each subject’s stories of truth with his/her false
story. The comparison was made using linguistic instruments, and the results obtained were examined statistically.
3. A diversified research population—the study includes a primary experimental group, with another smaller group to
verify the results. The primary group comprised 48 native Hebrew speakers of both sexes, of different ages and a
variety of backgrounds (with no criminal background). Included in the second group were five criminals known to
the police who gave false testimony.
4. The creation of motivation to mislead—the subjects were told they would be cooperating in a study dealing with the
words of response of Israelis; that is, a study to classify types of responses (for example: exclamatory words, utterances relating to what has been said, and so on) in Hebrew. To that end, they were being asked to take part in a game.3 In this game they were to tell two stories, one true and the other an invention, and the ‘‘real’’ subjects would have to guess
which of the stories was true and which an invention. In this way, the subjects themselves chose where and how they
would mislead, and they would be motivated to provide stories that would make it hard to identify them as stories of
deception. In other words, they tried to escape detection, as would be the case in an actual deceptive situation.