translate the following paragraphs into Chinese.  An example of the extensive use of negative words can be seen in a short excerpt from the fabricated story of subject
number 31. About a quarter of the words in this passage are negative words:
And...one night everything of mine was broken into, and we simply suffered losses, and...really not a nice
situation. And...We simply lost everything. Since then our...uh...economic situation is very hard.
The five processes that were found to effect linguistic changes in narratives with invented scripts as compared with
narratives with factual scripts are divided into two groups:
1. Voluntary processes (concealment and vagueness, persuasion, and the distancing of responsibility);
2. Involuntary processes (deceleration of cognitive activity, and a negative attitude).
The question arises: how clear and unequivocal is this division? The three linguistic manipulations that the speaker
employs to enhance the effectiveness of his attempt to mislead are apparently conscious acts. The speaker uses
subordinate and coordinate clauses, uses more verbs in the third person and fewer in the first, makes extensive
reference to the other, and so on. Is it possible for a speaker to really be in conscious control of all of these changes? To
all of this can be added the fact that the speaker finds himself in a stressful position that influences his cognitive ability.
In light of the above, can he still consciously deploy the linguistic manipulations that will give him an advantage?
Judging by the results presented above, we see that the manipulations were indeed deployed. Many measures affected
by these manipulations were found to differentiate significantly between the narratives with invented and factual
scripts. The question is whether the speaker would be able to voluntarily stop employing these measures, so that the
misleading content of his words would not be given away with the revelation of the ‘‘incriminating’’ measures.
Apparently, despite the difference between the two groups, the expression of the processes is actually similar. That is,
whether the process is a voluntary manipulation or not, its linguistic results are produced subconsciously, and the speaker
lacks the ability to control them. The speaker lacks mastery over their utterance and cannot consciously will the cessation
of their operation. According to Chomsky (1980), human beings have the innate ability to absorb and use language. This
ability includes the subconscious familiarity with the rules of grammar, syntax, and semantics. People are not conscious
of these rules when they are using language; therefore, it will be difficult for them to exercise conscious control when the
need arises (Reber, 1997). Schwarzwald (1997) deals with distinguishing between language knowledge and language
awareness. According to her, language knowledge is mastery of vocabulary and rules of language, together with a
pragmatic grasp of the circumstances of its use; that is, ‘‘the accepted use of language according to registers and according
to the social groups that come in contact with it’’ (Schwarzwald 1997:400). Language awareness, in contrast, is an
intellectual recognition of the linguistic phenomena, alertness to them, and their conscious use. The speaker uses
language naturally and intuitively, and he is not in control of all that he says.
The same is true of the prevaricator. His language changes when he speaks with intent to mislead, in the wake of the
changing circumstances (the need to conceal, the desire to persuade, etc.) but as Ekman (2001) says, liars do not
control and maintain vigilance over all forms of their behavior simultaneously. They probably would not be able to do
so if they wanted. That an individual could successfully control everything he does as well as what could give him
away, from the tips of his toes to the top of his head, is an unreasonable assumption. Confirmation of this may be found in psychological theories dealing with the subconscious. These theories have
focused on the cognitive subconscious; that is, the way in which the mind processes concept and knowledge. One of
the opinions adduced on this issue posits that we cannot be aware of all the many processes that take place
simultaneously in our minds (Reber, 1992). The content of the human being’s perception and knowledge, which
includes broad linguistic knowledge, influences his opinions and his behavior (including his linguistic behavior), but
this is not done consciously (Hilgard, 1992).
This study provides support for this approach in the large number of criteria from various areas of language which
were found to differentiate in every group between narratives with factual scripts and without them. Even if the speaker
is acquainted with the criteria in which a change between the language of truth and of invention occurs, he cannot
possibly master them and censor the change occurring in his language in so many areas. For example, a speaker can
take great care to use only past tense verbs and independent clauses in his story, but it will be difficult for him, at the
same time, to control the number of generalized and of emotive words that he expresses, not to mention the difficulty of
keeping the story structure coherent and avoiding sudden instances of confusion. These findings reinforce the claim
that the presence of specific linguistic differences between narratives with factual scripts and those that are suspect can
be an indication of an attempt to mislead.