谎言的识别研究
摘要
“谎言”与假话并不同一。逻辑真实、法律真实、主观真实,三者都具备的信息才是“实话”；缺少其一,就是“假话”。谎言与假话的本质区别在于说话人的意念。说话人以为自己说的是假,无论事实是真是假,都是“谎言”；说话人以为自己说的是实话,而事实上不是实话,这样的言语才是假话。
谎言至少有两方参与者,一方是谎者,一方是被谎者,他们之间可能还有若干个传谎者；说谎者有说谎的自觉意念并竭力掩饰说谎的痕迹,被谎者没有接受谎言的主观意愿。这是构成谎言的两个必备条件。
我们还探讨了谎言的其他特征。谎言的形式有有声的“言”,也有无声的“言”；“言”的载体不仅仅是声音,还有文字。谎言的内容包括事件、态度、情绪与情感四种。谎言的产生手段有捏造、隐瞒、暗示、伪装四种类型。谎言的影响主要取决于谎者的动机。
从性质上来看,说谎是一种以言行事行为与以言成事行为,是一种交际策略。包含谎言所有的必备条件,剔除谎言非本质的、可此可彼的特征,我们关于谎言的定义是：说谎是人们有意把自认为虚假的信息传递给他人的言语行为与交际策略,谎言是说谎的产物。
为了更好地认识谎言的特点,我们从谎言的主体、说谎者的动机、谎言的内容、谎言的方式、面临的后果、可识别度等角度对谎言进行了细致的分类。不同类型的谎言,我们采取不同的处理态度。其中,群体谎、领域谎、恶意的谎言、高风险谎言、强动机谎言、主动型谎言、低识别度谎言是必须识别的谎言,善意的谎言、中性的谎言、零风险谎言、弱动机谎言、高识别度谎言是不必刻意识别的谎言。
关于谎言的道德价值,不能一概而论。标准是相对的。要综合衡量说谎的必要性、谎者的动机与谎言的影响这三个因素。面对实实在在的生存威胁或者迫于一定的环境压力时,说谎是避免不了的权宜之计；如果在说谎之外,还有别的选择——是否可以得到宽容,要视谎言的内容与被谎者的心胸而定；在完全没需要的情况下说谎,要么被沦为笑料,要么被人厌倦、疏离。意在利他、利集体、利民族、利国家、利社会的动机是善意的动机,能得到当事人的理解与原谅；意在误导、愚弄、侮辱、侵犯、剥夺他人的动机是恶意的动机,是预防与严惩的对象；意在自保、自利、自娱娱人,出于礼貌或印象管理的中性谎言大多能得到人们的原谅。谎言有维护正当利益、激发人的潜能、创造出良好的生理与心理感觉等正面影响,也有逃避责任义务、窃取不正当利益、阻抑社会效率与他人才华贡献、破坏社会秩序等负面影响。总之,一个人不可能不说谎,必要的、适度的、非恶意的说谎是可以接受的；不必要的、频繁的、刻意的说谎令人反感与厌恶；恶意的、造成负面影响的说谎要予以严惩与打击；只有在为环境所迫的情况下、心怀善意且取得正面效应的谎言,才有积极的道德价值。
谎言的根源从大的方面来说,主要是为了趋利避害,有时是为了追求刺激。趋利避害是生物界繁衍进化最本质的根据,是人类社会进步发展最根本的内在推动力,也是话语的根本原则。对于生命体而言,生存是第一位的“利”,死亡是第一位的“害”。对于具体个人而言,在“生”与“死”之间有一张纵横交错的利害网。不同人对不同利害重要性、级别性的认识,取决于他的世界观、价值观与方法论；不同人在不同情况下利害的选择,取决于当时的利害风险比较与成本比较,需要的程度比较与处理的难度比较；付诸现实的最后的利害取舍,都是以自己主观的避负求正原则进行的,反映了人的智慧、品性与当时的生理、心理状况。追求刺激是趋利避害的一种具体表现。因为刺激是快感、快乐的源泉之一,快感、快乐永远是人们锲而不舍的“利益”之一。说谎是一种语言策略,说谎与否面临着利害的比较选择。说谎可能要付出一定的生理成本、心理成本、直接损失成本、发展成本、道德成本乃至法律成本,也可能得到一定的生存收益、成长收益、即时收益、人际收益、经济收益与政治收益。选择的过程就是成本与收益的博弈过程。最终是说实话还是说谎话,取决于成本与收益的比较选择。
谎言的指征带有明显的个性色彩,谎言的个性主要体现在谎言的情境性差异,谎言的情境性差异最大的区别在于主动与被动之间。因此,本文在研究谎言的指征时,把谎言分为主动型谎言与被动型谎言进行分别考察。被动型谎言即被动的说谎、临时的说谎；谎者处于弱势地位；谎言多为自保。主动型谎言即主动出击的说谎、有所准备的说谎；谎者处于强势地位,谎言多为自利。“言语”包括三个组成部分：①言语行为,即“言语动作”,就是“说”的行为、“口头表述”的行为。可从音色、音量、重音、语气、语速、停顿、沉默等角度进行考察。②言语方式,即“说”的方式,包括词语的选择、句式的选择、无语义声音的运用、修辞方式的运用等四个方面。③言语内容,即“说的结果”——话语,有字面意义与实际意义之分。主动型谎言与被动型谎言在言语行为、言语方式、言语内容三方面具有明显不同的指征。两种谎言都可能出现的指征,我们把它叫做“通用型谎言指征”。理论上来说,谎言的言语指征,恰恰是与实话相违背的。说实话的时候,可能也会出现谎言的言语指征,但一定是出自异常的生理原因与心理原因。正常人在平常的语境说实话,是不会出现这些谎言指征的。这就是研究谎言指征的价值所在。
谎言的副言语指征就是指副言语中能够反映出言者将要说谎、正在说谎或已经说谎的痕迹与信息。不管是什么类型的谎言,通常都有准备、思考、观察、紧张、矛盾、逃逸的副言语指征；被动型的谎言,谎者在眼部、脸部、手部、嘴部、腿脚部、头颈肩部、腰背等部位总要留下这样那样的指征；主动型的谎言,谎者侧重于“蒙蔽”与“误导”的策略,尤其表现在眼睛、神态、注意力、关系与态度的误导。情绪型谎言掩饰真实的情绪,表露不存在的情绪,可能是意在保护自己、避免被操纵的被动谎言,也可能是为了达到某个目的而意在操控他人的主动型谎言。情绪的真正外部表现是一种生理的激活反应；是由神经纤维(与感觉、运动、思维有关)主导的反应；是一种无意识、习惯性的反应；牵动特定的面部肌肉。伪装的情绪表现是通过下意识的努力所“做”出的反应；根据人们对各种情绪的知识与经验,努力控制有关的关键部位尽力“做”出的情绪模式；但只能“做”出表层的、粗线条、片段的、局部的表情,毕竟缺少无意识的微细表情。开心型谎言是以谎为乐的谎言。所以,真正的“笑”是其最明显的副言语指征。谎言的“零指征”,即谎者没有留下任何言语的、副言语的线索,给人的感觉与讲实话完全无异,一般出现在善意的谎言、中性谎言、领域谎、控制型谎、习惯性谎里。其实零指征者还是有很微妙的观察、思考、抑制的痕迹,因此,绝对的“零指征”是不可能存在的。识别零指征谎言有反复质疑、故意沉默、比较言者平时的习惯等有效方法。
人类识别谎言的历程与人类文明发展的历程是同步的,对应于人类的神权时代、皇权时代、人权时代,人类的识谎方法经历了历历分明的三个阶段——神识法、刑识法、仪器识法。“神识法”是依靠神明的“显灵”来判断言语真假的方法,经历了“神誓法”、“神裁法”两个阶段,因其不可怀疑的神圣性与权威性查证了当时人力无法查证的谎言和真实,但它的准确性、公正性毕竟有限；“刑识法”就是人们常说的“刑讯逼供”,是用肉刑或变相肉刑、精神折磨等手段识别言语真假、逼取真实口供的方法；“人识法”,是不借助任何外在手段,只依靠人自身的经验、知识和智慧判断言语真假的方法,贯穿于三个阶段,并在刑识法与仪器识法之间的空白时段发挥决定性的作用；仪器识法是借助仪器设备识别谎言的方法,即人们常说的“心理测试”、“谎言测试”,是目前识别谎言效率最高、最客观的武器,但它在物证法阶段的前路还长。历史证明,人类识别谎言最适切的途径就是观察一个人在强烈的外在刺激下言行的、生理的变化。
单个指征不能判别谎言的真假,全息审查偏离法是人识法的进步。所谓全息是指整体上的任何一部分或母系统中的任何一个子系统,都包含着整体或母系统的全部信息。言语是一个全息系统,局部的言语是所在言语整体的全息元,言语整体是语境、言者的全息元,言者是社会的全息元。在谎言的识别过程中,要运用“全息思维方法”,掌握人的经历、身份、身体状况、个性与说话习惯等全息级较高的全息元；通过直觉捕捉法、观察现疑法、刺激观察法等方法发现偏离；通过全息对偏离的证“实”或证“伪”来甄别言语的真实性。
全息审查偏离法是指发现偏离以后,根据相关的全息审查偏离的真伪性,从而推导出言语真实性的谎言识别方法。全息是已知的事实、知识、规律、公理、定理或逻辑,是不以人的意志为转移的客观存在。如果言语中被发现的偏离全部在全息中找到了说谎以外的原因,即被证明其存在具有正常性、合理性,那么,该偏离就被全息证“伪”——说明实质上并非说谎性偏离,被鉴定的言语对象由此被认定为“实话”。如果言语中被发现的偏离有且至少有一项与全息形成矛盾、冲突,即其存在具有反常性、不可能性,那么,该偏离就被全息证“实”的确是“偏离”,被鉴定的言语对象因此而被认定为“谎话”。
谎言的全息审查偏离法为谎言识别提供了一种新的思路、新的方法。虽然我们永远不可能了解某人、某物或某事所有的全息,但了解到某个具体谎言的全息背景,是完全可能的；偏离是显化了的潜信息,我们完全有可能通过直觉或者观察捕捉住；用全息审查偏离的思路是符合逻辑规律的,结论可信、可靠；其过程可以用文字描述、固定,经得起推敲与反证。无需任何仪器设备,适合任何环境、任何个人,具有普适性与操作性。
Lies are different from untruth. The words, which are truth in logic, law and subjective, are the really truth; lacking one of the three, the words are untruths. The nature difference between the truth and the untruth is the mind of the speaker. The speaker thinks that he is telling lie, whether the fact is truth or not, that is a lie; The speaker thinks that he is telling the truth, but it is not true in actually, that is the untruth.
There are at least two parties in lies, one is the liar, and the other is the receiver. Among them, there may be some spreaders. The liar has the conscious of telling lies and try his best to cover the clue of telling lies, and the receiver doesn't have the will of receiving lies. These are two essential conditions in lies.
We also discussed the other features of lies. Lies have the form of a verbal "speech" and also silent " speech "; the carrier of " speech " is not just the sound, but also the characters; The content of lies includes events, attitudes, emotions and feelings of four. There are 4 ways in producing lies:fabrication, concealment, implied, camouflage. The effect of lies are mainly depend on the liar's motivation.
From the nature point of view, lying is a kind of illocutionary act and the act is done with words, and is a communication strategy. Containing all the necessary conditions for a lie, removing the nonessential and ambiguous features, our definition of lies is that:lies are that people want to have their own false information transmitting to other people's verbal behavior and communication strategies, lying product lie.
To better understand the characteristics of a lie, we learned from the main body of lies, liar's motivation, the content of lies, the way of lies and the consequences, identifiable degree angle to detailing the classification of lies. Different types of lies, we take a different approach to deal with. Among them, the group lies, the field lies, the black lies, the high-risk lies, the strong motivation lies, the initiative-based lies. The low degree lies must be identified; the white lies, the neutral lies, the zero risk lies, the low motivation lies and the high degree of recognition lies are no need to identify.
About the moral value lies, that cannot be generalized. Standards are relative. Comprehensive measuring of the three factors:the need to lying, the motives of lies and the effect of lies. The face of real threats to survival, or forced to a certain degree of environmental stress, lying is not expedient to avoid; besides lying, if there are other options-whether can be tolerated or not, depending on the content of Lies and the receiver's heart; in the case of completely no need to lie, the liar may be reduced to jokes, or being tired, alienated. Intended to altruism, benefit the collective, national and social is the goodwill motive, and may get the parties to understand and forgive; intended to mislead, fool, insult, abuse, deprivation of others motives are malicious motive, is the object of prevent and punish; aimed at self-protection, self-interest, entertain themselves, for politeness or neutral impression management lies are mostly get people to forgive. Lies can safeguard the legitimate interests, stimulate one's potential and create a positive physical and psychological feeling, but also to evade responsibilities and obligations, theft illegitimate interests, block social efficiency and the talents" contribution, disrupt social order and so adversely affected. In short, a person can lie, necessary, appropriate, non-malicious lying is acceptable; unnecessary, deliberate,frequent and offensive lying is disgusting; malicious, negative impact of lying should be punished and combated; only in force for the environment situation, made the lie with goodwill and get the positive effect, have a positive moral values.
From the general side, the root of lies is mainly for profit and avoiding loss, sometimes in pursuit of stimulation. While avoiding disadvantages are the most essential basis in the biosphere evolving, and the most fundamental internal drive in the development of human society, but also the fundamental principle of discourse. For life, the survival was the first of the "profit", death is the first of the "harm." For specific individuals, between the "profit" and "death", there is a isscross interest network. The choice of interest to different people in different situations, depending on the risk of interest compared with the cost, the comparison of its needs and the treating difficult; put this into the final choice of interest are based on their subjective demand that is to avoid negative principles, and reflects the wisdom, character, and then psychology and physiology. Excitement is a concrete expression while avoiding disadvantages. Excitement is a concrete expression while avoiding disadvantages. Because the stimulation is a source of happiness and pleasure, pleasure and happiness will always be one of the interests that people are preserving for. Lying is a language policy, lie or not, face the comparison and selection of interest. Lie may have to pay a certain cost of physiological and psychological, direct loss costs, development costs, moral costs and even legal costs, but may also be some benefits for survival, growth income, instant income, personal income, economic benefits and political benefits. The process of selection is the process of the game of costs and benefits. Finally telling the truth or lying, depend on the comparison and choice of costs and benefits.
The indicator of lies has a clear personality, the personality of lies is mainly in situational difference of lies, and the biggest situational difference of lies in the context difference is between active and passive. Therefore, when this essay research the indicator of lies, it divides the lies is into active and passive types of lies for inspection. Passive lie is lying passively and temporarily; the liar is in a weak position and the lies are mostly for self-preservation. The active lies are proactive to lying and prepared to lie; the liar is in a strong position and the lies are mostly self-serving. "Speech" includes three components:①speech act that "the acts of speech ", is "speaking" behavior, "oral presentation" behavior. It cans judge from the timbre, volume, accent, tone, speed, pause, silence.②speech mode, which is the said approach, including word choice, sentence selection, the use of non-semantic sound, the use of rhetorical devices such four parts③speech content, that is, "the said results"-words, there are literal meaning and practical significance. The active lies and the passive lies have three distinct indicators in the speech act, speech mode, and speech content. The potential indicators appearing in the two types of lies, we call it "universal lie indicator." In theory, the speech indicator of lies, it is the contrary with the truth. When people tell the truth, it may also appear indicators of lies, but it must be some abnormal physiological and psychological reasons. When normal people tell the truth in the usual context, there is no these indicators of lies. This is the value of researching the indicator of a lie.
The paraspeech indicator of lies means that in the paraspeech we can judge the speaker will lie, is lying or has traces and information. No matter what type of lie, it usually has the paraspeech indicator of prepared, thinking, observation, tension, conflict, escape; in the passive lies, in the liar's eye, face, hands, mouth, legs and feet department, head, neck, back and other parts always leave some kinds of indicators; in the active lies, the liar are focused on the "hoodwink" and "misleading" strategy, especially at the misleading in the eyes, the posture, attention, relationships and attitudes. The emotional lies cover up the true feelings, showing the inexistent emotion, may be intended to protect themselves and avoid being manipulated passive lie, it may be intended to achieve a certain purpose aiming at handling other people's lies. The real external emotional expression is a physiological activation response; is a nerve fiber (and feel, movement, thinking about) led response; is a kind of unconscious, habitual responses; affecting specific facial muscles. The disguised expressions of emotion is through the efforts of the subconscious to "do" the reaction; under the people's knowledge and exerience of various emotions, taking efforts to control the key parts to "do" the emotional patterns best; but can only "do" the surface, rough outline, fragment, partial expression, after all, lacking of the unconscious fine expression. The fun Lies is lying for fun. Therefore, the real "laugh" is the most obvious indicator of the paraspeech. the "zero indicator" of lies that the Liar left no clues in the language, and the paraspeech, the impression is entirely keeping with telling the truth, generally appearing in white lies, neutral lies, the field lies, the controlled lie, and the habitual lie. In fact, there are indicators of subtle observation, thinking, traces of inhibition in zero indicator, therefore, absolute "zero indicator" could not exist. Recognizing the "zero indicator" of Lies have effective ways repeatedly questioned, deliberate silence, comparing with the speaker's habit.
The identification of lies in human history and the history of human civilization development is synchronized. Corresponding to the era of rights of God, the imperial age, the human rights age, human recognizes lies experiencing a distinctly clear method of three stages-Identifying Lies by Divinity, Identifying Lies by Punishment, and Identifying Lies by Instrument." Identifying Lies by Divinity " is to rely on the gods of the "visions" to determine whether the speech is true or not, through the " Wager of Law " and the " Trial by Ordeal" in two stages, because it is no doubt in the sanctity and authority to verify the time that Human can not verify the lies and truth, but its accuracy and impartiality, after all, is limited; " Identifying Lies by Punishment" is often said that the "torture" and is disguised with a corporal punishment or something likely, mental torture and other means to identifying whether the speech is true or not. "Identifying Lies by People"is not using any external means, only to rely on people's own experience, knowledge and wisdom to judge the truth of speech, throughout the three stages, playing a decisive role in the gap time between" Identifying Lies by Punishment" and" Identifying Lies by Punishment"; the apparatus knowledge method is to use equipment in the identification of lies, often referred to as "the psychological test", "the lie test", and is the most efficient and objective way in recognizing lies, it is the first stage in evidence knowledge method History has proved that the most appropriate way in human recognizing lies is to observe a person's words and physiological changes under the strong external stimuli.
Lies can not be distinguished either is truth or false by a single indicator, holographic screening deviation method is the progress of the human knowledge method. The so-called hologram is any part of the whole or any subsystem of the mother system, consisting of all the information of the whole or the mother system. Speech is a holographic system; the partial language is the holographic element of the whole speech. The overall speech is the context of words and the speaker's the holographic element, and the speaker is the holographic element of society. In the process of recognizing lies, it has to use "the holographic thinking way ", mastering people's experience, identity, health status, personality and speech habits, these are high levels of holographic elements; through intuitive capture method, observing suspected method, stimulating observation method finding the deviation; through the holographic certificating the deviation is "real" or "false" to identify the authenticity of speech.
The holographic screening deviation method is a method of recognizing lies:that is basing on a certain deviation, and then use the associated holographic to judge the speech' s authenticity. Holography is the known fact, knowledge, laws, axioms, theorems or logical, is the objective existence which is independent of man's will. If all of deviation in words were found in Holography for reasons other than lying, that proves the existence of the deviation is normal and reasonable, then, that deviation was hologram certificating "false"-the deviation is not deviating for lying in nature, thus the identified words is "truth." If the deviations in the speech have been found at least one contradicting or conflicting with the hologram, that is, the existence is abnormal and impossibility, then, that the deviation is hologram certificating "reality", that identified "deviation" is true, and the identified words are "lies."
Holographic screening deviation method provides a new thinking way and new approach in identifying lies. While we can never know all the hologram of someone or something, but knowing that a specific lie's holographic background, it is entirely possible; the deviation is significant of the potential information. We entirely possible capture it by intuition or observation; the thought of using the holographic screening deviation is keep with logical laws, the conclusion is credible and reliable; the process can be described in words, fixed, and can withstand scrutiny and counterevidence. The Holographic screening deviation method can take out without any equipment, and is suitable for any environment and any person, with universality and operability.
谎言至少有两方参与者,一方是谎者,一方是被谎者,他们之间可能还有若干个传谎者；说谎者有说谎的自觉意念并竭力掩饰说谎的痕迹,被谎者没有接受谎言的主观意愿。这是构成谎言的两个必备条件。
我们还探讨了谎言的其他特征。谎言的形式有有声的“言”,也有无声的“言”；“言”的载体不仅仅是声音,还有文字。谎言的内容包括事件、态度、情绪与情感四种。谎言的产生手段有捏造、隐瞒、暗示、伪装四种类型。谎言的影响主要取决于谎者的动机。
从性质上来看,说谎是一种以言行事行为与以言成事行为,是一种交际策略。包含谎言所有的必备条件,剔除谎言非本质的、可此可彼的特征,我们关于谎言的定义是：说谎是人们有意把自认为虚假的信息传递给他人的言语行为与交际策略,谎言是说谎的产物。
为了更好地认识谎言的特点,我们从谎言的主体、说谎者的动机、谎言的内容、谎言的方式、面临的后果、可识别度等角度对谎言进行了细致的分类。不同类型的谎言,我们采取不同的处理态度。其中,群体谎、领域谎、恶意的谎言、高风险谎言、强动机谎言、主动型谎言、低识别度谎言是必须识别的谎言,善意的谎言、中性的谎言、零风险谎言、弱动机谎言、高识别度谎言是不必刻意识别的谎言。
关于谎言的道德价值,不能一概而论。标准是相对的。要综合衡量说谎的必要性、谎者的动机与谎言的影响这三个因素。面对实实在在的生存威胁或者迫于一定的环境压力时,说谎是避免不了的权宜之计；如果在说谎之外,还有别的选择——是否可以得到宽容,要视谎言的内容与被谎者的心胸而定；在完全没需要的情况下说谎,要么被沦为笑料,要么被人厌倦、疏离。意在利他、利集体、利民族、利国家、利社会的动机是善意的动机,能得到当事人的理解与原谅；意在误导、愚弄、侮辱、侵犯、剥夺他人的动机是恶意的动机,是预防与严惩的对象；意在自保、自利、自娱娱人,出于礼貌或印象管理的中性谎言大多能得到人们的原谅。谎言有维护正当利益、激发人的潜能、创造出良好的生理与心理感觉等正面影响,也有逃避责任义务、窃取不正当利益、阻抑社会效率与他人才华贡献、破坏社会秩序等负面影响。总之,一个人不可能不说谎,必要的、适度的、非恶意的说谎是可以接受的；不必要的、频繁的、刻意的说谎令人反感与厌恶；恶意的、造成负面影响的说谎要予以严惩与打击；只有在为环境所迫的情况下、心怀善意且取得正面效应的谎言,才有积极的道德价值。
谎言的根源从大的方面来说,主要是为了趋利避害,有时是为了追求刺激。趋利避害是生物界繁衍进化最本质的根据,是人类社会进步发展最根本的内在推动力,也是话语的根本原则。对于生命体而言,生存是第一位的“利”,死亡是第一位的“害”。对于具体个人而言,在“生”与“死”之间有一张纵横交错的利害网。不同人对不同利害重要性、级别性的认识,取决于他的世界观、价值观与方法论；不同人在不同情况下利害的选择,取决于当时的利害风险比较与成本比较,需要的程度比较与处理的难度比较；付诸现实的最后的利害取舍,都是以自己主观的避负求正原则进行的,反映了人的智慧、品性与当时的生理、心理状况。追求刺激是趋利避害的一种具体表现。因为刺激是快感、快乐的源泉之一,快感、快乐永远是人们锲而不舍的“利益”之一。说谎是一种语言策略,说谎与否面临着利害的比较选择。说谎可能要付出一定的生理成本、心理成本、直接损失成本、发展成本、道德成本乃至法律成本,也可能得到一定的生存收益、成长收益、即时收益、人际收益、经济收益与政治收益。选择的过程就是成本与收益的博弈过程。最终是说实话还是说谎话,取决于成本与收益的比较选择。
谎言的指征带有明显的个性色彩,谎言的个性主要体现在谎言的情境性差异,谎言的情境性差异最大的区别在于主动与被动之间。因此,本文在研究谎言的指征时,把谎言分为主动型谎言与被动型谎言进行分别考察。被动型谎言即被动的说谎、临时的说谎；谎者处于弱势地位；谎言多为自保。主动型谎言即主动出击的说谎、有所准备的说谎；谎者处于强势地位,谎言多为自利。“言语”包括三个组成部分：①言语行为,即“言语动作”,就是“说”的行为、“口头表述”的行为。可从音色、音量、重音、语气、语速、停顿、沉默等角度进行考察。②言语方式,即“说”的方式,包括词语的选择、句式的选择、无语义声音的运用、修辞方式的运用等四个方面。③言语内容,即“说的结果”——话语,有字面意义与实际意义之分。主动型谎言与被动型谎言在言语行为、言语方式、言语内容三方面具有明显不同的指征。两种谎言都可能出现的指征,我们把它叫做“通用型谎言指征”。理论上来说,谎言的言语指征,恰恰是与实话相违背的。说实话的时候,可能也会出现谎言的言语指征,但一定是出自异常的生理原因与心理原因。正常人在平常的语境说实话,是不会出现这些谎言指征的。这就是研究谎言指征的价值所在。
谎言的副言语指征就是指副言语中能够反映出言者将要说谎、正在说谎或已经说谎的痕迹与信息。不管是什么类型的谎言,通常都有准备、思考、观察、紧张、矛盾、逃逸的副言语指征；被动型的谎言,谎者在眼部、脸部、手部、嘴部、腿脚部、头颈肩部、腰背等部位总要留下这样那样的指征；主动型的谎言,谎者侧重于“蒙蔽”与“误导”的策略,尤其表现在眼睛、神态、注意力、关系与态度的误导。情绪型谎言掩饰真实的情绪,表露不存在的情绪,可能是意在保护自己、避免被操纵的被动谎言,也可能是为了达到某个目的而意在操控他人的主动型谎言。情绪的真正外部表现是一种生理的激活反应；是由神经纤维(与感觉、运动、思维有关)主导的反应；是一种无意识、习惯性的反应；牵动特定的面部肌肉。伪装的情绪表现是通过下意识的努力所“做”出的反应；根据人们对各种情绪的知识与经验,努力控制有关的关键部位尽力“做”出的情绪模式；但只能“做”出表层的、粗线条、片段的、局部的表情,毕竟缺少无意识的微细表情。开心型谎言是以谎为乐的谎言。所以,真正的“笑”是其最明显的副言语指征。谎言的“零指征”,即谎者没有留下任何言语的、副言语的线索,给人的感觉与讲实话完全无异,一般出现在善意的谎言、中性谎言、领域谎、控制型谎、习惯性谎里。其实零指征者还是有很微妙的观察、思考、抑制的痕迹,因此,绝对的“零指征”是不可能存在的。识别零指征谎言有反复质疑、故意沉默、比较言者平时的习惯等有效方法。
人类识别谎言的历程与人类文明发展的历程是同步的,对应于人类的神权时代、皇权时代、人权时代,人类的识谎方法经历了历历分明的三个阶段——神识法、刑识法、仪器识法。“神识法”是依靠神明的“显灵”来判断言语真假的方法,经历了“神誓法”、“神裁法”两个阶段,因其不可怀疑的神圣性与权威性查证了当时人力无法查证的谎言和真实,但它的准确性、公正性毕竟有限；“刑识法”就是人们常说的“刑讯逼供”,是用肉刑或变相肉刑、精神折磨等手段识别言语真假、逼取真实口供的方法；“人识法”,是不借助任何外在手段,只依靠人自身的经验、知识和智慧判断言语真假的方法,贯穿于三个阶段,并在刑识法与仪器识法之间的空白时段发挥决定性的作用；仪器识法是借助仪器设备识别谎言的方法,即人们常说的“心理测试”、“谎言测试”,是目前识别谎言效率最高、最客观的武器,但它在物证法阶段的前路还长。历史证明,人类识别谎言最适切的途径就是观察一个人在强烈的外在刺激下言行的、生理的变化。
单个指征不能判别谎言的真假,全息审查偏离法是人识法的进步。所谓全息是指整体上的任何一部分或母系统中的任何一个子系统,都包含着整体或母系统的全部信息。言语是一个全息系统,局部的言语是所在言语整体的全息元,言语整体是语境、言者的全息元,言者是社会的全息元。在谎言的识别过程中,要运用“全息思维方法”,掌握人的经历、身份、身体状况、个性与说话习惯等全息级较高的全息元；通过直觉捕捉法、观察现疑法、刺激观察法等方法发现偏离；通过全息对偏离的证“实”或证“伪”来甄别言语的真实性。
全息审查偏离法是指发现偏离以后,根据相关的全息审查偏离的真伪性,从而推导出言语真实性的谎言识别方法。全息是已知的事实、知识、规律、公理、定理或逻辑,是不以人的意志为转移的客观存在。如果言语中被发现的偏离全部在全息中找到了说谎以外的原因,即被证明其存在具有正常性、合理性,那么,该偏离就被全息证“伪”——说明实质上并非说谎性偏离,被鉴定的言语对象由此被认定为“实话”。如果言语中被发现的偏离有且至少有一项与全息形成矛盾、冲突,即其存在具有反常性、不可能性,那么,该偏离就被全息证“实”的确是“偏离”,被鉴定的言语对象因此而被认定为“谎话”。
谎言的全息审查偏离法为谎言识别提供了一种新的思路、新的方法。虽然我们永远不可能了解某人、某物或某事所有的全息,但了解到某个具体谎言的全息背景,是完全可能的；偏离是显化了的潜信息,我们完全有可能通过直觉或者观察捕捉住；用全息审查偏离的思路是符合逻辑规律的,结论可信、可靠；其过程可以用文字描述、固定,经得起推敲与反证。无需任何仪器设备,适合任何环境、任何个人,具有普适性与操作性。
Lies are different from untruth. The words, which are truth in logic, law and subjective, are the really truth; lacking one of the three, the words are untruths. The nature difference between the truth and the untruth is the mind of the speaker. The speaker thinks that he is telling lie, whether the fact is truth or not, that is a lie; The speaker thinks that he is telling the truth, but it is not true in actually, that is the untruth.
There are at least two parties in lies, one is the liar, and the other is the receiver. Among them, there may be some spreaders. The liar has the conscious of telling lies and try his best to cover the clue of telling lies, and the receiver doesn't have the will of receiving lies. These are two essential conditions in lies.
We also discussed the other features of lies. Lies have the form of a verbal "speech" and also silent " speech "; the carrier of " speech " is not just the sound, but also the characters; The content of lies includes events, attitudes, emotions and feelings of four. There are 4 ways in producing lies:fabrication, concealment, implied, camouflage. The effect of lies are mainly depend on the liar's motivation.
From the nature point of view, lying is a kind of illocutionary act and the act is done with words, and is a communication strategy. Containing all the necessary conditions for a lie, removing the nonessential and ambiguous features, our definition of lies is that:lies are that people want to have their own false information transmitting to other people's verbal behavior and communication strategies, lying product lie.
To better understand the characteristics of a lie, we learned from the main body of lies, liar's motivation, the content of lies, the way of lies and the consequences, identifiable degree angle to detailing the classification of lies. Different types of lies, we take a different approach to deal with. Among them, the group lies, the field lies, the black lies, the high-risk lies, the strong motivation lies, the initiative-based lies. The low degree lies must be identified; the white lies, the neutral lies, the zero risk lies, the low motivation lies and the high degree of recognition lies are no need to identify.
About the moral value lies, that cannot be generalized. Standards are relative. Comprehensive measuring of the three factors:the need to lying, the motives of lies and the effect of lies. The face of real threats to survival, or forced to a certain degree of environmental stress, lying is not expedient to avoid; besides lying, if there are other options-whether can be tolerated or not, depending on the content of Lies and the receiver's heart; in the case of completely no need to lie, the liar may be reduced to jokes, or being tired, alienated. Intended to altruism, benefit the collective, national and social is the goodwill motive, and may get the parties to understand and forgive; intended to mislead, fool, insult, abuse, deprivation of others motives are malicious motive, is the object of prevent and punish; aimed at self-protection, self-interest, entertain themselves, for politeness or neutral impression management lies are mostly get people to forgive. Lies can safeguard the legitimate interests, stimulate one's potential and create a positive physical and psychological feeling, but also to evade responsibilities and obligations, theft illegitimate interests, block social efficiency and the talents" contribution, disrupt social order and so adversely affected. In short, a person can lie, necessary, appropriate, non-malicious lying is acceptable; unnecessary, deliberate,frequent and offensive lying is disgusting; malicious, negative impact of lying should be punished and combated; only in force for the environment situation, made the lie with goodwill and get the positive effect, have a positive moral values.
From the general side, the root of lies is mainly for profit and avoiding loss, sometimes in pursuit of stimulation. While avoiding disadvantages are the most essential basis in the biosphere evolving, and the most fundamental internal drive in the development of human society, but also the fundamental principle of discourse. For life, the survival was the first of the "profit", death is the first of the "harm." For specific individuals, between the "profit" and "death", there is a isscross interest network. The choice of interest to different people in different situations, depending on the risk of interest compared with the cost, the comparison of its needs and the treating difficult; put this into the final choice of interest are based on their subjective demand that is to avoid negative principles, and reflects the wisdom, character, and then psychology and physiology. Excitement is a concrete expression while avoiding disadvantages. Excitement is a concrete expression while avoiding disadvantages. Because the stimulation is a source of happiness and pleasure, pleasure and happiness will always be one of the interests that people are preserving for. Lying is a language policy, lie or not, face the comparison and selection of interest. Lie may have to pay a certain cost of physiological and psychological, direct loss costs, development costs, moral costs and even legal costs, but may also be some benefits for survival, growth income, instant income, personal income, economic benefits and political benefits. The process of selection is the process of the game of costs and benefits. Finally telling the truth or lying, depend on the comparison and choice of costs and benefits.
The indicator of lies has a clear personality, the personality of lies is mainly in situational difference of lies, and the biggest situational difference of lies in the context difference is between active and passive. Therefore, when this essay research the indicator of lies, it divides the lies is into active and passive types of lies for inspection. Passive lie is lying passively and temporarily; the liar is in a weak position and the lies are mostly for self-preservation. The active lies are proactive to lying and prepared to lie; the liar is in a strong position and the lies are mostly self-serving. "Speech" includes three components:①speech act that "the acts of speech ", is "speaking" behavior, "oral presentation" behavior. It cans judge from the timbre, volume, accent, tone, speed, pause, silence.②speech mode, which is the said approach, including word choice, sentence selection, the use of non-semantic sound, the use of rhetorical devices such four parts③speech content, that is, "the said results"-words, there are literal meaning and practical significance. The active lies and the passive lies have three distinct indicators in the speech act, speech mode, and speech content. The potential indicators appearing in the two types of lies, we call it "universal lie indicator." In theory, the speech indicator of lies, it is the contrary with the truth. When people tell the truth, it may also appear indicators of lies, but it must be some abnormal physiological and psychological reasons. When normal people tell the truth in the usual context, there is no these indicators of lies. This is the value of researching the indicator of a lie.
The paraspeech indicator of lies means that in the paraspeech we can judge the speaker will lie, is lying or has traces and information. No matter what type of lie, it usually has the paraspeech indicator of prepared, thinking, observation, tension, conflict, escape; in the passive lies, in the liar's eye, face, hands, mouth, legs and feet department, head, neck, back and other parts always leave some kinds of indicators; in the active lies, the liar are focused on the "hoodwink" and "misleading" strategy, especially at the misleading in the eyes, the posture, attention, relationships and attitudes. The emotional lies cover up the true feelings, showing the inexistent emotion, may be intended to protect themselves and avoid being manipulated passive lie, it may be intended to achieve a certain purpose aiming at handling other people's lies. The real external emotional expression is a physiological activation response; is a nerve fiber (and feel, movement, thinking about) led response; is a kind of unconscious, habitual responses; affecting specific facial muscles. The disguised expressions of emotion is through the efforts of the subconscious to "do" the reaction; under the people's knowledge and exerience of various emotions, taking efforts to control the key parts to "do" the emotional patterns best; but can only "do" the surface, rough outline, fragment, partial expression, after all, lacking of the unconscious fine expression. The fun Lies is lying for fun. Therefore, the real "laugh" is the most obvious indicator of the paraspeech. the "zero indicator" of lies that the Liar left no clues in the language, and the paraspeech, the impression is entirely keeping with telling the truth, generally appearing in white lies, neutral lies, the field lies, the controlled lie, and the habitual lie. In fact, there are indicators of subtle observation, thinking, traces of inhibition in zero indicator, therefore, absolute "zero indicator" could not exist. Recognizing the "zero indicator" of Lies have effective ways repeatedly questioned, deliberate silence, comparing with the speaker's habit.
The identification of lies in human history and the history of human civilization development is synchronized. Corresponding to the era of rights of God, the imperial age, the human rights age, human recognizes lies experiencing a distinctly clear method of three stages-Identifying Lies by Divinity, Identifying Lies by Punishment, and Identifying Lies by Instrument." Identifying Lies by Divinity " is to rely on the gods of the "visions" to determine whether the speech is true or not, through the " Wager of Law " and the " Trial by Ordeal" in two stages, because it is no doubt in the sanctity and authority to verify the time that Human can not verify the lies and truth, but its accuracy and impartiality, after all, is limited; " Identifying Lies by Punishment" is often said that the "torture" and is disguised with a corporal punishment or something likely, mental torture and other means to identifying whether the speech is true or not. "Identifying Lies by People"is not using any external means, only to rely on people's own experience, knowledge and wisdom to judge the truth of speech, throughout the three stages, playing a decisive role in the gap time between" Identifying Lies by Punishment" and" Identifying Lies by Punishment"; the apparatus knowledge method is to use equipment in the identification of lies, often referred to as "the psychological test", "the lie test", and is the most efficient and objective way in recognizing lies, it is the first stage in evidence knowledge method History has proved that the most appropriate way in human recognizing lies is to observe a person's words and physiological changes under the strong external stimuli.
Lies can not be distinguished either is truth or false by a single indicator, holographic screening deviation method is the progress of the human knowledge method. The so-called hologram is any part of the whole or any subsystem of the mother system, consisting of all the information of the whole or the mother system. Speech is a holographic system; the partial language is the holographic element of the whole speech. The overall speech is the context of words and the speaker's the holographic element, and the speaker is the holographic element of society. In the process of recognizing lies, it has to use "the holographic thinking way ", mastering people's experience, identity, health status, personality and speech habits, these are high levels of holographic elements; through intuitive capture method, observing suspected method, stimulating observation method finding the deviation; through the holographic certificating the deviation is "real" or "false" to identify the authenticity of speech.
The holographic screening deviation method is a method of recognizing lies:that is basing on a certain deviation, and then use the associated holographic to judge the speech' s authenticity. Holography is the known fact, knowledge, laws, axioms, theorems or logical, is the objective existence which is independent of man's will. If all of deviation in words were found in Holography for reasons other than lying, that proves the existence of the deviation is normal and reasonable, then, that deviation was hologram certificating "false"-the deviation is not deviating for lying in nature, thus the identified words is "truth." If the deviations in the speech have been found at least one contradicting or conflicting with the hologram, that is, the existence is abnormal and impossibility, then, that the deviation is hologram certificating "reality", that identified "deviation" is true, and the identified words are "lies."
Holographic screening deviation method provides a new thinking way and new approach in identifying lies. While we can never know all the hologram of someone or something, but knowing that a specific lie's holographic background, it is entirely possible; the deviation is significant of the potential information. We entirely possible capture it by intuition or observation; the thought of using the holographic screening deviation is keep with logical laws, the conclusion is credible and reliable; the process can be described in words, fixed, and can withstand scrutiny and counterevidence. The Holographic screening deviation method can take out without any equipment, and is suitable for any environment and any person, with universality and operability.
引文
①桃之妖妖.人的一生要撒8.8万个谎[Z].中外健康文摘,2009,(2).
①新华词典编纂组.新华词典[K].北京：商务印书馆,1980：369
②中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编.现代汉语词典[K].北京：商务印书馆,1992：497.
③霍恩比,李北达编译.牛津高阶英汉双解词典[K].北京：商务印书馆,牛津大学出版社,1997：856.
④蒙田.蒙田随笔[C].北京：人民文学出版社,2005：18.(转引自：张伟栋.实践哲学中的真理与谎言问题[D].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学,2007：25.)
① Krauss R.M.Impression formation,impression management,and nonverbal behaviors[C]//. Higgins ET, Herman C P, Zanna M P. Social cognition:the Ontario Symposium.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum,1981,(1):323-341(转引自：Aldert Vrij.说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：7.)
②转引自Sweetser E E. The definition of lie:An examination of the folk models underlying a semantic prototype[C]//. Holland D. Cultural models in language and thought, New York:Cambridge University Press.1987:43.
③转引自：徐芬,荆春燕,刘英,包雪华.交往情境下个体对说谎的理解及其道德评价[J].心理学报,2002,34(1)：74.
① Lee K,Ross H J.The concept of lying in adolescents and young adults:Testing Sweetser's Folkloristic Model.[J]Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,1997,(43):255-270. Lee K,Cameron C A,Xu F,Fu G,Board J.Chinese and Canadian children's evaluations of lying and truth-telling[J].Child Development,1997,(64):924-934(转引自：转引自：徐芬,荆春燕,刘英,包雪华.交往情境下个体对说谎的理解及其道德评价[J].心理学报,2002,34(1)：74.)
②卡普曼.说谎[C]//.波多尔斯基.心理异常百科全书：精神病学手册.纽约：纽约哲学图书馆,1953：288.(转引自：查尔斯·福特.说谎：你所不知道的一切[M].高卓等译.北京：新华出版社,2001：30.)
①信息操控理论(IMT)强调,信息在复杂的沟通情境中有着功能上的适应。为了平衡其对话伙伴应接收到的信息与所传达的信息可能引起的损失之间的冲突,个体需要去改变信息。因此,描述欺编性信息的一种方式就是描述信息被操控和控制的方式(邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007：18.)。
① Ekman P,Friesen W V.Detecting deception from the body or face[J].Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1974,29(3):288-298(转引自：邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007：12.)
② Miller G R, Stiff J B.Deceptive communication[M].Newbury Park:Sage,1993:86(转引自：邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007：13.)
③ Sanchez F, Becerra A.Eltema de la preguntay la elaboration de las respuestas en la deteccion de la mentira[J].Revista de Psicologia Social,1991,6(l):73-83.(转引自：邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007：13.)
④阿伦特.真理与政治[C]//.贺照田.西方现代性的曲折与展开.吉林：吉林人民出版社,2002：327.(转引自：张伟栋.实践哲学中的真理与谎言问题[D].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学,2007：26.)
①国家的统治者为了国家的利益,有理由用谎言来应付敌人,甚至应付公民。要让公民相信,“他们虽然一土所生,彼此都是兄弟,但是老天铸造他们的时候,在有些人的身上加入了黄金,这些人最可宝贵的,是统治者。在辅助者(军人)的身上加入了白银。在农民以及其他技工身上加入了铁和铜。但是又由于同属一类,虽则父子天赋相承,有时不免金父生银子,银父生金子,错综变化,不一而足。所以上天给统治者的命令最重要的就是要他们做后代的好护卫者,要他们极端注意在后代灵魂深处所混合的究竟是哪一种金属。如果他们的孩子心灵里混入了一些废铜烂铁,他们决不能稍存姑息,应当把他们放到恰如其分的位置上去,安置于农民工人之间；如果农民工人的后辈中间发现其天赋中有金有银者,他们就要重视他,把他提升到护卫者或辅助者中间去。”——柏拉图认为,这样的谎言,目的是使城邦公民爱护他们的国家以及相互爱护,是一种“高贵的谎言”(柏拉图.理想国[M].延吉：延边教育出版社,2004：61.)
①可能有这种情况：当你对谋杀者诚实地做了“是”的回答时,你的朋友也可能已经在你未注意的情况下走出去了,因此他没有成为谋杀者的牺牲品,所以这件事就是还未发生：然而如果你谎称他不在房间里,而事实上他已经出去了(尽管你不了解),因此谋杀者在他出去时遇见他并杀了他,那么出于公正,你就可能被谴责为是他死的原因,在国内裁判所你就必须为此承担罪责(康德.论出于善的动机而说谎的假设权力[C]//.郑保华.康德文集[M].北京：改革出版社,1997：419.)。
①在特定的情境下,作为一种伦理行为,说谎至少是：(1)完全利己；(2)为他利己：(3)利己以害己；(4)利己以害他四种伦理行为中的一种,同时也至少属于(1)损人利己；(2)害他以利他：(3)害人以害己；(4)完全害他这四种伦理行为中的一种,所以,说谎不是一种纯粹类型的伦理行为。(邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007：34.)
① Metts S. An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships[J]. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,1989, (6):159-179. (转引自DePaulo, B., Lindsay, J.J., Malone, B.E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., Cooper.H.. Cues to deception[J]. Psychological Bulletin 2003, (129):78.)
② Buller D B, Burgoon J K. Interpersonal deception theory [J].Communication Theory,1996,(3):203-242(转引自DePaulo B, Lindsay J J, Malone B E, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H..Cues to deception[J]. Psychological Bulletin 2003, (129):78.)
① Connelly J T, Mumford M D, Leritz L E, Ruark G, Allen M T, Waples E P.Exploring Content Coding Procedure for Assessing Truth and Deception in Verbal Statements, Norman OK:Final TechnicalReport for the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute,2003.(转引自：孙武.西方谎言研究理论综述[J].国外社会科学.2008,(2)：29-50.)
①抵消或取消面部表情意义的手部动作。比如,说话时用手在嘴、鼻子、眼睛或耳朵等处不停地动来动去(斯坦·沃尔特斯(美).挑战谎言——识别谎言的技巧[M].牛曼漪,寇洁,潘琳等译.海口：南海出版公司,2001：122.)。
②目的是引开观察者对他的话的重要性的注意。比如,有效地避免从嘴里泄露任何重要信息的办法之一是装出大笑的样子(斯坦·沃尔特斯(美).挑战谎言——识别谎言的技巧[M].牛曼漪,寇洁,潘琳等译.海口：南海出版公司,2001：124.)。
①脸部的一种细小表情,转瞬即逝,往往会被人忽略(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：119-120.)。
②当事人中止或掩饰的表情。与微表情的区别是：微表情出现的时间极为短促,却是完整地呈现在哪里；被压制的表情持续的时间稍长一些,但由于受到干扰,总是不可能达到完整地呈现(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：121-122.)。
①脸的两边出现同样的动作,但动作的强度却一边大于另一边(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：133-134.)
②包括一个表情的持续时间、出现和消失所占用的时间。表情的持续时间有的长达10秒钟甚至更长,但通常为五秒钟。持续时间长的表情很可能是虚假的.譬如,真实的“震惊”,出现、持续和消失的时间,加起来不到一秒钟(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：137.)。
③一个表情的出现是出现在言词、语调和举止的相关位置上的。如果表情的位置出现偏差,那么这个表情可能是虚假的。譬如有人生气地说：“我对你的所作所为已经受够了!”,生气的表情出现在说完这句话之后,较之于出现在这句话之前或同时,虚假的可能性就要大得多(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：139.)。
① Vrij A,Semin G R. Lie experts'beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception[J].Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,1996,(20):65-80(转引自Aldert Vrij说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：69.)
①任何可以看作是欺骗迹象的行为都有可能是少数人的正常行为,对这些人,人们很可能会做出错误判断。艾克曼把这种情况称之为“布洛考失误”(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：79-80.)。
②这一错误的原因是,没有考虑到有些诚实的人在受到怀疑时也会情绪紧张(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：122.)
①“问对方一个他不介意据实以告的问题,一个把问答限定在他感觉是正面的问题。这个技巧就是所谓的‘引导与局限’。”(大卫.李柏曼(美).看谁在说谎[M].项慧龄译.台北：时报文化出版企业股份有限公司,2002：61.)
②“对时间造成影响的因素有二：事件何时发生,以及你何时知道事件的发生。”把这两个因素中的任何一个因素变成过去式,事件本身就已不再及时,也大大降低了事件本身的严重性,当事人说出真相的顾虑也大为降低。(大卫.李柏曼(美).看谁在说谎[M].项慧龄译.台北：时报文化出版企业股份有限公司,2002：63.)
③指责对方,把所有肯恩规范下的过错都归咎于对方,从而使他坦白招认自己真正犯下的过错。(大卫.李柏曼(美).看谁在说谎[M].项慧龄译.台北：时报文化出版企业股份有限公司,2002：70.)
④要求对方针对质疑提出有内容的答复,而不仅仅是否认而已(大卫.李柏曼(美).看谁在说谎[M].项慧龄译.台北：时报文化出版企业股份有限公司,2002：73.)。
① Sporer, S.L. The less traveled road to truth:verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self-experienced events[J]. Applied Cognitive Psychology,1997, (11):373-397(转引自：Aldert Vrij说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：204.)
②转引自：Aldert Vrij说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：202-203.
①罗贯中.三国演义[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,2006：38.
①罗贯中.三国演义.[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,2006：106.
①罗贯中.三国演义.[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,2006：4.
①租借法案,又称《加强美国防务法》。该法规定,总统可以随时授权陆军部长、海军部长,或政府任何其他部门或机构,在其所管辖的兵工厂、工厂和船坞内制造或以其他手段获得任何防务物资,以供给总统认为其防务对美国防务至关重要的任何国家政府；向任何这样的政府出售、转让、交换、借予、租给或用其他方法安排任何防务物资；为任何这样的政府试验、检查、检验、修理、装配任何防务物资；或用其他方法保持其良好状态,或通过秘密协定取得所有此类服务等等。租借法案在促进美国参战、获得反法西斯战争的胜利方面起了不可低估的作用。(张兵.租借法案与美国对外政策的转变[J].辽宁大学学报,2002,(9)：73.)
②第23大队是美国部署在欧洲战场上的神奇部队,自1944年组建至1945年欧战结束,先后装扮了第五装甲师、第四步兵师、第六装甲师、第九十步兵师和其他友军,以掩护他们的撤退与进攻(赫尔什·古德伯格(美).谎言世界[M].段胜武,胡建华,岳经纶译.北京：群众出版社,1992：58-61.)。
③郑苹如,生于1918年,中日混血,为上海名嫒。上海沦陷后,秘密加入中统,混迹于日伪人员当中获取情报。后参与暗杀日伪特务头子丁默村而被捕,一口咬定为情所困,雇凶杀人,成为当年上海滩重大花边新闻之一。1940年2月,被秘密处决。(马国亮.良友忆旧——一家画报与一个时代[M].上海：生活.读书.新知三联书店,2002.)
①想象指导疗法是在一定的指导下,通过一定的客观刺激(图形、颜色、光亮)或言语诱导,使人产生积极的想象活动,以此调节对疾病的消极认识,,通过积极的想象活动,调节人机体内部的生理性和心理性防御功能,促使心身机能向健康方面转化而达到治疗的目的。(王建平.想象疗法[J].心理世界,2000,(02)：38.)
①转引自：庄华民.测谎技术探究[J].监察实践,2000,(5)：33.
①转引自：张亭玉,张雨青.说谎行为及其识别的心理学研究[J].心理科学进展,2008,16(4)：651.
② Piaget J. The moral judgement of the child[M].New York:MacMillan,1965(转引自：徐芬,傅根耀.小学儿童对说谎及说真话的评价[J].心理学报,1998,(10)：452)
①小村之恋.改变命运的人生哲理故事排行[EB/OL]. http://shenghuo.xooob.com/shqsl/200812/362149.html,2008-12-20.
①快速：每分钟讲200字以上；中速,每分钟200字左右；慢速,每分钟100字左右。(刘德强.现代演讲学[M].上海：上海社会科学院出版社,1996：99.)
①于青.热比娅东京记者会扫描：语无伦次 丑态百出[EB\OL].http://world.people.com.cn/GB/9749043.html, 2009-07-30
①朱明勇.邓女娇案——从三个通告看背后的黑手有多毒[EB\OL]. http://www.tryjohn.com/42140773.html,2009-06-03.
①新京报.别让数字误导了道德评判[EB\OL].http://www.thebeijingnews.com/comment/wenyu/1040/2007/12-04/011 @092922.htm,2007-12-04.
②如《香港无线电广播广告实施标准条例》规定：“对于有关产品所做的说明,不应使用它们是最好的,最安全的,最迅速的或在涉及到其他产品的比较时,不应无根据地使用类似的形容词的比较级、最高级,歪曲事实。《加拿大广告准则》规定“在广告中使用最高级形容词时,应当注意与比较广告遵循同样的准则”,“使用最高级形容词应尽可能具体,以便拿出足够的证据”,“如果最高级形容词无法证明,就不应该使用”。《英国广告活动准则》在有关比较性广告的条款中规定“使用优秀、最优秀等字眼时应真实反映该产品的质量并能提供证据。我国的《广告审查标准》(试行)第四章“比较广告”没有明确规定对使用最高级形容词的广告词予以禁止,但我国《广告法》第7条却明确规定广告不得使用国家级、最高级、最佳等用语,且该条的禁止性规定为广告的准则之一(张志松.试论比较广告的有关法律问题[J].法律适用,2000,(05)：30-31)
①拉里.A.萨姆瓦.跨文化传通[M].陈南等译.北京：三联书店,1988.(转引自：成莹.论功能视域下行政人的态势语言[D].长沙：湖南师范大学,2009：14.)
①杨晓黎.鉴貌辨色,意在言外[C]//..胡文仲.文化与交际.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,1994：8.(转引自：谢伦浩.副言语的文化意蕴[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2005：12.)
① Malandro L A, Barker L. Nonverbal Communication [M]. Addison Wesley Publishing Co. Inc,.1989(转引自：吴为章.新编普通语言学教程[M].北京：北京广播学院出版社,1999：190.)
①百度百科.厌恶[EB\OL]..http://baike.baidu.com/view/358867.html?wtp=tt.2010-02-10.
①黄鸣鹤.神灵裁判——历史上最早的非人类法官[EB/OL].http://www.dffy.com/sifashijian/jj/200411/200411071620 47.html,2004-11-07.
①黄懿陆.《先越文化与中国上古历史》自序——壮族鸡卦与《易经》卦名卦象的比较研究[EB/OL].http://www.y nzxb.cn/2006/3-20/14415242460.htm,2006-03-20
②何家弘.司法证明方式和证据规则的历史沿革[EB/OL].http://www.studa.net/2003/6-22/2003622120037.html, 2003-06-22.
①黄鸣鹤.神灵裁判——历史上最早的非人类法官[EB/OL].http://www.dffy.com/sifashijian/jj/200411/2004110716 2047.html,2004-11-07.
①何家弘.司法证明方式和证据规则的历史沿革[EB/OL].http://www.studa.net/2003/6-22/2003622120037.html, 2003-06-22.
①把囚犯头高脚低地绑在一个木板上,脸用玻璃纸盖上,然后开始泼水。由于玻璃纸遮住了口鼻,囚犯很快就感到窒息,一种快要被憋死的恐惧袭上心头。一般囚犯平均只能熬14秒,便纷纷求饶。(环球时报.美国中情局酷刑揭秘：水封闭在审讯中最有效果[EB/OL].http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical2/23/20070928/14370447.html, 2007-09-28.)
② 用强噪音干扰,刺激疑犯听力神经,导致其精神紊乱,耐不住而最终招供。(环球时报.美国中情局酷刑揭秘：水封闭在审讯中最有效果[EB/OL].http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical2/23/20070928/14370447.html,2007-09-28.)
③ 药物逼供是一种新的精神折磨方式。一些治疗精神科疾病的药物使用在正常人身上会使人情绪极端低落,甚至产生各种恐怖的幻觉,在这种情况下,很少有人能“药死也不说”。(环球时报.美国中情局酷刑揭秘：水封闭在审讯中最有效果[EB/OL].http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical2/23/20070928/14370447.htmI,2007-09-28.)
①《封诊式》竹简,1975年12月湖北省云梦县睡虎地秦墓出土的睡虎地秦墓竹简之一,共98简,包括《治狱》、《讯狱》等25节简文。封诊式是关于审判原则及对案件进行调查、勘验、审讯、查封等方面的规定和案例。
②“测囚之法”,《隋书刑法志》解释为：“其有赃验显然而不款,则上测立。测立者,以土为垛,高一尺,上圆劣,容囚两足立,鞭二十,笞三十讫,著两械及杠,上垛,一上测七刻,日再上,三七日上测,七日行一鞭”(靳学仁.刑讯逼供研究[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2007：39-87.)。即先抽鞭子,打棍子,然后带械站跺,迫囚招供。
③刘秉光.第一个反对“刑讯逼供”的皇帝[EB/OL].http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_498a48c401000c95.html, 2007-11-15.
④《法律答问》,《睡虎地秦墓竹简》之一。共有简210支,多采用问答形式,对秦律的某些条文做出明确的解释。
① guozhe1980中国古代酷刑——兽咬、拷讯[EB/OL].http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_1761330_1.html,2007-01-15.
② guozhe1980中国古代酷刑——兽咬、拷讯[EB/OL].http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_1761330_1.html,2007-01-15.
①转引自俞效锋,赵敏,张鸿雁.谎言·测谎与反测谎[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,1991.115.
①“恒态,恒定时的情态,具体指人的形体相貌、 精神气质、言谈举止等在恒定状态时的表现,这是一个人心性品质的必然,因而是鉴人察性时必须考察的方面。时态,瞬间状态中的情态,以前后变化运动为归类标准,与环境有关,是体现人物内心世界的微观考察,与恒态的宏观考察互相补充。”(曾国藩(清).冰鉴全录(下册)[M].刘越峰注释.北京：中国长安出版社,2003：288.)
①沈英甲.新型测谎仪工作原理揭秘：分析语言比对表情[EB/OL]. http://www.ynet.com/net/view.jsp?oid=1954794 0,2008-3-22.
①列文森提出。转引自：钱冠连.语言全息论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002：204.
②转引自：韩振来.现代全息理论介绍[J].济南大学学报(社会科学版),1990,(00)：84.
①使用控制问题技术和独立的测试人员的现场研究得到的平均击中率(转引自：Aldert Vrij说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：268)
②有罪情景测试的现场研究得到的平均击中率(转引自：Aldert Vrij说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：268.)
③即Criteria-based Contene Analysis,所谓标准基础内容分析,是陈述有效性评价的第二个阶段,系统地评价获得的陈述的内容和质量。(Aldert Vrij说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：141.)
①“道德否定情境”中的说谎行为,大多数为“损人利己”,少数为“单纯利己”,但是其说谎行为产生的效用与社会公众或他人(非敌人)的利益是相悖的；而“道德肯定情境”中的说谎行为,大多数为“无私利他”,少数为“单纯利己”,但是其说谎行为产生的效用与社会公众或他人(非敌人)的利益是相一致的也。(邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007：88.)。
①百度百科.谎言癖[EB\oL] http://baike.baidu.com/view/1141183.htm,2007-09-07.
①在性格的分类理论中,心理学家荣格的理论最为著名。他将性格分为内倾型和外倾型两大类。内倾型性格的特点是性格表现倾向于内部世界,很少表露,言语少,孤僻,内心体验深刻。而外倾型则是言行倾向于外部世界,好动,善交际,能言善辩(转引自：马宏伟.欺骗心理学[M].呼和浩特：内蒙古人民出版社,1992：102.)。
② Burgoon J K, Buller D B,InterpersonalDeception:Effectsof Deceit on Perceived Communication and Nonverbal Behavior Dynamics[J],Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,1994,(18)(转引自：孙武.西方谎言研究理论综述[J].国外社会科学.2008,(2)：27.)
③分类标准采自：American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders(fourth edition)[M].Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association,1994.(转引自：查尔斯·福特(美).说谎：你所不知道的一切[M].高卓等译.北京：新华出版社,2001：108.)
①礼貌原则可概括为：在其他条件相同的情况下,把不礼貌的信念减弱到最低限度(何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2003：212)。
①此例的素材来自于王德义,张保东.冒名顶罪的奥秘[J].人大建设.2006,,(2)：39-40.
[1]Aldert Vrij.说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005.
[2]赫尔什·古德伯格.谎言世界[M].段胜武,胡建华,岳经纶译.北京：群众出版社,1992.
[3]Ekman P, O'Sullivan M.Who can catch a liar?[J].American Psychologist,1 991,(46).
[4]多湖辉.深层心理术——即刻看出他人人品和欲望的方法[M].万奉明译.武汉：湖北科学技术出版社,1989.
[5]张路.更出色的测谎仪[J].百科知识,2005,(04).
[6]丹尼尔·麦克尼尔.面孔[M].王积超,刘珩,石毅译.北京：中国友谊出版公司,2000.
[7]李亮金.论言语交际中话语信息的真假形态及其作用[D].广州：广州大学,2006.
[8]黄二宁.假作真时真亦假——试析《儒林外史》中的谎言现象[J].平顶山学院学报,2007,(6).
[9]钱冠连.汉语文化语用学[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2002.
[10]M·赫希·高德伯格.有度的说谎[M].杨丹宇,马麟霜,宫卓武译.呼和浩特：内蒙古人民出版社,2004.
[11]潘清泉,周宗奎.说谎判断研究新进展[J].理论月刊,2009,(06)
[12]陈融.个性论与共性论：语用学该走向何处[J].现代外语,2005,(2).
[13]陈会昌.“说谎”的道德含义[J].父母必读,1996,(7).
[14]Sweetser E E. The definition of lie:An examination of the folk models u nderlying a semantic prototype[C]//. Holland D. Cultural models in language an d thought, New York:Cambridge University Press.1987.
[15]钱冠连.言语假信息[J].鄂西大学学报,1986,(3)
[16]唐彦生.交际之方[M].北京：蓝天出版社,1994.
[17]黄中建.假话在交际中的积极作用[J].现代交际,1996,(10).
[18]李正钢.“开解谎话”不妨说[J].修辞学习,1992,(2).
[19]DePaulo B M, Kashy D A, Kirkendol S E, Wyer M M, Epstein J A, Lying in everyday life[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1996, 70(5).
[20]辛菊.试论谎言符号的语用价值[J].山西师范大学学报,2003,(3).
[21]洪丹.言语交际中“交际谎言”的维护面子功能[J].内蒙古民族大学学报,2009,(9).
[22]马清华.语义的多维研究[M].北京：语文出版社,2006.
[23]唐贤秋.诚信道德探源[J].道德与文明,2003,(6).
[24]夏澍耘.中国古代诚信源流考[N].光明日报,2002-04-09.
[25]柏拉图.理想国[M].延吉：延边教育出版社,2004.
[26]康德.论出于善的动机而说谎的假设权力[C]//.郑保华.康德文集[M].北京：改革出版社,1997.
[27]张伟栋.实践哲学中的真理与谎言问题[D].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学,2007.
[28]边沁.道德与立法原理导论[M].时殷弘译.北京：商务印书馆,2000.
[29]相杨均.说谎心理学[M].张建平等译.上海.复旦大学出版社,1990.
[30]DePaulo B M, Kashy D A, Kirkendol S E, Wyer M M, Epstein JA. L ying in everyday life[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1996,70 (5).
[31]Lippard P V.Ask me no questions,I'11 tell you no lies:Situational Exigenc ies for Interpersonal Deception[J].Western Journal of Speech Communication,19 88,(52).
[32]刁胜先,黎伟,徐仲伟.诚信原则功能的反思[J].重庆邮电学院学报,2006,(5).
[33]DePaulo B M, Kashy D A,. Kirkendol S E, Wyer M M,Epstein J A.L ying in everyday life[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1996,70 (5).
[34]Beverly A McLeod, Randy L.Predicting the acceptability and likelihood of lying:The interaction of personality with type of lie[J]. Genereux.Personalit y and Individual Differences,2008,45(7).
[35]Monica T Whitty, Siobhan E Carville. Would I lie to you? Self-serving li es and other-oriented lies told across different medias[J]. Computers in Human Behavior,2008,24(3).
[36]王海明.新伦理学：优良道德的制定与实现之研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2001.
[37]赵峰艳.说谎作为交际策略的顺应性研究[J].铜仁学院学报,2008,(7).
[38]殷蕾,蒋其芳.说谎的经济学分析[J].合作经济与科技,2005,(4).
[39]Ekman P, Friesen W V. Nonverbal leakage and clues todeception[J]. Psy chiatry,1969,(32).
[40]Ekman P.Unmasking the face[M]. NewYork:Englewood Cliffs Prentice-Ha 11,1975.
[41]Ekman P. Menteurs et mensong e [M]. Paris:Belfond,.1986.
[42]Zuckerman M, DePaulo B M, Rosenthal R. Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception[C]. Berkowitz L. Advancesin experimental social psychology, New York:Academic Press,1981,(14).
[43]DePaulo B, Lindsay J J, Malone B E, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Coo per H. Cues to deception[J]. Psychological Bulletin 2003,(129).
[44]刘汝宽.谈侦查讯问中的察言观色[C]//.王怀旭.侦查讯问研究与利用.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,1998.
[45]Buller D B,Burgoon J K. Interpersonal deception theory[J].Communicatio n Theory,1996,(3).
[46]Ekman P,Friesen W V.Nonverbal leakage and Clues to Deception[J].Psyc hiatry,1969,32(1).
[47]Ekman P,Friesen W V.The repertoire of nonverbal behavior:categories,ori gins,usage,and coding[J].Semiotica,1969,(1).
[48]Desforges D M,Lee T C.Detecting deception is not as easy as it looks [J].Teaching of Psychology,1995,(22).
[49]柯廉,王玮琨,薛念,李宁,梁丽.公共关系与人体语言[M].北京：中国广播电视大学出版社,1990.
[50]Ekman P, Friesen W V. Nonverbal leakage and cues to deception[J].Ps ychiatry,1969,32 (1).
[51]Ekman P. Facial expression and emotion[J]. American Psychologist,1993, 48 (4).
[52]Mark G Frank,Paul Ekman.The Ability to Detect Deceit Generalizes Ac ross Different Types of High-Stake Lies [J] Journal of Personality and Social Ps ychology,1997,72(6).
[53]Vrij A,Heaven S.Vocal and verbal indicators of deception as a function of lie complexity [J]. Psychology, Crime and Law,1999,(5).
[54]Vrij A, Akehurst L,Morris P M. Individual differences in hand movemen ts during deception[J]. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,1997,(21).
[55]DePaulo M, Kirkendol S E.The MotivationalImpairment Effect in the C ommunication of Deception:Replications and extensions [J]. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,1988,12(3).
[56]王宏.试论言语假信息[J].山东外语教学,2002,(2)
[57]王丽娜,彭漪.试论言语交际中礼貌与诚挚的关系[J].外语与外语教学,2004,(2).
[58]全裕慧,宗守云.论言语信息的真与假[J].江西社会科学,2002,(6)
[59]涂争鸣.欺骗论[M].长沙：中南工业大学出版社,1997.
[60]Mitchell R W.Aframework for discussing deception[C]//.Mitchell R W,Mo gdil N S, et al.Deception: perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit.Albany: State University of New York Press,1986.
[61]保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992.
[62]胡范铸.起兴、连贯结构与欺骗[J].修辞学习,1991,(2).
[63]Jaume Masip,EugenioGarrido,GarmenHerrero.Defining Deception.Anales de Psicologia[J],2004.20(1).
[64]邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007.
[65]王希杰.修辞学通论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,1996.
[66]保罗·艾克曼.文化·文学·艺术·生活·娱乐如何戳穿诺言[M].郝舫,麻立,郝敏译.上海：上海文化出版社,1989.
[67]Monica T Whitty, Siobhan E Carville. Would I lie to you? Self-serving li es and other-oriented lies told across different medias[J].Computers in Human Behavior,2008,24(3).
[68]Peterson J L, Seeto D.Developmental changes in ideas about lying[J]. Ch ild Development,1983, (54)
[69]Pope W, Forsyth D. Judgments of deceptive communications:A multidi mensional analysis[J]. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,1986,24.
[70]Goffman E.The presentation of self in everyday life. In:C. Lemert and A. Branaman, Editors, The Goffman Reader, Blackwell Publishers/Doubleday A nchor, Massachusetts, USA/New York (1959,1997) New York:Doubleday Anch or (original work published in 1959).
[71]DePaulo B M, Kashy D A, Kirkendol S E, Wyer M M, Epstein JA. Ly ing in everyday life[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1996,70 (5).
[72]Depaulo B M. Nonverbal behavior and self-presantation[J].Psychological Bulletin,1992,11(1).
[73]Solomon, R C. Is it ever right to lie? The philosophy of deception. Th e Chronicle of Higher Education.1998,2(27).
[74]DePaulo B M, Kashy D A, Kirkendol S E, Wyer M M, Epstein JA. Ly ing in everyday life[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1996,70 (5).
[75]Feldman R S, Forrest J A, Happ B R. Self-Presentation and Verbal De ception:Do Self-Presenters Lie More? [J], Basic and Applied Social Psycholog y,2002 24(2).
[76]周宏.罗森塔尔效应及其在素质教育中的作用[J].成都大学学报,2002,(04).
[77]王建平.想象疗法[J].心理世界,2000,(02).
[78]吴仕逵.谎言改变人生?[J].英才,2008,(3).
[79]Crawford V, Sobel J. Strategic information transmission[J]. Econometric a,1982, (50).
[80]Buller D B. Selecting deceptive communication[C]. Paper presented at t he annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL. 1986.
[81]Knapp,M L.Interpersonal communication and human relationships[M].Bos ton, MA:Allyn & Bacon,1984.
[82]Eisenberger R, Lynch P, Aselage J, Rohdieck S. Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement[J]. Per sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin,2004,(30).
[83]陈汝东.语言伦理学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
[84]无名氏.说谎话更耗脑力将应用于测谎[J].科学大观园,2005,(22).
[85]郑红丽,丁同春.测谎技术的新进展[J].中国人民公安大学学报,2007,(1).
[86]Tobias Lundquista, Tore Ellingsena, Erik Gribbea, Magnus Johannesson. The aversion to lying [J].Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2009,7 0(1-2).
[87]田战省.动物骗子排行榜(上)[J].中考金刊,2009, (11)
[88]Bond CF Jr,Robinson M.The evolution of deception[J].Journal of Nonve rbal,1988(12).
[89]Toris C,DePaulo B M.Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of deception on interpersonal perceptions [J]. J Pers Soc Psychol,1985(47).
[90]马宏伟.欺骗心理学[M].呼和浩特：内蒙古人民出版社,1992.
[91]Feldman R S, Jenkins L, Popoola O. Detection of deception in adults a nd children via facial expressions [J]. Child Development,1979,50.
[92]万平来.论商务谈判中的谎言及其识别策略[J].广东技术师范学院学报,2008,(10).
[93]陈兴乐.测谎技术的心理与生理机制[J].广东省公安司法管理干部学院.2000.
[94]庄华民.测谎技术探究[J].监察实践,2000,(5)
[95]索绪尔.普通语言学教程[M].高名凯译.北京：商务印书馆,1980.
[96]岑运强,石艳华.二十年来语言和言语问题研究述评[J].汉语学习,2008,(04)
[97]刘丽芬,黄忠廉.“语言”“言语”与“话语”三分[J].中国科技术语,2008(5)
[98]李杰群.非言语交际概论[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2002.
[99]Biland C, Py J, Allione J, Demarchi S, Abric J C.The effect of lying o n intentional versus unintentional facial expressions [J]. Revue Europeenne de Psy chologie Appliquee/European Review of Applied Psychology,2008,58(2)
[100]Ekman P, Friesen W V, Scherer K R. Body movement and voice pitc h in deceptive interaction[J]. Semiotica,1976.(16).
[101]刘宓庆.当代翻译理论[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,2003.
[102]李悦娥,申智奇. 《自然会话中的打断现象分析》[J].当代语言学,2003,5(1).
[103]顾筝.话轮转换中话题的承接和启动[D].上海：复旦大学,2005.
[104]徐烈炯,刘丹青.话题的结构与功能[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1998.
[105]王建华.关于语境的定义与性质[J].浙江社会科学,2002,(1).
[106]王建华.关于语境的构成与分类[J].语言文字应用,2002,(3).
[107]郭志族,郭京龙.谎言研究[M].北京：中国社会出版社,2005.
[108]刘汝宽.谈侦查讯问中的察言观色[C]//.王怀旭.侦查讯问研究与利用.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,1998.
[109]墨言.哈佛观人学[M].北京：中国人事出版社,1997.
[110]俞肖云.真实的谎言——被炒作的数据[J].中国统计,2007,(6).
[111]郭熙.中国社会语言学[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2004.
[112]陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1997.
[113]刑福义,汪国胜.现代汉语[M].武汉：华中师范大学出版社,2003
[114]张静.新编现代汉语[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1980.
[115]耿二岭.体态语概说[M].北京：北京语言学院出版社,1988.
[116]Mehrabian A.Communication without words[J]. Psychology Today,1968, 2 (9).
[117]阿伦·皮斯.身体语言[M].贾宗谊,卢爱君译.北京：新华出版社,2002.
[118]托尼娅·瑞曼.身体语言的力量[M].洪友译.天津：天津社会科学院出版社,2008.
[119]Samovar L.Understanding Intercultural Communication[M]. Belmont:Wa dsworth Publishing Company,1981.
[120]谢伦浩.副言语的文化意蕴[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2005.
[121]王洁.法律语言学教程[M].北京：法律出版社,1997.
[122]赛弥·莫尔肖.体态语言大全[M].贾慧蝶译.上海：同济大学出版社,2005.
[123]Anjanie McCarthy, Kang Lee.Children's knowledge of deceptive gaze cues and its relation to their actual lying behavior[J].Journal of Experimental C hild Psychology,2009,103(2).
[124]Dionisio D P, Granholm E, Hillix W A, Perrine W F. Differentiation of deceptionusing pupillary responses as an index of cognitive processing[J]. Ps ychophysiology,2001,38(2).
[125]Ekman. Universals and cultural differeneces in facial expressions of e motion[C]//. Cole J. Nebraska symposium on motivation.Linecoln:University of NebraskaPress,1972,(19).
[126]达尔文.人类和动物的表情[M].周邦立译.北京：科学出版社,1958.
[127]盖世梅,李明和.侦查讯问强制机理范式研究[J].法律方法与法律思维,2007,(4).
[128]何家弘,张卫平.外国证据法选译(上卷)[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2000.
[129]靳学仁.刑讯逼供研究[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2007.
[130]陆新淮.论中国古代侦查制度的演变[J].郑州经济管理干部学院学报,2005,(2).
[131]穗积陈重.法律进化论[M].黄遵三等译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997.
[132]樊崇义.证据学[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,1999.
[133]俞效锋,赵敏,张鸿雁.谎言·测谎与反测谎[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,1991.
[134]俞荣根.羌族习惯法[M].重庆：重庆出版社,2000.
[135]海乃拉莫,曲木约质,刘尧汉.凉山彝族习惯法案例集成[M].昆明：云南人民出版社,1998.
[136]裴苍龄.证据法学新论[M].北京：法律出版社,1989.
[137]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚[M].黄风译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1993.
[138]刘晓丹.证据法学(上册)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[139]杨奉琨.疑狱集 折狱龟鉴校释[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1988.
[140]曾国藩.冰鉴全录(下册)[M].刘越峰注释.北京：中国长安出版社,2003.
[141]曹晓宝.论测谎工具的历史演变[J].贵州职业技术学院学报,2006,(2).
[142]陈娟.伪证与16、17世纪英国民众的法律观念[J].湘潭大学学报,2006,30(4)
[143]斯坦·沃尔特斯.挑战谎言——识别谎言的技巧[M].牛曼漪,寇洁,潘琳等译.海口：南海出版公司,2001.
[144]查尔斯·福特.说谎：你所不知道的一切[M].高卓等译.北京：新华出版社,2001.
[145]大卫·李柏曼.看谁在说谎[M].项慧龄译.重庆：重庆出版社,2007.
[146]M·赫希·高德伯格.有度的说谎[M].杨丹宇、马麟霜、宫卓武译.呼和浩特：内蒙古人民出版社,2004.
[147]萨丽·考德威尔.浪漫欺骗[M].陈欧等译.南宁：广西人民出版社,2003.
[148]希赛拉·鲍克.说谎——公共生活与私人生活中的道德选择[M].张彤华,王立影译.长春：吉林科学技术出版社,1989.
[149]多湖辉.欺骗与反欺骗[M].陆林编译.海口：海南出版社,1993.
[150]桦旦纯.识破谎言[M].陈刚译.北京：科学出版社,2004.
[151]松本顺.人的甄别[M].顾敏,陈效德译.上海：百家出版社,1989.
[152]金瑞芳.审讯心理学[M].杭州：杭州大学出版社,1990.
[153]庞兴华.侦讯谋略[M].北京：警官教育出版社,1994.
[154]廖美珍.国外法律语言研究综述[J].当代语言学,2004,(1).
[155]何家弘.测谎结论与证据的“有限采用规则”[J].中国法学.2002,(2).
[156]亚静.无处躲藏：测谎神探武伯欣破案实录[M].北京：中国言实出版社,2005.
[157]杨道金,张泽民.中国刑侦测谎大揭秘[M].北京：中国文联出版社,2000.
[158]刘淑环.“测谎证据”的概率分析——测谎仪真能测出谎言吗?[J].数理统计与管理,2003,22(3)
[159]贾国勇.测出的不仅是心跳：测谎专家武伯欣破案实录[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2004.
[160]罗丹.测谎科研多方发力[J].国外科技动态,2004,(05).
[161]金秋.测谎仪测肠子比测心脏更准确.科教文汇[J].2005,Z1.
[162]韩振来.现代全息理论介绍[J].济南大学学报(社会科学版),1990,(00)
[163]夏有恒.全息思维方式论[J].社会科学战线,1995,(3).
[164]张颖清.生物全息律[J].自然杂志,1981,(4)
[165]严春友.宇宙统一于信息——答施启良先生[J].太原师范学院学报(社会科学版),2007,(1).
[166]施启良.全息论研究展望[J].科学技术与辩证法,1991,(02).
[167]陈传康.全息学与全息地学[J].科学技术与辩证法,1990,(5).
[168]田里.生物全息律·全息思维方式·世界可知论[J].绥化学院学报,1987,(3).
[169]王兆强.广义全息与全息不全——兼与《宇宙全息统一论》作者商榷[J].科学技术与辩证法,1989,(6).
[170]陈传康.全息学与全息地学[J].科学技术与辩证法,1990,(5).
[171]朱智贤.心理学大辞典[Z].北京：北京师范大学出版社,1989年.
[172]Kluckhohn C K M. Value and Value Orientation in the Theory of Ac tion:An Exploration in Definition and Classification[A]. In:T Parsons & Sh ils E A,etal. Toward a General Theory of Action[M]. Cambridge,MA:Harva rd University Press.
[173]Rokeach M. The Nature of HumanValue[M]. NY:Free Press,1973.
[174]陈章龙,周莉.价值观研究[M].南京：南京师范大学出版社,2004.
[175]严春友.论科学的全息性[J].科学学研究,1989,(2)
[176]杨春鼎.直觉、表象与思维[M].福州：福建教育出版社,1990.
[177]严春友.精神之谜——全息精神学[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1991.
[178]Eswara H S, Suryarekha A.The relationship between lie scores and anxi ety scores on Taylor's Mainifest Anxiety Scale[J]. Journal of Psychological Re searches,1974,18 (3).
[179]多湖辉(日).排除心理陷阱84秘诀[M].吴正和译.台北：新雨出版社,1992
[180]苏彦捷,郭晓娟.刺激强度与个体差异对心理生理测谎的影响[J].心理科学,2001,(5)
[181]曾建明.知识主管21世纪知识社会的新领袖[M].长春：长春出版社,2002.
[182]Grice H P.Logicand Conversation[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University P ress,1975.
①新华词典编纂组.新华词典[K].北京：商务印书馆,1980：369
②中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编.现代汉语词典[K].北京：商务印书馆,1992：497.
③霍恩比,李北达编译.牛津高阶英汉双解词典[K].北京：商务印书馆,牛津大学出版社,1997：856.
④蒙田.蒙田随笔[C].北京：人民文学出版社,2005：18.(转引自：张伟栋.实践哲学中的真理与谎言问题[D].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学,2007：25.)
① Krauss R.M.Impression formation,impression management,and nonverbal behaviors[C]//. Higgins ET, Herman C P, Zanna M P. Social cognition:the Ontario Symposium.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum,1981,(1):323-341(转引自：Aldert Vrij.说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：7.)
②转引自Sweetser E E. The definition of lie:An examination of the folk models underlying a semantic prototype[C]//. Holland D. Cultural models in language and thought, New York:Cambridge University Press.1987:43.
③转引自：徐芬,荆春燕,刘英,包雪华.交往情境下个体对说谎的理解及其道德评价[J].心理学报,2002,34(1)：74.
① Lee K,Ross H J.The concept of lying in adolescents and young adults:Testing Sweetser's Folkloristic Model.[J]Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,1997,(43):255-270. Lee K,Cameron C A,Xu F,Fu G,Board J.Chinese and Canadian children's evaluations of lying and truth-telling[J].Child Development,1997,(64):924-934(转引自：转引自：徐芬,荆春燕,刘英,包雪华.交往情境下个体对说谎的理解及其道德评价[J].心理学报,2002,34(1)：74.)
②卡普曼.说谎[C]//.波多尔斯基.心理异常百科全书：精神病学手册.纽约：纽约哲学图书馆,1953：288.(转引自：查尔斯·福特.说谎：你所不知道的一切[M].高卓等译.北京：新华出版社,2001：30.)
①信息操控理论(IMT)强调,信息在复杂的沟通情境中有着功能上的适应。为了平衡其对话伙伴应接收到的信息与所传达的信息可能引起的损失之间的冲突,个体需要去改变信息。因此,描述欺编性信息的一种方式就是描述信息被操控和控制的方式(邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007：18.)。
① Ekman P,Friesen W V.Detecting deception from the body or face[J].Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1974,29(3):288-298(转引自：邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007：12.)
② Miller G R, Stiff J B.Deceptive communication[M].Newbury Park:Sage,1993:86(转引自：邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007：13.)
③ Sanchez F, Becerra A.Eltema de la preguntay la elaboration de las respuestas en la deteccion de la mentira[J].Revista de Psicologia Social,1991,6(l):73-83.(转引自：邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007：13.)
④阿伦特.真理与政治[C]//.贺照田.西方现代性的曲折与展开.吉林：吉林人民出版社,2002：327.(转引自：张伟栋.实践哲学中的真理与谎言问题[D].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学,2007：26.)
①国家的统治者为了国家的利益,有理由用谎言来应付敌人,甚至应付公民。要让公民相信,“他们虽然一土所生,彼此都是兄弟,但是老天铸造他们的时候,在有些人的身上加入了黄金,这些人最可宝贵的,是统治者。在辅助者(军人)的身上加入了白银。在农民以及其他技工身上加入了铁和铜。但是又由于同属一类,虽则父子天赋相承,有时不免金父生银子,银父生金子,错综变化,不一而足。所以上天给统治者的命令最重要的就是要他们做后代的好护卫者,要他们极端注意在后代灵魂深处所混合的究竟是哪一种金属。如果他们的孩子心灵里混入了一些废铜烂铁,他们决不能稍存姑息,应当把他们放到恰如其分的位置上去,安置于农民工人之间；如果农民工人的后辈中间发现其天赋中有金有银者,他们就要重视他,把他提升到护卫者或辅助者中间去。”——柏拉图认为,这样的谎言,目的是使城邦公民爱护他们的国家以及相互爱护,是一种“高贵的谎言”(柏拉图.理想国[M].延吉：延边教育出版社,2004：61.)
①可能有这种情况：当你对谋杀者诚实地做了“是”的回答时,你的朋友也可能已经在你未注意的情况下走出去了,因此他没有成为谋杀者的牺牲品,所以这件事就是还未发生：然而如果你谎称他不在房间里,而事实上他已经出去了(尽管你不了解),因此谋杀者在他出去时遇见他并杀了他,那么出于公正,你就可能被谴责为是他死的原因,在国内裁判所你就必须为此承担罪责(康德.论出于善的动机而说谎的假设权力[C]//.郑保华.康德文集[M].北京：改革出版社,1997：419.)。
①在特定的情境下,作为一种伦理行为,说谎至少是：(1)完全利己；(2)为他利己：(3)利己以害己；(4)利己以害他四种伦理行为中的一种,同时也至少属于(1)损人利己；(2)害他以利他：(3)害人以害己；(4)完全害他这四种伦理行为中的一种,所以,说谎不是一种纯粹类型的伦理行为。(邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007：34.)
① Metts S. An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships[J]. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,1989, (6):159-179. (转引自DePaulo, B., Lindsay, J.J., Malone, B.E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., Cooper.H.. Cues to deception[J]. Psychological Bulletin 2003, (129):78.)
② Buller D B, Burgoon J K. Interpersonal deception theory [J].Communication Theory,1996,(3):203-242(转引自DePaulo B, Lindsay J J, Malone B E, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H..Cues to deception[J]. Psychological Bulletin 2003, (129):78.)
① Connelly J T, Mumford M D, Leritz L E, Ruark G, Allen M T, Waples E P.Exploring Content Coding Procedure for Assessing Truth and Deception in Verbal Statements, Norman OK:Final TechnicalReport for the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute,2003.(转引自：孙武.西方谎言研究理论综述[J].国外社会科学.2008,(2)：29-50.)
①抵消或取消面部表情意义的手部动作。比如,说话时用手在嘴、鼻子、眼睛或耳朵等处不停地动来动去(斯坦·沃尔特斯(美).挑战谎言——识别谎言的技巧[M].牛曼漪,寇洁,潘琳等译.海口：南海出版公司,2001：122.)。
②目的是引开观察者对他的话的重要性的注意。比如,有效地避免从嘴里泄露任何重要信息的办法之一是装出大笑的样子(斯坦·沃尔特斯(美).挑战谎言——识别谎言的技巧[M].牛曼漪,寇洁,潘琳等译.海口：南海出版公司,2001：124.)。
①脸部的一种细小表情,转瞬即逝,往往会被人忽略(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：119-120.)。
②当事人中止或掩饰的表情。与微表情的区别是：微表情出现的时间极为短促,却是完整地呈现在哪里；被压制的表情持续的时间稍长一些,但由于受到干扰,总是不可能达到完整地呈现(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：121-122.)。
①脸的两边出现同样的动作,但动作的强度却一边大于另一边(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：133-134.)
②包括一个表情的持续时间、出现和消失所占用的时间。表情的持续时间有的长达10秒钟甚至更长,但通常为五秒钟。持续时间长的表情很可能是虚假的.譬如,真实的“震惊”,出现、持续和消失的时间,加起来不到一秒钟(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：137.)。
③一个表情的出现是出现在言词、语调和举止的相关位置上的。如果表情的位置出现偏差,那么这个表情可能是虚假的。譬如有人生气地说：“我对你的所作所为已经受够了!”,生气的表情出现在说完这句话之后,较之于出现在这句话之前或同时,虚假的可能性就要大得多(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：139.)。
① Vrij A,Semin G R. Lie experts'beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception[J].Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,1996,(20):65-80(转引自Aldert Vrij说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：69.)
①任何可以看作是欺骗迹象的行为都有可能是少数人的正常行为,对这些人,人们很可能会做出错误判断。艾克曼把这种情况称之为“布洛考失误”(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：79-80.)。
②这一错误的原因是,没有考虑到有些诚实的人在受到怀疑时也会情绪紧张(保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992：122.)
①“问对方一个他不介意据实以告的问题,一个把问答限定在他感觉是正面的问题。这个技巧就是所谓的‘引导与局限’。”(大卫.李柏曼(美).看谁在说谎[M].项慧龄译.台北：时报文化出版企业股份有限公司,2002：61.)
②“对时间造成影响的因素有二：事件何时发生,以及你何时知道事件的发生。”把这两个因素中的任何一个因素变成过去式,事件本身就已不再及时,也大大降低了事件本身的严重性,当事人说出真相的顾虑也大为降低。(大卫.李柏曼(美).看谁在说谎[M].项慧龄译.台北：时报文化出版企业股份有限公司,2002：63.)
③指责对方,把所有肯恩规范下的过错都归咎于对方,从而使他坦白招认自己真正犯下的过错。(大卫.李柏曼(美).看谁在说谎[M].项慧龄译.台北：时报文化出版企业股份有限公司,2002：70.)
④要求对方针对质疑提出有内容的答复,而不仅仅是否认而已(大卫.李柏曼(美).看谁在说谎[M].项慧龄译.台北：时报文化出版企业股份有限公司,2002：73.)。
① Sporer, S.L. The less traveled road to truth:verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self-experienced events[J]. Applied Cognitive Psychology,1997, (11):373-397(转引自：Aldert Vrij说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：204.)
②转引自：Aldert Vrij说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：202-203.
①罗贯中.三国演义[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,2006：38.
①罗贯中.三国演义.[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,2006：106.
①罗贯中.三国演义.[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,2006：4.
①租借法案,又称《加强美国防务法》。该法规定,总统可以随时授权陆军部长、海军部长,或政府任何其他部门或机构,在其所管辖的兵工厂、工厂和船坞内制造或以其他手段获得任何防务物资,以供给总统认为其防务对美国防务至关重要的任何国家政府；向任何这样的政府出售、转让、交换、借予、租给或用其他方法安排任何防务物资；为任何这样的政府试验、检查、检验、修理、装配任何防务物资；或用其他方法保持其良好状态,或通过秘密协定取得所有此类服务等等。租借法案在促进美国参战、获得反法西斯战争的胜利方面起了不可低估的作用。(张兵.租借法案与美国对外政策的转变[J].辽宁大学学报,2002,(9)：73.)
②第23大队是美国部署在欧洲战场上的神奇部队,自1944年组建至1945年欧战结束,先后装扮了第五装甲师、第四步兵师、第六装甲师、第九十步兵师和其他友军,以掩护他们的撤退与进攻(赫尔什·古德伯格(美).谎言世界[M].段胜武,胡建华,岳经纶译.北京：群众出版社,1992：58-61.)。
③郑苹如,生于1918年,中日混血,为上海名嫒。上海沦陷后,秘密加入中统,混迹于日伪人员当中获取情报。后参与暗杀日伪特务头子丁默村而被捕,一口咬定为情所困,雇凶杀人,成为当年上海滩重大花边新闻之一。1940年2月,被秘密处决。(马国亮.良友忆旧——一家画报与一个时代[M].上海：生活.读书.新知三联书店,2002.)
①想象指导疗法是在一定的指导下,通过一定的客观刺激(图形、颜色、光亮)或言语诱导,使人产生积极的想象活动,以此调节对疾病的消极认识,,通过积极的想象活动,调节人机体内部的生理性和心理性防御功能,促使心身机能向健康方面转化而达到治疗的目的。(王建平.想象疗法[J].心理世界,2000,(02)：38.)
①转引自：庄华民.测谎技术探究[J].监察实践,2000,(5)：33.
①转引自：张亭玉,张雨青.说谎行为及其识别的心理学研究[J].心理科学进展,2008,16(4)：651.
② Piaget J. The moral judgement of the child[M].New York:MacMillan,1965(转引自：徐芬,傅根耀.小学儿童对说谎及说真话的评价[J].心理学报,1998,(10)：452)
①小村之恋.改变命运的人生哲理故事排行[EB/OL]. http://shenghuo.xooob.com/shqsl/200812/362149.html,2008-12-20.
①快速：每分钟讲200字以上；中速,每分钟200字左右；慢速,每分钟100字左右。(刘德强.现代演讲学[M].上海：上海社会科学院出版社,1996：99.)
①于青.热比娅东京记者会扫描：语无伦次 丑态百出[EB\OL].http://world.people.com.cn/GB/9749043.html, 2009-07-30
①朱明勇.邓女娇案——从三个通告看背后的黑手有多毒[EB\OL]. http://www.tryjohn.com/42140773.html,2009-06-03.
①新京报.别让数字误导了道德评判[EB\OL].http://www.thebeijingnews.com/comment/wenyu/1040/2007/12-04/011 @092922.htm,2007-12-04.
②如《香港无线电广播广告实施标准条例》规定：“对于有关产品所做的说明,不应使用它们是最好的,最安全的,最迅速的或在涉及到其他产品的比较时,不应无根据地使用类似的形容词的比较级、最高级,歪曲事实。《加拿大广告准则》规定“在广告中使用最高级形容词时,应当注意与比较广告遵循同样的准则”,“使用最高级形容词应尽可能具体,以便拿出足够的证据”,“如果最高级形容词无法证明,就不应该使用”。《英国广告活动准则》在有关比较性广告的条款中规定“使用优秀、最优秀等字眼时应真实反映该产品的质量并能提供证据。我国的《广告审查标准》(试行)第四章“比较广告”没有明确规定对使用最高级形容词的广告词予以禁止,但我国《广告法》第7条却明确规定广告不得使用国家级、最高级、最佳等用语,且该条的禁止性规定为广告的准则之一(张志松.试论比较广告的有关法律问题[J].法律适用,2000,(05)：30-31)
①拉里.A.萨姆瓦.跨文化传通[M].陈南等译.北京：三联书店,1988.(转引自：成莹.论功能视域下行政人的态势语言[D].长沙：湖南师范大学,2009：14.)
①杨晓黎.鉴貌辨色,意在言外[C]//..胡文仲.文化与交际.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,1994：8.(转引自：谢伦浩.副言语的文化意蕴[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2005：12.)
① Malandro L A, Barker L. Nonverbal Communication [M]. Addison Wesley Publishing Co. Inc,.1989(转引自：吴为章.新编普通语言学教程[M].北京：北京广播学院出版社,1999：190.)
①百度百科.厌恶[EB\OL]..http://baike.baidu.com/view/358867.html?wtp=tt.2010-02-10.
①黄鸣鹤.神灵裁判——历史上最早的非人类法官[EB/OL].http://www.dffy.com/sifashijian/jj/200411/200411071620 47.html,2004-11-07.
①黄懿陆.《先越文化与中国上古历史》自序——壮族鸡卦与《易经》卦名卦象的比较研究[EB/OL].http://www.y nzxb.cn/2006/3-20/14415242460.htm,2006-03-20
②何家弘.司法证明方式和证据规则的历史沿革[EB/OL].http://www.studa.net/2003/6-22/2003622120037.html, 2003-06-22.
①黄鸣鹤.神灵裁判——历史上最早的非人类法官[EB/OL].http://www.dffy.com/sifashijian/jj/200411/2004110716 2047.html,2004-11-07.
①何家弘.司法证明方式和证据规则的历史沿革[EB/OL].http://www.studa.net/2003/6-22/2003622120037.html, 2003-06-22.
①把囚犯头高脚低地绑在一个木板上,脸用玻璃纸盖上,然后开始泼水。由于玻璃纸遮住了口鼻,囚犯很快就感到窒息,一种快要被憋死的恐惧袭上心头。一般囚犯平均只能熬14秒,便纷纷求饶。(环球时报.美国中情局酷刑揭秘：水封闭在审讯中最有效果[EB/OL].http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical2/23/20070928/14370447.html, 2007-09-28.)
② 用强噪音干扰,刺激疑犯听力神经,导致其精神紊乱,耐不住而最终招供。(环球时报.美国中情局酷刑揭秘：水封闭在审讯中最有效果[EB/OL].http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical2/23/20070928/14370447.html,2007-09-28.)
③ 药物逼供是一种新的精神折磨方式。一些治疗精神科疾病的药物使用在正常人身上会使人情绪极端低落,甚至产生各种恐怖的幻觉,在这种情况下,很少有人能“药死也不说”。(环球时报.美国中情局酷刑揭秘：水封闭在审讯中最有效果[EB/OL].http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical2/23/20070928/14370447.htmI,2007-09-28.)
①《封诊式》竹简,1975年12月湖北省云梦县睡虎地秦墓出土的睡虎地秦墓竹简之一,共98简,包括《治狱》、《讯狱》等25节简文。封诊式是关于审判原则及对案件进行调查、勘验、审讯、查封等方面的规定和案例。
②“测囚之法”,《隋书刑法志》解释为：“其有赃验显然而不款,则上测立。测立者,以土为垛,高一尺,上圆劣,容囚两足立,鞭二十,笞三十讫,著两械及杠,上垛,一上测七刻,日再上,三七日上测,七日行一鞭”(靳学仁.刑讯逼供研究[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2007：39-87.)。即先抽鞭子,打棍子,然后带械站跺,迫囚招供。
③刘秉光.第一个反对“刑讯逼供”的皇帝[EB/OL].http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_498a48c401000c95.html, 2007-11-15.
④《法律答问》,《睡虎地秦墓竹简》之一。共有简210支,多采用问答形式,对秦律的某些条文做出明确的解释。
① guozhe1980中国古代酷刑——兽咬、拷讯[EB/OL].http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_1761330_1.html,2007-01-15.
② guozhe1980中国古代酷刑——兽咬、拷讯[EB/OL].http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_1761330_1.html,2007-01-15.
①转引自俞效锋,赵敏,张鸿雁.谎言·测谎与反测谎[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,1991.115.
①“恒态,恒定时的情态,具体指人的形体相貌、 精神气质、言谈举止等在恒定状态时的表现,这是一个人心性品质的必然,因而是鉴人察性时必须考察的方面。时态,瞬间状态中的情态,以前后变化运动为归类标准,与环境有关,是体现人物内心世界的微观考察,与恒态的宏观考察互相补充。”(曾国藩(清).冰鉴全录(下册)[M].刘越峰注释.北京：中国长安出版社,2003：288.)
①沈英甲.新型测谎仪工作原理揭秘：分析语言比对表情[EB/OL]. http://www.ynet.com/net/view.jsp?oid=1954794 0,2008-3-22.
①列文森提出。转引自：钱冠连.语言全息论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002：204.
②转引自：韩振来.现代全息理论介绍[J].济南大学学报(社会科学版),1990,(00)：84.
①使用控制问题技术和独立的测试人员的现场研究得到的平均击中率(转引自：Aldert Vrij说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：268)
②有罪情景测试的现场研究得到的平均击中率(转引自：Aldert Vrij说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：268.)
③即Criteria-based Contene Analysis,所谓标准基础内容分析,是陈述有效性评价的第二个阶段,系统地评价获得的陈述的内容和质量。(Aldert Vrij说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005：141.)
①“道德否定情境”中的说谎行为,大多数为“损人利己”,少数为“单纯利己”,但是其说谎行为产生的效用与社会公众或他人(非敌人)的利益是相悖的；而“道德肯定情境”中的说谎行为,大多数为“无私利他”,少数为“单纯利己”,但是其说谎行为产生的效用与社会公众或他人(非敌人)的利益是相一致的也。(邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007：88.)。
①百度百科.谎言癖[EB\oL] http://baike.baidu.com/view/1141183.htm,2007-09-07.
①在性格的分类理论中,心理学家荣格的理论最为著名。他将性格分为内倾型和外倾型两大类。内倾型性格的特点是性格表现倾向于内部世界,很少表露,言语少,孤僻,内心体验深刻。而外倾型则是言行倾向于外部世界,好动,善交际,能言善辩(转引自：马宏伟.欺骗心理学[M].呼和浩特：内蒙古人民出版社,1992：102.)。
② Burgoon J K, Buller D B,InterpersonalDeception:Effectsof Deceit on Perceived Communication and Nonverbal Behavior Dynamics[J],Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,1994,(18)(转引自：孙武.西方谎言研究理论综述[J].国外社会科学.2008,(2)：27.)
③分类标准采自：American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders(fourth edition)[M].Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association,1994.(转引自：查尔斯·福特(美).说谎：你所不知道的一切[M].高卓等译.北京：新华出版社,2001：108.)
①礼貌原则可概括为：在其他条件相同的情况下,把不礼貌的信念减弱到最低限度(何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2003：212)。
①此例的素材来自于王德义,张保东.冒名顶罪的奥秘[J].人大建设.2006,,(2)：39-40.
[1]Aldert Vrij.说谎心理学[M].郑红丽译.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2005.
[2]赫尔什·古德伯格.谎言世界[M].段胜武,胡建华,岳经纶译.北京：群众出版社,1992.
[3]Ekman P, O'Sullivan M.Who can catch a liar?[J].American Psychologist,1 991,(46).
[4]多湖辉.深层心理术——即刻看出他人人品和欲望的方法[M].万奉明译.武汉：湖北科学技术出版社,1989.
[5]张路.更出色的测谎仪[J].百科知识,2005,(04).
[6]丹尼尔·麦克尼尔.面孔[M].王积超,刘珩,石毅译.北京：中国友谊出版公司,2000.
[7]李亮金.论言语交际中话语信息的真假形态及其作用[D].广州：广州大学,2006.
[8]黄二宁.假作真时真亦假——试析《儒林外史》中的谎言现象[J].平顶山学院学报,2007,(6).
[9]钱冠连.汉语文化语用学[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2002.
[10]M·赫希·高德伯格.有度的说谎[M].杨丹宇,马麟霜,宫卓武译.呼和浩特：内蒙古人民出版社,2004.
[11]潘清泉,周宗奎.说谎判断研究新进展[J].理论月刊,2009,(06)
[12]陈融.个性论与共性论：语用学该走向何处[J].现代外语,2005,(2).
[13]陈会昌.“说谎”的道德含义[J].父母必读,1996,(7).
[14]Sweetser E E. The definition of lie:An examination of the folk models u nderlying a semantic prototype[C]//. Holland D. Cultural models in language an d thought, New York:Cambridge University Press.1987.
[15]钱冠连.言语假信息[J].鄂西大学学报,1986,(3)
[16]唐彦生.交际之方[M].北京：蓝天出版社,1994.
[17]黄中建.假话在交际中的积极作用[J].现代交际,1996,(10).
[18]李正钢.“开解谎话”不妨说[J].修辞学习,1992,(2).
[19]DePaulo B M, Kashy D A, Kirkendol S E, Wyer M M, Epstein J A, Lying in everyday life[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1996, 70(5).
[20]辛菊.试论谎言符号的语用价值[J].山西师范大学学报,2003,(3).
[21]洪丹.言语交际中“交际谎言”的维护面子功能[J].内蒙古民族大学学报,2009,(9).
[22]马清华.语义的多维研究[M].北京：语文出版社,2006.
[23]唐贤秋.诚信道德探源[J].道德与文明,2003,(6).
[24]夏澍耘.中国古代诚信源流考[N].光明日报,2002-04-09.
[25]柏拉图.理想国[M].延吉：延边教育出版社,2004.
[26]康德.论出于善的动机而说谎的假设权力[C]//.郑保华.康德文集[M].北京：改革出版社,1997.
[27]张伟栋.实践哲学中的真理与谎言问题[D].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学,2007.
[28]边沁.道德与立法原理导论[M].时殷弘译.北京：商务印书馆,2000.
[29]相杨均.说谎心理学[M].张建平等译.上海.复旦大学出版社,1990.
[30]DePaulo B M, Kashy D A, Kirkendol S E, Wyer M M, Epstein JA. L ying in everyday life[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1996,70 (5).
[31]Lippard P V.Ask me no questions,I'11 tell you no lies:Situational Exigenc ies for Interpersonal Deception[J].Western Journal of Speech Communication,19 88,(52).
[32]刁胜先,黎伟,徐仲伟.诚信原则功能的反思[J].重庆邮电学院学报,2006,(5).
[33]DePaulo B M, Kashy D A,. Kirkendol S E, Wyer M M,Epstein J A.L ying in everyday life[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1996,70 (5).
[34]Beverly A McLeod, Randy L.Predicting the acceptability and likelihood of lying:The interaction of personality with type of lie[J]. Genereux.Personalit y and Individual Differences,2008,45(7).
[35]Monica T Whitty, Siobhan E Carville. Would I lie to you? Self-serving li es and other-oriented lies told across different medias[J]. Computers in Human Behavior,2008,24(3).
[36]王海明.新伦理学：优良道德的制定与实现之研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2001.
[37]赵峰艳.说谎作为交际策略的顺应性研究[J].铜仁学院学报,2008,(7).
[38]殷蕾,蒋其芳.说谎的经济学分析[J].合作经济与科技,2005,(4).
[39]Ekman P, Friesen W V. Nonverbal leakage and clues todeception[J]. Psy chiatry,1969,(32).
[40]Ekman P.Unmasking the face[M]. NewYork:Englewood Cliffs Prentice-Ha 11,1975.
[41]Ekman P. Menteurs et mensong e [M]. Paris:Belfond,.1986.
[42]Zuckerman M, DePaulo B M, Rosenthal R. Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception[C]. Berkowitz L. Advancesin experimental social psychology, New York:Academic Press,1981,(14).
[43]DePaulo B, Lindsay J J, Malone B E, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Coo per H. Cues to deception[J]. Psychological Bulletin 2003,(129).
[44]刘汝宽.谈侦查讯问中的察言观色[C]//.王怀旭.侦查讯问研究与利用.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,1998.
[45]Buller D B,Burgoon J K. Interpersonal deception theory[J].Communicatio n Theory,1996,(3).
[46]Ekman P,Friesen W V.Nonverbal leakage and Clues to Deception[J].Psyc hiatry,1969,32(1).
[47]Ekman P,Friesen W V.The repertoire of nonverbal behavior:categories,ori gins,usage,and coding[J].Semiotica,1969,(1).
[48]Desforges D M,Lee T C.Detecting deception is not as easy as it looks [J].Teaching of Psychology,1995,(22).
[49]柯廉,王玮琨,薛念,李宁,梁丽.公共关系与人体语言[M].北京：中国广播电视大学出版社,1990.
[50]Ekman P, Friesen W V. Nonverbal leakage and cues to deception[J].Ps ychiatry,1969,32 (1).
[51]Ekman P. Facial expression and emotion[J]. American Psychologist,1993, 48 (4).
[52]Mark G Frank,Paul Ekman.The Ability to Detect Deceit Generalizes Ac ross Different Types of High-Stake Lies [J] Journal of Personality and Social Ps ychology,1997,72(6).
[53]Vrij A,Heaven S.Vocal and verbal indicators of deception as a function of lie complexity [J]. Psychology, Crime and Law,1999,(5).
[54]Vrij A, Akehurst L,Morris P M. Individual differences in hand movemen ts during deception[J]. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,1997,(21).
[55]DePaulo M, Kirkendol S E.The MotivationalImpairment Effect in the C ommunication of Deception:Replications and extensions [J]. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,1988,12(3).
[56]王宏.试论言语假信息[J].山东外语教学,2002,(2)
[57]王丽娜,彭漪.试论言语交际中礼貌与诚挚的关系[J].外语与外语教学,2004,(2).
[58]全裕慧,宗守云.论言语信息的真与假[J].江西社会科学,2002,(6)
[59]涂争鸣.欺骗论[M].长沙：中南工业大学出版社,1997.
[60]Mitchell R W.Aframework for discussing deception[C]//.Mitchell R W,Mo gdil N S, et al.Deception: perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit.Albany: State University of New York Press,1986.
[61]保罗·艾克曼.识破谎言—如何识破政界、军界、商界及婚姻中的骗局[M].刘文荣、今夫译.南宁：广西民族出版社,1992.
[62]胡范铸.起兴、连贯结构与欺骗[J].修辞学习,1991,(2).
[63]Jaume Masip,EugenioGarrido,GarmenHerrero.Defining Deception.Anales de Psicologia[J],2004.20(1).
[64]邵爱国.关于说谎的道德认知研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007.
[65]王希杰.修辞学通论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,1996.
[66]保罗·艾克曼.文化·文学·艺术·生活·娱乐如何戳穿诺言[M].郝舫,麻立,郝敏译.上海：上海文化出版社,1989.
[67]Monica T Whitty, Siobhan E Carville. Would I lie to you? Self-serving li es and other-oriented lies told across different medias[J].Computers in Human Behavior,2008,24(3).
[68]Peterson J L, Seeto D.Developmental changes in ideas about lying[J]. Ch ild Development,1983, (54)
[69]Pope W, Forsyth D. Judgments of deceptive communications:A multidi mensional analysis[J]. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,1986,24.
[70]Goffman E.The presentation of self in everyday life. In:C. Lemert and A. Branaman, Editors, The Goffman Reader, Blackwell Publishers/Doubleday A nchor, Massachusetts, USA/New York (1959,1997) New York:Doubleday Anch or (original work published in 1959).
[71]DePaulo B M, Kashy D A, Kirkendol S E, Wyer M M, Epstein JA. Ly ing in everyday life[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1996,70 (5).
[72]Depaulo B M. Nonverbal behavior and self-presantation[J].Psychological Bulletin,1992,11(1).
[73]Solomon, R C. Is it ever right to lie? The philosophy of deception. Th e Chronicle of Higher Education.1998,2(27).
[74]DePaulo B M, Kashy D A, Kirkendol S E, Wyer M M, Epstein JA. Ly ing in everyday life[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1996,70 (5).
[75]Feldman R S, Forrest J A, Happ B R. Self-Presentation and Verbal De ception:Do Self-Presenters Lie More? [J], Basic and Applied Social Psycholog y,2002 24(2).
[76]周宏.罗森塔尔效应及其在素质教育中的作用[J].成都大学学报,2002,(04).
[77]王建平.想象疗法[J].心理世界,2000,(02).
[78]吴仕逵.谎言改变人生?[J].英才,2008,(3).
[79]Crawford V, Sobel J. Strategic information transmission[J]. Econometric a,1982, (50).
[80]Buller D B. Selecting deceptive communication[C]. Paper presented at t he annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL. 1986.
[81]Knapp,M L.Interpersonal communication and human relationships[M].Bos ton, MA:Allyn & Bacon,1984.
[82]Eisenberger R, Lynch P, Aselage J, Rohdieck S. Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement[J]. Per sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin,2004,(30).
[83]陈汝东.语言伦理学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
[84]无名氏.说谎话更耗脑力将应用于测谎[J].科学大观园,2005,(22).
[85]郑红丽,丁同春.测谎技术的新进展[J].中国人民公安大学学报,2007,(1).
[86]Tobias Lundquista, Tore Ellingsena, Erik Gribbea, Magnus Johannesson. The aversion to lying [J].Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2009,7 0(1-2).
[87]田战省.动物骗子排行榜(上)[J].中考金刊,2009, (11)
[88]Bond CF Jr,Robinson M.The evolution of deception[J].Journal of Nonve rbal,1988(12).
[89]Toris C,DePaulo B M.Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of deception on interpersonal perceptions [J]. J Pers Soc Psychol,1985(47).
[90]马宏伟.欺骗心理学[M].呼和浩特：内蒙古人民出版社,1992.
[91]Feldman R S, Jenkins L, Popoola O. Detection of deception in adults a nd children via facial expressions [J]. Child Development,1979,50.
[92]万平来.论商务谈判中的谎言及其识别策略[J].广东技术师范学院学报,2008,(10).
[93]陈兴乐.测谎技术的心理与生理机制[J].广东省公安司法管理干部学院.2000.
[94]庄华民.测谎技术探究[J].监察实践,2000,(5)
[95]索绪尔.普通语言学教程[M].高名凯译.北京：商务印书馆,1980.
[96]岑运强,石艳华.二十年来语言和言语问题研究述评[J].汉语学习,2008,(04)
[97]刘丽芬,黄忠廉.“语言”“言语”与“话语”三分[J].中国科技术语,2008(5)
[98]李杰群.非言语交际概论[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2002.
[99]Biland C, Py J, Allione J, Demarchi S, Abric J C.The effect of lying o n intentional versus unintentional facial expressions [J]. Revue Europeenne de Psy chologie Appliquee/European Review of Applied Psychology,2008,58(2)
[100]Ekman P, Friesen W V, Scherer K R. Body movement and voice pitc h in deceptive interaction[J]. Semiotica,1976.(16).
[101]刘宓庆.当代翻译理论[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,2003.
[102]李悦娥,申智奇. 《自然会话中的打断现象分析》[J].当代语言学,2003,5(1).
[103]顾筝.话轮转换中话题的承接和启动[D].上海：复旦大学,2005.
[104]徐烈炯,刘丹青.话题的结构与功能[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1998.
[105]王建华.关于语境的定义与性质[J].浙江社会科学,2002,(1).
[106]王建华.关于语境的构成与分类[J].语言文字应用,2002,(3).
[107]郭志族,郭京龙.谎言研究[M].北京：中国社会出版社,2005.
[108]刘汝宽.谈侦查讯问中的察言观色[C]//.王怀旭.侦查讯问研究与利用.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,1998.
[109]墨言.哈佛观人学[M].北京：中国人事出版社,1997.
[110]俞肖云.真实的谎言——被炒作的数据[J].中国统计,2007,(6).
[111]郭熙.中国社会语言学[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2004.
[112]陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1997.
[113]刑福义,汪国胜.现代汉语[M].武汉：华中师范大学出版社,2003
[114]张静.新编现代汉语[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1980.
[115]耿二岭.体态语概说[M].北京：北京语言学院出版社,1988.
[116]Mehrabian A.Communication without words[J]. Psychology Today,1968, 2 (9).
[117]阿伦·皮斯.身体语言[M].贾宗谊,卢爱君译.北京：新华出版社,2002.
[118]托尼娅·瑞曼.身体语言的力量[M].洪友译.天津：天津社会科学院出版社,2008.
[119]Samovar L.Understanding Intercultural Communication[M]. Belmont:Wa dsworth Publishing Company,1981.
[120]谢伦浩.副言语的文化意蕴[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2005.
[121]王洁.法律语言学教程[M].北京：法律出版社,1997.
[122]赛弥·莫尔肖.体态语言大全[M].贾慧蝶译.上海：同济大学出版社,2005.
[123]Anjanie McCarthy, Kang Lee.Children's knowledge of deceptive gaze cues and its relation to their actual lying behavior[J].Journal of Experimental C hild Psychology,2009,103(2).
[124]Dionisio D P, Granholm E, Hillix W A, Perrine W F. Differentiation of deceptionusing pupillary responses as an index of cognitive processing[J]. Ps ychophysiology,2001,38(2).
[125]Ekman. Universals and cultural differeneces in facial expressions of e motion[C]//. Cole J. Nebraska symposium on motivation.Linecoln:University of NebraskaPress,1972,(19).
[126]达尔文.人类和动物的表情[M].周邦立译.北京：科学出版社,1958.
[127]盖世梅,李明和.侦查讯问强制机理范式研究[J].法律方法与法律思维,2007,(4).
[128]何家弘,张卫平.外国证据法选译(上卷)[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2000.
[129]靳学仁.刑讯逼供研究[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2007.
[130]陆新淮.论中国古代侦查制度的演变[J].郑州经济管理干部学院学报,2005,(2).
[131]穗积陈重.法律进化论[M].黄遵三等译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997.
[132]樊崇义.证据学[M].北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,1999.
[133]俞效锋,赵敏,张鸿雁.谎言·测谎与反测谎[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,1991.
[134]俞荣根.羌族习惯法[M].重庆：重庆出版社,2000.
[135]海乃拉莫,曲木约质,刘尧汉.凉山彝族习惯法案例集成[M].昆明：云南人民出版社,1998.
[136]裴苍龄.证据法学新论[M].北京：法律出版社,1989.
[137]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚[M].黄风译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1993.
[138]刘晓丹.证据法学(上册)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[139]杨奉琨.疑狱集 折狱龟鉴校释[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1988.
[140]曾国藩.冰鉴全录(下册)[M].刘越峰注释.北京：中国长安出版社,2003.
[141]曹晓宝.论测谎工具的历史演变[J].贵州职业技术学院学报,2006,(2).
[142]陈娟.伪证与16、17世纪英国民众的法律观念[J].湘潭大学学报,2006,30(4)
[143]斯坦·沃尔特斯.挑战谎言——识别谎言的技巧[M].牛曼漪,寇洁,潘琳等译.海口：南海出版公司,2001.
[144]查尔斯·福特.说谎：你所不知道的一切[M].高卓等译.北京：新华出版社,2001.
[145]大卫·李柏曼.看谁在说谎[M].项慧龄译.重庆：重庆出版社,2007.
[146]M·赫希·高德伯格.有度的说谎[M].杨丹宇、马麟霜、宫卓武译.呼和浩特：内蒙古人民出版社,2004.
[147]萨丽·考德威尔.浪漫欺骗[M].陈欧等译.南宁：广西人民出版社,2003.
[148]希赛拉·鲍克.说谎——公共生活与私人生活中的道德选择[M].张彤华,王立影译.长春：吉林科学技术出版社,1989.
[149]多湖辉.欺骗与反欺骗[M].陆林编译.海口：海南出版社,1993.
[150]桦旦纯.识破谎言[M].陈刚译.北京：科学出版社,2004.
[151]松本顺.人的甄别[M].顾敏,陈效德译.上海：百家出版社,1989.
[152]金瑞芳.审讯心理学[M].杭州：杭州大学出版社,1990.
[153]庞兴华.侦讯谋略[M].北京：警官教育出版社,1994.
[154]廖美珍.国外法律语言研究综述[J].当代语言学,2004,(1).
[155]何家弘.测谎结论与证据的“有限采用规则”[J].中国法学.2002,(2).
[156]亚静.无处躲藏：测谎神探武伯欣破案实录[M].北京：中国言实出版社,2005.
[157]杨道金,张泽民.中国刑侦测谎大揭秘[M].北京：中国文联出版社,2000.
[158]刘淑环.“测谎证据”的概率分析——测谎仪真能测出谎言吗?[J].数理统计与管理,2003,22(3)
[159]贾国勇.测出的不仅是心跳：测谎专家武伯欣破案实录[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2004.
[160]罗丹.测谎科研多方发力[J].国外科技动态,2004,(05).
[161]金秋.测谎仪测肠子比测心脏更准确.科教文汇[J].2005,Z1.
[162]韩振来.现代全息理论介绍[J].济南大学学报(社会科学版),1990,(00)
[163]夏有恒.全息思维方式论[J].社会科学战线,1995,(3).
[164]张颖清.生物全息律[J].自然杂志,1981,(4)
[165]严春友.宇宙统一于信息——答施启良先生[J].太原师范学院学报(社会科学版),2007,(1).
[166]施启良.全息论研究展望[J].科学技术与辩证法,1991,(02).
[167]陈传康.全息学与全息地学[J].科学技术与辩证法,1990,(5).
[168]田里.生物全息律·全息思维方式·世界可知论[J].绥化学院学报,1987,(3).
[169]王兆强.广义全息与全息不全——兼与《宇宙全息统一论》作者商榷[J].科学技术与辩证法,1989,(6).
[170]陈传康.全息学与全息地学[J].科学技术与辩证法,1990,(5).
[171]朱智贤.心理学大辞典[Z].北京：北京师范大学出版社,1989年.
[172]Kluckhohn C K M. Value and Value Orientation in the Theory of Ac tion:An Exploration in Definition and Classification[A]. In:T Parsons & Sh ils E A,etal. Toward a General Theory of Action[M]. Cambridge,MA:Harva rd University Press.
[173]Rokeach M. The Nature of HumanValue[M]. NY:Free Press,1973.
[174]陈章龙,周莉.价值观研究[M].南京：南京师范大学出版社,2004.
[175]严春友.论科学的全息性[J].科学学研究,1989,(2)
[176]杨春鼎.直觉、表象与思维[M].福州：福建教育出版社,1990.
[177]严春友.精神之谜——全息精神学[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1991.
[178]Eswara H S, Suryarekha A.The relationship between lie scores and anxi ety scores on Taylor's Mainifest Anxiety Scale[J]. Journal of Psychological Re searches,1974,18 (3).
[179]多湖辉(日).排除心理陷阱84秘诀[M].吴正和译.台北：新雨出版社,1992
[180]苏彦捷,郭晓娟.刺激强度与个体差异对心理生理测谎的影响[J].心理科学,2001,(5)
[181]曾建明.知识主管21世纪知识社会的新领袖[M].长春：长春出版社,2002.
[182]Grice H P.Logicand Conversation[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University P ress,1975.