Skip to main content Accessibility help

“Um, I can tell you're lying”: Linguistic markers of deception versus truth-telling in speech


Lying is a deliberate attempt to transmit messages that mislead others. Analysis of language behaviors holds great promise as an objective method of detecting deception. The current study reports on the frequency of use and acoustic nature of “um” and “like” during laboratory-elicited lying versus truth-telling. Results obtained using a within-participants false opinion paradigm showed that instances of “um” occur less frequently and are of shorter duration during lying compared to truth-telling. There were no significant differences in relation to “like.” These findings contribute to our understanding of the linguistic markers of deception behavior. They also assist in our understanding of the role of “um” in communication more generally. Our results suggest that “um” may not be accurately conceptualized as a filled pause/hesitation or speech disfluency/error whose increased usage coincides with increased cognitive load or increased arousal during lying. It may instead carry a lexical status similar to interjections and form an important part of authentic, effortless communication, which is somewhat lacking during lying.

Corresponding author
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Joanne Arciuli, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, P.O. Box 170, Lidcombe NSW 1825, Australia. E-mail:
Hide All
Akehurst, L., Kohnken, G., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (1996). Lay persons’ and police officers’ beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 461471.
Benus, S., Enos, F., Hirschberg, J., & Shriberg, E. (2006). Pauses in deceptive speech. Paper presented at the Third Speech Prosody Conference, Dresden, Germany.
Bok, S. (1978). Lying. Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Vintage Books.
Bond, C., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214234.
Bond, C. F. Jr., & Uysal, A. (2007). On lie detection “wizards.” Law and Human Behavior, 31, 109115.
Bond, G., & Lee, A. (2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguistic classification of prisoners’ truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 313329.
Bortfeld, H., Leon, S., Bloom, J., Schober, M., & Brennan, S. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44, 123147.
Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203242.
Burgoon, J., & Qin, T. (2006). The dynamic nature of deceptive verbal communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 7696.
Burgoon, J. K., & Floyd, K. (2000). Testing for the motivation impairment effect during deceptive and truthful interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 64, 243267.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, H., & Fox Tree, J. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73111.
DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203243.
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979995.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74118.
deVilliers, J., & deVilliers, P. (1978). Language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Drager, K. (2006). Social categories, grammatical categories, and the likelihood of “like” monophthongisation. In Warren, P. & Watson, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology. Sydney: Australian Speech Science and Technology Association.
Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263265.
Fox Tree, J. (2006). Placing like in telling stories. Discourse Studies, 8, 723743.
Fox Tree, J. (2007). Folk notions of um and uh, you know, and like. Text & Talk, 27, 297314.
Fox Tree, J. E. (2001). Listeners’ uses of um and uh in speech comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 29, 320326.
Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Interpreting pauses and ums at turn exchanges. Discourse Processes, 34, 3755.
Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 486495.
Ganis, G., Kosslyn, S., Stose, S., Thompson, W., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2003). Neural correlates of different types of deception: An fMRI investigation. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 830836.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.
Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45, 123.
Hosman, L., & Wright, J. (1987). The effects of hedges and hesitations on impression formation in a simulated courtroom context. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51, 173188.
Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). “I'm innocent”: Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499516.
Maclay, H., & Osgood, C. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 15, 1944.
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect deceit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137149.
Meissner, C., & Kassin, S. (2002). “He's guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469480.
Meservy, T. O., Jensen, M. L., Kruse, J., Burgoon, J. K., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2005). Automated extraction of deceptive behavioural cues from video. In Kantor, P. (Ed.), Intelligence and security informatics (pp. 198208). Berlin: Springer.
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665675.
O'Sullivan, M. (2008). Home runs and humbugs: Comment on Bond and DePaulo (2008). Psychological Bulletin, 134, 493497.
O'Sullivan, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). The wizards of deception detection. In Granhag, P. A. & Stromwell, L. (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 269286). London: Cambridge University Press.
Pennebaker, J., Francis, M., & Booth, R. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rassin, E., & Van Der Heijden, . (2005). Appearing credible? Swearing helps! Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 177182.
Rodriguez, L., & Torres, M. (2006). Spontaneous speech events in two speech databases of human–computer and human–human dialogs in Spanish. Language and Speech, 49, 333366.
Rogers, R., & Cruise, K. (2000). Malingering and deception among psychopaths. In Gacono, C. B. (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner's guide (pp. 269284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sodian, B., & Frith, U. (1992). Deception and sabotage in autistic, retarded and normal children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 591605.
Spence, S., Hunter, M., Farrow, T., Green, R., Leung, D., Hughes, C. et al. (2004). A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: Evidence from functional neuroimaging. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 17551762.
Sporer, S., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 134.
Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal correlates of deception: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421446.
Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Brown, L., & Mann, S. (2006). Detecting lies in young children, adolescents and adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 12251237.
Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239264.
Vrij, A., & Heaven, S. (1999). Vocal and verbal indicators of deception as a function of lie complexity. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 203215.
Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2004). Detecting deception: The benefit of looking at a combination of behavioural, auditory and speech content related cues in a systematic manner. Group Decision and Negotiations, 13, 6179.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253265.
Vrij, A., & Semin, G. (1996). Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 6580.
Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. (1991). Cultural patterns in Dutch and Surinam nonverbal behavior: An analysis of simulated police/citizen encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 169184.
Walczyk, J. J., Roper, K. S., Seeman, E., & Humphrey, A. M. (2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 755774.
Yocom, J. D. (2007). An assessment of the validity of polygraph examinations for the psychophysiological detection of deception: A judicial opinion and research study review. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 22, 113119.
Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Nunamaker, J. F. & Twitchell, D. (2004). Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 81106.
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (Eds.). (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. New York: Academic Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Applied Psycholinguistics
  • ISSN: 0142-7164
  • EISSN: 1469-1817
  • URL: /core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed