7 signals of deception in language everyone should recognize

Language doesn’t lie. People do. When someone looks us straight in the eye and says: “Nothing to do with it”, it is tempting to simply believe it. But those who listen carefully hear more than what is being said. That is: if you know what to look for and what the linguistic indicators of deception are. In truth analysis, we search for those small signals or red flags that reveal whether someone is telling the truth or trying to mislead you.

Discover 7 common signals of deception (plus a bonus). Recognizing these patterns not only makes you a sharper listener but also helps you better see what people are really saying — and what they are trying to hide.

1. Too many words

A short, clear denial (“No, I didn’t do that”) is usually more honest than a lengthy, drawn-out story. Guilty people often feel the need to convince and therefore use an excess of words. The longer the denial, the greater the chance we are dealing with deliberate manipulation.

A simple tip: count the words in a denial. Short = often truthful. Long and convoluted = usually deception.

2. Vagueness instead of details

Honest people often share details spontaneously: what they saw, heard, felt, smelled. Such sensory anchors are difficult to invent and add credibility. Guilty people, on the other hand, prefer to stay vague: “around midnight”, “we were just hanging around”. Vague language is a way to avoid risk. The less concrete, the smaller the chance of being confronted with facts that contradict the claim. If you notice a lack of detail, be alert.

3. Contradictions

Liars must invent something and remain believable at the same time. That rarely works perfectly. Their story contains small contradictions: a sequence that doesn’t add up, a detail that changes across interrogations, or discourse that doesn’t match what we would expect. Examples: “I walked in and opened the door” (which in correct chronology should be the other way around). Or parents of a missing child who, shortly after the disappearance, already speak in the past tense about their son or daughter. This is indicative of an awareness of death.

4. Delays and time jumps

An important aspect of truth analysis is the tempo of a story. An innocent suspect typically describes an hour in 2 to 3 sentences. But someone with something to hide often slows down just before the crucial moment (theft, assault, murder, etc.). They then elaborate extensively on the hour before the crime and quickly skim over the hour afterwards. Sometimes they even skip an entire time block. These silences and jumps often say more than what is actually told. Deception often lies in what is not said.

5. Silence of “saying nothing”

Sometimes a suspect chooses silence — a right that must be respected. But there is also a subtler form: saying something that actually says nothing. Expressions such as “Nothing to do with it” or “No idea” are meaningless. Everyone always has at least “some idea”. Moreover, the word “I” often disappears: “Nothing to do with it” is fundamentally different from “I have nothing to do with it”. In truth analysis we take this literally: if someone does not place themselves in the sentence with the word “I”, they often do not stand behind the content either.

6. Storytelling

Sometimes a statement sounds almost cinematic. A suspect paints a vivid picture: “I saw her (the victim) walk into the lobby. A man in black immediately approached her. He was wearing black sunglasses. He spoke to her, she clearly felt uncomfortable…” This works on our imagination and makes a story convincing. But often this is precisely a smokescreen: an alternative narrative meant to distract us from what really happened. When a statement resembles a thrilling story more than a factual description, it should be taken as a warning.

7. Seeking sympathy

“I take care of my children every day, I always get up early.” By portraying themselves as good and reliable, suspects try to build credibility. But this is often more self-promotion than truth. The same happens when suspects try to ingratiate themselves with the police. They offer their help or shower the police with praise during a press conference. How often do you see guilty suspects giving interviews to local media as so-called “friends of the family”? Everything is done to avoid appearing suspicious.

8. Explaining why (bonus)

Factual actions usually need no explanation. You don’t normally say: “I went to the bakery because I was hungry. I ordered a ham and cheese sandwich because I felt like it. I ate the sandwich at noon since it was lunchtime. I urgently needed the toilet, so I went quickly.” Notice words like “because, since, so”, which indicate explanation. When you see them appear unprompted and clustered together, it often marks the moment of the crime. When a suspect must talk about this sensitive moment, he feels particularly insecure and wants desperately to be believed. As a result, he tends to justify everything.

Conclusion

Deception always leaves traces in language. By listening carefully and paying attention to details, word choice, and tempo, you can reveal surprisingly much.

Do you want to truly learn how to apply these signals in your work or daily life? I offer a one-on-one coaching to master the ins & outs of truth analysis in a short time. Feel free to contact me for a quote.