Youtube Exercise » English Grammar Homework

The language of lying — Noah Zandan

TED-Ed

22.2M views 12 years ago

Warm-up Questions

What do you think “The language of lying” means?
When do people usually lie: in personal life, at work, or online?
What kinds of lies might be “harmless”?

Up Next

Talking about exercise: 💪⚽️🏊‍♂️ Real Easy English BBC Learning English
It is school time! Trường THTT Khe Tre
Interchange 1 – (1. Are you Evan Chu?) Innovation Development
Alex Warren – Ordinary (Official Video) Alex Warren
Earth Day for Kids | Learn how to celebrate the earth! Learn Bright

Start With: Word Definition

Order: Alphabetical Random

…

The language of lying — Noah Zandan

How often we lie and why common lie detectors fail (00:00 – 01:54)

Transcript will load here…

1. According to the speaker, how many lies might we hear in a day?

Anywhere from 10 to 200
Exactly 50
More than 1,000
About 1 to 5

2. What does the speaker say about many lie-detection tools like polygraphs?

Most can be fooled with enough preparation
They work only if the person is silent
They cannot be fooled with preparation
They are always accurate in court

3. What approach does the speaker suggest instead of focusing on physiological changes?

Only using brain scanners
Avoiding interviews completely
Using communication science to analyze the lies themselves
Using medieval torture devices

The language of lying — Noah Zandan

Four language patterns linked to deception (01:54 – 03:06)

Transcript will load here…

1. What is the first language pattern the speaker mentions about liars?

They always tell jokes
They speak more slowly
They use more slang
They reference themselves less

2. Why do liars tend to be more negative, according to the speaker?

They have poor vocabulary
They want to sound smarter
They feel guilty about lying
They are trying to confuse the listener

3. What does the speaker say liars often add to ‘pad the lie’?

More personal pronouns
Complete silence
Shorter sentences
Irrelevant but factual sounding details

The language of lying — Noah Zandan

Applying linguistic analysis to famous cases and daily life (03:06 – 05:42)

Transcript will load here…

1. In the comparison of denial vs admission, what increased significantly in the admission interview?

Use of breathing monitors
Use of personal pronouns
Use of medieval devices
Use of eye trackers

2. In the long denial statement about paternity, what does the person avoid doing?

Speaking in complete sentences
Using the word “baby”
Mentioning any facts at all
Calling the other parties by name

3. Which set of clues does the speaker recommend watching for in daily life?

Minimal self-references, negative language, simple explanations, and convoluted phrasing
Perfect grammar and long vocabulary lists
Only loud volume and fast speed
Eye color changes and hand size

The language of lying — Noah Zandan

Transcript will load here…

1. What is the main idea of using linguistic text analysis in this talk?

To teach people to lie more effectively
To study language patterns that may appear when people deceive
To replace all interviews with written tests
To prove every lie with a machine instantly

2. Which option best matches the talk’s claim about imagined vs real experiences?

Only imagined experiences use names
They produce identical stories and language
Imagined experiences can create qualitatively different stories and language
Only real experiences use negative words

3. What does the speaker suggest about everyday lies?

They can only be detected with court-admissible tools
They are always serious crimes
Many are less serious and may be harmless, but clues can still help
They never matter, so ignore them

Discussion Questions

Discuss the ideas from this video

The language of lying — Noah Zandan

Which of the four patterns (less self-reference, more negativity, simpler explanations, convoluted phrasing) seems most believable to you? Why?
Can you think of a time when someone’s explanation sounded “padded” with unnecessary details? What made it feel that way?
Do you think these clues are enough to accuse someone of lying? What are the risks of using them?
How could you use these ideas in real life (for example, when reading ads, listening to apologies, or evaluating public statements)?