Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 151–176

Chapter 7
The interpreter-mediated police interview as argumentative discourse in context

A case-study

This study focuses on the police interview with the purpose of showing that, when it is aimed at ascertaining and proving a suspect’s guilt, it has an essentially argumentative character, unfolding as a critical discussion, although this is not at first sight evident and has hardly been noticed in the literature so far, probably on account of the strict structural and procedural constraints to which this institutional discursive event is subject. The analysis takes as its starting point a case study, an interpreter-mediated interview involving an Italian suspect arrested in England, and reconstructs the argumentative discussion and the argumentation schemes deployed in it. It also examines the impact of the presence of the interpreter as a complicating factor that makes the nature of the interview as a critical discussion even more difficult to pinpoint, also because of the extreme fragmentation of dialogue associated with language mediation.
The approach taken here for argument reconstruction and for the analysis and evaluation of the argumentative process in the police interview is essentially based on pragmadialectics (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Snoeck Henkemans, 2002; van Eemeren, & Grootendorst, 1995a, 1995b, 2004). The main standpoints and the difference of opinion that the interview is aimed at resolving are identified, then the focus shifts to the reconstruction of the argumentation structure of the event and the argumentation schemes deployed.
By studying the use of argumentation in a highly regulated institutional context, where communication is subject to stringent restrictions, this study intends to contribute to the understanding of context-dependency in argumentative discourse, with special consideration for the meso-context (police investigative procedures, interpreter mediation) and the macro-context (the judicial legal process) and their consequences for the strategic maneuvering (cf. van Eemeren, 2011, p. 144). A further element explored is the marked power asymmetry between interlocutors inherent in the police interview as an activity type and the impact of interpreter mediation on the interaction, and in particular on the advancement of argumentation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The police interview
    • 1.2Method
  • 2.The case study
    • 2.1The PC’s arguments
    • 2.2The suspect’s critical questions and the outcome
  • 3.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 2 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.08gar
References (52)
References
Angelelli, C. (2004). Medical Interpreting and Cross Cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise its the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. (1999). The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions. Forensic Linguistics 6 (1), 1350–1771.Google Scholar
(2000). Interpreting for the police: issues in pre-trial phases of the judicial process. Forensic Linguistics 7 (2), 212–236.Google Scholar
(2002). The Miranda Warnings and Linguistic Coercion: The Role of Footing in the Interrogation of a Limited-English-Speaking Murder Suspect. In Cotterill, Janet (Ed.), Language in the Legal Process (pp. 127–143). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colin, J., & Morris R. (1996). Interpreters and the Legal Process. Winchester: Waterside Press.Google Scholar
Corsellis, A. (1995). Non-English Speakers and the English Legal System. A Handbook of Good Practices for Those Working in the Legal System Across Language and Culture, Cropwood Occasional Paper No. 20. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
Cotterill, J. (2000). Reading the Rights: A Cautionary Tale of Comprehension and Comprehensibility. Forensic Linguistics 7 (1), 4–25.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2002) Language in the Legal Process. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, M. (1996). The official version: audience manipulation in police reports of interviews with suspects, In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard, & R. M. Coulthard (Eds), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 164–176). London, Routledge.Google Scholar
(2002). Whose voice is it? Invented and concealed dialogue in written records of verbal evidence produced by the police. In J. Cotterill (Ed.) Language in the Legal Process (pp. 19–34). London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van. (2011). In context. Argumentation 25, 141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1995a). The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies. In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto, Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (pp. 130–144). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
(1995b). Argumentum ad Hominem: A Pragma-dialectical Case in Point. In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto, Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (pp. 223–228). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
(2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwak N.J. & London, Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Publishers.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction) 2013. European Drug Report 2013. Trends and Developments. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Online at <[URL]> [last accessed 30 June 2016].
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Fowler, Y. (2003). Taking an Interpreted Witness Statement at the Police Station: What did the Witness Actually Say?. In L. Brunette, G. Bastin, I. Hemlin and H. Clarke (Eds), The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community. Selected Papers in Legal, Health and Social Services (pp. 195–209). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61 (5) March, 420–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garzone, G. (2002). Conflict in Linguistically Asymmetric Business Negotiations: the Case of Interpreter-Mediated Encounters. In M. Gotti, D. Heller and M. Dossena (Eds.) Conflict and Negotiation in Specialized Texts (pp. 249–271). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2011). Professional discourses in contact: Interpreters in the legal and medical setting. In N. C. Candlin, & S. Sarangi (Eds) Handbook of Communication in Organisations and Professions (pp. 319–340). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J. (1996). Distortion of the Police Interview Process Revealed by Videotape. Forensic Linguistics, 3 (29), 289–298.Google Scholar
(2003). Forensic Linguistics. Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Hale, S. B. (2007). Community Interpreting. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, S. & Gibbons, J. (1999). Varying realities patterned changes in the interpreter’s representation of courtroom and external realities. Applied Linguistics 20 (2), 203–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, C., Srikant S., & Slembrouck S. (1999). The legitimation of the client and the profession: Identities and roles in social work discourse. In S. Srikant & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, Work and Institutional Order. Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings (pp. 293–322). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Haworth, K. (2006). The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse & Society, 17(6), 739–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heydon, G. (2005). The Language of Police Interviewing: A Critical Analysis. Houndmills & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, M. D. (2003). Identifying the source of critical details in confessions. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 10(1), 23–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurzon, D. (1996). To speak or not to speak: the comprehensibility of the revised police caution (PACE). International Journal for the Semiotics of Law IX (25), 3–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. (Ed.) (2001). Triadic Exchanges. Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Mulayim, S., Lai, M., & Norma C. (2015). Police Investigative Interviews and Interpreting. Context, Challenges, and Strategies. Boca Raton Fla.: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Nakane, I. (2014). Interpreter- mediated Police Interviews. A Discourse- Pragmatic Approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Newbury, P., & Johnson A. (2006). Suspects’ resistance to constraining and coercive questioning strategies in the police interview. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 13 (2), 213–240.Google Scholar
Ogle, R., Parkman A., & Porter J. (1980). Questions: Leading and Otherwise: A Framework for Judicial Discretion. Judges’ Journal 19 (3), 42–45.Google Scholar
Orletti, F. (2000). La conversazione diseguale. Potere e interazione. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. Codes of Practice. Revised edition 2002. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Rigney, A. C. (1999). Questioning in Interpreted Testimony. Forensic Linguistics 6 (1), 1350–1371.Google Scholar
Roy, C. (2000). Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, S. (2000). “Let Me Put it Simply …”: The Case for a Standard Translation of the Police Caution and its Explanation. Forensic Linguistics 7 (1), 26–48.Google Scholar
(2002). ‘Three is a crowd’: shifting dynamics in the interpreted interview. In J. Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the Legal Process (pp. 111–126). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff E. A., & Jefferson G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50 (4) Dec., 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (1999). The dynamics of interactional and institutional orders in work-related settings. In S. Srikant & C. Roberts (Eds.) Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings (pp. 1–57). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, D., & Lederer M. ([1984]1986). Interpréter pour traduir. Paris: Didier erudition.Google Scholar
Shuy, R. W. (1997). Ten Unanswered Language Questions about Miranda. Forensic Linguistics 4 (2), 175–196.Google Scholar
(1998). The Language of Confession, Interrogation and Deception. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as Interaction. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (2000). Argumentation and Theory of Evidence. In C. M. Breur, M. M. Kommer, I. F. Nijboer, I. M. Reijntjes (Eds.), New Trends in Criminal Investigation and Evidence (pp. 710–732), Vol. 2. Antwerpen – Groningen – Oxford: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Degano, Chiara, Dora Renna & Francesca Santulli
2024. Introduction. Genres and persuasion. In Persuasion in Specialized Discourse [Argumentation in Context, 22], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.