Chapter published in:
Legal Pragmatics
Edited by Dennis Kurzon and Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 288] 2018
► pp. 157–179

The language of Egyptian interrogations

A study of suspects’ resistance to implicatures and presuppositions in prosecution questions

| University of Leeds
This chapter investigates an inquisitorial system that has thus far received little attention, despite the need for research on the culture of Egyptian interrogations. It focuses on suspects’ responses in interrogations, with special focus on ‘I do not know’ as a response strategy. In addition, it investigates the nature of prosecution questions that produces these responses. These signs of prosecutor power, and control and suspects’ resistance are investigated using a qualitative, discourse-pragmatic approach. The data are selected from a larger collection of Egyptian prosecution interrogations to focus on the strategies employed by professional and worker suspects. Data include interrogations with ex-president Hosni Mubarak and his two sons, Gamal, and Alaa, which took place in 2011 after the 25th January revolution as well as ordinary workers, traders and company managers. Previous research (e.g. Harris 1991), though in adversarial settings, has focused on contest, avoidance, refusal, and emphasis of status as strategies for resistance. ‘I do not know’ responses were found to have different structures: I do not know only, I do not know with explanation and emphatic responses. Each of these subcategories plays a different pragmatic role in the interrogations.
Published online: 26 April 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.288.08als
References

References

Belal, Ahmed
2013 Principles of the Egyptian Criminal Law: The General Part. Cairo: Dar Al Nahda Al Arabiya.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan
2005 Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E.
2001 “Answers and Evasions”. Language in Society 30 (3): 403–442Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
1992 Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan. eds. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 183–198. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra
1984 “Questions as a Mode of Control in Magistrates’ Courts.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 49: 5–27.Google Scholar
1989 “Defendant Resistance to Power and Control in Court.” In Working With Language: A Multidisciplinary Consideration of Language Use in Work Contexts, ed. Hywel Coleman, 132–164. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991 “Evasive Action: How Politicians Respond to Questions in Political Interviews.” In Broadcast Talk, ed. Paddy Scannell, 76–99. London: Sage publications.Google Scholar
Haworth, Kate
2006 “The Dynamics of Power and Resistance in Police Interview Discourse.” Discourse and Society 17 (6): 739–759. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Audience Design in the Police Interview: The Interactional and Judicial Consequences of Audience Orientation.” Language in Society 42 (1): 45–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heffer, Chris, Frances Rock, and John M. Conley
2013 Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the law. New York, NY; Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan
2017 The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jeffries, Lesley
2010 Critical Stylistics: The Power of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kayed, Osama A.
2007 Explanation of Criminal Law: Investigations- Criminal Case- the Trial. Cairo: Dar El Nahda El Arabiya.Google Scholar
Komter, Martha L.
2002 “The Suspect’s Own Words: The Treatment of Written Statements in Dutch Courtrooms.” International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 9 (2): 168–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “The Construction of Records in Dutch Police Interrogations.” Information Design Journal 11 (3): 201–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “The Career of a Suspect’s Statement: Talk, Text, Context.” Discourse Studies 14 (6): 731–752. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lagally, Klaus
1992 “ArabTEX, a System for Typesetting Arabic”. In The 3rd Conference and Exhibition on Multi-lingual Computing: Arabic and Roman Script. Durham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Max Plank Institute
2008 The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for Interlinear Morpheme-by-Morpheme Glosses. Available from http://​www​.eva​.mpg​.de​/lingua ​/resources​/glossing​-rules​.php
Rock, Frances
2001 “The Genesis of a Witness Statement.” Forensic Linguistics 8 (2): 44–72.Google Scholar
Rock, Frances, Chris Heffer, and John M. Conley
2013 “Textual Travel in Legal-Lay Communication”. In Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law, eds. Chris Heffer, Frances Rock and John M. Conley, 1–32. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scoboria, Alan, Giuliana, Mazzoni and Irving, Kirsch
2008 “ ‘Don’t Know’: Responding to Answerable and Unanswerable Questions During Misleading and Hypnotic Interviews”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 14 (3): 255–265.Google Scholar
Shalaby, Ahmed
2012 Asrār muhākamat al-qarn. Cairo: Nahdet Masr.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2010 Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Soliman, Shihab
2010 Public Prosecution and Its Accusatory and Investigative Authority: A Comparative Study Between Islamic Sharia and Ordinance Law, the Egyptian, French, and Lebanese Law and Some Arab Legislations. Cairo: Dar el Nahda el Arabiya.Google Scholar
Thornborrow, Joanna
2002 Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar