Article published in:
Police interviews: Communication challenges and solutions
Edited by Luna Filipović
[Pragmatics and Society 10:1] 2019
► pp. 9–31

Evidence-gathering in police interviews

Communication problems and possible solutions

| University of East Anglia
In this paper I discuss the many complexities that police officers have to deal with in their communication with suspects. Investigative interviewing is a very complex communicative situation in itself, with a number of different psychological and sociological variables at play during each interview. In addition, suspect interviews bring about an additional dimension of complexity, which is driven by the fact that a basic principle of conversation, cooperation (Grice 1975) is often not respected and is sometimes severely and purposefully violated, for example when suspects are guilty and want to obscure that very fact or when they believe that their situation would worsen if they cooperated with the police. A further layer of complexity is added when the interviews are carried out via an interpreter, where the fact that the officer and the suspect speak different languages during the interview creates additional barriers to straightforward communication.In the present paper, I identify a number of points at which communication difficulties are encountered in this highly sensitive legal context. For this purpose, I analyse authentic interview datasets provided by two UK police constabularies, and also make comparisons with examples from transcripts of authentic US police interrogations. In addition, I highlight the issues that arise when professional interpretation is not available and when bilingual police officers assume the dual role of investigator-interpreter. Finally, I suggest possible solutions that can help remove the hurdles standing in the way of efficient and accurate gathering of communication evidence.
Keywords: complex questions, interpreting, investigative interviewing, negative questions, police interviews
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relevant research on police interviews, in brief
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Data analysis: Complex and negative questions
    • 4.1Complex questions
    • 4.2Negative questions
  • 5.Uncooperativeness
  • 6.Cross-linguistic difficulties: Interpreting language differences
  • 7.Conclusions and future directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 May 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.00013.fil
References
Berk-Seligson, Susan
1990 The Bilingual Courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2002 “The Miranda Warnings and Linguistic Coercion: The Role of Footing in the Interrogation of a Limited-English Speaking Murder Suspect”. In Language in the Legal Process, ed. by Janet Cotterill, 127–143. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Coerced Confessions: The Discourse of Bilingual Police Interrogations. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Negotiation and Communicative Accommodation in Bilingual Police Interrogations: A Critical Interactional Sociolinguistic Perspective”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 20 (7): 29–58.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002 Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dando, Coral, Rachel Wilcock, and Rebecca Milne
2009 “The Cognitive Interview: The Efficacy of a Modified Mental Reinstatement of Context Procedure for Frontline Police Investigators”. Applied Cognitive Psychology 231: 138–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Annette M. B.
1997 “The Cognitive Study of Translation and Interpretation: Three Approaches”. In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, and Stephen B. Fountain, 25–56. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Elder, Chi-He, and Kasia Jaszczolt
2016 “Towards a Pragmatic Category of Conditionals”. Journal of Pragmatics 981: 36–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fausey, Caitlin M., and Lera Boroditsky
2010 “Subtle Linguistic Cues Influence Perceived Blame and Financial Liability”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17 (5): 644–650. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, Luna
2007 “Language as a Witness: Insights from Cognitive Linguistics”. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14 (2): 245–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013a “Constructing Causation in Language and Memory: Implications for Access to Justice in Multilingual Interactions”. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 20(1): 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b “The Role of Language in Legal Contexts: A Forensic Cross-linguistic Viewpoint”. In Law and Language: Current Legal Issues (15), ed. by Michael Freeman and Fiona Smith, 328–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, Luna and John A. Hawkins
2013 Multiple factors in second language acquisition. The CASP model. Linguistics 51(1): 145–176.Google Scholar
Filipović, Luna, and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano
2015 “Motion”. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39], ed. by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 527–545. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, Luna and Alberto Hijazo-Gascón
2018 “Interpreting Meaning in Police Interviews: Applied Language Typology in a Forensic Linguistics Context”. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics VIAL 151: 67–103.Google Scholar
Filipović, Luna and Suzanne Abad Vergara
2018 “Juggling Investigation and Interpretation: The Problematic Dual role of Police Officer-Interpreter”. Law and Language/Linguagem e Direito 5 (1): 62–79.Google Scholar
Gibbons, John
1990 “Applied Linguistics in Court”. Applied Linguistics 11 (3): 229–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Forensic Linguistics. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2017 “Towards Clearer Jury Instructions”. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 4(1): 142–160.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1997 “Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem”. In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, and Stephen B. Fountain, 196–214. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1957 “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–388.Google Scholar
1975 “Logic and Conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1989 Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra
2002 Community Interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
2004 The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness, and the Interpreter. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hales, Liz, and Luna Filipović
2016 “Language Rights in Danger: Access to Justice and Linguistic (In)equality in Multilingual Judicial Contexts”. In Endangered Languages and Languages in Danger: Issues of Ecology, Policy and Documentation, ed. by Martin Pütz and Luna Filipović, 61–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
2004 Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haworth, Kate
2006 “The Dynamics of Power and Resistance in Police Interview Discourse”. Discourse and Society 171: 739–759. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Police Interviews in the Judicial Process: Police Interviews as Evidence”. In Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson, 169–194. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Alejandra, and Sandra Hale
2010 “Appeals on Incompetent Interpreting”. Journal of Judicial Administration 20 (2): 119–130.Google Scholar
Heydon, Georgina
2005 The Language of Police Interviews: A Critical Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide
2012 “Placement and Removal Events in Basque and Spanish”. In The Events of Putting and Taking: A Crosslinguistic Perspective, ed. by A. Kopecka and B. Narasimhan, pp. 123–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide, and Luna Filipović
2013 “Lexicalisation Patterns and Translation”. In Cognitive Linguistics and Translation, ed. by Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 253–284. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kredens, Krysztof
2016 Making sense of adversarial interpreting. Unpublished ms. Aston University.Google Scholar
Kredens, Krysztof and Ruth Morris
2010 “Interpreting outside the courtroom: ‘A shattered mirror?’ Interpreting in legal contexts outside the courtroom”. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson, 455–472. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krouglov, Alex
1999 “Police Interpreting: Politeness and Sociocultural Context”. The Translator 5 (2): 285–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Steven C.
2000 Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linfoot-Ham, Kerry
2006 “Conversational Maxims in Encounters with Law Enforcement Officers”. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 13(1): 23–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian
1997 “Simultaneous Interpretation and the Competition Model”. In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, and Stephen B. Fountain, 215–232. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Meissner, Christian A., Allison R. Redlich, Stephen W. Michael, Jacqueline R. Evans, Catherine Camilletti, Sujeeta Bhatt, and Susan Brandon
2014 “Accusatorial and Information-gathering Interrogation Methods and their Effects on True and False Confessions: A Meta-analytic Review”. Journal of Experimental Criminology 101: 459–486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelson, Holly
2017 [2000] Introduction to Court Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishers.Google Scholar
Mooney, Annabelle
2014 Language and Law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mulayim, Sedat, Miranda Lai, and Caroline Norma
2015 Police Investigative Interviews and Interpreting: Context, Challenges, and Strategies. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Newbury, Phillip and Alison Johnson
2006 “Suspects’ Resistance to Constraining and Coercive Questioning Strategies in the Police Interview”. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 13(2): 213–240.Google Scholar
Oxburgh, Gavin, Trond Myklebust and Tim D. Grant
2010 “The Question of Question Types in Police Interviews: A Review of the Literature from a Psychological and Linguistic Perspective”. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 17(1): 45–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta
2017 “The Presentation of Rights and Obligations in Police Interviews in the USA”. Multilingualism, Forensic Linguistics and the Law Conference, University of Oslo; video available at http://​www​.hf​.uio​.no​/multiling​/english​/news​-and​-events​/events​/conferences​/2017​/forensic​-linguistics​/forensic​-linguistics​.html
Reese, Brian, and Nicholas Asher
2010 “Biased Questions, Intonation and Discourse”. In Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological and Experimental Perspective, ed. by Malte Zimmermann and Carline Féry, 139–173. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tipton, Rebecca
2010 “On Trust: Relationships of Trust in Interpreter-mediated Social Work Encounters”. In Text and Context: Essays on Translation and Interpreting in Honour of Ian Mason, ed. by Mona Baker, Maeve Olohan and Maria Calzada Pérez, 188–208. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Filipović, Luna
2019.  In Bilingualism in Action, Crossref logo
Filipović, Luna
2022. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Miscommunication in UK Police Interviews and US Police Interrogations. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology Crossref logo
Filipović, Luna
2022. The tale of two countries. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. 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.