Article published in:
Police interviews: Communication challenges and solutions
Edited by Luna Filipović
[Pragmatics and Society 10:1] 2019
► pp. 49–71

“Would it be fair to say that you actively sought out material?”

Mitigation and aggravation in police investigative interviews

| University of East Anglia
The aim of investigative interviews is to gather comprehensive and reliable information from suspects, offenders, victims and witnesses through questioning. Research on questioning during police interviews has mainly explored question types and question approaches when interviewing adults and children. This paper is concerned with so far unexplored aspects of police interviewing, that is the employment of mitigating and aggravating linguistic devices in questions and statements and their pragmatic effects. The corpus consists of six police interviews with suspects of crime. Mitigation and aggravation strategies were extracted and a total of eighty-two instances were found, analysed and classified into a categorisation taxonomy which was designed to ascertain the types and functions of mitigation and aggravation devices. The findings reveal that more mitigation than aggravation strategies were used in police questioning and statements during the interviews. Mitigation was found to be used not only as a device for alleviating or attenuating, but also as a strategy to build rapport between suspects and police officers.
Keywords: mitigation, aggravation, illocutionary force, speech acts, police interviews
Published online: 28 May 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.00015.pab
References

References

Austin, John L.
1977 How to Do Things with Words. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper
1989 Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, Speech Acts, Politeness. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness : Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia
2007 Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cederborg, Ann-Christin, Yael Orbach, Kathleen J. Sternberg and Michael Lamb
2000 “Investigative Interviews of Child Witnesses in Sweden”. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24 (10): 1355–1361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
2011 Impoliteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Ronald, Ralph E. Geiselman and D. S. Raymond
1987 “Critical Analysis of Police Interview Techniques”. Journal of Police Science and Administration 15 (3): 177–185.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1975 “Hedged Performatives”. In Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 3.): Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 187–210. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2010 “Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging”. New Approaches to Hedging, ed. by Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch and Stefan Schneider, 15–34. Bingley, UK: Emerald. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Andy, and Rebecca Milne
2006 “Will It All End in Tiers? Police Interviews with Suspects in Britain”, Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research, Regulation, ed. by Tom Williamson, 167–189. New York: Willan.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet
1984 “Modifying Illocutionary Force.” Journal of Pragmatics 8:345–365. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hübler, Axel
1983 Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Korkman, Julia, Pekka Santtila, and N. Kenneth Sandnabba
2006 “Dynamics of Verbal Interaction between Interviewer and Child in Interviews with Alleged Victims of Child Sexual Abuse”. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 47 (2): 109–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1973 “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 2:458–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, Michael, Irit Hershkowitz, Kathleen J. Sternberg, Barbara Boat, and Mark Everson
1997 “Investigative Interviews of Alleged Sexual Abuse Victims with and without Anatomic Dolls”. Child Abuse & Neglect. 20(12): 1251–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Justice
2011 “Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Guidance on Using Special Measures.” https://​www​.cps​.gov​.uk​/sites​/default​/files​/documents​/legal​_guidance​/best​_evidence​_in​_criminal​_proceedings​.pdf
Morris, Pauline, Steven A. Richardson, Barbara Snell Dohrenwend, and David Klein
1965 Interviewing: Its Forms and Functions. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Oxburgh, Gavin E., Trond Myklebust, Tim Grant, and C. Meissner
2010 “Interview and Interrogation Methods and Their Effects on Investigative Outcomes.” International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 17 (1):45–66.Google Scholar
Phillips, Emma, Gavin Oxburgh, Amanda Gavin, and Trond Myklebust
2012 “Investigative Interviews with Victims of Child Sexual Abuse: The Relationship between Question Type and Investigation Relevant Information.” Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27(1):45–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Stefan
2010 “Mitigation.” In Interpersonal Pragmatics, edited by Miriam A. Locher and Sage L. Graham, 253–269. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5 (1):1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979 Expression and Meaning : Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, Verena
2012 “Mitigation as Modification of Illocutionary Force.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (6–7): 907–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar