Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society: Online-First Articles“I never said that”
Negotiating misunderstandings in police interviews
Police interviewers in England and Wales engage in the practice of investigative interviewing that is based on obtaining neutral, institutionally accepted account from suspects. This involves a process not only of eliciting information from suspects, but also of managing the interview by choosing topics for questioning, seeking clarification and additional details, and shaping the account to fulfil institutional requirements. Interviewers must therefore be sensitive to any unclear meanings from the suspect and avoid potential misunderstandings in order to avoid misrepresentation of account. This study uses authentic police interview data to exemplify the interactional process of meaning negotiation between police officers and suspects, examining how multiple constraints of this very restrictive communication context can affect which meanings are put on record and resolved, and which are ignored or left unresolved. The paper finishes by offering practical applicable insights about how interviewers can avoid misunderstandings in the interview room.
Keywords: misunderstanding, police interview, conversational repair, grounding, institutional discourse
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Misunderstandings in UK police interviews
- 3.Negotiating misunderstandings: Theoretical backdrop
- 4.Current study: Data and methodology
- 4.1Data
- 4.2Methodology
- 5.Data analysis: Repair and misunderstandings in UK police interviews
- 5.1Police cautions: Displaying understanding
- 5.2Alternative phrasing of descriptions
- 5.3Ungrounded account
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References
Ainsworth, Janet
2008 “ ‘You have the right to remain silent…But only if you ask for it just so’: The role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law.” International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 15 (1): 1–22. 
2010 “Curtailing coercion in police interrogation: The failed promise of Miranda v. Arizona.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson, 111–125. London: Routledge.
Allwood, Jens
1995 “An activity based approach to pragmatics.” In Gothenburg Papers of Theoretical Linguistics 761, 2–28. Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborg University.
Ariel, Mira
2016 “Revisiting the typology of pragmatic interpretations.” Intercultural Pragmatics 13(1): 1–35.
2019 “Different prominences for different inferences.” Journal of Pragmatics 1541: 103–116.
Berk-Seligson, Susan
2009 Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2011 “Negotiation and communicative accommodation in bilingual police interrogations: A critical interactional sociolinguistic perspective.” International Journal of Sociology of Language 2071: 29–58.
2016 “Totality of circumstances and translating the Miranda warnings.” In Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process, ed. by Susan Enrlich, Diana Eades and Janet Ainsworth, 241–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bjørndahl, Johanne Stege, Riccardo Fusaroli, Svend Østergaard and Kristian Tylén
2015 “Agreeing is not enough: The constructive role of miscommunication.” Interaction Studies 16(3): 495–525.
Brennan, Susan E. and Michael F. Schober
2001 “How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech.” Journal of Memory and Language 44(2): 274–296.
Cerovic, Marijana
2010 Questions and Questioning in Montenegrin Police Interviews. PhD Thesis. Department of Sociology, University of York.
Clark, Herbert H. and Susan Brennan
1991 “Grounding in communication.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine and Stephanie D. Teasley, 127–149. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clarke, Charles and Rebecca J. Milne
2001 “National evaluation of the PEACE investigative interviewing course.” Police Research Award Scheme. Report No. PRAS/149. London: UK Home Office.
Coulthard, Malcolm and Alison Johnson
2007 An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London/New York: Routledge.
Cullen, Hayley J., Lissane Adma and Celine van Golde
2021 “Evidence-based policing in Australia: An examination of the appropriateness and transparency of lineup identification and investigative interviewing practices.” International Journal of Police Science & Management 23(1): 85–98.
Dixon, David
2010 “Interrogating Myths: A comparative study of practices, research, and regulation.” UNSW Law Research Paper No 2010–40. Available at: [URL] [Accessed 11 April 2024].
Eades, Diana
1994 “A case of communicative clash: Aboriginal English.” In Language and the Law, ed. by John Gibbons, 234–264. London: Longman.
2008 “Language and disadvantage before the law.” In Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by John Gibbons and Maria Teresa Turell, 179–195. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Edwards, Derek
2008 “Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crimes.” Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2): 177–199.
Elder, Chi-Hé
2019 “Negotiating what is said in the face of miscommunication.” In Philosophical Insights into Pragmatics, ed. by Piotr Stalmaszczyk, 107–126. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
2021 “Microaggression or misunderstanding? Implicatures, inferences and accountability.” Journal of Pragmatics 1791: 37–43.
2024 Pragmatic Inference: Misunderstandings, Accountability, Deniability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elder, Chi-Hé and David Beaver
2022 “ ‘We’re running out of fuel’: When does miscommunication go unrepaired?” Intercultural Pragmatics 19(5): 541–570.
Elder, Chi-Hé and Michael Haugh
2018 “The interactional achievement of speaker meaning: Towards a formal account of conversational inference.” Intercultural Pragmatics 15(5): 593–625.
2023 “Exposing and avoiding unwanted inferences in conversational interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 2181: 115–132.
Fernández, Raquel
2015 “Dialogue.” In The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics (2nd ed.), ed. by Ruslan Mitkov, 179–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Filipović, Luna
2007 “Language as a witness: Insights from cognitive linguistics.” Speech, Language and the Law 14(2): 245–267.
2019 “Evidence-gathering in police interviews: Communication problems and possible solutions.” Pragmatics and Society 10(1): 9–31.
2021a Police Interviews: Communication Challenges and Solutions, ed. by Luna Filipović. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Filipović, L.
2021b “Confession to make: Inadvertent confessions and admissions in United Kingdom and United States police contexts.” Frontiers in Psychology 121: 769659.
Filipović, Luna
2022a “Language and culture as sources of inequality in US police interrogations.” Applied Linguistics 43(6): 1073–1093.
2022b “The good, the bad and the ugly: Miscommunication in UK police interviews and US police interrogations.” Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 371: 297–311.
2022c “The tale of two countries: Police interpreting in the UK vs. in the US.” Interpreting 24/21: 254 – 278.
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 151: 67–103.
Gibbons, John
2003 Forensic linguistics. London: Blackwell.
Grant, Tim, Jennifer Taylor, Gavin Oxburgh and Trond Myklebust
2015 “Exploring types and functions of questions in police interviews.” In Communication in Investigative and Legal Contexts, ed. by Gavin Oxburgh, Trond Myklebust, Tim Grant and Rebecca Milne, 15–38. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Grice, H. Paul
1957 “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–388.
Haugh, Michael
2008 “The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature.” In Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskes and Jacob L. Mey, 45–85. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haworth, Kate
2006 “The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse.” Discourse & Society 17(6): 739–759.
Haworth, Kate, James Tompkinson, Emma Richardson, Felicity Deamer and Magnus Hamman
2023 “ ‘For the Record’: Applying linguistics to improve evidential consistency in police investigative interview records.” Frontiers in Communication 81:1178516.
Healey, Patrick
2008 “Interactive misalignment: The role of repair in the development of group sub-languages.” In Language in Flux, ed. by Robin Cooper and Ruth Kempson, 13–39. London: London Publications.
Heini, Annina
2023 “ ‘Basically, I’m gonna ask you a load of questions’: Cautioning exchanges in police interviews with adolescent suspects.” Language and Law / Linguagem E Direito 9(2).
Heydon, Georgina
2005 The Language of Police Interviewing: A Critical Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
2007 When silence means acceptance: Understanding the right to silence as a linguistic phenomenon. Alternative Law Journal 32(3):149–153.
2008 “The risk to testimonial integrity of moral judgements in police interviews.” Southern Review 40(3): 23–39.
2012 “Helping the police with their enquiries: Enhancing the investigative interview with linguistic research.” The Police Journal 85(2): 101–122.
Hijazo-Gascón, Alberto
2019 “Translating accurately or sounding natural? The interpreters’ challenges due to semantic typology and the interpreting process.” Pragmatics and Society 10(1): 73–95.
Jefferson, Gail
2004 “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Johnson, Alison
2008 “ ‘From where we’re sat…’: Negotiating narrative transformation through interaction in police interviews with suspects.” Text and Talk 28(3): 327–349.
Kecskes, Istvan
2010 “The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics.” Pragmatics and Society 1(1): 50–73.
McTear, Michael
2008 “Handling miscommunication: Why bother?” In Recent Trends in Discourse and Dialogue, ed. by Laila Dybkjær and Wolfgang Minker, 101–122. Dordrecht: Springer.
Milne, Rebecca and Ruth Bull
1999 Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice. Chichester: Wiley.
Monteoliva-García, Eloisa
2020 “Interpreting or other forms of language support? Experiences and decision-making among response and community police officers in Scotland.” Translation & Interpreting 12(1): 37–54.
Musolff, Andreas
2019 “ ‘You keep telling us different things, what do we believe?’ Meta-communication and meta-representation in police interviews.” Pragmatics and Society 10(1): 32–49.
Pavlenko, Aneta
2008 “ ‘I’m not very about the law part’: Nonnative speakers of English and the Miranda warnings.” TESOL Quarterly 42(1): 1–30.
Pounds, Gabrina
2019 “Rapport-building in suspects’ police interviews: The role of empathy and face.” Pragmatics and Society 10(1): 96–123.
Robinson, Jeffrey D.
2014 “What ‘what?’ tells us about how conversationalists manage intersubjectivity.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 47(2): 109–129.
Rock, Frances E.
2007 Communicating Rights: The Language of Arrest and Detention. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Russell, Sonia
2001 “ ‘Let me put it simply…’: The case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation.” Forensic Linguistics 71: 26–48.
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language 50(4): 696–735.
Schegloff, Emanuel
1992 “Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97(5): 1295–1345.
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks
1977 “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.” Language 531: 361–382.
Shuy, Roger W.
2017 Deceptive Ambiguity by Police and Prosecutors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stokoe, Elizabeth and Derek Edwards
2008 “ ‘Did You Have Permission to Smash Your Neighbour’s Door?’ Silly Questions and their Answers in Police–Suspect Interrogations.” Discourse Studies 10(1): 89–111.
Terkourafi, Marina
2014 “The importance of being indirect: A new nomenclature for indirect speech.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 281: 45–70.
Tzanne, Angeliki
2000 Talking at Cross-Purposes: The Dynamics of Miscommunication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Walsh, David and Rebecca Milne
2008 “Keeping the PEACE? A study of investigative interviewing practices in the public sector.” Legal and Criminological Psychology 131: 39–57.
Weizman, Elda
1999 “Building true understanding via apparent miscommunication: A case study.” Journal of Pragmatics 31(6): 837–846.
Yoong, David
2010 “Interactional norms in the Australian police interrogation room. Discourse & Society 21(6): 692–713.