In:Legal Pragmatics
Edited by Dennis Kurzon and Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 288] 2018
► pp. 157–180
Chapter 8The language of Egyptian interrogations
A study of suspects’ resistance to implicatures and presuppositions in prosecution questions
Published online: 26 April 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.288.08als
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.288.08als
Abstract
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Interrogations in the Egyptian setting
- 3.Data
- 4. Data transcription
- 5.
Data analysis
- 5.1IDK as responses to ‘Do you know’ questions
- 5.2IDK responses to questions with implied accusation
- 5.3Responses to put on record questions (PORs)
- 5.3.1Emphatic responses to PORs
- 5.3.2IDK only responses
- 5.3.3IDK responses to PORs with explanation
- 6.Conclusion
Acknowledgements References
References (27)
Belal, Ahmed. 2013. Principles of the Egyptian Criminal Law: The General Part. Cairo: Dar Al Nahda Al Arabiya.
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. 1992. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Harris, Sandra. 1984. “Questions as a Mode of Control in Magistrates’ Courts.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 49: 5–27.
. 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.
. 1991. “Evasive Action: How Politicians Respond to Questions in Political Interviews.” In Broadcast Talk, ed. Paddy Scannell, 76–99. London: Sage publications.
Haworth, Kate. 2006. “The Dynamics of Power and Resistance in Police Interview Discourse.” Discourse and Society 17 (6): 739–759.
. 2013. “Audience Design in the Police Interview: The Interactional and Judicial Consequences of Audience Orientation.” Language in Society 42 (1): 45–69.
Heffer, Chris, Frances Rock, and John M. Conley. 2013. Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the law. New York, NY; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kayed, Osama A. 2007. Explanation of Criminal Law: Investigations- Criminal Case- the Trial. Cairo: Dar El Nahda El Arabiya.
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.
2003. “The Construction of Records in Dutch Police Interrogations.” Information Design Journal 11 (3): 201–213.
2012. “The Career of a Suspect’s Statement: Talk, Text, Context.” Discourse Studies 14 (6): 731–752.
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.
Max Plank Institute. 2008. The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for Interlinear Morpheme-by-Morpheme Glosses. Available from [URL]
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.
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.