Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 16:2 (2025) ► pp.174–200

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

“I never said that”

Negotiating misunderstandings in police interviews

ORCiD logo with link | University of East Anglia
 | University of California Davis
Published online: 13 May 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21080.eld
Abstract
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.
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 (70)
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allwood, Jens. 1995. “An activity based approach to pragmatics.” In Gothenburg Papers of Theoretical Linguistics 761, 2–28. Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborg University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2016. “Revisiting the typology of pragmatic interpretations.” Intercultural Pragmatics 13(1): 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. “Different prominences for different inferences.” Journal of Pragmatics 1541: 103–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2009. Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Negotiation and communicative accommodation in bilingual police interrogations: A critical interactional sociolinguistic perspective.” International Journal of Sociology of Language 2071: 29–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulthard, Malcolm and Alison Johnson. 2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 2008. “Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crimes.” Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2): 177–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. “Microaggression or misunderstanding? Implicatures, inferences and accountability.” Journal of Pragmatics 1791: 37–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2024. Pragmatic Inference: Misunderstandings, Accountability, Deniability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elder, Chi-Hé and David Beaver. 2022. “‘We’re running out of fuel’: When does miscommunication go unrepaired?” Intercultural Pragmatics 19(5): 541–570. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2023. “Exposing and avoiding unwanted inferences in conversational interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 2181: 115–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernández, Raquel. 2015. “Dialogue.” In The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics (2nd ed.), ed. by Ruslan Mitkov, 179–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filipović, Luna. 2007. “Language as a witness: Insights from cognitive linguistics.” Speech, Language and the Law 14(2): 245–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021a. Police Interviews: Communication Challenges and Solutions, ed. by Luna Filipović. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filipović, L. 2021b. “Confession to make: Inadvertent confessions and admissions in United Kingdom and United States police contexts.” Frontiers in Psychology 121: 769659. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filipović, Luna. 2022a. “Language and culture as sources of inequality in US police interrogations.” Applied Linguistics 43(6): 1073–1093. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 151: 67–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic linguistics. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1957. “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haworth, Kate. 2006. “The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse.” Discourse & Society 17(6): 739–759. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heydon, Georgina. 2005. The Language of Police Interviewing: A Critical Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. When silence means acceptance: Understanding the right to silence as a linguistic phenomenon. Alternative Law Journal 32(3):149–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “The risk to testimonial integrity of moral judgements in police interviews.” Southern Review 40(3): 23–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Helping the police with their enquiries: Enhancing the investigative interview with linguistic research.” The Police Journal 85(2): 101–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Milne, Rebecca and Ruth Bull. 1999. Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2014. “What ‘what?’ tells us about how conversationalists manage intersubjectivity.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 47(2): 109–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rock, Frances E. 2007. Communicating Rights: The Language of Arrest and Detention. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1992. “Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97(5): 1295–1345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.” Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shuy, Roger W. 2017. Deceptive Ambiguity by Police and Prosecutors. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weizman, Elda. 1999. “Building true understanding via apparent miscommunication: A case study.” Journal of Pragmatics 31(6): 837–846. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoong, David. 2010. “Interactional norms in the Australian police interrogation room. Discourse & Society 21(6): 692–713. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue