The fabric of law-in-action: ‘formulating’ the suspect’s account during police interviews in England
Issue: Vol 27 No. 1 (2020)
Journal: International Journal of Speech Language and the Law
Subject Areas: Linguistics
DOI: 10.1558/ijsll.38527
Abstract:
This article reports findings from a study of police interviews of people suspected of having committed relatively minor criminal offences, in a police station in England. The data comprise audio-recorded investigative interviews which were analysed using conversation analysis. It is focused on a communicative practice employed by police officers while questioning suspects. This practice is to ‘formulate’ what the suspect has just said; formulations are a means of summarising the suspect’s evidence in a particular phase of questioning, in such a way as to represent the suspect’s own words. Formulations, as a practice in talk-in-interaction, enable police officers to a) summarise the upshot of what a suspect has said during a period or phase of questioning, b) attribute this summary directly to a suspect’s ‘own words’, c) construct a suspect’s account (confirmation) as legally relevant, and which can d) elicit from the suspect a form of admission. Formulations are employed as a mechanism to rework prior descriptions and utterances by transforming and elaborating them and consolidating their legal relevance. Through this practice, police officers manage to attribute legal labels to what suspects have said during the interview, to their evidence (e.g. as denying, admitting, telling, etc.) as well as to the character of the incidents or events in question (e.g. assault, breach of harassment warning, criminal damage, arson). Formulating, therefore, is an interactional practice through which key legal work is accomplished in police interviews with suspects in England. It is a device that constitutes the fabric of law-in-action.
Author: Fabio Ferraz de Almeida, Paul Drew
References :
Antaki, C., Barnes, R. and Leudar, I. (2005). Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy. Discourse Studies, 7(6), 627–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605055420
Atkinson, J. M., and Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: Verbal Interactions in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.
Carter, E. (2011). Analysing Police Interviews: Laughter, Confessions and the Tape. London: Continuum.
David, G. C., Rawls, A. W. and Trainum, J. (2018). Playing the Interrogation Game: Rapport, Coercion, and Confessions in Police Interrogations. Symbolic Interaction, 41, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.317
Davis, K. (1986). The process of problem ( re ) formulation in psychotherapy. Sociology of Health & Illness, 8(1), 44–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11346469
Dixon, D. (2010). Questioning Suspects: A Comparative Perspective. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(4), 426–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986210377107
Drew, P. (1992). Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work (pp. 470–520). Camb: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. (2003). Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A sketch. In P. Glenn, C. D. LaBaron and J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction (pp. 293–308). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In K. Fitch and R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 71–102). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Drew, P. (2013). Turn Design. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 131–149). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Drew, P. (2018). Inferences and Indirectness in Interaction. Open Linguistics, 4, 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0013
Eades, D. (2012). The social consequences of language ideologies in courtroom cross-examination. Language in Society, 41(4), 471–497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404512000474
Edwards, D. and Stokoe, E. (2011). “You Don’t Have to Answer”: Lawyers’ Contributions in Police Interrogations of Suspects. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 44(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.543877
Felstiner, W. L. F., Abel, R. L. and Sarat, A. (1980). The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming , Claiming... Law & Society Review, 15(3), 631–654.
Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney and E. A. Tiriakyan (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: perspectives and developments (pp. 337–356). New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.
Griffiths, A. and Milne, R. (2006). Will it all end in tiers? Police interviews with suspects in Britain. In Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research and Regulation (pp. 167–189). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843926337
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an “Overhearing” Audience. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol.3, Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 95–117). London: Academic Press.
Heritage, J., Robinson, J., Elliot, M. N. and Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: The difference one word can make. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1429–1433.
Heritage, J. and Watson, R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). New York: Irvington Press.
Heydon, G. (2005). The Language of Police Interviewing: A critical analysis. Houndmills & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holt, E. and Johnson, A. (2010). Legal Talk. The sociopragmatics of legal talk: police interviews and trial discourse. In M. Coulthard and A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 21–36). London: Routledge.
Hutchby, I. (1996). Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries and Power on Talk Radio. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jefferson, G. (1989). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a ’standard maximum silence on one second in conversation. In D. Roger and P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 166–196). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Johnson, A. (2008). “From where we’re sat ...”: Negotiating narrative transformation through interaction in police interviews with suspects. Text and Talk, 28, 327–349.
Johnson, A. (2019). “Are you saying you were stabbed...?” Multimodality, embodied action, and dramatised formulations in ‘fixing’ the facts in police interviews with suspects. In M. Mason and F. Rock (Eds.), The Discourse of Police Interviews. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kidwell, M. (2009). What Happened?: An Epistemics of Before and After in “At-the-Scene” Police Questioning. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/1080/08351810802671727
Kidwell, M. and González-Martínez, E. (2010). “Let me tell you about myself”: A method for suppressing subject talk in a “soft accusation” interrogation. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 65–89.
Komter, M. L. (2003). The Interactional Dynamics of Eliciting a Confession in a Dutch Police Interrogation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(4), 433–470. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3604_5
Komter, M. L. (2012). The career of a suspect’s statement: Talk, text, context. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 731–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612457486
Leo, R. A. (2008). Police Interrogation in American Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Macleod, N. J. (2010). Police Interviews with Women Reporting Rape: A Critical Discourse Analysis. Retrieved from http://publications.aston.ac.uk/15206/1/NJMacLeodPhD.pdf
Matoesian, G. M. (2001). Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. New York: Oxford University Press.
Maynard, D. W. (1984). Inside Plea Bargaining: the language of negotiation. New York: Plenum.
Ostermann, A. C. and Silva, C. (2009). A formulação em consultas médicas: para além da compreensão mutua entre os interagentes. Calidoscópio, 7(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.4013/cld.2009.72.02
Rock, F. (2013). Every link in the chain: The police interview as textual intersection. In C. Heffer, F. Rock, & J. Conley (Eds.), Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law (pp. 78–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stokoe, E. and Edwards, D. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085592
Walker, E. (1995). Making a bid for change: formulations in union/management negotiations. In A. Firth (Ed.), The discourse of negotiation: studies of language in the workplace (pp. 101–140). Oxford: Pergamon.
Watson, R. (1990). Some Features of the Elicitation Confessions in Murder Interrogations. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction Competence (pp. 263–296). Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.