Evasion in Police-Suspect Interrogating Discourse: A Discourse Analytic Study of the Transcript of the Interrogation of Anthony Sowell

Document Type : Original Article

Author

مدرس لغويات - قسم اللغات الأجنبية - کلية التربية جامعة المنصورة.

Abstract

This research paper attempts to study evasion in police- suspect interrogating discourse. It selects the transcript of the interrogation of Anthony Sowell as its data for analysis. It shows that evasion exists only in conversational discourse that is mainly based on question- answer sequences. And in most of the cases, it is intentional. So, a discourse analytic approach is appropriate. In the case of this research, the police officers interrogate Anthony Sowell, a real serial killer, to get confessions from him about his crimes. But Anthony does his best to offer them evasive answers. His cunningness lies in his ability to afford answers which are semantically irrelevant and pragmatically coherent at the same time. He pretends to be cooperative whereas in fact he is not. The framework of this research is two- fold. It studies evasion and the detection of evasion through questioning. On one hand, it works on the level of evasion from the part of the suspect. It shows that the evasive answers of the suspects are covert and overt. And on the other hand, it inspects the detection of evasion through questioning by the police interrogators. Regarding covert evasion, the research applies a theoretical framework that studies it from the following three perspectives: 1) changing the textual context of the question; 2) changing the focus of the question; and 3) changing the focus and the textual context of the question (Galasinski, 2000). And concerning overt evasion, the theoretical framework focuses on ‘opting out’. The research shows that evasion with its two types is deceiving because on the surface, the suspect seems cooperative, but underneath, he is not.  As for the detection of evasion, the theoretical framework of this research spots light on the interviewers’ reactions towards this evasion. It uses ‘contingent questions’, ‘presupposition triggers’ and ‘next questions’ as frameworks for the detection of evasion. Two types of contingent questions are discussed: ‘and- and so- prefacing questions. The research concludes that the conflict between interrogators and suspects is endless. Interrogators still need to exert more effort to be able to elicit true information and detect evasion during their cross interrogation of the suspects.

Keywords

References

  1.  

    1. Atkinson, J. 1996. ‘A nation is not. Law Bull’. In Pammer, J. and Killian, J., eds. A Handbook of Conflict Management. CRC Press.
    2. Atkinson, J. 1982. ‘Understanding formality: the categorization and production of “formal” interaction’. In British Journal of Sociology, 33, 86- 117.
    3. Atkinson, J. and Drew, P. 1979. Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.
    4. Arciuli, J. et al. 2010. ‘“Um, I can tell you’re lying”: linguistic markers of deception versus truth- telling in speech.’ In Applied Linguistics, 31, 397- 411.
    5. Austin, J. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford : Clarendon.
    6. Bell, B. 2003. ‘Toward a theory of deception’. In International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, 16, 244-279. Taylor and Francis.
    7. Bishilany, B., reporter. 2010.Transcript of the Interrogation of Anthony Sowell. Ohio: Cuyahoga County. http:// serialkillersinf.com
    8. Bouwmeester, H. 2017. ‘Lo and behold: let the truth be told- Russian deception warfare in Crimea and Ukraine and the return of “Maskirovka” and “Reflexive Control Theory”’. In Whaley and Rothstein, eds. 2017. Netherlands Annual Review of Military Studies 2017: Winning without Killing. Springer.
    9. Carnaghan, E. 2009. ‘Alienation, apathy, or ambivalence? “Don’t knows” and democracy in Russia’. In Slavic Review, 55 (2), 325-363.
    10. Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. 2012. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    11. Clayman, S. 1993. ‘Reformulating the question: a device for answering /not answering questions in news interviews and press conferences’. In Text, 13 (2), 159, 188. 
    12. Delin, J. 2000. The Language of Everyday Life. Sage Knowledge.
    13. De Paulo, B., et al. 2003. ‘Cues to deception’. In Psychological Bulletin, 129 (1), 74-118.  
    14. De Paulo, B. et al. 1996. ‘Lying in everyday life’. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979- 995.

     

    1. Drew, P. 2003. ‘Comparative  analysis of talk- in- interaction in different institutional setting: a sketch’. In Glenn, P. et al., eds. Studies on Language in Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    2. Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds. 1992. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    3. Drew, P. 1992. ‘Contested evidence in a courtroom cross- examination: the case of a trial for rape’. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds. Talk at Work: Social Interaction in Institutional Setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    4. Fowler, R., et al. 1979. Language and Control. London: Routledge.
    5. Freed, A. and Ehrlich, S., eds. 2010. “Why Do You Ask?” The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. Oxford University Press.
    6. Galasinski, D. 2000. The Language of Deception: A Discourse Analytic Study. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
    7. Gee, J. 2005. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge.
    8. Gehl, R. and Plecas, D. 2017. Introduction to Criminal Investigation: Processes, Practices and Thinking.
    9. Gibbons, J. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell.
    10. Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    11. Greatbatch, D. 1988. ‘A turn-taking system for British News interviews’. In Language in Society,17 (3), 401-30.
    12. Greatbatch, D. 1986. ‘Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: the use of agenda shifting procedures by interviewees’. In Media, Culture and Society, 8 (4), 441- 44.  
    13. Greiffenhagen, C. 2009. ‘News interviews: Clayman and Heritage’s “TheNews Inteview”’ In Devine, F. and Heath, S. eds. Doing Social Science: Evidence and Methods in Empirical research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    14. Hample, D. 1996. ‘A theoretical and empirical effort to describe message production’. Paper presented at the annual meeting at the International Communication Association. Chicago.
    15. Haworth, K. 2006. ‘The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse’. In Discourse and Society. 2006. 17 (6), 739- 759. London: Sage Publications.
    16. Heritage, J. and Sorjonen, M. 1994. ‘Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: and- prefacing as a feature of question design’. In Language in Society, 23, 1- 29.Cmbridge University Press.
    17. Holt, E. and Johnson, A. 2010. ‘Legal talk. Socio- pragmatic aspects of legal talk: police interviews and trial discourse’. In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A., eds. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Routledge.
    18. Koshik, I. 2010. ‘Questions that convey information in teacher- student conferences’. In Freed, A. and Ehrlich, S., eds. 2010. “Why Do You Ask?” The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. Oxford University Press.
    19. Leo, R. 1994. ‘Police interrogation and social control’. In Social and Legal Studies,( 3), 39- 120.
    20. Mishler, E. 1984. The Discourse of Medicine: Dialectics of Medical Interviews. Norwood: NJ Ablex.
    21. Miller, S. 2012. Nobody’s Women: The Crimes and Victims of Anthony Sowell, the Cleveland Serial Killer. New York: Berkley Books.
    22. Raymond, G. 2003. ‘Grammar and social organization: Yes/No- type interrogatives and the structure of responding’. In American Sociological Review, 68, 939- 966.
    23. Robinson, W. 1996. Deceit, Delusion and Detection. California: Sage Publishers.
    24. Rothstein, H. and Whaley, B., eds. 2013. Art and Science of Military Deception. Boston: Artech House.
    25. Scoboria, A. 2013. ‘Encouraging and clarifying “Don’t Know” responses enhance interview quality’. In Journal of Experimental Applied Psychology,  19 (1), 72-82.
    26. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. 2003. Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. London: Routledge.
    27. Sidnell, J. 2010. ‘The design and positioning of questions in inquiry testimony’. In Freed, A. and Ehrlich, S., eds. 2010. “Why Do You Ask?” The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. Oxford University Press.
    28. Stokoe, E. 2010. ‘”I’m not gonna hit a lady”: conversation analysis, membership categorization and man’s denial of violence towards women’. In Discourse and Society, 21 (1), 59- 82. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
    29. Stokoe, E. and Edwards, D. 2008. ‘“Did you have permission to smash you neighbor’s door?” Silly questions and their answers in police- suspect interrogations’. In Discourse Studies, 10 (1), 89- 111.
    30. Whaley, B. 1982. ‘Toward a general theory of deception’. In Journal of Strategic Studies, (5), 178- 192. 
    31. Williamson, T. 1993. ‘From interrogation to investigative interviewing: strategic trends in police questioning’. In Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 73- 84.
    32. Wodak, R. 1995. ‘Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis’. In Handbook of Pragmatics Manual, 3, 204- 210. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    33. Yule, G. 2007. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.            

     

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics