Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Questions and questioning in Montenegrin police interviews

By Marijana Cerovic

Abstract

Abstract\ud \ud Questions are never asked without a reason, and whenever a question is made, it becomes a vehicle for another action. Questions, on their most basic level, endeavour to strike up an epistemic balance between the interlocutors in that the questioner appears to be seeking information. This study builds on the body of existing literature on questioning in interaction. It explores questions and questioning through a corpus of police interviews recorded in a police station in a Montenegrin city, with a particular focus on how the participants to interrogations are managing questions with purpose in Serbo-Croatian. Similar to other types of institutional interaction in the literature, this study shows that when asking questions, detectives have in mind completing a range of smaller ‘jobs’ as well as solving the project in general. Thus, chapter 4 shows how while performing these jobs, close connection is exhibited between the linguistic form, epistemics and action. The detectives, for instance, select from different linguistic forms of ‘do you know’ interrogatives in order to perform different actions, such as asking for information, asking for confirmation or preparing the ground for another activity. Moreover, the roles of participants in interrogations heavily affect the language and interactional techniques they are using. Thus, certain interactional techniques are noted to be tied only to certain types of interviews and to certain tasks of the detectives. Chapter 5 indicates that the detectives use the technique of repeating a part or the whole of the received answer only when speaking with suspects and in order to express doubts about their answers. At the same time, chapter 6 shows that only those interlocutors, who in the course of interrogation realise they are being treated as suspects use rhetorical questions as a defensive technique specific of this interactional identity. This study generally supports the thesis that questioning is never done without a specific action in mind and that a range of possible activities can be performed through the question-answer pairs in interrogation. \ud \u

Publisher: Communication Studies
Year: 2010
OAI identifier: oai:etheses.whiterose.ac.uk:1388

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1996). (in press) Macedonian Grammar.
  2. (2010). A coding scheme for question-response sequences in conversation. In:
  3. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language.
  4. (2002). A conversation-analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions.
  5. (2008). Affiliative and disaffiliative uses of you say x questions.
  6. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.
  7. (2007). An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London/New
  8. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives.
  9. (2009). Beginning to Respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions.
  10. (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction.
  11. (2007). Black this, black that’: Racial insults and reported speech in neighbour complaints and police interrogations.
  12. (1996). Confirming allusions: towards an empirical account of action.
  13. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of questioning design.
  14. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape.
  15. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction.
  16. (2003). Conversation analysis.
  17. (2005). Conversation analysis. In
  18. (2003). Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interviews. In
  19. (2008). Did you have permission to smash your neighbour’s door?’ Silly questions and their answers in police-suspect interrogations.
  20. (2008). Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics.
  21. (1980). eds. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:
  22. (2006). English Grammar:
  23. (2010). Exploring repetition of task as a co-accomplished social interaction. BAAL
  24. (2006). Facts, norms and dispositions: practical uses of the modal verb would in police interrogations.
  25. (2006). From talk to text: the interactional construction of a police record.
  26. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology.
  27. (1984). Giving a source or basis: the practice in conversation of telling ‘how I know’.
  28. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.
  29. (2005). Gramatika Srpskog Jezika. Zavod za udžbenike:
  30. (1990). Gramatika Srspkohrvatskog Jezika za Strance. Novi Sad: Dobra vest.
  31. (1995). Grammar and institution: questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview.
  32. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding.
  33. (2009). Grammar and Social Relations: Alternative Forms of Yes/No Type Initiating Actions in Health Visitor Interactions.,
  34. (2010). Handbook of Forensic Linguistics.
  35. (2001). In the heat of the sequence: interactional features preceding walkouts from argumentative talk.
  36. (2005). Institutional Interaction: Studies of Talk at Work.
  37. (2002). Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions.
  38. (2008). Introducing direct complaints through questions: The interactional achievement of ‘pre-sequences?’.
  39. (1984). Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge:
  40. (2007). Just good friends’: managing the clash of discourses in police interviews with paedophiles.
  41. (2001). La construction de la preuve dans un interrogatoire de police.
  42. (1993). Language Crimes: The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom.
  43. (2010). Lawyers in interviews. ‘I advise you not to answer that question’: conversation analysis, legal interaction and the analysis of lawyers’ turns in police interrogations of suspects.
  44. (1992). Lectures on conversation, volumes 1 and 2. Edited by Gail Jefferson with introductions by
  45. (2010). Let me tell you about myself’. A method for suppressing subject talk in a ‘soft accusation’ interrogation.
  46. (2010). Mobilizing response.
  47. (2010). Negotiating paedophilia in the investigative interview: The construction of sexual offences against children.
  48. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design.
  49. (1971). On conjoined questions and conjoined relative clauses in English and Serbo-Croatian. The Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian-English Contrastive Project
  50. (1978). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation.
  51. (1985). On the interactional unpackaging of the ‘gloss’.
  52. (1997). Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation.
  53. (1979). Order in court: The organization of verbal interaction in juridical settings.
  54. (1994). Performance and discourse: Transcribing Latin American languages and cultures.
  55. (2010). Police interviews in the judicial process: Police interviews as evidence.
  56. (2009). Police interviews with suspected paedophiles: a discourse analysis.
  57. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge/New York:
  58. (2003). Precision and exaggeration in interaction.
  59. (1988). Presequences and indirection: applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation.
  60. (1986). Projection and silences: notes on phonetic and conversational structure.
  61. (2010). Questioning and responding in Italian. In
  62. (2002). Questioning presidents: journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan.
  63. (2010). Questions and responses in 10 languages [Special Issue]. Journal of Pragmatics. Advance online publication.
  64. (2010). Questions and responses in Yélıˆ Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island. In
  65. (2008). Questions of accountability: Yes-no interrogatives that are unanswerable.
  66. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation.
  67. (2010). Requesting assistance in calls to the police.
  68. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol 1. Cambridge:
  69. (1984). Serbo-Croatian yes/no questions and speech acts.
  70. (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:
  71. (1992). Talk at Work. Cambridge:
  72. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions.
  73. (2007). Talking about violence: women reporting abuse in
  74. (1990). Talking in interviews: a dispreference for patient-initiated questions in physician-patient encounters.
  75. (2006). The client’s instructions: lawyer-client interaction and criminal defence case preparation.
  76. (2003). The construction of records in Dutch police interrogations.
  77. (2006). The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse.
  78. (2006). The epistemics of social relationships: owning grandchildren.
  79. (1979). The functions of yes/no-questions (on basis of Bulgarian and Macedonian
  80. (2003). The interactional dynamics of eliciting a confession in a Dutch police interrogation.
  81. (1968). The intonation of yes/no questions in Serbo-Croatian. The Slavic and
  82. (2005). The Language of Police Interviewing: A Critical Analysis.
  83. (2002). The limits of questioning: negative interrogatives and hostile question content.
  84. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.
  85. (2002). The Prosody of Questions in Natural Discourse. In:
  86. (2000). The structure of responding: type-conforming and non-conforming responses to yes/no type interrogatives.
  87. (2002). The suspect’s own words: The treatment of written statements in Dutch courtrooms. Forensic Linguistics.
  88. (2005). The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction.
  89. (1977). Therapeutic discourse.
  90. (2006). To be honest’: Sequential uses of honesty phrases in talk-in-interaction.
  91. (2005). Understanding problems in an interpreter-mediated police Interrogation.
  92. (2008). Using niin-interrogative to treat the prior speaker’s action as an exaggeration.
  93. (2010). Vulnerable witnesses: Vulnerable witnesses in the Criminal Justice System.
  94. (2008). Wh-interrogative formats used for questioning and beyond: German warum (why) and wieso (why) and English why.
  95. (2003). Wh-questions used as challenges.
  96. (1994). What else can I tell you? A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Almqvist and Wiksell International:
  97. (2009). What happened?’: An epistemics of before and after in ‘At-thescene’ police questioning.
  98. (2000). When ‘others’ initiate repair.
  99. (2006). When documents ‘speak’: documents, language and interaction.
  100. (2007). When does the watchdog bark?: Conditions of Aggressive Questioning in Presidential News Conferences.
  101. (2010). Witnesses and suspects in interviews. Collecting oral evidence: the police, the public and the written word.
  102. (1995). You punched him, didn’t you?’: versions of violence in accusatory interviews.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.