Interactional patterns in Swedish police interviews

The police interview exemplifies a form of ‘institutional talk’ with multiple goals and purposes, all of which must be executed and managed through linguistic practices. Over the past decades, researchers within the field of Forensic linguistics have examined form, function and use of language in various forensic settings, and conversation analysts have shown, for example: how topic management and turn-taking might serve as tools for pressuring the suspect (Mason, 2016); how suspects’ rights are (not) explained (Pavlenko et al., 2019; Stokoe et al., 2016); and how different question formulations realize different social actions (Antaki et al., 2015; Carter, 2014; Stokoe & Edwards, 2008). Studies targeting Swedish police interviews have been scarce, and the lack of such is problematic, as international research shows that conditions and results are contingent upon cultural as well as social factors (Haworth, 2006).

 

In this presentation, I will present results from the ongoing project Interactional Patterns in Swedish Police Interviews (funded by the Swedish Research Council [2021–03044]). The overall aim of the project is to explore interactional patterns in Swedish police interviews, with particular focus on how the police officers formulate questions and (re)formulate the interviewee’s statements. Ultimately, this is connected to principles of objectivity which regulate and frame the setting, and how these are reflected, as well as accomplished, through linguistic practices.

 

Antaki, C., Richardson, E., Stokoe, E., & Willott, S. (2015). Police interviews with vulnerable people alleging sexual assault: Probing inconsistency and questioning conduct. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 19(3), 328–350.

Carter, E. (2014). When is a lie not a lie? When it’s divergent: Examining lies and deceptive responses in a police interview. Language and Law, 1(1), 122–140.

Haworth, K. (2006). The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse and Society, 17(6), 739–759.

Mason, M. (2016). The ‘preparatory’ and ‘argumentation’ stages of police interrogation: A linguistic analysis of a criminal investigation. Language & Communication, 48, 79–87.

Pavlenko, A., Hepford, E., & Jarvis, S. (2019). An illusion of understanding: How native and non-native speakers of English understand (and misunderstand) their Miranda rights. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 26(2).

Stokoe, E., & 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.

Stokoe, E., Edwards, D., & Edwards, H. (2016). “No Comment” Responses to Questions in Police Investigative Interviews. In S. Ehrlich, D. Eades, & J. Ainsworth (Eds.), Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process (pp. 289–317). Oxford University Press.