Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The aim of this research was to compare the quality of language services and of linguistic evidence obtained in UK police interviews and US police interrogations with suspects, witnesses and victims who speak little or no English and have to communicate via an interpreter. This is the first study of its kind based on substantial real-life data from both jurisdictions, which rely on different types of service provision. The data were annotated using NVivo 12 software and the methodology included a quantitative analysis of miscommunication instances that arise as a result of cross-linguistic or cross-cultural contrasts and a qualitative analysis of the interpreting standards and information details recorded in official transcripts. It was discovered that both countries exhibit some advantageous features in their language service provision. although both also have shortcomings that should be responded to and remedied. The US data reveal that the transcripts there are more detailed and more informative, and are produced bilingually and verbatim; this is not the case in the UK context. However, the use of non-professional interpreters in the US, unlike in the UK, where professional interpreters are employed, is shown to be highly problematic. The article concludes with a summary of empirical insights that can be used to improve evidence-gathering, access to justice in multilingual contexts, policy development and the training of law-enforcement and language professionals around the world.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ainsworth, J.
    (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 Law15 (1), 1–22. 10.1558/ijsll.v15i1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v15i1.1 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2010) Curtailing coercion in police interrogation: The failed promise of Miranda v. Arizona. InM. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge, 111–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berk-Seligson, S.
    (1983) Sources of variation in Spanish verb construction usage: The active, the dative, and the reflexive passive. Journal of Pragmatics 7, 145–168. 10.1016/0378‑2166(83)90050‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(83)90050-4 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2009) Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213492
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213492 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2011) Negotiation and communicative accommodation in bilingual police interrogations: A critical interactional sociolinguistic perspective. International Journal of Sociology of Language207, 29–58. 10.1515/ijsl.2011.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2016) Totality of circumstances and translating the Miranda warnings. InS. Enrlich, D. Eades & J. Ainsworth (Eds.), Discursive constructions of consent in the legal process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 241–263. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945351.003.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945351.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  7. Filipović, L.
    (2007) Language as a witness: Insights from cognitive linguistics. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law14 (2), 245–267. 10.1558/ijsll.v14i2.245
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v14i2.245 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2013) The role of language in legal contexts: A forensic cross-linguistic viewpoint. InM. Freeman & F. Smith (Eds.), Law and language (Current Legal Issues 15). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 328–343. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0167
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0167 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2019) Evidence-gathering in police interviews: Communication problems and possible solutions. Pragmatics and Society10 (1), 9–31. 10.1075/ps.00013.fil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.00013.fil [Google Scholar]
  10. (2021a) Confession to make: Inadvertent confessions and admissions in United Kingdom and United States police contexts. Frontiers in Psychology. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.769659 (accessed10 March 2022).
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.769659 [Google Scholar]
  11. (Ed.) (2021b) Police interviews: Communication challenges and solutions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.118
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.118 [Google Scholar]
  12. (in press). The good, the bad and the ugly: Miscommunication in UK police interviews and US police interrogations. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. 10.1007/s11896‑022‑09495‑w
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-022-09495-w [Google Scholar]
  13. Filipović, L. & Abad Vergara, S.
    (2018) Juggling investigation and interpretation: The problematic dual role of police officer-interpreter. Law and Language5 (1), 62–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Filipović, L. & Hijazo-Gascón, A.
    (2018) Interpreting meaning in police interviews: Applied language typology in a forensic linguistics context. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics15, 67–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gibbons, J.
    (1990) Applied linguistics in court. Applied Linguistics11 (3), 229–237. 10.1093/applin/11.3.229
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.3.229 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2003) Forensic linguistics. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Martschuk, N.
    (2019) Interpreter performance in police interviews. Differences between trained interpreters and untrained bilinguals. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer13 (2), 107–131. 10.1080/1750399X.2018.1541649
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2018.1541649 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hales, L. & Filipović, L.
    (2016) Language rights in danger: Access to justice and linguistic (in)equality in multilingual judicial contexts. InL. Filipović & M. Pütz (Eds.), Endangered languages and languages in danger: Issues of ecology, policy and documentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 61–85. 10.1075/impact.42.04hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.42.04hal [Google Scholar]
  19. Haworth, K.
    (2010) Police interviews in the judicial process: Police interviews as evidence. InM. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge, 169–194. 10.4324/9780203855607.ch12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607.ch12 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2018) Tapes, transcripts and trials: The routine contamination of police interview evidence. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof22 (4), 428–450. 10.1177/1365712718798656
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718798656 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hayes, A. & Hale, S.
    (2010) Appeals on incompetent interpreting. Journal of Judicial Administration20 (2), 119–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hijazo-Gascón, A.
    (2019) Translating accurately or sounding natural? The interpreters’ challenges due to semantic typology and the interpreting process. Pragmatics and Society10 (1), 73–95. 10.1075/ps.00016.hij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.00016.hij [Google Scholar]
  23. Hijazo-Gascón, A. & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (2013) Same family, different paths: Intratypological differences in three Romance languages. InJ. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–54. 10.1075/hcp.41.02hij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.41.02hij [Google Scholar]
  24. Krouglov, A.
    (1999) Police interpreting: Politeness and sociocultural context. The Translator5 (2), 285–302. 10.1080/13556509.1999.10799045
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1999.10799045 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mayfield, K.
    (2016) The issues and challenges surrounding interpreter-assisted investigative interviews of victims and witnesses. MA dissertation, London Metropolitan University. https://www.hf.uio.no/multiling/english/projects/flagship-projects/forensic/open-access-repository/research/mayfield-2016.pdf (accessed21 February 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Milne, R. & Bull, R.
    (1999) Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Monteoliva-García, E.
    (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. 10.12807/ti.112201.2020.a03
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.112201.2020.a03 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mulayim, S., Lai, M. & Norma, C.
    (2015) Police investigative interviews and interpreting: context, challenges, and strategies. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Nakane, I.
    (2007) Problems in communicating the suspect’s rights in interpreted police interviews. Applied Linguistics28 (1), 87–112. 10.1093/applin/aml050
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml050 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2014) Interpreter-mediated police interviews: A discourse-pragmatic approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137443199
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137443199 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pavlenko, A.
    (2008) “I’m very not about the law part”: Nonnative Speakers of English and the Miranda Warnings. TESOL Quarterly42 (1), 1–30. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00205.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00205.x [Google Scholar]
  32. (2017) The presentation of rights and obligations in police interviews in the USA. Multilingualism, Forensic Linguistics and the Law Conference, Oslo University.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Pounds, G.
    (2019) Rapport-building in suspects’ police interviews: The role of empathy and face. Pragmatics and Society10 (1), 97–124. 10.1075/ps.00017.pou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.00017.pou [Google Scholar]
  34. Rojo, A. & Valenzuela, J.
    (2013) Constructing meaning in translation: The role of constructions in translation problems. InA. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 283–310. 10.1515/9783110302943.283
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.283 [Google Scholar]
  35. Rojo, A., Ramos, M. & Valenzuela, J.
    (2014) The emotional impact of translation: A heart rate study. Journal of Pragmatics71, 31–44. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.006 [Google Scholar]
  36. Russell, S.
    (2001) “Let me put it simply …”: The case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation. Forensic Linguistics7, 26–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Tipton, R.
    (2017) “You are foreign, you are nothing in this country”: Managing risk in interpreter-mediated police interviews with victims of domestic abuse. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses75, 119–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2021) “Yes I understand”: Language choice, question formation and code-switching in interpreter-mediated police interviews with victim-survivors of domestic abuse. International Journal of Police Practice and Research22 (1), 1058–1076. 10.1080/15614263.2019.1663733
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2019.1663733 [Google Scholar]
  39. US Department of Justice
    US Department of Justice (2015) https://www.justice.gov/open/language-access
  40. Wilson, L. & Walsh, D.
    (2019) Conflicts of role, trust and emotion in interpreter-assisted police interviews. Pragmatics and Society10 (1), 122–151. 10.1075/ps.00018.wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.00018.wil [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): police interpreting; quality control; transcripts; UK; US
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error