Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In this paper I discuss the many complexities that police officers have to deal with in their communication with suspects. Investigative interviewing is a very complex communicative situation in itself, with a number of different psychological and sociological variables at play during each interview. In addition, suspect interviews bring about an additional dimension of complexity, which is driven by the fact that a basic principle of conversation, (Grice 1975) is often not respected and is sometimes severely and purposefully violated, for example when suspects are guilty and want to obscure that very fact or when they believe that their situation would worsen if they cooperated with the police. A further layer of complexity is added when the interviews are carried out via an interpreter, where the fact that the officer and the suspect speak different languages during the interview creates additional barriers to straightforward communication.

In the present paper, I identify a number of points at which communication difficulties are encountered in this highly sensitive legal context. For this purpose, I analyse authentic interview datasets provided by two UK police constabularies, and also make comparisons with examples from transcripts of authentic US police interrogations. In addition, I highlight the issues that arise when professional interpretation is not available and when bilingual police officers assume the dual role of investigator-interpreter. Finally, I suggest possible solutions that can help remove the hurdles standing in the way of efficient and accurate gathering of communication evidence.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Berk-Seligson, Susan
    1990The Bilingual Courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2002 “The Miranda Warnings and Linguistic Coercion: The Role of Footing in the Interrogation of a Limited-English Speaking Murder Suspect”. InLanguage in the Legal Process, ed. byJanet Cotterill, 127–143. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230522770_8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522770_8 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2009Coerced Confessions: The Discourse of Bilingual Police Interrogations. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213492
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213492 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2011 “Negotiation and Communicative Accommodation in Bilingual Police Interrogations: A Critical Interactional Sociolinguistic Perspective”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language20 (7): 29–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dando, Coral, Rachel Wilcock, and Rebecca Milne
    2009 “The Cognitive Interview: The Efficacy of a Modified Mental Reinstatement of Context Procedure for Frontline Police Investigators”. Applied Cognitive Psychology23: 138–147. 10.1002/acp.1451
    https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1451 [Google Scholar]
  7. De Groot, Annette M. B.
    1997 “The Cognitive Study of Translation and Interpretation: Three Approaches”. InCognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. byJoseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, and Stephen B. Fountain, 25–56. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Elder, Chi-He, and Kasia Jaszczolt
    2016 “Towards a Pragmatic Category of Conditionals”. Journal of Pragmatics98: 36–53. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.013 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fausey, Caitlin M., and Lera Boroditsky
    2010 “Subtle Linguistic Cues Influence Perceived Blame and Financial Liability”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review17 (5): 644–650. 10.3758/PBR.17.5.644
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.644 [Google Scholar]
  10. Filipović, Luna
    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]
  11. 2013a “Constructing Causation in Language and Memory: Implications for Access to Justice in Multilingual Interactions”. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law20(1): 1–19. 10.1558/ijsll.v20i1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v20i1.1 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2013b “The Role of Language in Legal Contexts: A Forensic Cross-linguistic Viewpoint”. InLaw and Language: Current Legal Issues (15), ed. byMichael Freeman and Fiona Smith, 328–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0167
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0167 [Google Scholar]
  13. Filipović, Luna and John A. Hawkins
    2013 Multiple factors in second language acquisition. The CASP model. Linguistics51(1): 145–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Filipović, Luna, and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano
    2015 “Motion”. InHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics [Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39], ed. byEwa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 527–545. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-026 [Google Scholar]
  15. Filipović, Luna and Alberto Hijazo-Gascón
    2018 “Interpreting Meaning in Police Interviews: Applied Language Typology in a Forensic Linguistics Context”. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics VIAL15: 67–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Filipović, Luna and Suzanne Abad Vergara
    2018 “Juggling Investigation and Interpretation: The Problematic Dual role of Police Officer-Interpreter”. Law and Language/Linguagem e Direito5 (1): 62–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gibbons, John
    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]
  18. 2003Forensic Linguistics. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2017 “Towards Clearer Jury Instructions”. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito4(1): 142–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gile, Daniel
    1997 “Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem”. InCognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. byJoseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, and Stephen B. Fountain, 196–214. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Grice, H. Paul
    1957 “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review66(3): 377–388.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1975 “Logic and Conversation”. InSyntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1989Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hale, Sandra
    2002Community Interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2004The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness, and the Interpreter. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hales, Liz, and Luna Filipović
    2016 “Language Rights in Danger: Access to Justice and Linguistic (In)equality in Multilingual Judicial Contexts”. InEndangered Languages and Languages in Danger: Issues of Ecology, Policy and Documentation, ed. byMartin Pütz and Luna Filipović, 61–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.42.04hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.42.04hal [Google Scholar]
  27. Hawkins, John A.
    2004Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Haworth, Kate
    2006 “The Dynamics of Power and Resistance in Police Interview Discourse”. Discourse and Society17: 739–759. 10.1177/0957926506068430
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506068430 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2010 “Police Interviews in the Judicial Process: Police Interviews as Evidence”. InRoutledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. byMalcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson, 169–194. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203855607.ch12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607.ch12 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hayes, Alejandra, and Sandra Hale
    2010 “Appeals on Incompetent Interpreting”. Journal of Judicial Administration20 (2): 119–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Heydon, Georgina
    2005The Language of Police Interviews: A Critical Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230502932
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502932 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide
    2012 “Placement and Removal Events in Basque and Spanish”. InThe Events of Putting and Taking: A Crosslinguistic Perspective, ed. byA. Kopecka and B. Narasimhan, pp.123–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.100.10ant
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100.10ant [Google Scholar]
  33. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide, and Luna Filipović
    2013 “Lexicalisation Patterns and Translation”. InCognitive Linguistics and Translation, ed. byAna Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 253–284. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110302943.251
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.251 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kredens, Krysztof
    2016 Making sense of adversarial interpreting. Unpublished ms. Aston University.
  35. Kredens, Krysztof and Ruth Morris
    2010 “Interpreting outside the courtroom: ‘A shattered mirror?’ Interpreting in legal contexts outside the courtroom”. InThe Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. byMalcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson, 455–472. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203855607.ch30
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607.ch30 [Google Scholar]
  36. Krouglov, Alex
    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]
  37. Levinson, Steven C.
    2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Linfoot-Ham, Kerry
    2006 “Conversational Maxims in Encounters with Law Enforcement Officers”. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law13(1): 23–54. 10.1558/sll.2006.13.1.23
    https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.2006.13.1.23 [Google Scholar]
  39. MacWhinney, Brian
    1997 “Simultaneous Interpretation and the Competition Model”. InCognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. byJoseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, and Stephen B. Fountain, 215–232. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Meissner, Christian A., Allison R. Redlich, Stephen W. Michael, Jacqueline R. Evans, Catherine Camilletti, Sujeeta Bhatt, and Susan Brandon
    2014 “Accusatorial and Information-gathering Interrogation Methods and their Effects on True and False Confessions: A Meta-analytic Review”. Journal of Experimental Criminology10: 459–486. 10.1007/s11292‑014‑9207‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9207-6 [Google Scholar]
  41. Mikkelson, Holly
    2017 [2000]Introduction to Court Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Mooney, Annabelle
    2014Language and Law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑01796‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-01796-3 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mulayim, Sedat, Miranda Lai, and Caroline Norma
    2015Police Investigative Interviews and Interpreting: Context, Challenges, and Strategies. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Newbury, Phillip and Alison Johnson
    2006 “Suspects’ Resistance to Constraining and Coercive Questioning Strategies in the Police Interview”. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law13(2): 213–240.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Oxburgh, Gavin, Trond Myklebust and Tim D. Grant
    2010 “The Question of Question Types in Police Interviews: A Review of the Literature from a Psychological and Linguistic Perspective”. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law17(1): 45–66. 10.1558/ijsll.v17i1.45
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v17i1.45 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pavlenko, Aneta
    2017 “The Presentation of Rights and Obligations in Police Interviews in the USA”. Multilingualism, Forensic Linguistics and the Law Conference, University of Oslo; video available atwww.hf.uio.no/multiling/english/news-and-events/events/conferences/2017/forensic-linguistics/forensic-linguistics.html
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Reese, Brian, and Nicholas Asher
    2010 “Biased Questions, Intonation and Discourse”. InInformation Structure: Theoretical, Typological and Experimental Perspective, ed. byMalte Zimmermann and Carline Féry, 139–173. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Tipton, Rebecca
    2010 “On Trust: Relationships of Trust in Interpreter-mediated Social Work Encounters”. InText and Context: Essays on Translation and Interpreting in Honour of Ian Mason, ed. byMona Baker, Maeve Olohan and Maria Calzada Pérez, 188–208. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
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