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



The aim of investigative interviews is to gather comprehensive and reliable information from suspects, offenders, victims and witnesses through questioning. Research on questioning during police interviews has mainly explored question types and question approaches when interviewing adults and children. This paper is concerned with so far unexplored aspects of police interviewing, that is the employment of mitigating and aggravating linguistic devices in questions and statements and their pragmatic effects. The corpus consists of six police interviews with suspects of crime. Mitigation and aggravation strategies were extracted and a total of eighty-two instances were found, analysed and classified into a categorisation taxonomy which was designed to ascertain the types and functions of mitigation and aggravation devices. The findings reveal that more mitigation than aggravation strategies were used in police questioning and statements during the interviews. Mitigation was found to be used not only as a device for alleviating or attenuating, but also as a strategy to build rapport between suspects and police officers.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper
    1989Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, Speech Acts, Politeness. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness : Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  3. Caffi, Claudia
    2007Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cederborg, Ann-Christin, Yael Orbach, Kathleen J. Sternberg and Michael Lamb
    2000 “Investigative Interviews of Child Witnesses in Sweden”. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24 (10): 1355–1361. 10.1016/S0145‑2134(00)00183‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00183-6 [Google Scholar]
  5. College of Policing
    College of Policing. www.college.police.uk
  6. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2011Impoliteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fisher, Ronald, Ralph E. Geiselman and D. S. Raymond
    1987 “Critical Analysis of Police Interview Techniques”. Journal of Police Science and Administration15 (3): 177–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fraser, Bruce
    1975 “Hedged Performatives”. InSyntax and Semantics (Vol. 3.): Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 187–210. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010 “Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging”. New Approaches to Hedging, ed. byGunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch and Stefan Schneider, 15–34. Bingley, UK: Emerald. 10.1163/9789004253247_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_003 [Google Scholar]
  10. Griffiths, Andy, and Rebecca Milne
    2006 “Will It All End in Tiers? Police Interviews with Suspects in Britain”, Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research, Regulation, ed. byTom Williamson, 167–189. New York: Willan.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Holmes, Janet
    1984 “Modifying Illocutionary Force.” Journal of Pragmatics8:345–365. 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90028‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hübler, Axel
    1983Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.iv.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.iv.6 [Google Scholar]
  13. Korkman, Julia, Pekka Santtila, and N. Kenneth Sandnabba
    2006 “Dynamics of Verbal Interaction between Interviewer and Child in Interviews with Alleged Victims of Child Sexual Abuse”. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology47 (2): 109–119. 10.1111/j.1467‑9450.2006.00498.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2006.00498.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Lakoff, Robin
    1973 “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.” Journal of Philosophical Logic2:458–508. 10.1007/BF00262952
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lamb, Michael, Irit Hershkowitz, Kathleen J. Sternberg, Barbara Boat, and Mark Everson
    1997 “Investigative Interviews of Alleged Sexual Abuse Victims with and without Anatomic Dolls”. Child Abuse & Neglect. 20(12): 1251–9. 10.1016/S0145‑2134(96)00121‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(96)00121-4 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ministry of Justice
    Ministry of Justice 2011 “Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Guidance on Using Special Measures.” https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/legal_guidance/best_evidence_in_criminal_proceedings.pdf
  17. Morris, Pauline, Steven A. Richardson, Barbara Snell Dohrenwend, and David Klein
    1965Interviewing: Its Forms and Functions. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Oxburgh, Gavin E., Trond Myklebust, Tim Grant, and Christian Meissner
    2010 “Interview and Interrogation Methods and Their Effects on Investigative Outcomes.” International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law17 (1):45–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Phillips, Emma, Gavin Oxburgh, Amanda Gavin, and Trond Myklebust
    2012 “Investigative Interviews with Victims of Child Sexual Abuse: The Relationship between Question Type and Investigation Relevant Information.” Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27(1):45–54. 10.1007/s11896‑011‑9093‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9093-z [Google Scholar]
  20. Schneider, Stefan
    2010 “Mitigation.” InInterpersonal Pragmatics, edited byMiriam A. Locher and Sage L. Graham, 253–269. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Searle, John R.
    1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society5 (1):1–23. 10.1017/S0047404500006837
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  22. 1979Expression and Meaning : Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  23. Thaler, Verena
    2012 “Mitigation as Modification of Illocutionary Force.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (6–7): 907–19. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.001 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): aggravation; illocutionary force; mitigation; police interviews; speech acts
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