Difference between revisions of "Antaki2017"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Key=Antaki2017 | |Key=Antaki2017 | ||
|Year=2017 | |Year=2017 | ||
| − | | | + | |Language=English |
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=117 | |Volume=117 | ||
|Pages=1–15 | |Pages=1–15 | ||
| − | |URL=https:// | + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216616305513 |
|DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.012 | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.012 | ||
| + | |Abstract=In formal police interviews, interviewers may have institutionally mandated reasons for following up even apparently fully co-operative answers with questions that imply that the interviewee is in fact (knowingly or unknowingly) being uncooperative. From a sample of over 100 UK interviews with suspects arrested for minor offences, and 19 interviews with witnesses alleging sexual assault, we identify and analyse follow-up questions which do not presume that interviewees’ apparently ‘normal’ answers respect the Gricean maxims of quantity, quality, relevance or manner. We identify three institutional motivations working to over-ride the normal communicative contract: to ‘get the facts straight’; to prepare for later challenges; and pursue a description of events that more evidently categorises the alleged perpetrators’ behaviour as criminal. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:21, 28 December 2019
| Antaki2017 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Antaki2017 |
| Author(s) | Charles Antaki, Elizabeth Stokoe |
| Title | When police treat straightforward answers as uncooperative |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Police interviews, Suspects, Witnesses, Cooperative principle, Institutional talk |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2017 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 117 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 1–15 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.012 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In formal police interviews, interviewers may have institutionally mandated reasons for following up even apparently fully co-operative answers with questions that imply that the interviewee is in fact (knowingly or unknowingly) being uncooperative. From a sample of over 100 UK interviews with suspects arrested for minor offences, and 19 interviews with witnesses alleging sexual assault, we identify and analyse follow-up questions which do not presume that interviewees’ apparently ‘normal’ answers respect the Gricean maxims of quantity, quality, relevance or manner. We identify three institutional motivations working to over-ride the normal communicative contract: to ‘get the facts straight’; to prepare for later challenges; and pursue a description of events that more evidently categorises the alleged perpetrators’ behaviour as criminal.
Notes
