PRAGMATIC VALUES OF THE INVESTIGATOR’S LANGUAGE REPERTORY IN THE INTERROGATION DISCOURSE

←2020. – Vol. 17

Larysa Vasylivna Pavlichenko
PhD, Assistant Professor
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/StudLing2020.17.100-111

FULL TEXT PDF (UKRAINIAN)

ABSTRACT

The article considers the act-speech specifics of the investigator’s speech in conflict and competitive interactions “investigator – suspect/accused” in interrogations at the stage of pre-trial investigation. The study was based on transcripts of interrogations at police stations in the United Kingdom. The speech of the investigator as the initiator of communication and the representative of the institute is characterized by the use of both direct and indirect speech acts, devoid of personal connotations and perceived by the interviewee as typical models of communicative behaviour: indirect directives to avoid acts of direct impression, imperatives and hedge markers to mitigate directive allocation, objective with the infinitive constructions, conditional sentences, modal verbs with the function of logical inference, interrogative and negative questions. Direct acts of directives are not perceived as acts threatening the “face” of their addressee (“face-threatening acts”), but implement a direct strategy of politeness “on-record”, as it is perceived as part of the institutional requirements in the interaction of an investigator- an interrogated person. Manipulative techniques of an investigator in case of sabotage and pseudo-cooperation from an interrogated person are realized by speech acts of a directive illocutionary force with structural indicators of representatives, invective acts in the form of representatives that provoke an interlocutor to state the circumstances of the crime.

Key words: interrogation discourse, direct and indirect speech act, speech influence, accused, suspect, investigator.

REFERENCES

  1. Baranov A.N. (1993). “Jazykovyye igry vremen perestrojki (Fenomen politicheskogo lozunga). [Language games of perestroika time. (The phenomenon of the political slogan)].” Rusistika,№2, Moscow. P. 67–74. (In Russ.)
  2. Van Dejk T.A. (1978).“Voprosy pragmatiki teksta. [Issues of the text preagmatics]” Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. Vyp. VIII. Lingvistika teksta. Мoscow. P. 259–336. (In Russ.)
  3. Gal’perin I.R. (1981). “Tekst kak ob’ekt lingvisticheskogo issledovanija. [Text as an object of the linguistic research]” Мoscow. 138 p. (In Russ.)
  4. Dem’jankov V.Z. (2001). “Lingvisticheskaja interpretacija teksta: Universal’nye i nacional’nye (idiojetnicheskie) strategii [The linguistic interpretation of the text: Universal and national (idioethnical) strategies]”. Jazyk i kul’tura: Fakty i cennosti: K 70–letiju Jurija Sergeevicha Stepanova. Otv. redaktory: E. S. Kubrjakova, T. E. Janko. M.: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury. Moscow. P. 309–323. (In Russ.)
  5. Іl’chenko O. M. (2002). “Etiketizacіja anglo-amerikans’kogo naukovogo diskursu [Ethicatization of the English and American scientific discourse]”: avtoref. dis. na zdobuttja nauk. stupenja dokt. fіlol. nauk: spec. 10.02.04 «Germans’kі movy». Kyiv. 25 p. (In Ukr.)
  6. Karasik V. I. (2002). “Jazyk social’nogo statusa: Sociolingvisticheskij aspekt. Pragmalingvisticheskij aspekt. Lingvisticheskij aspekt [The language of the social status: Sociolinguistic aspect. Pragmalinguistic aspect. Linguistic aspect]”. Moscow: Gnozis. 333 p. (In Russ.)
  7. Kovalevs’ka T. Ju. (2014). “Aktual’nі naprjamy doslіdzhennja verbal’nogo vplivu [Actual trends of the verbal impact research]”: [Electronic Resource]. – Mode of access:
    http://dspace.onua.edu.ua/handle/11300/2461. (In Ukr.)
  8. Kochetova L. A. (1999). “Lingvokul’turnye harakteristiki anglijskogo reklamnogo diskursa [Linguistic characteristics of the English Advertizing discourse]”: Avtoref. diss. … kand. filol. nauk. Volgograd. 17 p. (in Russ.)
  9. Lenec’ A.V. (2010). “Kommunikativnyj fenomen lzhi: lingvisticheskij i semioticheskij aspekty [The communicative phenomenon of lie]” (na materiale nemeckogo jazyka) diss. …dokt. filol. nauk : spec. 10.02.19, 10.02.04. Rostov-na-Donu. [Electronic Resource]. – Mode of access:
    https://www.google.com.ua/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwj2vqYyNHXAhXMUlAKHaKnAxYQFggzMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Foldvak.ed.gov.ru%2Fcommon%2Fimg%2Fuploaded%2Ffiles%2Fvak%2F2010%2Fannouncements%2Ffilolog%2F2501%2FLenetsAV.doc&usg=AOvVaw3tiKeFZxI13zP8HQpC9_C_ (In Russ.)
  10. Lisichkіna І.O. (2005). “Prosodichna organіzacіja anglomovnogo diskursu reklami (eksperimental’no-fonetichne doslіdzhennja na materіalі britans’koi televіzіjnoi reklami) [Prosodic organization of the English advertizing discourse (experimental phonetic research on the material of the British TV advertizing)]” [Tekst]: dis… kand. fіlol. nauk: 10.02.04. Gorlіvs’kij derzh. pedagogіchnij іn-t іnozemnih mov. Gorlіvka. 216 p. (In Ukr.)
  11. Pochepcov G. G. (2000). “Kommunikativnye tehnologii dvadcatogo veka [Communicative technologies of the twentieth century]”. Moscow: «Refl-buk», Kyiv: «Vakler». 352 p. (In Russ.)
  12. Sternin I.A. (2001). “Vvedenie v rechevoe vozdejstvie [Introduction to the speech influence]”. Voronezh. P. 4–5. (In Russ.)
  13. Susov I. P. (2009). “Lingvisticheskaja pragmatika [Linguistic pragmatics]”. Vinnica: Nova Kniga. 272 p. (In Russ.)
  14. Tkachuk-Mіroshnichenko O. Ye. (2001). “Іmplіkacіja v reklamnomu diskursі (na materіalі anglomovnoї komercіjnoї reklamy) [Implication in advertizing discourse]”: avtoref. dis. na zdobuttja nauk. stupenja kand. fіlol. nauk: spec. 10.02.04 «Germans’kі movy». Kyiv. 18 p. (In Ukr.)
  15. Shejgal E. I. (2000). “Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa. [Semiotics of the political discourse]”. Moskva-Volgograd: Peremena. 368 p. (In Russ.)
  16. Baldwin, J. (1993). Police interview techniques. Establishing Truth or Proof? The Вritish journal of criminology, 33(June). P. 66–72.
  17. Brown P. (1987). Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. Questions and politeness : strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: UP. P. 56–324.
  18. Brown, P., Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 345 p.
  19. Grainger, K. (2018). “We’re not in a club now”: a neo-Brown and Levinson approach to analyzing courtroom data. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), P. 19-38.
  20. Price, H. & Wilson, J. (2018). Applying Politeness Research: An Introduction to the Soto Data. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), P. 1-17.
  21. Sadock Jerrold . (1970). Whimperatives, in Studies Presented to R. B. Lees by his Students. Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc. P. 223–238. 316
  22. Santoso, D., Apriyanto, S. (2020). Pragmatics Implicature Analysis of Police Interrogation: Forensic Linguistics Analysis. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, Vol. 24, Issue 06. P. 115-124.
  23. Schiffrin D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford; Cambridge. 470 p.
  24. Van Dijk T.A. (1981). Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague-Paris: Mouton. 331p.
  25. Van Dijk T.A., Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. L. : Longman. 257 p.
  26. Wunderlich, D. (1976). Towards an integrated theory of grammatical and pragmatical meaning. [Electronic Resource]. – Mode of access:https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-1876-0_14.
  27. Smith M. J. Police interviews [Electronic Resource]. – Mode of access: http://Cryptome.org/smith–inter.zip
  28. The Lisa McPherson Files, Interviews [Electronic Resource]. – Mode of access: http://www.lisafiles.com/police/interviews/219.html, The Lisa McPherson Files, Interviews.