“It was probably that guy?” – The functions of reconstructive speech acts in investigative training interviews

Abstract

<jats:p>This paper explores the pragmatic and interactional functions of reconstructive speech acts in mock police interviews, based on a model of argumentative dialogue. The aim of the paper is to illustrate how the reconstructions apparently contribute to both the interaction between the police officer and the mock suspect in the interview activity and to the interaction in the training activity, i.e. between the participants attending the training course. Drawing on functional pragmatics and grammar, the analysis seeks to examine how reconstructions on the one hand function in the socially non-cooperative interaction in the mock interview, questioning the truth value of propositions and trustworthiness of the suspect, and, on the other hand seem to fulfil a supportive purpose in the training activity.</jats:p>

Understanding questions and answers in context: An argument for multi-channel analysis

“…When Huntley responded verbally to the PO's polar question, he did so by repeating part of her question -physical contact -before quickly answering no. Recapitulary echoing questions, as Quirk et al (1985:835-6) label them, repeat all or part of a message "as a way of having…content confi rmed", but can also "have other functions", such as when they are used to express " incredulity" (see also Collin 2020, this issue, Mortensen 2020). An analysis based on the transcript alone potentially allows for either or both possibilities (i.e., Dawn Archer Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(1), 2020 (196-213) a clarifi cation/confi rmation-seeking move and/or a signal of his incredulity at being asked such a question).…”

“…Choosing exchanges representative of activity types that are known to (1) make use of question-and-answer sequences, and (2) contain elements of deception and/or evasion means we can explore how the former can be used in an attempt to do the latter, and how we might therefore account for the latter when explaining how questions and answers (sometimes) work in such activity types. For example, police offi cers tend to use questions to glean information, query, accuse, etc., with the ultimate aim of testing the veracity of a witness's or suspect's account of events (see Vrij 2008, Collin 2020. It is thus understood that they have "the formal power…to set the interview agenda" (McKinley and McVittie 2009:176).…”