MANIPULATIVE STRATEGY AND TACTICS OF INVESTIGATORS IN THE PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION DISCOURSE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32589/2311-0821.2.2020.223258Keywords:
pre-trial investigation discourse, manipulative strategies and tactics, interrogation, interrogator, suspect, interrogated personAbstract
The article deals with the manipulative strategy and tactics of an investigator in the pre-trial investigationdiscourse that can have psychological effect on suspects and result in both positive and false confessions.
The study offers the general outline and characteristic features of the pre-trial investigation discourse, focuses
on the analysis of the applied strategy and tactics and their combinations. Communicative strategies and tactics
of the participants of the interrogation are identified by applying of the following methods: situational-strategic
and contextual-interpretive analysis; elements of discourse analysis for analyzing of the strategic and tactical
interaction of participants in the discourse of interrogation with the account of pragmatic, social and personal
factors of communication. The choice of the applied manipulative strategy and tactics by investigators depends
on the background information about suspects and accused supplied at a pre-interrogation stage of a case.
The authors offer the classification for the most typical strategies and tactics of the participants with a special
concern to manipulative ones and demonstrate that the choice depends on the relations between participants
of an interaction, a procedural status of an interrogated person that can change, as well as the personal features
of a suspect and an accused. The paper highlights that the strategies and tactics of a suspect and an accused depend
primarily on the manipulative strategies and tactics used by an interrogator as a representative of an institution,
and emphasizes that they are directed mainly upon defense due to limitations and restrictions of interrogation.
Relevant examples and sources are also provided.
References
Арутюнова, Н. (1998). Дискурс. В В. Н. Ярцева (Ред.), Языкознание. Большой энциклопедический словарь (сс. 136-137). Москва: Большая Российская Энциклопедия.
Баранов, А. Н. (2007). Лингвистическая экспертиза текста. Теоретические основания и практика. Москва: Флинта.
Баранов, А. Н. (1990). Лингвистическая теория аргументации (когнитивный подход) (Автореферат докторской диссертации). Институт русского языка АН СССР, Москва, Россия.
Белова, А. Д. (2003). Лингвистические аспекты аргументации: Лингвистика. Теория коммуникации. Английский язык. Киев: Киевский национальный университет им. Тараса Шевченка.
Демьянков, В. (2001). Лингвистическая интерпретация текста: универсальные и национальные (идиоэтнические) стратегии. В Е. С. Кубрякова, Т. Е. Янко (Ред.), Язык и культура: Факты и ценности : К 70-летию Юрия Сергеевича Степанова (сс. 309-323). Москва: Языки
славянской культуры.
Иссерс, О. (2003). Коммуникативные стратегии и тактики русской речи. Москва: УРСС.
Иссерс, О. (2009). Стратегия речевой провокации в публичном диалоге. Русский язык в научном освещении, 2(18), 92-104.
Иссерс, О. (2011). Речевое воздействие. Москва: Флинта.
Кочетова, Л. А. (1999). Лингвокультурные характеристики английского рекламного дискурса (Автореферат кандидатской диссертации). Волгоградский государственный университет, Волгоград, Россия.
Павліченко, Л. В. (2018). Сучасний англомовний дискурс досудового слідства (комунікативно-прагматичний аспект) (Кандидатська дисертація). Київський національний університет ім. Тараса Шеченка, Київ, Україна.
Ярхо, А. В. (2004). Комунікативна стратегія невпевненості в сучасному англомовному діалогічному дискурсі (Автореферат кандидатської дисертації). Харківський національний університет ім. В. Н. Каразіна, Харків, Україна.
Яшенкова, О. (2010). Основи теорії мовної комунікації. Київ: Академія.
Aubry, A. S., Jr., & Caputo, R. R. (1980). Criminal interrogation. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Bernstein, M. (2017). Read excerpts of police interrogation that concerned judge in accused serial killer case. In The Oregonian. Retrieved from https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2017/10/
excerpts_of_portland_police_in.html
Calumet county sheriff's department. (2006). Interview transcript. Retrieved from http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/02/Brendan-Dassey-Interview-at-School-Transcript-2006Feb27_text.pdf
Dijk, T. A. van. (2008). Discourse and context. A sociocognitive approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dijk, T. A. van. (2012). Discourse and knowledge. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 587-603). London: Routledge.
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., & Buckley, J. P. (1986). Criminal interrogation and confessions. Baltimore:Williams & Wilkins.
Meter, C. H. van & Bopp, W. J. (1973). Principles of police interrogation. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1-2). Springfield: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54-69). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H. A., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). Simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Yeschke, C. L. (1997). The art of investigative interviewing: A human approach to testimonial evidence. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
1. Authors take full responsibility for the content of the articles as well as the fact of their publication.2. All the authors must follow the current requirements for publication of manuscripts. Plagiarism itself and its representation as the original work as well as submission to the editorial office previously published articles are unacceptable. In case of plagiarism discovery the authors of the submitted materials take all the responsibility.
3. Authors shall inform the editor of any possible conflict of interests which could be influenced by the publication of the manuscript results.
4. The editorial board has the right to refuse publication of an article in case of non-compliance with these requirements.
