Published 2021-07-01
Keywords
- дискурс допиту, досудове слідство, комунікативна роль, імплікатура, пресупозиція
- discourse of pre-trial investigation, interrogation, communicative role, implicature, presupposition
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to examine, investigate and analyse the implied meanings in police interrogation discourse from the perspective of the role markers of participants in communication (a police officer and an interrogated person) at the stage of pre-trial interrogation. The following research methods have been applied in the study: pragmatic and semantic analyses including the concepts of “face” and “politeness”, methods of identification of conversational implicatures to describe pragmatic indices of communicative roles; in the format of discursive analysis a special place belongs to the study of elements of the method of critical discourse analysis to identify patterns of planning and course of interrogation discourse given the factors of institutional, interpersonal and psychological contexts; elements of the method of conversational analysis of discourse to determine such parameters as paired opposing roles, relevant and preferential / non-preferential role positions. The results of the work show that the roles of an investigator and an interrogated person in the discourse of pre-trail investigation are presented in the explicit and implicit ways. The markers of the communicative role of an investigator and an interrogated person depend on the degree of implicitness or explicitness of their presentation in the interrogation. From the analysis we can conclude that the roles are most explicitly marked by lexical means reinforced by adverbsintensifiers. Non-preferential roles of an investigator (implicit and explicit ones) at the pre-trial stage of investigation require verbal means to mitigate the ‘threat’ of the respondent (indefinite pronouns, modal verbs, idiomatic expressions that reduce the categorical nature of the accusation). More implicit presentation of communicative roles of a police officer and an interrogated person cause the use of nominalization and double negation and is a weakened kind of statement. Implicit forms of expression of the communicative roles of an interrogated person are marked by various means of syntactic and semantic-syntactic levels.
References
2. Кравченко Н.К. Дискурс и дискурс-анализ: краткая энциклопедия. Киев : ‘Интерсервис’. 2017. 286 с.
3. Кравченко Н.К., Пастернак Т.А. Прагматическая аттракция: Постановка проблемы и введение термина. Вісник київського національного лінгвістичного університету. Серія Філологія. Том 21, № 1. Київ, 2018.
4. Крысин Л.П. Речевое общение и социальные роли говорящих. Социально-лингвистические исследования. Москва : Наука, 1977. С. 42–51.
5. Крысин Л.П. Социолингвистические аспекты изучения современного русского языка. Москва : Наука, 1989. 186 с.
6. Пастернак T.A. Kогнітивний компонент комунікативних ролей в інституційному діалозі. Науковий вісник НУБіП України. Серія: Філологічні науки. Київ, 2017/4/1.
7. Пастернак Т.А. Екопрагматичний аспект комунікативних ролей в епідейктичному дискурсі. Роль іноземних мов у соціокультурному становленні особистості: збірник наукових праць. Київ : НАУ, 2020. 144 с. С. 103–107.
8. Седов К.Ф. Становление дискурсивного мышления языковой личности: Психо- и социолингвистические аспекты. Саратов : Изд-во Сарат. ун-та, 1999. 179 с.
9. Селиванова Е.А. Основы лингвистической теории текста и коммуникации. Киев : Брама, 2004. 336 с.
10. Тарасова Е.В. Речевая системность в терминах лингвопрагматики. Вісник Харків. нац. ун-ту, 2000. № 471. С. 273–279.
11. Clayman S.E. Sequence and Solidarity, in E. J. Lawler and S. R. Thye (eds) Advances in Group Processes: Group Cohesion, Trust, and Solidarity, 2002. Р. 229–53.
12. Denzin N., Keller Ch. Frame analysis reconsidered. Ed. by G.A. Fine, G. Smith. London: Sage Publications, Vol. 4, 2000. Р. 65–79.
13. Goffman E. The interaction order. American Sociological Review 48, 1983. Р. 1–17.
14. Heydon G. Establishing the structure of police evidentiary interviews with suspects’. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 11(1), 2004. P. 27–49.
15. Heydon G. The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. Houndmills, UK: Palgraves Macmillan Inc, 2005. 240 p.
16. Lerner G. H. Finding Face in the Preference Structures of Talk-in-interaction, Social Psychology Quarterly 59(4), 1996. Р. 303–21.
17. Sacks H. Lectures on conversation. 2 vols. /H. Sacks / Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford : BasilBlackwell, 1992. 343 p.
18. Sacks H. On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation, in G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds). Talk and Social Organization. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters, 1987. Р. 54–69.
19. Schegloff E.A., Jefferson G. and Sacks H. The Preference for Self-correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation, Language 53, 1977. Р. 361–82.
20. Smith, M. J. Police interviews. URL : http://Cryptome.org/smith-inter.zip (дата звернення: 21.01.21).
21. Transcripts of interview D.A. Illingworth. URL : http://www.hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP00038870001.pdf (дата звернення: 21.01.21).
22. Walker S. Role theory and foreign policy analysis. Durham, NC : Duke University Press, 1987. 196 p.
23. Wetherell M. Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society., 1998,Vol. 9. P. 387–412.