Deliberate ambiguity in a police interview

Resumen

Ambiguous expressions stated by witnesses in a police interview may be misleading and conceal the real intention of what is said. However, they can be very convenient atnd may be even camouflaged as cooperative answers, which favour a fluid discourse between interviewers and interviewees. Despite the fact that the analysis of ambiguous answers in response to sensitive questions formulated by police officers can be a thorny issue, Grice's maxim of Manner can play a crucial role when focusing on whether suspects linguistically cooperate. This paper analyses the language of a witness who was arrested under suspicion of sexual assault. The aim of the analysis is to find out what pragmatic strategies are used by the witness in some of his ambiguous answers that may suggest that he conceals information. Findings show that, in order to conceal details, the witness used dissociating devices and turned mutual actions into unilateral actions. He also mitigated guilt by using topical cohesion devices, referencing or nominalisation. And finally, the witness manipulated language through both the omission and partial admission of details. In this way, although ambiguous answers are not suggested to be blatant lies, the linguistic devices identified clearly shed light on the concealing of crucial details and the witness' lack of commitment to cooperate in the police investigation.