A Pragma-Stylistic Analysis of the Accusation Strategies in English Police Interrogations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31973/qcwsaz18Keywords:
police interrogation, accusation, speech acts, Grice's maxims, pragma-stylistics, rhetorical tropesAbstract
This study dives into the language of police interrogations, specifically how accusations are made. It examines two American English interrogations that were obtained from YouTube using a pragma-stylistic lens. The research aims to identify the types of speech acts used for accusations, identifying the most frequent ones. It also investigates how interrogations break Grice's maxims within accusatory settings to achieve specific goals. Furthermore, the study analyzes the stylistic devices, particularly rhetorical tropes, used in constructing accusations, focusing on the most common ones. The study hypothesizes that police officers mainly use representative speech acts to convey their beliefs when accusing. It also proposes that violating Grice's maxims can surprisingly lead to the truth. Additionally, it suggests that stylistic devices in interrogations serve to manipulate suspects, elicit information, and control the process. Finally, it posits that clarification-based rhetorical tropes are frequently used to influence the suspect. Drawing on Searle's Speech Act Theory, Grice's Cooperative Principle, and pragma-rhetorical trope models by Al-Hindawi and Abu-Krooz (2012) and Harris’s tropes (2008), the mixed-methods analysis reveals that accusations are delivered through representative, directive, and expressive speech acts, with representative acts being the most common. It also demonstrates that a suspect's violation of Grice's maxims can be crucial for uncovering the truth and that stylistic devices are used for manipulation and control. Interestingly, association tropes are found to be more frequent than clarification tropes in directing accusations.
Downloads
References
Allott, D. (2020). Trump's 'good genes' speech echoes racial eugenics. The Hill. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?q=https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/517604-trumps-good-genes-speech-echoes-racial-eugenics/.
Black, E. (2006). Pragmatic stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Blackwell Publication.
Börnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444302776
Davies, A. (2007). An introduction to applied linguistics. Edinburgh University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748633562
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Foris Publications/Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089
Faulkner, R. R. (2011). Corporate wrongdoing and the art of the accusation. Anthem Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7135/UPO9780857284204
Fritz, G. (2005). On answering accusations in controversies. Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue: Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction, 151-162.
Hamid, W. & Hayif, E. (2024). Analysis of Adjacency Pairs of Beckham’s Interview. Al-adab Journal, 148(1), 21.
Hazim, S. (2024). A Rhetorical Stylistic Analysis of English Political Headlines in Selected Newspapers. Al-adab Journal, 148(1), 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31973/hm0ct638
Hickey, L. (1993). Stylistics, pragmatics, and pragmastylistics. Revue Belge De Philologie Et D'histoire, 71(3), 573-586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/rbph.1993.3890
Kareem, R. & Jamal, N. (2016). A Pragmatic Analysis of Face Management in Selected English Television Interviews. Al-Ustath Journal, 216(1), 68.
Kauffeld, F. J. (1995a). On the difference between assumptions and presumptions. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the ninth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 509–515). Speech Communication Association.
Kauffeld, F. J. (1995b). The persuasive force of arguments on behalf of proposals. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and evaluation: Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (Vol. II, pp. 79–90). International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313
Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Blackwell Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10350339309384418
Mey, L. J. (2009). Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics. Elsevier Ltd.
Norgaard, N., Busse, B., & Montoro, R. (2010). Key terms in stylistics. Continuum.
Rucker, D., & Pratkanis, A. R. (2001). Projection as an interpersonal influence tactic: The effects of the pot calling the kettle black. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1494–1507. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012711010
Sell, R. D. (Ed.). (1991). Literary pragmatics. Routledge.
Simpson, P. (2004). Stylistics: A resource book for students. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203496589
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Sage Publications
Tiersma, P. M. (1987). The language of defamation. Texas Law Review, 66(2), 303–350.
Tiersma, P. M., & Solan, L. M. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nisreen Jasim Mohammed, Prof. Dr. Baidaa Abbas Ghubin Al-Zubaidy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Licensing:
For all articles published in Al-Adab journal, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work.
Reproducing Published Material from other Publishers: It is absolutely essential that authors obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, schemes, tables or any extract of a text) which does not fall into the public domain, or for which they do not hold the copyright. Permission should be requested by the authors from the copyrightholder (usually the Publisher, please refer to the imprint of the individual publications to identify the copyrightholder).
Permission is required for: Your own works published by other Publishers and for which you did not retain copyright.
Substantial extracts from anyones' works or a series of works.
Use of Tables, Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified.
Photographs for which you do not hold copyright.
Permission is not required for: Reconstruction of your own table with data already published elsewhere. Please notice that in this case you must cite the source of the data in the form of either "Data from..." or "Adapted from...".
Reasonably short quotes are considered fair use and therefore do not require permission.
Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission.
Obtaining Permission
In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process, you should start obtaining permissions as early as possible. If in any doubt about the copyright, apply for permission. Al-Adab Journal cannot publish material from other publications without permission.
The copyright holder may give you instructions on the form of acknowledgement to be followed; otherwise follow the style: "Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year].' at the end of the caption of the Table, Figure or Scheme.
How to Cite
