modal would in police interrogations
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
1/28
http://dis.sagepub.com
Discourse Studies
DOI: 10.1177/1461445606064830
2006; 8; 475Discourse StudiesDerek Edwards
in police interrogationswouldFacts, norms and dispositions: practical uses of the modal verb
http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/4/475The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Discourse StudiesAdditional services and information for
http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/8/4/475Citations
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/8/4/475http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/8/4/475http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
2/28
Facts, norms and dispositions:practical uses of the modal verbwould in police interrogations
D E R E K E D WA R D SL O U G H BO R OU G H U N I V E RS I T Y
A B S T R A C T Two uses of the modal verb wouldin police interrogation are
examined. First, suspects use it to claim a disposition to act in ways
inconsistent with whatever offence they are accused of. Second, police of ficers
use it in challenging the suspects testimony, asking why a witness would lie.
Both uses deploy a form of practical inferential reasoning from norms to facts,
in the face of disputed testimony. The value ofwouldis that its semantics
provide for a sense of back-dated predictability with regard to the actions in
question. Further, although police off icers provide minimal acknowledgement
of suspects uses of the term, suspects tend to provide a response when police
officers use it. This difference is explained by the dif ferent actions being done in
each case normative self assessments by suspects, and challenges by police
officers and their interactional and institutional relevance in and for police
pursuit of factual testimony.
K E Y W O R D S : conversation analysis, dispositions, modality, moral character, police
interrogation, would
Introduction
Our topic is a specific, recurrent use of the modal verb would in police
interrogations. These are cases where a speaker formulates an actors
dispositions (in this case, what they generally would or would not do), in the
context of disputed testimony about having done something specific. The focus ison recorded interactional practices in which wouldregularly occurs, rather than
on the formal semantics and pragmatics ofwouldas a type of modal verb. That is
to say, there are other terms that may serve similar interactional practices
(including specific uses of should, will, and going to), and other uses of wouldthan
those explored here (e.g. Would you pass the salt?). The prime concern is with
how would is recurrently used in handling accountability, in and for police
interrogation. The relevance of police interrogation is not that these practices are
A RT I C L E 475
Discourse StudiesCopyright 2006
SAGE Publications.(London, Thousand Oaks,
CA and New Delhi)www.sagepublications.com
Vol 8(4): 475501.10.1177/1461445606064830
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
3/28
restricted to that environment; indeed, they may also occur in mundane talk,and in settings such as court rooms and family therapy, which are fertile
environments for disputation about personal actions, events, and responsibility
for those events. But police interrogation appears to be a particularly relevant
setting, given the prime orientation of participants toward eliciting, offering,
examining and defending accounts of actions and their intentionality.
The basic practice is exemplified in the following data segment, which is
examined in more detail later in the article. S is a suspect being interrogated for
his involvement in the theft of cigarettes from a shop.
S: I didn push the woman or nothin, (0.5) I really
did not do that.= Im not that type of person
yknow what I me:an. .h Fair enough I stole the
ciggies, (0.9) I wouldn hurt an old lady.
The target expression I wouldn hurt an old lady occurs in the context of a
dispute about Ss testimony. Ss deployment of would(in this case wouldnt) not
only formulates something about his general disposition to act one way or another,
but does so as a way of saying that he did not do the specific action of which he is
accused that is, pushing (and in fact wounding) the woman in question. This is
the essence of the practice: a generalized, normative and dispositional use of the
modal would that provides a basis for asserting or denying a specific, disputed
action.
The analysis that follows focuses on two versions of the practice, the first
generally deployed by S, the second by P (the police officer).
1) Exemplified by I wouldnt hurt an old lady, this is the use by S of ageneralized dispositional formulation, a form of normative or moral self-
assessment, in denying a specific accusation. This example takes the
grammatical form of a negative-declarative use of I wouldnt; as such, it is
designed for denial. Another form of the practice uses a rhetorical question,
for example, What would I want to head butt an old bloke for? implying
that he would not, and therefore did not. The notion that this is a rhetorical
question relies on its understandability as such, and also the absence in all of
our examples of any direct answer to it.
2) The police officer P also has available a similar practice, typically something
like Why would she say that you did?, where she (or whoever) is the
producer of the testimony that S is denying. The grammar is an
interrogative-affirmative use of the modal would, designed to counter (or
question) a prior statement or implication. When used by police
interrogators, it counters the suggestion or implication that a witness may
have given false testimony against the accused. The suspect S generally
provides an answer.
Examining these interactional practices contributes to several broad fields of
study. First, it throws specific light on how police interrogations work, both as a
476 Discourse Studies 8(4)
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
4/28
domain of mundane reasoning and social interaction, and also as a domainwhere the specific business of the institutional setting gets done that is, eliciting
and exploring testimony and counter-testimony, their factual basis, and their
relevance to whatever crime category S is accused of. For example, Ss denial of
having pushed and hurt the shopkeeper, supported by his assertion of a
disposition not to do so, is a key feature in resisting the accusation of robbery in
favour of the less severe offence to which he confesses, which is theft. Second,
the study extends discursive-psychological studies of the importance of
managing stake and interest in factual disputes (Edwards and Potter, 1992),
and related studies of how scripts and dispositions feature in everyday
reasoning about factual narratives and their accountability (Edwards, 1995,
1997). Would is one of a range of scripting devices (Edwards, 1994) that
formulate a persons recurrent actions and tendencies, as a basis for inferring orimplying their character. Examining situated uses of wouldis therefore part of a
general interest in how mundane practical reasoning invokes a range of
psychological states and characteristics of persons, often tied to the central,
defining business of whatever everyday or institutional setting they occur in
(Edwards and Potter, 2001; Sneijder and te Molder, 2005). Third, the study is
located with regard to ethnomethodological and conversation-analytic studies of
mundane reasoning, particularly in legal settings (e.g. Atkinson and Drew,
1979; Komter, 1995, 1997; Lynch and Bogen, 2005; Pollner, 1987; Travers and
Manzo, 1997; Watson, 1997), exploring in particular the ways in which people
use norms to locate or decide facts. In that regard, this is a case study of the use
of normative inferences in linking factual reality to psychological states, motives
and dispositions, as part of an understandable, inference-rich, expectable world.In conversation-analytic mode, talk is examined here as a domain of interaction-
ally and sequentially performed and occasioned social practices.
A fourth domain, less directly relevant to the analysis offered here, is
linguistic studies of modality. Linguistic treatments (e.g. Bybee and Fleischman,
1995; Palmer, 2001) focus mainly on classifying and distinguishing the range of
modal expressions within and across languages, and describing their
grammatical functions. Modal expressions include a range of auxiliary verbs in
English, such as ought, will, would, could, can, might, should, and may. Standard
classifications of modal meanings include epistemic (factual, what we can know),
logical (what must be the case), and deontic uses of ought, should, must, etc., that
express concepts such as obligation and necessity. Palmer (2001) provides a
finer-grained distinction between two kinds of event modality, deontic (externalto the person: constraints, permission, etc.) and dynamic (internal to the person:
ability, willingness, etc.). In those terms, it is practices using dynamic event
modality that we are mostly examining here, although when it comes to
analysing actual, situated practices of accountability there is typically a range of
epistemic, deontic and/or dispositional considerations at stake at any one time.1
Whereas linguistic studies present examples in the form of single-sentence
instances, invented or selected as good exemplars of the logical type they
Edwards: Facts, norms and dispositions 477
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
5/28
illustrate, studies of talk-in-interaction of the kind presented here focus on thesocial actions performed, and the interactional relevancies managed by their use.
Although it has not been explicitly picked out for systematic analysis, there
are various useful observations and data segments in the literature on courtroom
and police interrogations, on participants uses of would. It occurs as a way of
formulating actors dispositions, in a suspects or witnesss defence of what they
did or did not do. Lynch and Bogen (2005) make relevant observations on Oliver
Norths answers to questions in the Iran-Contra hearings, where North avoided
providing factual answers about what he did, which would lay those factual
descriptions open to cross-examination, in favour of what he generally does, or
would do. Also Benneworth (2004) notes, in a study of police interviews with
suspected paedophile offenders, examples where rather than claiming the
offence didnt happen because I was doing this . . . the suspect is contesting theaccount with the allegation is implausible because the incident would not have
happened (p. 127). The research literature also contains examples such as the
following, in a police officers courtroom response to a lawyers suggestion that
he failed to take action against an incipiently violent crowd (Atkinson and Drew,
1979: 150):
C: You were in a position to observe that?
W: Yes, but not in a position to carry out the action
I would have liked.
Komter (1995: 1189) notes that;
the device of corroborating ones version of the events by pointing out discrepancies
between the accusation and what is generally held to be true is very common in the
courtroom. This is often presented by way of conditional clauses:
If I had wanted to rob her, I would have been able to just take the money then.
If I had wanted to kill him, I wouldnt have asked everybody where he lived. If I had needed the money, I would have asked my mother.
As in the present study, Komters examples are normative-dispositional uses of
would, used in making plausible the suspects claims about the specific actions of
which s/he is accused by appealing to what is generally held to be true.
The following analysis examines two sequentially organized practices
involving use of the modal would, in which normative-dispositional appeals are
made, both by suspects and by officers during police interrogation. The aim is to
examine the interactional contexts in which these uses occur, the kinds ofpractical reasoning they do, their combination with other features of talk at
those junctures, and the nature and bases of any differences between suspects
and police officers practices. The analysis is divided into two main sections: first,
suspects self-assessments, where they formulate their own character within a
moral or normative order; and second, police officers use of the term with regard
to the normative-dispositional basis of contrary witness testimony. The data
come from a British corpus of 142 police interrogations, sampling a range of
478 Discourse Studies 8(4)
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
6/28
crimes, suspects and police officers, recorded by the police themselves as aroutine part of interrogation, and subsequently made available to a research
project into neighbour and community conflict.2 Data are transcribed according
to Jeffersons (2004) conventions for conversation analysis. Names, places and
other identifying details have been altered to preserve the anonymity of all
participants.
Suspects uses of first person would
The data for this first section are examples of Ss first-person (that is, I rather
than second-person you or third-person he, she, they, etc.) uses of would
and wouldnt. These are occasions where S proposes for him/herself a
generalized, dispositional principle or tendency that counters the accusation thatS did some specific action. The item I wouldn hurt an old lady, that was used for
illustration in the Introduction, was taken from extract 1. I will first examine this
extract in some detail, and then pursue various generic features of it across a
further set of extracts across a range of suspects and interviewers.
(1) PW:1:15
1 P: But she said (0.2) that she was pushed backwards
2 by yourself.= Now Ive been to see this lady
3 yesterday. .hhh And at the (.) bottom: r:ight hand
4 side of her back (0.4) shes got a (.) brui:se
5 about the size about a fifty pence piece.=
6 S: =Well then somebody else has done that mate.
7 I wouldnI wouldnt do that. No Ill admit to8 stealin the ciggies, right .hh but they were on the
9 counter, .h I did not jump over no counter for them.
10 (0.3)
11 P: NO I [DIDnt say you jumped over a count[er.
12 S: [I- [I didn
13 even go behind the counter for them.= I didn push
14 the woman or nothin, (0.5) I really did not do
15 that.= Im not that type of person yknow what I
16 me:an. .h Fair enough I stole the ciggies, (0.9)
17 I wouldn hurt an old lady.
18 (0.5)
19 P: [Right. ]
20 S: [ No. ] (.) Not a chance.=
Let us first note various components of the extract, considered as a sequence
of actions. At line 1, P states a but-prefaced objection to Ss prior account of his
actions (omitted here for the sake of brevity, but see lines 47). P says that Ss
accuser, this lady (the female shopkeeper), has claimed (she said) that S pushed
her, this being the action that caused a bruise (lines 45) that P himself has seen
(lines 2 and 3). Let us say, then, that in lines 15 P presents contradictory
testimony, and some related evidence, against Ss story. At line 6, S immediately
Edwards: Facts, norms and dispositions 479
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
7/28
(in a latched turn) denies his accusers account, by invoking some other unknownperpetrator. Note how S selects the womans testimony (that S pushed her) as
deniable, rather than Ps observation of the bruise. That leaves the matter as Ss
word against hers: a matter of contrary testimony. At line 7, S produces the first-
person generalized dispositional expression I wouldnt do that, where the
significance for S of wouldnt is marked by its repetition with raised pitch (a type
of self-initiated self-repair: Schegloff et al., 1977). So the use of wouldnt is a
displayed feature of Ss account (cf. Komter, 1997, on the accused persons
orientations to their own character within a moral order, in the very different
action of expressing remorse in a courtroom).
In lines 714, S reiterates his testimony that he stole the cigarettes, along
with the factual denial that he went behind the counter and pushed the shop-
keeper. They were on the counter specifies that he was able to pick the cigarettesup without either going behind the counter, or assaulting the woman. S
formulates (cf. Heritage and Watson, 1979), as a gist of what he is saying, I
really did not do that (lines 1415). That is, he emphatically denies the specific
offence that he is accused of. At line 15, S makes a first-person generalized self
assessment: Im not that type of person, where the sense is of a general
disposition on his part not to do the kind of action of which he is accused. At line
17, having again conceded that he stole the cigarettes, S reiterates his
generalized dispositional wouldnt. This time S specifies just what he wouldnt do,
in the form of a generalized version of the offence of which he is accused, hurt
an old lady.
These features of Ss uses ofwouldcombine with other features of the extract.
For example, what makes his action-formulation generalized is not only the itemwouldnt rather than didnt, but also the generalized membership category old lady
(rather than the specific shopkeeper herself), the indefinite article an old lady
(i.e. any old lady, rather than the old lady), and the semantically open verb hurt
rather than the more specific descriptions already in play (push, bruise, etc.).
Clearly S is at pains to provide a generalized, dispositional, normatively under-
standable basis for his version of his actions (cf. Jayyusi, 1984, on how member-
ship categories are used in the production of moral accountability).
Another feature of the extract is how, at lines 1819, P provides a minimal
acknowledgement of Ss dispositional claim at 17, and does not directly pursue
it. This is a recurring feature in the data under examination, which I will return
to later. Yet P does offer a challenge to something else, at line 11. Notably, this is
not a challenge to Ss dispositional would-based self-assessments but, rather, to aformulation that S offers, of what he is accused of doing, that he did not jump
over no counter. P offers a correction: jump over is not the witnesss actual
description, such that S is denying something of which he is not accused. The
significance of this sequence is that it displays on Ps part an orientation to
establishing the facts of what happened, including making direct, explicit
challenges to Ssfactual testimony. In police terms, the bases for that are material
evidence (lines 35) and witness testimony about witnessable events. In contrast
480 Discourse Studies 8(4)
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
8/28
to that, P offers no challenge to Ss generalized, normative self-assessments, atthose junctures where they are produced at line 7 following the possibly
complete TCU I Iwouldnt do that.3 and following the self-assessments in lines
1517.
The central observation about extract 1, then, around which the rest of the
analysis hinges, is Ss use of a generalized, dispositional would as a way of
denying having done some specific action, in the face of contradictory testimony.
I will return to the theme of Ps responses, and their interactional import, in the
course of examining further examples.
Extract 2 comes from a different interrogation with a different S and P. Before
the extract begins, S has persistently denied accusations of threatening and
verbally abusing a neighbour. In the extract itself, S denies head-butting the man,
and in making that denial, deploys a first-person dispositional would(wha wd I. . . in line 14).
(2) PN:33:7
1 P: Hes sayin that when youve walked towar:ds
2 im youve leaned forward and head butted im
3 on is nose.
4 (0.5)
5 P: Has that happen:ed
6 (0.2)
7 S: Wha- Ive it im:.
8 (0.2)
9 P: Youve head butted im. Youve lunged forward
10 and [head butted im.11 S: [NO::: no I aint at a:ll.
12 (0.3)
13 S: Unless ycn ge any proof then: (1.5) Iv- (.)
14 headbutted im wha wd I wanna head butt an
15 old bloke fo:r.
16 (2.0)
17 S: Shtu:pi:d.
18 (9.2)
Again we can identify a sequence of component actions that bear comparison
to those of extract 1. P puts to S (line 5) a witnesss accusation (Hes sayin. . .
lines 13), that S has in fact previously denied. As with most of the extracts we
are examining, this follows a repeated line of questioning involving contradictorytestimony between the accused S and Ps quotations from an accusing witness,
who is generally the alleged victim. Ss denial of the specific offence, explicit at line
11, is prefigured at line 7 by Ss ironic, high-pitched and emphatic formulation of
what he is accused of. Note how the generalized word hit substitutes in Ss
formulation for the specific action description previously used by P and the
witness youve leaned forward and head butted im on is nose. In denying the
specific offence, therefore, S is already starting to generalize it as a category of
Edwards: Facts, norms and dispositions 481
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
9/28
actions. The raised pitch and preceding Wha- (line 7), convey a sense ofsurprise, confusion or incomprehension at being accused of such a thing.4
At line 13, S implies the absence of definitive evidence to decide the matter; it
is the witnesss testimony against Ss. At lines 1415, S deploys a first-person
dispositional would, with regard to the accusation. In this case, it is an
interrogative why would I? (more precisely, what would I . . . for?) rather than
declarative I wouldnt. But it performs the same kind of action, of denying he did
it on the basis that he would not do it. Again, Ss normative-dispositional would
combines with a generalized membership category formulation an old bloke to
describe the neighbour. Like with an old lady in extract 1, the indefinite article,
and general category bloke, provide the sense that he wouldnt head-butt any
old bloke as such, rather than just this particular one.
Overall, extracts 1 and 2 contain a sequence of actions that can be typified asfollows.
1) the establishment of conflicting testimony regarding a specific offence;
2) Ss use of a first-person normative-dispositional would, which may combine
with the use of generalized person types or categories;
3) minimal if any acknowledgement, but no challenge by P of Ss dispositional
claim.
It is important to note that these actions are performed and/or oriented to by
the participants. The conflicting nature of the available testimony is produced as
such by S and/or P, rather than merely things noticeable by the analyst/reader. It
is in the context of having produced those things, as a kind of testimonial or
evidential stand-off, that S deploys the dispositional would. That is what providesfor the items sequential position and relevance, and also the practical logic of its
use, as a proposal for how Ss version of the facts under dispute can be inferred
and known. There are other ways available to suspects for dealing with contrary
witness testimony and evidence, of course, including the use of precisely
designed alternative descriptions of witnesses versions (Drew, 1992); it is a
particular practice we are examining here, rather than all and always what S
may do.
In the further extracts that follow, I examine how robust these general
features may be, and how they provide a framework for how S and P deal with
the specifics of each case. Relevantly to extract 3, S is a teenage boy who, having
been legally banned from entering a local post office, is now accused of causing
further harassment there. The extract follows detailed descriptions of Ss allegedactions: stealing sweets, disruptive and abusive behaviour.
(3) PN:34:6 21:30
1 P: A:nd ythen put (.) a bungee. (1.0) A ( )
2 bungee round the doo:r ttry an stop people
3 [getting in the ] shop. Dyremember that.
4 S: [N o: : : : . ]
482 Discourse Studies 8(4)
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
10/28
5 S: No:.6 (.)
7 S: W-wa- why would I put bungee on the doo:r.
8 (5.6) ((S is next to speak))
Again, at lines 13 we have the initial establishment of a contradiction
between Ss testimony and Ps quotations from a witnesss statement. P puts to S
what the shopkeeper claims S did, and S rejects it using an emphatic, elongated
denial at line 4, in overlap with P, and repeated in the clear at line 5 in answer to
Dyremember that. As with most of our examples, the accusations made by P
are based in quotations from a written witness statement, that S has been
persistently denying for some time prior to where the extract begins. S then
produces, at line 7, a first-person would in support of his factual denial. Ss
stuttering start W-wa- why helps convey a sense of puzzlement, of S struggling
with the sheer implausibility of the idea; why would he, or anyone do such a
thing? Again, P produces no explicit uptake (line 8), despite having provided a
possible answer already, at lines 23: ttry an stop people getting in the shop.
Although there is not space here to explore systematic differences across
many examples, there is probably a basis, or more than one basis, for the choice
between the interrogative Why would I? of extracts 2 and 3, and the declarative I
wouldnt used elsewhere. In the case of the interrogative form, the absence of an
answer from P reinforces the sense of it as a rhetorical question in other
words, an implicit assertion, and not as such requiring an answer. The sense of
these questions as rhetorical is reinforced by their use with ironic repeats of the
accusation: head butt an old bloke (extract 2, lines 1415, with the additional
ridiculing of Shtu:pi:d, line 17), and put bungee on the doo:r (extract 3, line 7).
The choice may also be based on a difference in answerability. For example, in
extract 2 S is not being accused of butting the man in order to achieve some
further goal, whereas in extract 1 S is accused of pushing the woman in order to
rob her of cigarettes. So for S in extract 1 to ask Why would I? might hold
greater prospect of being answered, by just the accusation he is at pains to refute
that is, in order to accomplish the robbery. Nevertheless, whatever the grounds
for choosing one form over the other, both forms assert a normative-dispositional
basis for denying an accusation of having done some specific thing.
Extract 4 provides another succinct example of our basic phenomenon.
(4) PN:38:215
1 P1: Right (.) so whos lying then.
2 (0.4)
3 P1: Cos one o yous lying arent they.=
4 S: =I haven- (.) I haven said nothing I- (0.3)
5 I wouldnt. yknow wha I mean.
6 (0.4)
7 S: ((sni [ffs))
8 P1: [Well shes saying yhave.=
Edwards: Facts, norms and dispositions 483
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
11/28
9 S: =I- (0.2) cant be doing with (0.2) the trouble.10 I wouldnt say nothing.
11 P1: HHhhhhhhhhhh[hh.
In extract 4 the general kinds of actions we are identifying are identifiable as
follows. First, there is an unresolved testimonial conflict between S and an
accusing witness, explicitly formulated by P as one o yous lying (line 3). The
relevance of line 4 I haven said nothing is that S is currently accused of
witness intimidation, which involves talking to a witness in an upcoming court
case, in the face of a prior court instruction that he should stay away from her.
So S denies the specific action of which he is accused (line 4). S then supports his
denial (again, this extract is the culmination of a series of repeated accusations
and denials) with an emphatic first-person dispositional I wouldnt, framed as
normatively recognizable: yknow wha I mean (line 5). In this case P does
respond to Ss first-person dispositional would, but only to repeat the witnesss
contradictory testimony (line 8). P specifically does not pursue the dispositional
claim itself; in other words, there is no attempt by P to unpick or contradict Ss
dispositional self-assessment as such. S then formulates an accountable basis for
his dispositional claim (line 9) and re-asserts it (line 10). P responds with,
literally, some ex-aspiration (line 11), but no pursuit of the topic.
The further extracts (58) that follow, serve to flesh out the basic action
sequence identified. There was no clear deviant case in the data sample but,
rather, a range of specific instantiations and variations in detail, that show how
the sequence provides a frame for an important and recurrent piece of practical
reasoning deployed in these interrogations. In extract 5, S is a 17-year-old boyaccused of breaching a court-imposed ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order), by
assaulting a seven-year-old.
(5) PN:40:1
1 P: earlier on today on
2 suspicion of assaultin (0.4) u::m (.) a seven
3 year ol::d, (0.8) which is (.) u:h (.) Jeremy.
4 (0.6)
5 P: Dyknow (.) who Im talkin bout,
6 (0.3)
7 S: Yeh,
8 (0.2)
9 P: Okay, (0.7) an do yknow the incident Im
10 talkin about.
11 (0.2)
12 S: Not at a:ll.
13 (0.6)
14 P: Not at all.
15 S: No.
16 (0.9)
17 S: Im not gonna beat a seven year old up.=
484 Discourse Studies 8(4)
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
12/28
18 yknow what I mean.19 (0.2)
20 S: I got morals.
21 (0.2)
22 S: s little kid.
23 (0.7)
24 P: A:lright, (0.8) so:: (...)
Extract 5 contains the essential ingredients we have identified, that
contextualize Ss use of the first-person dispositional modal in line 17. In this
case, we have the variant not gonna rather than wouldnt5 (line 17), but it works
in essentially the same way: that is, to propose that the specific action being
denied (assaulting the boy) is an instance of a general category of actions that S
is not disposed to do. That general disposition is both personal (S would not do it)and normative (it is the kind of thing that nobody should do). The normative
sense is reinforced, as in extracts 1 and 4, by a contiguous yknow what I mean
(line 18) which appeals to its recognizability as a claim, and also by Ss
sequentially next, personal subscription to a moral order (line 20). As in extracts
1 and 2, Ss dispositions are invoked with regard to a generalized category of
relevant objects, a seven year old (line 17, again using the indefinite article),
and little kid (line 22). Note that there are alternatives available for describing
the boy, including Jeremy, him, the lad, etc., but S is doing generalization.
Again, P (lines 234) does not at this point attempt to unpick or question Ss
generalized normative-dispositional avowals.
The general action sequence is further instantiated in extract 6. Prior to the
extract, S has been accused of saying to her neighbour, among other insults andthreats, youre fucking dead, which S denies saying. Instead, S admits to
verbals on both sides, framed as a normal kind of two-sided, reciprocal swearing
and abuse.
(6) PN:16:8
1 P: (...) shes sayin that youve threatened to kill her.
2 (0.3)
3 S: N [ o:, ]
4 P: [an then ] youre dead.
5 (.)
6 S: N [o:.
7 P: [Whatever.
8 (.)9 S: No. Tha [t is:
10 P: [Is there any way at all you couldve said
11 that in the heat [o the moment.=
12 S: [No::.
13 P: =[In the heat of an argument
14 S: =[Not even if I was (fightin) no.
15 (.)
Edwards: Facts, norms and dispositions 485
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
13/28
16 S:
An I wouldnt (even) say that.17 (0.5)
18 S: I wouldnt say that.
19 (0.6)
20 S: I [ve- Ive never said tha*t to *er
21 P: [(Okay)
22 (0.5)
23 S: when weve had an argument mm:?
24 (0.8)
25 S: Ever.
The action elements that we have identified are exemplified in extract 6 as
follows:
1) the production of contrary testimonies regarding the particular offence accusation (lines 1 and 4) and denial (lines 3 and 6).
2) Ss generalizing, first-person dispositional use ofwouldnt at lines 16 and 18.
3) minimal receipt/acknowledgement by P at line 21, in a turn following
straight after Ss repeated clause (and TCU) containing wouldnt, and in
overlap with As starting a new turn.
We may also note a range of particular features in extract 6 that enrich that
bare structure. As in all our examples, it is the interrogations crucial business
that is being dealt with here the actual criminal offence with which S is being
charged, in this case, the accusation of having made threats to kill. Note how in
lines 713 P pursues Ss factual denial that she actually said those things, but
typically, as noted, does not pursue Ss dispositional wouldclaims starting at line16. A difference is emerging across these extracts, between how P responds to Ss
factual claims and denials, and how P responds to Ss generalized normative-
dispositional avowals. Another feature of extract 6 is the way that P, in
responding to Ss factual denials, starts to generalize his interest in what she may
have said: the expressions whatever (line 7) and any way at all (line 10) signal
that the exactness of the witnesss quotation of S is not what requires denial but,
rather, the kindof thing S may have said, that would make it recognizable as a
case of threatening to kill. It is a generalizing, categorizing move by P that
precedes Ss own move to a generalized disposition-based denial she wouldnot
say such a thing. Another feature of the extract, and one we will encounter in
other data, is how S moves from the dispositional wouldnt say to the factual Ive
never said . . . (line 20). In moving from dispositions back to facts, S effectivelymakes the link to which all of our generalized dispositionals are oriented, which
is the work they do in denying the specific actions with which S is being charged.
In extract 7, a middle-aged Asian man6 is accused of having opened the boot
(i.e. trunk) of his neighbours car, and of having deliberately scratched the car
when walking past it.
486 Discourse Studies 8(4)
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
14/28
(7) PN:17:61 S: (...) You know I dont understand this sir.
2 (0.3)
3 S: I mean Im (not daft) I mean Ive worked (0.5)
4 Ive worked what I want to and God has given me
5 what Ive got.= What I want.
6 P: Mm.
7 (0.3)
8 S: I mean (0.3) opening somebodys boot I mean *u*u
9 *I *a*a*a *I would feel ashamed of myself.
10 (0.3)
11 P: Okay. .hhh What about the scratch.
Extract 7 begins after a sequence in which P has accused S of the offences,
based on testimony of Ss neighbour, and S has denied the charges. So again, we
have a situation involving an unresolved conflict of testimony. S starts the extract
by expressing incomprehension (line 1) and setting up a dispositional basis (lines
45) for not doing what he is accused of. At line 8, S quotes the specific action he
is accused of (cf. the ironic repeats in extract 2, lines 7 and 14, and extract 3, line
7), and immediately follows it with a first-person dispositional would(line 9). In
this case, S fuses his personal dispositions with a morally enhanced normative
sense: I would feel ashamed of myself. Overall, Ss wouldaccount is produced as
part of trying to understand the sense of what he is accused of, on the basis of
how anyone in his position, with all that God has provided, along with a sense of
shame, might be thought capable such a thing. He offers normative notions of
motive and act, to warrant a factual denial, that he committed the specific action
of opening his neighbours car boot. Ps response is a slightly delayed, final-
intonation, softly spoken Okay, followed not by pursuit of whether S opened the
boot, or would feel ashamed, but by a topical move to the second factual
accusation, that S also scratched the neighbours car.
Let us conclude this section with a final example. In extract 8, S has been
accused of breaching a second harassment order, which is a courts binding
instruction to stay away from an ex-partner that S has allegedly been pursuing.
P is referring in line 1 to the accusers statement.
(8) PN:27:7
1 P: Basic its got here that .hhh I was at ho:me in my
2 f lat when I heard a knock at the- (0.3) at my doo:r.
3 I then heard John shout.hhh Come tthdoor so I can4 see your face.
5 (0.5)
6 P: [And do you (say [ )
7 S: [No thats not- [( ) that thats one thing
8 that- thats not my- I wouldnt come out with sh-
9 (0.2) come to the door n show my face thats not-
10 .hhh Id say (.) Sharon come to the door I wouldnt
Edwards: Facts, norms and dispositions 487
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
15/28
11 mention Sharon come to the door and show my face.= .h12 Thats not my words I wouldnt use them wo(h)rd(h)s.
13 [.hh Ill swear on me mothers life I (>hope me=
14 P: [(Okay,)
15 S: =motherd
-
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
16/28
delay). As we have noted, Ps receipts of Ss would expressions are typicallyminimal acknowledgement tokens rather than direct challenges.
Extract 9 comes 25 turns after extract 1, in the interrogation concerning the
robbery/theft of cigarettes from a shop.
(9) PW:1:17
1 P: So shes implicated that youve gone (0.3) through
2 that gap,
3 S: Wro [ng
4 P: [an youve pushed her (0.8) right, (.) and
5 shes gone backwards.
6 (0.2)
7 S: Not at [all.
8 P: [And (0.5) hit against (.)as I said (.)9 the bruise are there Ive seen the bruises Ive
10 asked her to go tthe doctorn of course hell (0.3)
11 hell confirm (.) those as well, .hhh I cant see
12 (0.5) why (0.6) this lady: (0.3) would wanna (0.7)
13 [lie ]
14 S: [Nei ]ther can I?
15 (0.4)
Ps third-person use of would (line 12), like Ss first-person uses, invokes
normative and personal dispositions to do or say things. In this case it is
formulated as a problem for Ps efforts to understand, against a normative
backdrop of understandable actions, Ss denials: I cant see (0.5) why this lady:
(0.3) would wanna (0.7) lie (lines 1113). The assertion I cant see whyproposes a problem with, and challenge to, Ss story.8 The prior context is again
the establishment of contradictory factual testimony (lines 17) along with some
circumstantial evidence (lines 911). Again, we are finding ways in which
common sense practical reasoning makes links between norms, dispositions, and
factual accounts. P uses woulddispositionally and normatively with regard to the
shopkeeper; why would she invent this story if it were not true? P generates a
sense of stake or motive what is in it for her to wanna make this stuff up? Ss
response (line 14) overlaps the end of Ps query. Rather than leaving Ps why
would she as a knock-down counter to his own story, S treats it as a puzzle for him
too (echoed in the high-rising, questioning pitch contour of line 14).
Extract 10 begins just after a sequence in which P has quoted a witness who
claims to have overheard a telephone call in which S was swearing and makingthreats to kill Ss neighbour.
(10) PN:11:9
1 S: (...) but as for- (.) sayin thIm gonna put a
2 bomb through yr doo:r (1.1) no.
3 (0.2)
4 S: I dont do things like that.= I know hes got (0.4)
Edwards: Facts, norms and dispositions 489
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
17/28
5 kids himself which stay round there6 (1.8)
7 S: and look a hes- (0.4) look at the size aim es
8 six foot fou:r (0.4) Im five foot seven,
9 (1.2)
10 P: Bt ydid make more than one phone c[all
11 S: [Yeh I phoned
12 im back bu I didnt (0.4) I made n- (1.0) no:
13 sound on the pho:ne i-it lasted probably: (0.7) a
14 s:plit second- one to two secon:ds,
15 (0.2)
16 P: Why wou [ld this lady say then. that she heard=
17 S: [An uh
18 P: =these things?=
19 S: =U:m (.) because ath- u- I th- theres been a feu:d20 in Becknall Cou:rt f r a long time (...)
The actions in extract 10, prior to and following Ps use of wouldin line 16,
are again similar to those in extract 9. There is a sequence of accusation and
denial, formulated here in Ss first turn (lines 12). Additionally in this extract we
have S offering a generalized dispositional basis for his denial: I dont do things
like that (line 4), along with a normatively plausible basis for that denial (lines
48). Then P presents further non-definitive circumstantial evidence against S
(line 10), which S acknowledges and re-formulates as irrelevant (lines 1114). It
is at this juncture that P issues the third-person dispositional challenge: Why
would this lady say then . . . (lines 1618). As also in extract 9, S provides an
answer that retains the questionability of the witnesss motives for giving falsetestimony. Here in extract 10, this takes the more substantial form of a long-term
feud (lines 1920).
A pattern is emerging across Ps uses of third-person normative-dispositional
would, in challenging Ss testimony. As with Ss first-person dispositionals, a
stand-off is first established between S and a quoted witness (who is often but
may not be the alleged victim), in their contradictory factual testimony con-
cerning the alleged offence. There may also be some circumstantial, that is,
inconclusive, evidence against S, which S refutes or minimizes. In response to Ss
denials, P produces a third-person dispositional would, framed as a normative
question, or expression of puzzlement, as to why the witness might lie (i.e. it
invokes the witnesss possible motive, stake or interest in saying something false:
cf. Komter, 1995). Unlike with Ss own first-position wouldexpressions that wereexamined in section 1, that tended to elicit no direct response from P, Ps third-
position dispositional question about the witness elicits an attempt by S to deal
with it. Let us examine some further examples before returning to that point.
In extract 11, S has been accused of harassing and threatening her
neighbour and her neighbours children, a charge which S is in the process of
denying.
490 Discourse Studies 8(4)
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
18/28
(11) PN:46:71 S (...) Iv- (.) kept meself tmeself, (0.3) kept in-
2 .hh when I see them, (.) yes, Im angry at them an
3 I call them thieves.= bu thats it.
4 (1.0)
5 P So (1.2) w-why: the*n l*astly about thi- why: .hh
6 (0.6) hhh. Probly know your answer.= But Im gon
7 ask the question anyway. .hhh that
10 allegedlyve been made by you.
11 S Because she kno:ws the system. Shes tryina get
12 me kicked out by the council. cos she wants to
13 stay cos she gets (cash in hand) down the pub.
S formulates the actions, for which her neighbour is accusing her of
harassment, as merely getting angry and calling them thieves (because, she
elsewhere asserts, that is what they are), but that is all there is to it; as she puts
it, bu thats it. So again, we have contrary testimony directly concerning the
offence with which S is charged. In this case, Ps third-person would question
(lines 710) is interestingly framed as a question he is apparently bound to ask,
and to which he can anticipate the answer (lines 67). Note that we are some
way into the interrogation, throughout which P has displayed a close familiarity
with Ss case. The notion offered by P, that he knows her probable answer but Im
gon ask the question anyway, orients to the questions normative askability in
these circumstances, in whatever way those circumstances should be understood.
I take those circumstances to be some combination of: unresolved conflictingtestimony, inconclusive evidence to decide it, and doing proper police procedure,
including getting the question and Ss answer into the taped record of the
interrogation. Additionally, Ps expression l*astly about thi- (line 5)9 orients to it
as a sequential item, as a possibly final question, or last in a series. In breaking off
from asking the dispositional why would . . .? question, and inserting this lastly
. . . phrase before continuing (see the transcriptional detail of line 5), P displays
an orientation to the would-questions sequential placement as not only
following, but also at the end of a sequence of factual interrogation and denial.
Again, note that S does offer an answer to Ps wouldquestion, in the form of a
dispositional or motivational account (lines 1113) essentially, that the witness
has a self-interested motive in getting S evicted from her council house.
Extract 12 is several minutes further into the interrogation from which
extract 5 was taken, in which a 17-year-old denies assaulting a much younger
boy.
(12) PN:40:6
1 P: So why: should this kid then whos seven
2 years ol:d, who lives on your roa:d, whos-
3 lived there: f seven year:s, to my knowledge
Edwards: Facts, norms and dispositions 491
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
19/28
4
.hhh u:m
why should he suddenly sa:y that5 you: have done- (0.3) well. basically
6 assaulted im.
7 S: I dont kno:w.
8 (0.9)
9 P: Well theres gotta be a reason [for it
10 S: [HONestly I
11 DON- (.) if I knew Id tell yer. Yknow
12 whaI mea:n.
13 (0.4)
14 S: Ive been honest with yer. ( )
15 Ob [viously theres a reas- ]
16 P: [Because it turns ] ou*t=
17 S: =THERE AINT NO REASon yeh because I swear
18 on my mums fuckin li:fe I didnt do fuck all19 I aint seen that little lad,
20 (0.8)
21 S: Alright. (0.3) So I dont care what you thi:nk
22 (.) whether you say th- (.) theres must be
23 a reason why es sayin it there aint no
24 fuckin reason, .h thaint nuthin.
25 (0.2)
26 S: That hes a little twat. thats what.
27 (0.5)
28 P: Why: dysay that.
The modal variant in extract 12 is should(lines 1 and 4), but like would, this
also conveys the sense of a normative-dispositional account being required forwhy this witness might lie. Again, it is Ss testimony being set against that of the
boy victim/witness. In this case, P works to build the boys status as unmotivated
to lie; he is a long-time neighbour, who has suddenly (line 4), which is to say in
no way accounted for by S, accused S of assaulting him. Similarly the category
this kid . . . whos seven years ol:d (lines 12) formulates the witness in
categorial and innocent terms devoid of grudge or motive. Ss initial response at
line 7, I dont kno:w bears comparison to extract 9, line 14 (Neither can I?),
in which Ss response is to share Ps puzzlement. Effectively, S bats the question
back, not as a problem for S, but as a puzzle about the witness. So we have two
different implications in play, concerning the witnesss absent reasons for making
false accusations. P implies that, having no reason to lie, the witness is telling the
truth. For S, on the other hand, the absence of any evident reason to lie impliessome unknown reason (extract 12, lines 1012, 15), or else sheer irrationality
(lines 1724).
Ss eventual answer formulates the witness dispositionally, as a person whose
reasons for saying things stem from character: hes a little twat (line 26). The
coda thats what specifies hes a twat as the answer to the motivation puzzle,
as to why he may have given false testimony. Formulating the boys nature also
avoids addressing any notion of reciprocity on the boys part, for anything S may
492 Discourse Studies 8(4)
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
20/28
have done to him. As a twat, he would tend to say scurrilous and unreliablethings. Again, Ps pursuit of this particular formulation (line 28) lends some
credence to the notion that it is specifically the normative self-assessment uses of
wouldthat are not pursued, rather than it being merely that police officers do not
generally pursue things that Ss claim or deny.
Extract 13 comes several minutes after extract 5, in an interrogation about
alleged damage to a neighbours car, and opens with S making the kind of first-
person modal-dispositional generalization we have previously examined. In this
case, the modal term used is should (line 3), and again its normative appeal is
reinforced with a yknow what I mean (line 6).
(13) PN:17:9
1 S: (...) Ive got two cars at home (.) [I mean why=
2 P: [(I know)
3 S: =should I be need (to be) open somebody elses car.
4 (0.4)
5 P: U [:h
6 S: [>Yknow what I meanIm not7 saying< nine year olds dont lie because they do.8 (0.3)9 P: Children of all d- ages lie. .hhh But >what Im
10 saying is< why would she (.) m- (0.5) say this11 about you. .h Its not- (0.2) i-its quite12 specific what shes saying.13 (0.4)
14 P: Ykno:w, (0.2) shes saying ypu- (0.4) yhand15 downer pyjamas.16 (0.6)17 P: Shes saying you took Amandas nappy of f.18 (1.4)19 P: An felt her between the legs. .h An then shes20 talkin about you takin yr trousers down.=21 Shes quite specific.22 (0.9)23 P: An an why did she make this up about you.24 (0.4)25 S: Don kno:w.
The sequence of actions in extract 14 is similar to the other extracts we are
examining, but again the extract has its own interesting and telling details. Thereis, as we are finding generally, an initial presentation and rejection of witness
testimony against S (lines 13), followed by Ps delivery of the third-person
normative-dispositional would(lines 6 and 10), and eventually a response from S
(line 25) that either refutes or, as in this case, leaves the puzzle unresolved. As we
saw in dont know types of response in extracts 9 and 12, Ss high-rising and
elongated intonation are important in conveying not merely ignorance or
unresponsiveness to the question, but a sense of exasperation or puzzlement of
his own. As in extract 9, P first frames it as a puzzle for P herself: I cant see why
. . . (line 5), but then re-formulates it as a question, why would she . . . (line 10).
As in extract 12, P provides some grounds for finding it hard to believe that the
witness is lying; in this case, as with the boy cited in extract 12, we have the use
of an age category, a nine year old gir:l (line 5), to characterize the witness(indefinitely a girl, rather than the particular girl Emily whose name they have
been using). Further, P quotes graphic details from Emilys account (lines
1420), whose quite specific nature is explicitly offered by P, both before and
after, as the point of quoting those details (lines 12 and 21). These are specifics
that, in Ps presentation of them, give Emilys testimony the ring of truth.
Two additional features of extract 14 are worth noting, although they should
be understood as adding complexity and options to the basic sequence, rather
494 Discourse Studies 8(4)
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
22/28
than being exceptions to it. One feature is Ps insertion in lines 6 to 9, into theproduction of her why would? question, of a possible response to it (nine-year-
olds lie), and a rejection of that response (but why this lie in particular). This,
along with Ps citation of the quite specific details on which we have com-
mented, may help account for Ss lack of room for manoeuvre at line 25.
Another feature is the specific way the question is re-iterated by P at line 23; why
did, rather than why would(cf. comments on extract 6, line 20). In fact, given that
why wouldis an unanswered question still on the table, we can understand why
didhere as a nice orientation to the whole point of asking why would. Across all
of the examples we are analyzing, in both sections of this article, the
dispositional would is deployed as a way of dealing with what did happen,
actually, on some particular occasion, that being the criminal action that S is
charged with. Indeed, that is the practical logic of the wouldturns following thefactual and testimonial contradictions of prior turns.
We end this section with one further extract, but markedly different from the
others, in that S replies no comment to all questions put to him concerning an
accusation of assault on his accuser.
(15) PN:14:4
1 P: Why would- why would- (0.4) Tony Bla:ke. (.) O:nly
2 yve not denied anything. (.) Youve noactually3 said no that didnt happen, so youve not denied or4 confirmed anything, .hhh youve said no comment so:5 (.) I Im sortf duty bound to ask you (0.4) further6 questions in relation to this. .hhh7 (7.2)
8 P: Why would Tony Blake ma- make- make this up as- (.)9 if he is making it up if- (.) if youre all (.)
10 saying that it didnt happen, which youre no:t. .hh
11 But (.) why would he say this if i- if it isnt the
12 case.= Why: (0.2) whats his motive. f comin out
13 n n accusing you of this assault.
14 (0.3)
15 S: No comment,
16 (18.3)
The notable feature of extract 15 is how, in the absence of anything but no
comment from S, P orients to the normative use and sequential relevance of the
dispositional response, why wouldthe witness lie. We have noted that the normal
sequential location of these third-person dispositional modals is after a denial, atestimonial stand-off, and perhaps a first-person dispositional I wouldnt by S.
But here we have P producing the third-person dispositional anyway, despite Ss
denial not occurring. The thing of interest, of course, is Ps orientation to it as
something to say next, following such a denial. Note particularly how P formu-
lates the absence of Ss denial (lines 24) prior to asking the dispositional why
would . . . (line 8), and in fact breaks off at line 1 from an initial why would-, to
insert his observations on Ss absent testimony. This shows an orientation by P,
Edwards: Facts, norms and dispositions 495
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
23/28
marked by doing a repair involving a break-off, insertion and re-start, towardraising the dispositional why would (he) sequentially following Ss rejection of a
witnesss testimony. Although P pointedly notes that S has neither denied nor
confirmed the witnesss testimony, it is only in the event of a denial that the
challenge why would he say this arises. Indeed, a normative basis for P asking
this specific question, just here, is formulated P himself: he is sortf duty bound
(line 5) to ask it.
Summarizing section 2, we find a sequential orderliness across Ps uses of a
third-person normative-dispositional modal would(and its variants), that bears
comparison to Ss first-person uses in section 1. There is an initial, produced-as
and oriented-to contradiction between the testimonies of S and a witness, with
regard to the factual status of whatever specific actions S is being accused of. P
formulates a problem for Ss denials, in the form of a question or puzzle as to whythe witness should lie. This may involve some descriptive building of the witnesss
independence, innocence, or lack of motive. Unlike with Ss first-person modals,
Ps third-person modals tend to elicit replies from S, either shared puzzlement or
a dispositional account of why the witness might lie. In the concluding section of
the article, that difference is explained in terms of the different action sequences
being done, and in terms of orientations to normative practices of police
interrogation with regard to factual testimony.
Conclusion
The focus of our analysis has been on a particular kind of discourse practice, or
interactional practice, using the generic modal wouldor occasional variants suchas going to, will, might or should. Clearly those alternative terms are not
semantically equivalent, and further work may reveal interactional differences in
their uses. The point is that they are used sometimes in the same kinds of social
practices, in constructing a normative, generalized, and dispositional basis for
claims and challenges concerning some specific disputed action.
Ss first-person normative-dispositional avowals using wouldoccur in action
sequences as follows:
1) the establishment of contradictory testimony between S and a witness;
2) Ss generalized, normative self-assessment using would;
3) minimal acknowledgement of 2), but no pursuit, by P.
Ps third-person invocation of a witnesss disposition to lie occurs in actionsequences as follows:
1) Ss denials of a witnesss accusatory testimony;
2) Ps challenge, puzzling over why would the witness lie;
3) Ss response, in the form of shared puzzlement at 2) or an account for it.
We are now in a position to consider the difference between the third
components of the two sequences. The key is that we are dealing with different
496 Discourse Studies 8(4)
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
24/28
kinds of adjacency pairs. Ss would-based claims, whether grammaticallydeclarative (I wouldnt) or interrogative (why would I?), propose normative,
generalized self-assessments. Although assessments in everyday talk normatively
evoke second assessments (Pomerantz, 1984), our cases are special in being self-
assessments, and in being produced in the context of police interrogation. The
absence second assessments from P, whether agreeing or disagreeing with S, may
partly be due to Ps having no independent grounds for providing a generalized
assessment of Ss character, outside of the specific allegations being put.
With regard to the special setting of police interrogation, we have also noted
a strong orientation on Ps part to pursuing the details of factual evidence and
quoted testimony. This orientation excludes entering a discussion of Ss gener-
alized normative appeals. A related feature is Ps recurrent practice of
questioning S by presenting details of witness testimony and physical evidence.Indeed, Ps own question Why would the witness lie? is a further example of this
practice, referring back to the testimony rather than expressing Ps own views on
the matter. This general orientation on Ps part works against P pursuing, or
objecting to, Ss generalized self-assessments.
Relevantly, the practice by question-askers, of putting questions in the form of
quotations from other people, has been noted across other institutional contexts
such as news interviews (Clayman, 1988; Clayman and Heritage, 2002), where it
performs a kind of footing (Goffman, 1979) that displays the interviewers
neutrality while nevertheless being adversarial. Police interrogators are doing
something closely related to that, but perhaps displaying an orientation to
evidence-based objectivity rather than neutrality as such, given that they are often
making the accusation themselves, as the arresting officer, and may (as in extracts1 and 9) be offering some accusatory witnessing of their own. With regard to
interviewer neutrality and footing, police interrogation appears to be positioned
normatively somewhere between news interviewing and courtroom cross-
examination (Atkinson and Drew, 1979). Unlike news interviewers, barristers in
adversarial courts of law are professionally on one side rather than another, while
nevertheless also, normatively, in pursuit of the facts. Police officers appear to be
less strongly positioned than lawyers, displaying an orientation to factual inquiry
rather than factual rebuttal, yet not so neutrally as news interviewers. Of course,
these are arenas of interaction requiring close empirical examination, rather than
normative stipulation, for precisely how they compare and differ.
The use of would in formulating normative-dispositional claims or assess-
ments rests on its grammar, being the past tense ofwill. In the context of the dataand analysis provided here, would is used to propose a kind of back-dated
predictability. It proposes something like going back to a time prior to the
particular event or action in question, and seeing that it was then predictable it
was expectably, predictably, going to happen (or, in the case of wouldnt, not going
to happen). So, I wouldnt hurt an old lady proposes that, if we place ourselves
prior to the event, then, knowing what we know about this person, and lifes
normative order, we can see that hurting an old lady was not, then or ever, in
Edwards: Facts, norms and dispositions 497
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
25/28
prospect. Similarly, why would she say that you did? proposes the requirementfor some prior state of affairs, some motive or circumstance, that makes her
saying it predictable. This same semantic of back-dated predictability also
provides for counter-factual uses of would, as in I would if I could, where what
one would do is back-datedly or dispositionally predictable, if it were not for
circumstances preventing it. Hence the rich usefulness of wouldand its variants,
in handling disputed factuality with regard to motives, norms and character.
We also found a relationship between deployments of modal reasoning and
the invocation of membership or identity categories (an old lady; an old bloke; a
seven-year-old, a little kid, a little twat, a nine-year-old girl, etc.). These categories
fit with uses of wouldin invoking normative knowledge as a route or criterion for
the truth of specific, disputed factual claims. Old ladies, old blokes and little kids
are not only generalized membership categories to which normativeexpectations are inferentially attached (Hester and Eglin, 1997; Sacks, 1992;
Stokoe, 2003; Watson, 1997), but they are also categories emblematic (along
with, say, the disabled and infirm) of people that are not to be hit, kicked, robbed,
or otherwise assaulted. Heydon (2005) refers to the invocation, in police
interrogation, of the moral or normative (rather than strictly legal) rule, it is
wrong to hit women and those smaller than you (p. 203). In Heydons analysis,
this is largely a device that police interrogators can use in questioning Ss
conduct, and rejecting mitigating accounts. In the examples analysed here, it is
primarily used by S in constructing a counter-dispositional formulation of Ss
own conduct in a particular case. The same normative injunction against hitting
women and children (and old people, etc.), that makes the offence particularly
heinous, is exactly what is used by S to say that he didnt (because he wouldnt)do it. Other person descriptions may have a different logic, while still arguing that
a particular offence was not committed because it would not have been (e.g.
extract 10, lines 78, where the category is that of a man one would be foolish to
attack: look at the size aim es six foot fou:r (0.4) Im five foot seven).
Another link was made to analytic work on scripts and dispositions (Edwards,
1995, 1997). Would, along with invocations of membership categories, are
among a range of devices by which specific actions or events can be given a
generalized, timeless quality, and by which the built-in characteristics of persons,
places and objects can be proposed and implied. Back-dated predictability, the
semantics of would, lends itself to saying what a person can or could be expected
to do, in fact or hypothetically, and at any time. It lends itself to characterological
formulations of persons their tendencies, dispositions, moral nature, desiresand intentions. And it is useful in the production and disputation of factual
accounts, whether in promoting a version as consistent or consensual, or in
characterizing that version and its producer as in some way motivated,
interested, and false (see also Komter, 1995, and Sneijder and te Molder, 2005).10
Clearly these devices and practices are of special and endemic relevance to police
interrogation, but they have a common sense practical logic that lends itself to a
wide range of settings not explored here.
498 Discourse Studies 8(4)
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
26/28
N O T E S
1. In a different but related setting, that of courtroom legal examination, Matoesian
(2001) notes an expert witnesss use of the perfect tense epistemic modal may have
as a device for speculating about unwitnessed possible events (cf. Heydon, 2005:
1423). The work they do in that setting is to cast doubt on a witnesss actual
testimony by providing alternative, plausible accounts for the same evidential effects
or events: epistemic modals do more than merely encode alternative possibilities.
They also index the speakers authority with respect to the truth or falsity of a given
representation of reality (Matoesian, 2001: 187).
2. ESRC project RES-148250010 Identities in neighbour discourse: Community,
conflict and exclusion held by Elizabeth Stokoe and Derek Edwards.
3. TCU is Turn Constructional Unit the building blocks that make for potentially
complete turns at talk, in conversation analysis (Sacks et al., 1974). What makes this
a possibly complete TCU is its potential grammatical completeness as a clause orsentence, its final intonation contour (marked by the full stop or period), and its
hearable completeness as accomplishing an action (self-assessment), such that P is,
at just this point, in a position to respond.
4. It is not appropriate to assign a specific emotional description to Ss prosody, but
clearly some such epistemically relevant reaction is conveyed, in aid of Ss rejection of
the idea that he hit the man.
5. Gonna, or going to, is an alternative to the modal will in English, for expressing a
future and/or intended event or action. Wouldis, grammatically, the past tense of will
(Oxford English Dictionary, 2002). Accordingly, we also find in the data similarly
dispositional uses of will and wont such as this, from the same interrogation as
extract 1 (with will/wont italicized):
S: I wont do it if its if th- dy wont pu- they wont
put the ciggies on the counter, (0.2) Ill say oh
Ive left me money in the car or Ive left me moneyin ours an Ill walk out the shop an Ill leave it.
6. These details are provided as possibly relevant to Ss unusually polite address form
sir (line 1), and perhaps also the grammatical glitch in line 4.
7. These are my own observations about the status of that evidence, but they reflect
orientations to it by S and P themselves, in that S may offer alternative interpretations
or dismissals of the evidences significance, and P does not insist on the matter. See
extract 1, line 6; extract 2, line 13; and extract 10, lines 1114.
8. There is something in the manner of Ps delivery at line 12, including the pauses, that
conveys a sense of significance, deliberation and/or puzzlement. Ss overlap at 14
comes just where Ps objection is projectable, reinforcing the sense of Ps objection as
somewhat expectable; see the discussion of that notion regarding extract 15.
9. The asterisks mark a croaky vocal delivery.
10. A notorious example was coined by Mandy Rice Davies, a witness in the Profumo trial
of 1963, and the topic of the 1989 Michael Caton film Scandal. A British government
Defence Minister, John Profumo, was accused of liaisons with call girls including
Davies, who were also entertaining a Russian military officer during the cold war. In
the trial, a barrister says to Davies that Lord Astor, another government minister,
denies having had sex with her. The court famously burst into laughter at her reply:
Well, he would say that, wouldnt he? (see also Edwards and Potter, 1992).
Edwards: Facts, norms and dispositions 499
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
27/28
R E F E R E N C E S
Atkinson, J.M. and Drew, P. (1979) Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in
Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.
Benneworth, K. (2004) A Discursive Analysis of Police Interviews with Suspected
Paedophiles: The Implications of Open and Closed Interviewing for Admission and
Denial, unpublished doctoral thesis, Loughborough University, UK.
Bybee, J. and Fleischman, S. (eds) (1995) Modality and Grammar in Discourse (Typological
studies in language, 32). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Clayman, S.E. (1988) Displaying Neutrality in Television News Interviews, Social
Problems 35(4): 47492.
Clayman, S.E. and Heritage, J. (2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on
the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. (1992) Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-examination: The Case of a Trial
for Rape, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds)Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional
Settings, pp. 470520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, D. (1994) Script Formulations: A Study of Event Descriptions in Conversation,
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13(3): 21147.
Edwards, D. (1995) Two to Tango: Script Formulations, Dispositions, and Rhetorical
Symmetry in Relationship Troubles Talk, Research on Language and Social Interaction
28(4): 31950.
Edwards, D. (1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992) Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (2001) Discursive Psychology, in A. McHoul and M. Rapley
(eds) How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of Methods, pp. 1224.
London/New York: Continuum International.
Goffman, E. (1979) Footing, Semiotica 25: 129.
Heritage, J.C. and Watson, D.R. (1979) Formulations as Conversational Objects, in G.
Psathas (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 12362. New York:Irvington.
Hester, S. and Eglin, P. (eds) (1997) Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization
Analysis. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Heydon, G. (2005) The Language of Police Interviewing: A Critical Analysis. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Jayyusi, L. (1984) Categories and the Moral Order. London: Routledge.
Jefferson, G. (2004) Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction, in G.H. Lerner
(ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, pp. 1331. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Komter, M.L. (1995) The Distribution of Knowledge in Courtroom Interaction, in P. ten
Have and G. Psathas (eds) Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and
Embodied Activities, pp. 10728. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Komter, M.L. (1997) Remorse, Redress, and Reform: Blame-taking in the Courtroom, in
M. Travers and J.F. Manzo (eds) Law in Action: Ethnomethodological and Conversation
Analytic Approaches to Law, pp. 23964. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Lynch, M. and Bogen, D. (2005) My Memory Has Been Shredded: A Non-cognitivist
Investigation of Mental Phenomena, in H. Te Molder and J. Potter (eds) Conversation
and Cognition, pp. 22640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matoesian, G.M. (2001) Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy
Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oxford English Dictionary (2002).
500 Discourse Studies 8(4)
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/ -
7/28/2019 Modal Would in Police Interrogations
28/28
Palmer, F.R. (2001)Mood and Modality
, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pollner, M. (1987) Mundane Reason: Reality in Everyday and Sociological Discourse.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A.M. (1984) Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of
Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes, in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures
of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 57101. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1986) Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims,Human Studies 9: 21929.
Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversation, Vols I & II, ed. G. Jefferson. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) A Simplest Systematics for the
Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation, Language 50(4): 696735.
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977) The Preference for Self-Correction in
the Organization of Repair in Conversation, Language 53(2): 36182.Smith, D. (1978) K is Mentally Ill: The Anatomy of a Factual Account, Sociology 12:
2353.
Sneijder, P. and te Molder, H.F.M. (2005) Moral Logic and Logical Morality: Attributions
of Responsibility and Blame in Online Discourse on Veganism, Discourse & Society
16(5): 67596.
Stokoe, E.H. (2003) Mothers, Single Women and Sluts: Gender, Morality and Membership
Categorization in Neighbour Disputes, Feminism and Psychology 13(3): 31744.
Travers, M. and Manzo, J.F. (eds) (1997) Law in Action: Ethnomethodological and
Conversation Analytic Approaches to Law. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Watson, R. (1997) The Presentation of Victim and Motive in Discourse: The Case of
Police Interrogations and Interviews, in M. Travers and J.F. Manzo (eds) Law in Action:
Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analytic Approaches to Law, pp. 7797. Aldershot:
Ashgate.Wowk, M.T. (1984) Blame Allocation: Sex and Gender in a Murder Interrogation,
Womens Studies International Forum 7: 7582.
D ER EK E DWA RD S is Professor of Psychology in the Department of Social Sciences,
Loughborough University. His interests are in the analysis of language and social
interaction in everyday and institutional settings. He specializes in discursive psychology,
in which relations between psychological states and the external world are studied as
discourse categories and practices. His books include Common Knowledge, with Neil Mercer
(Routledge, 1987), Ideological Dilemmas, with Michael Billig and others (Sage, 1988),
Discursive Psychology, with Jonathan Potter (Sage, 1992), and Discourse and Cognition(Sage, 1997). A D D R E S S : Department of Social Sciences, Loughborough University,
Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK. [email: [email protected]]
Edwards: Facts, norms and dispositions 501