Madrunio and Lintao 2023 Power, Control, and Resistance in Philippine and American Police Interview Discourse

Int J Semiot Law
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10045-8
Power, Control, and Resistance in Philippine and American

Police Interview Discourse
Ma. Kaela Joselle R. Madrunio1 · Rachelle B. Lintao1
Accepted: 14 August 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023
Abstract
This paper is aimed at assessing how power, control, and resistance come into play
and how resistance counteracts power and control in police investigative interview-
ing. Considering that the Philippines was once a colony of the United States, it is
essential to compare the two samples as the Philippine legal system is highly pat-
terned after the American jurisprudence (Mercullo in JForensicRes 11:1–4, 2020).
Highlighting the existing and emerging power relations between the police inter-
viewer and the interviewee, the study employed Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson’s (
Recuenco, A. (2022). Cops to undergo investigation retraining to improve convic-
tion rate. Manila Bulletin. https://mb.com.ph/2022/07/21/cops-to-undergo-inves
tigation-retraining-to-improve-conviction-rate/) Conversation Analysis (CA) and
Fairclough’s (Ehrlich in Coulthard and Johnson (eds), The Routledge Handbook of
Forensic Linguistics, Routledge, 2010) Critical Language Studies (CLS) as general
frameworks. A total of 10 Philippine and American police interviews were exam-
ined. While the Philippine corpus was obtained from the Pasay City Police Station,
Metro Manila, the American corpus was culled from forensicling.com, an open-
access website containing forensic linguistic data. Findings revealed that power and
control were employed by the police in both contexts with 109 evidential markers
(50.7%) and 2,443 representative speech acts (63.3%) having the highest frequency
of occurrence. What is striking is the fact that police officers in both Philippine and
American contexts show power and control in their utterances to be able to achieve
the goal of police interviewing, that is, to gather information and elicit voluntary
responses from the interviewees. Through this study, it is hoped that interviewers
will be able to explore a better system of the questioning process that may lead the
interviewees to cooperate more with them and arrive at a more accurate information.
Keywords Power symmetry · Investigative interviewing · Police interview

discourse · Forensic linguistics
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
M. K. J. R. Madrunio, R. B. Lintao
1 Introduction
Having no proper knowledge on the particularities of police investigative inter-

viewing, lay people are put at a disadvantage when they get involved in a situ-
ation that requires a wider understanding of the discourse involved in investiga-
tive interviews. For instance, suspects, victims, and witnesses in interviews are
not able to respond adequately because of their inexperience and unfamiliarity in
engaging in this type of discourse. This is because police officers are conditioned
to control the whole interviewing process, from the planning and preparation
to the tactics of outdoing denials [28]. As a result, the police somehow deprive
the interviewees of their rights, contrary to the main goal of police interviewing
which is to elicit voluntary responses from the interviewees [25].
In the Philippine setting, police officers seem to lack proper training on cog-
nitive/investigative interviewing. Meissner et al. [33] define investigative inter-
viewing as a structured questioning of interviewees to obtain detailed and accu-
rate accounts of specific instances which support a wider investigative resolution.
Further, Milne and Bull [37] argue that investigative interviewing is a non-
accusatory method for questioning suspects, victims, and witnesses. Del Rosa-
rio and Ballesteros-Lintao [9] articulate that the Filipino police officers did not
observe a format in questioning alleged juvenile delinquents, disproving the defi-
nition of investigative interviewing. Further, they assert that abusive, intimidat-
ing, and aggressive techniques in the questioning of the interviews were likewise
employed by the Philippine police, resulting in the unsuccessful gathering of
information from the alleged youth offenders. These techniques relate to power,
control, and resistance.
In this study, power is defined by Veneklasen and Miller [63] as asserting
authority in the form of power within the self while control means exerting influ-
ence over the other interlocutor in the form of power over the other. Further,
Newbury and Johnson [40] claim that resistance is a challenge to the consen-
sus of power and control that expects cooperation. The operational definition for
resistance is an act of opposing the other interlocutor through verbal or non-ver-
bal cues (e.g., not talking, saying no, avoiding the question).
Police investigative interviewing is one area of research that calls for a deeper
scrutiny of these variables. As cited earlier, investigative interviewing is a non-
accusatory method for questioning suspects, victims, and witnesses [37]. Heydon
[24] supports this claim by stating the main goal of police interviewing which is
to elicit voluntary responses from the interviewees. Indeed, in many countries
including the Philippines, this specific area in forensic linguistics (FL) needs to
be cultivated as there are only a handful of researchers who have ventured into
this subfield due to the difficulty in gathering sufficient corpus.
Police interview discourse involves three main elements that are often over-
looked: power, control, and resistance. In fact, it is assumed by many that these
three elements are innately present in any legal setting. Haworth avers that
because of the unequal dynamics of the roles in an interview discourse, the police
have a substantial degree of authority over the interviewee, resulting in the police
13
Power, Control, and Resistance in Philippine and American…
having been able to control the entire interviewing process [21]. It is in this sense
that employing power and control over the interviewee seems to be the standard.
As regards resistance, Shepherd claims that not only suspects but also witnesses
and victims are able to employ resistance in police interviews [53]. He believes
that the view that witnesses and victims only cooperate should be eradicated. It
appears that for the police, the interviewee employing resistance against them to
exercise his legal rights is an unacceptable practice.
As the Philippines was a colony of the United States [61], it is essential to com-
pare the two corpora as the Philippine legal system is highly patterned after the
American jurisprudence [36]. Some similarities between the two systems are: (1)
the Philippine Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, which is a duplicate of
the Constitution of the United States; (2) the government structure which consists
of three separate, sovereign, and interdependent branches; (3) their main sources of
law which are the Constitution, statutes enacted by Congress, treaties and conven-
tions, judicial decisions, and customary law and; (4) the use of Miranda [56]. As
regards the police setting, the Philippine National Police (PNP) emerged from the
Philippine Constabulary (PC) on August 8, 1901. It then became the constricted
police force under the American regime [44]. Although the Philippine legal sys-
tem is highly patterned after the American legal system, it is important to note that
the Reid technique, which is used widely across the United States and Canada, is
not being employed in the interviewing process of the Philippine police. Del Rosa-
rio and Ballesteros-Lintao’s study revealed that the Philippine police does not fol-
low any structure in investigative interviewing, particularly in interviewing youth
offenders [9]. Indeed, a great deal remains to be done as regards the legal and justice
system of the Philippines.
At present, Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla
acknowledged that there is a flaw in the enforcement and prosecution aspect in the
justice system of the Philippines [47]. As it is, Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG) Secretary Benhur Abalos presented that more than 22,000 out
of 220,000 personnels of the Philippine National Police are distinguished as police
investigators however, only 123 of those are law graduates. Hence, the DOJ and
DILG are working closely together to revamp the justice system of the country. Con-
versely, in the United States, the so-called Mendez Principles has been developed
containing principles on effective [police] interviewing to avoid "flawed decision-
making, wrongful convictions, and gross miscarriages of justice and; accusatory,
coercive, manipulative and confession-driven practices” [35]. These now existing
facts then establish the need for an investigative interviewing study to substantiate
the Philippine policing system which is adopted from the American policing system.
2 Power, Control, and Resistance
Power asymmetry and unequal distribution of power and control are important
aspects of police interview discourse [21]. Fairclough [12] asserts that the exercise
of power is progressively attained through ideologies. These ideologies may then
function to justify dominance and control as well as to hint resistance in power
13
relations [63]. Rañosa-Madrunio [46:4] explains that "power is wielded by the

interrogators or the “powerful” who control the public discourse, thus putting the
interrogated, or the “powerless,” at a disadvantage". Her study made use of criti-
cal discourse analysis (CDA) as a framework, examining how power and control
are achieved in the Philippine courtroom. Her corpus was obtained from Regional
Trial Court (RTC) 80 in Malolos, Bulacan, the only trial court that has ever used
Tagalog in its court proceedings until the untimely demise of the presiding judge,
Judge Ma. Resurreccion Buhat. Findings reveal that there is indeed power asymme-
try in courtroom interactions. The interrogators or the powerful, usually the lawyers,
are at an advantage and put the interrogated at a disadvantage, especially those who
are uneducated. The interrogated are then not made aware of their powerlessness,
resulting in their speaking style being controlled by the more powerful, which in
effect may affect the court’s decision. This then deprives the disadvantaged of their
language rights which they are not aware of. As regards power in police interviews,
Haworth [21] claims that power is assumed by the police based on the attributed
roles of an interviewer and interviewee. However, Haworth [21] also states that the
‘default’ positions of the interlocutors may be altered, allowing the interviewee to
take control of the conversation. Her study is by far the only study on power and
resistance in a British police interview. Haworth [21] has pointed out that a sub-
version of institutional roles in this specific interaction is possible as power and
resistance can be always questioned using discursive strategies. Using Conversa-
tional Analysis (CA) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA, she analyzed the police
transcripts of Dr. Shipman, recognizing the significant features in police interviews.
Her findings reveal that the police, presumably the advantageous or more powerful,
do not have full control of the conversation as the interviewee (ostensibly, the less
powerful) shows a strong act of resistance. Following this, the institutional context
plays a big role in defining the institutional roles of the participants. Both have high
professional status, a police and a doctor-turned-into-suspect, that is why there is
a restriction in the discursive roles of the participants. As regards resistance, Har-
ris [20:752] claims that uttering “counter-questions is a key mode of resistance to
power and control”. Thornborrow [62:752] likewise corroborates that this scheme is
also evident in police interview discourse. She states that:
. . . it is the institutional roles occupied by the participants . . . that largely
determine whether or not the outcome of these actions is successful or
not. [The police officer] has no institutional obligation to participate as an
‘answerer’, and resists taking up this position when [the interviewee] puts him
in it discursively . . . When a participant is placed discursively in a turn posi-
tion that in some way conflicts with their institutional role, we can observe a
degree of disruption to expected norms of interaction while the police inter-
viewers re-establish their more powerful positions in the talk.
Veneklasen and Miller [64:45] maintain that there are four expressions of power:
power over, power with, power to, and power within. It is crucial then to determine
the difference among these four types of power. Power over is the most used and
recognized form of power but also has several negative connotations for people
“such as repression, force, coercion, discrimination, corruption, abuse, inequality,
13
injustice, and poverty”. In this expression of power, possessing power entails steal-
ing it from others and using it to hegemonize and be in control of others. The second
form, power with, is concerned with finding commonalities among diverse commu-
nities, establishing collective power and social strength. This expression of power
brings about unity as it helps foster understanding among different groups of people
and eventually, promotes unprejudiced relationships. With power to, it pertains to
the unique capacity of an individual to influence other people and make a change.
This is often related to power with. Lastly, power within refers to an individual’s
sense of self-respect and self-realization. It should be noted that control may not
always be associated with power as power can be expressed in different forms. As
Fairclough [12:189] claims, this type of interview discourse, that is, a police inter-
view, “has been naturalized to favor the powerful”. It is in this sense that power and
control shall be always consistently under negotiation and susceptible to resistance
[21].
Cognitive interviewing is often managed through controlling techniques [31]. As
cited earlier, police officers undergo training to learn how to control the entire inter-
viewing process, from the planning and preparation to the tactics of outdoing deni-
als [28]. However, there is yet a study that has clearly defined the term control in
cognitive interviewing. As cited above, the work of Rañosa-Madrunio [46] is by far
the study which focuses on power and control in a legal setting. Focusing on con-
trol, she used power and control interchangeably as she understood that these two
terms are synonymous with each other. Hence, for her, when one is in power, s/he
is automatically in control. It then appears that there is a thin dividing line between
power and control. This study highlights that while power over is underscored, con-
trol does not always co-exist with power.
As regards resistance, Shepherd [53:6] defines this concept as “the verbal, physi-
cal and emotional behavior of an interviewee which blocks an interviewer’s efforts
to establish appropriate conversation to achieve the investigative aim, to establish a
working relationship, and to establish the facts of the matter”. According to him, the
pervasive belief that suspects can only employ resistance shall be eradicated as wit-
nesses and victims can, too.
Figure 1 below shows the important variables involved in interviewee resistance.
Shepherd [53] claims that several police officers have a superficial perspective
of interviewee resistance as they believe that interviewees are “located somewhere
along a continuum willing-unwilling to talk” [52]. However, through Shepherd’s
two dimensions of interviewee resistance as seen in Fig. 1, he explains that the ori-
gins of resistance are complex hence, it is not possible to promptly understand the
degrees of resistance employed by the interviewee. These origins emanate from the
point of convergence of the two dimensions: the degree of willingness to talk and
the degree of ability to tell. When interviewees are unable to speak, they may have
failed to recall or never knew about the facts. This can be due to their physical dis-
ability, mental and physical fatigue, psychological distress, and the same psycho-
logical blocks which affect willingness to talk [53].
It is worth noting that in this study, the concept of power is viewed in the form
of power within the self while control is viewed as power over the other where
the influence of one interlocutor is exerted over the other interlocutor [65]. As for
13
Fig. 1 The Two Dimensions of Interviewee Resistance Shepherd, [58]
resistance, it is an act of opposing the other interlocutor through verbal or non-ver-

bal cues (e.g., not talking, saying no, avoiding the question, etc.) as espoused by
Newbury and Johnson [39] and Shepherd [53], thereby challenging the consensus of
power and control that expects cooperation.
3 Police Interviews
Police investigative interviewing is classified by Johnson and Coulthard [29] as a

legal genre as it focuses on the language of interaction in the legal process. This is
one specific area of forensic linguistics that tackles asymmetry between two institu-
tional roles, that is, the police and the interviewee. According to Coulthard, John-
son, and Wright [8], forensic linguistics (henceforth FL) has three classifications,
namely: (1) the study of the written language of the law; (2) language in the legal
process, and; (3) language as evidence. As earlier cited, this study centers on the
second classification, the language in the legal process.
Heydon [25] avers that police investigative interviewing allows police officers to
obtain significant information which can be used as evidence in court trials. As an
institutional discourse, Heydon [24:4] explains that the police interviewing process
being complex, “the way in which each police interview is constructed as belonging
to police institutional discourse is negotiated through the [police-interviewee] inter-
actions”. The Operating Procedures, also known as the Miranda Rights (in the US
13
context) or Cautions (in the UK/Australia context), provides the institutional back-
ground relating to the utterances of the speaker [24]. It is also worth noting that in
the Philippine context, the Miranda Rights is employed and patterned after the US
context as stipulated in Article III, Sect. 12, paragraph 1 of the Philippine Consti-
tution [41]. This is a significant part of police interviews as it informs interview-
ees, most especially the suspects, of their right to remain silent. Other phases of the
police interviewing process include the opening, information gathering, and closing
[24]. Clearly, the Operating Procedures are included in the opening phase. As for
the second phase, contrary to the notion that an interview may be used for obtaining
information about an investigation, it may also be used to provide victims and wit-
nesses information protection of one’s identity, disclosure, intermediaries, and wit-
ness protection, among others. Lastly, the closing phase involves further questions
and clarifications both from the police and the interviewee. Both the opening and
closing phase can be pertained to as “discrete parts of the police interview’s discur-
sive structure” [24:57].
Holt and Johnson [27] state that there are rules regarding who can speak and
when is the right time to speak in police interviews. Heydon [24] explains that
police officers do observe these rules as they should know when to initiate and end
the interview process to give way for the interviewees to express their ideas and
opinions. As it is, this structure of conversation or turn-taking appears to have the
same features as in news interviews [17, 23]. It has been known that police inter-
views are composed for a third party, that is, the judiciary as these are considered a
piece of evidence in court [24]. Police interviews are then categorized by Shuy [54]
as an evocation interview and not a fact interview, stressing that the questioner in
police interviews is not asking questions for the purpose of self-enlightenment, but
to elicit answers that they surmise to be correct.
The current approaches to police interviewing include the PEACE model and
the Reid technique. Having been used by most countries, the PEACE model origi-
nated from the United Kingdom where police officers were introduced to increas-
ingly complex interviewing techniques as their training and experience progresses
[7]. The PEACE model stands for planning and preparation, engage and explain,
account, closure, and evaluation. This model was proposed to tackle the predica-
ments in police-interviewee conversations as discussed in several reviews and arti-
cles of police interviewing training [7]. Conversely, the Reid technique is broadly
utilized in the United States, also as “a basis for training in law enforcement institu-
tions” [25:104]. This technique entails a two-stage process of engagement with an
interviewee, may they be a suspect or a witness. In the primary stage, a non-accu-
satory interview is conducted, and the interviewee is also being assessed through
their behavior. If the interviewee is distinguished as guilty or has connections with
the incident, the second and final stage of the process will be conducted. The final
stage of the process, that is, the nine-step interrogation, is an accusatory questioning
of the involved [22]. It is important to note that even though the Philippine legal sys-
tem is modeled after the US legal system, Reid technique is not being employed in
the interviewing process of the Philippine police. Whether the PEACE model or the
Reid technique is employed, the main goal of police interviewing, which is to elicit
voluntary responses from the interviewees, withstands [22].
13
As regards Philippine police interviewing, Del Rosario and Ballesteros-Lintao’s

[9] article underscores the significance of questioning strategies in interviewing chil-
dren in conflict with the law. Their study employed a mixed method design and used
the MAXQDA analytics software as a tool. Using Shepherd’s [52] Forms of Ques-
tions as well as Gibbons’ [16] Cognitive Interview (CI) as frameworks, the paper
sought to determine the questioning strategies that Justice and Welfare Council
(JJWC) officers employ. This is regarding the Cognitive Interview genre which con-
tains the four-staged framework. Findings reveal that there is no established struc-
ture of questioning that the Philippine police observes when dealing with purported
youth offenders. As such, interviewers make use of ineffectual questions in the form
of offensive, and aggressive techniques to induce a confession from juvenile delin-
quents. It is indeed important for the Philippine police to follow a specific structure
of questioning to be able to prompt uncoerced confessions from offenders and attain
the objective of investigative interviewing which is to elicit voluntary narratives.
Likewise, Melad [34] appraised the questioning styles and interview strategies of
the Philippine police using the frameworks of Snook, Luther, Quinlan, and Milne
[57] on questioning practices and Milne and Bull [38] on police strategies. She
obtained nine interview transcripts from the Philippine National Police Taguig City
Police Station and Balanga City Police Station and use it as corpus. Findings reveal
that Philippine police investigators mostly employ interview strategies which pro-
voke recall and narration from the interviewee as well as closed (yes–no) questions.
These interview strategies and types of questioning disallow the interviewees from
expressing their sentiments, failing to provide more information about the case.
Worth noting is the fact that the police merely accept and believe the statements
of the interviewees. Indeed, Philippine police shall be compelled to more train-
ing as regards investigation and interviewing skills to execute a [more] successful
interview.
4 Forensic Linguistic Studies on Pragmatic Markers and Speech Acts
Szczyrbak [58, 59] emphasizes the importance of pragmatic markers in communica-

tive contexts such as police interviews. Fox Tree and Schrock’s [13] five categories
of functions and Povolna’s [40] approach to the study of interactive discourse mark-
ers were used as frameworks to analyze the functions of the pragmatic markers I
mean and you know in police interviews. Findings on both pragmatic markers are
revealed to be congruent with Fox Tree and Schrock’s [13] scheme. As such, prag-
matic markers embrace new connotations every time they are utilized. Moreover,
these pragmatic markers prompted the use of appropriate verbal responses, ascribing
to Povolna’s [44] framework. These reveal power asymmetry between the advan-
tageous (interviewer) and the disadvantageous (interviewee). You know, more par-
ticularly, signal certainty from the interviewer and uncertainty from the interviewee
indicates institutional authority and controlling discourse. Szczyrbak [58:289] then
avers that police interviews evince “hierarchical power relations and status asymme-
try”. Limited to only two pragmatic markers, Szczyrbak’s [58, 59] study could have
been more compelling if more markers were added as variables. Because of this, it
13
is quite difficult to generalize as the two markers cannot represent other pragmatic
markers especially in this type of discourse. Despite this, Szczyrbak [58, 59] is com-
mendable in confirming and establishing Fox Tree and Schrock’s [13] and Povolna’s
[44] framework in her study.
Sarifuddin et al. [49] identified and delineated the different types of provocative
speech acts employed by Natalius Pigai as reflected in the social media platform,
Youtube. Although not explicitly stated, the author utilized Searle’s [50] speech acts
theory integrated with Leech’s [31] theory of pragmatics to analyze Pigai’s speech
that contains provocative speech acts. Findings revealed that Natalius Pigai’s utter-
ances comprised the following: (1) literal indirect speech acts; (2) declarative locu-
tions; (3) expressive illocutions and; (4) the perlocutionary speech act that makes
the hearer think about the interlocutor’s utterance. These features reflect a provoca-
tive speech act as it prompts a feeling of resentment against other individuals or
groups. It is then of much significance to be mindful of one’s utterance, especially
on social media as it can be considered a criminal act. Sarifuddin et al.’s [49] study
is an informative article which tackles both social media and politics. However, the
authors could have presented more extracts from the data to support their claims.
The article seems to be insufficient in the explanation of how the mentioned speech
acts are a provocative form of speech acts. More explanation would lead to a more
articulate data commentary, inciting more readers to delve deeper into the interdisci-
plinary field of social media and politics.
Barus et al. [2] examined the speech acts employed by the interviewers and
the interviewees in the Michael Brown case. Two interviews were analyzed uti-
lizing Searle’s [50] speech act theory: (1) the exchange of utterances between the
interviewers and the suspect (a police officer) and; (2) the exchange of utterances
between special agents and a witness. It was discovered that all five speech acts were
present in the first interview while only the declarative speech act was not employed
in the second. The directive speech act was utilized by the interviewers to achieve
their goal, that is, to gather information. Conversely, the interviewees frequently
used the representative speech act to inform, explain, affirm, or deny. The common
denominator among participants is the use of direct-literal manner across speech
acts to avoid misunderstanding. Worth noting is that there was an inclusion of sev-
eral extracts which support the authors’ claim. The results and discussion section
was well-written, stimulating readers who are not that knowledgeable in the field of
police interview discourse. However, more related literature could have been cited
for the readers to be enlightened about this emerging subfield of forensic linguistics.
5 Method and Corpus
This corpus-based study is descriptive and analytical in nature as it examined power,

control, and resistance reflected in Philippine and American police interviews. It
analyzed the utterances and exchange of utterances in five Philippine and five Amer-
ican police-suspect interview transcripts, totaling 10 sets of data. These utterances
are crucial in determining how the turn-taking system is reflective of power, control,
and resistance employed in Philippine and American police interviews. This study
13
takes on the operational definition of an utterance as an uninterrupted statement

of an interlocutor, regardless of the number of sentences, length of utterance, sur-
rounding noise, and verbal and non-verbal reactions of the interlocutor/s. Moreo-
ver, the utterances in the form of words, phrases, and sentences were considered.
It is to be noted that utterances may reflect one or more speech acts. Hence, it is
possible that there are several sentences in one utterance containing several speech
acts. It must also be stressed that what the speaker stated explicitly serves as the
sole basis for identifying the speech acts. Both corpora include criminal cases, and
these should have occurred in the last 20 years. It is to be noted that the Ameri-
can corpus was obtained from an open access website (www.forensicling.com) first
provided to the members by the International Association for Forensic and Legal
Linguistics (IAFLL). As one of the researchers is a member of the said professional
organization, she was provided easy access to the data. It should be noted that these
transcripts are available online thus, the ethical principles of confidentiality and ano-
nymity no longer apply. As for the Philippine corpus, these were obtained from the
Pasay Police Station, Manila, the Philippines with the assistance of Senior Master
Sgt. Rudy B. Gahar. This was likewise subjected to the review and approval of the
Research Ethics Committee (REC) of one leading teacher training institution in the
country prior to data gathering (REC Code: 07062022–113).
6 Research Questions
The studies of Haworth [21] and Rañosa-Madrunio [46] are by far the only
papers which focused on power and resistance in a British police interview and
power and control in Philippine courtroom discourse, respectively. This paper
addresses the gap cited above by addressing the following specific research
questions:
1. What commentary pragmatic markers hint at demonstration of power, control,

and resistance in Philippine and American police interviews?
a. Evidential markers
b. Emphasis markers
c. Mitigation markers
2. What illocutionary speech acts demonstrate power, control, and resistance in

Philippine and American police interviews?
3. How is the turn-taking system reflective of power, control, and resistance in
Philippine and American police interviews?
6.1 Data Gathering Procedure
This study underwent the following step-by-step data gathering procedure. First, the
website which was provided by the International Association of Forensic and Legal
13
Linguists (IAFLL)was visited. It is worth noting that this is an open access website
hence, for public consumption. Second, police-suspect interview transcripts based
on the following criteria were selected: (1) infamous cases in the United States and
(2) criminal cases that took place in the last 20 years. Understanding the need for
accessible data, said databank made it possible for researchers to analyze corpora
that are difficult to gather such as police transcripts and confession statements,
among others. It is important to note that the researchers heavily relied on the avail-
ability of data, limiting the number and type of suspects included in the corpus. This
is because of the institutional practices observed here in the Philippines where sus-
pects do not usually undergo interviewing by investigative officers [33]. Moreover,
the audio/video recordings and/or interview transcripts were chosen regardless of the
nature of the interviews, may they be true or false statements. Third, upon obtaining
both the Philippine and American corpora, the data were manually transcribed using
the Jefferson’s transcription system. As most police interviews in the Philippines
were conducted in Tagalog, these transcripts were also translated to English. For the
American corpus, readily available transcripts were validated upon listening to the
audio/video recordings of the cases which are also found online. Finally, the selected
transcripts (T) were coded accordingly. The coded values (P) and (I) were used for
the police and interviewee, respectively. As for the data, the coded values (PH) and
(AM) were used for the Philippine and American data, respectively. With the ten
samples for each corpus, coding was given to each: PH CC1 for Philippine Criminal
Case 1, PH CC2 for Philippine Criminal Case 2, and so on. A similar coding was
done for the American sample: AM CC1 for American Criminal Case 1, AM CC2
for American Criminal Case 2, and so on. For easier understanding, the study cor-
pus is presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Study Corpus

Case coding Length of Length of tran- Role of the interviewee Nature of case
recording (min- script (pages)
utes)
PH CC 1 31:21 8 Witness Qualified theft

PH CC 2 78:51 12 Complainant Qualified theft
PH CC 3 37:13 11 Victim robbery
PH CC 4 19:08 12 Suspect Illegal gambling
PH CC 5 14:34 9 Witness Robbery
AM CC 1 56:03 17 Suspect—Dassey Murder
AM CC 2 30:52 13 Suspect—Dippolito Murder with Gun charge
AM CC 3 96:48 60 Suspect—Lane Aiding and abetting; 2nd
degree Manslaughter
AM CC 4 38:50 14 Suspect—Ringgenberg Murder
AM CC 5 46:42 33 Witness—Walker Homicide
13
6.2 Frameworks for Analysis
Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson’s [48] Conversation Analysis and Fairclough’s [12]
Critical Language Studies served as the general frameworks for this study since they
deal with the analysis of police interviews which involved conversation exchanges.
Conversation is defined by Sidnell [55:492] as an “approach to language and social
interaction” where conversations between and among people are analyzed. Since
Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson’s [48:704] framework encompasses the turn-taking
process, said system is likewise employed. It should be noted that the turn-taking
system consists of two components, as cited earlier, including the rules governing
turn-construction. These are the following:
(1) For any turn, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn construc-
tional unit:
(a) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as to involve the use of a ’current

speaker selects next’ technique, then the party so selected has the right and
is obliged to take next turn to speak; no others have such rights or obliga-
tions, and transfer occurs at that place.
(b) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a "Cur-
rent speaker selects next’ technique, then self-selection for next speakership
may, but need not, be instituted; first starter acquires rights to a turn, and
transfer occurs at that place.
(c) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a "Cur-
rent speaker selects next’ technique, then current speaker may, but need
not continue, unless another self-selects.
(2) If, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-constructional

unit, neither 1a nor 1b has operated, and, following the provision of 1c, cur-
rent speaker has continued, then the rule-set a- re-applies at the next transition-
relevance place, and recursively at each next transition-relevance place, until
transfer is effected.
As regards Fairclough’s [12] Critical Language Studies (CLS), it underscored

power relations as an offshoot of his framework on Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA). Fairclough defines discourse in CLS as “language as social practice deter-
mined by social structures” [66:187], which looks beyond the relationship between
an institutional role and a member of the larger society. Indeed, the goal of CLS is
to determine the connection among language, power, and ideology. To achieve this,
Fairclough [12:188] has come up with a three-stage analysis: “(1) describe the for-
mal properties of the text; (2) engage the processes for producing and interpreting
the text and; (3) explain how the productive and interpretative processes are socially
determined by the larger social context”. He claims that the highlight of CLS is
13
analyzing language as a social practice at the semantic, pragmatic, and sociolinguis-

tic level to reveal the intricate relationships among language, power, and ideology
[12].
This study anchored the analysis on the frameworks of Fraser [15] on commen-
tary pragmatic markers, Searle’s [51] speech acts theory and Sacks, Schegloff and
Jefferson’s [48] turn-taking system subsumed under Sacks, Schegloff and Jeffer-
son’s [48] Conversation Analysis framework. In relation to the analysis of pragmatic
markers, Fraser [15] defines pragmatic markers as linguistically enciphered hints
which indicate the speaker’s possible communicative schemes. These are divided
into three categories: (1) basic markers; (2) commentary pragmatic markers and; (3)
parallel markers [15]. As for the commentary pragmatic (CP) markers, this study
only included the following types of CP markers: evidential markers, emphasis
markers, and mitigation markers. Evidential markers are described by Szczyrbak
[60] as markers that employ the speaker’s comprehension of a situation. Fraser [14]
posits that these evidential markers indicate the speaker’s certainty or uncertainty
about his/her utterance, may it be positive or negative and weak or strong. Fraser
[15:182] and Philip et al. [42:10–12] provide the following examples:
Assuredly, certainly, clearly, conceivably, decidedly, definitely, doubtless,
evidently, incontestably, incontrovertibly, indeed, indisputably, indubitably,
most likely, obviously, patently, perhaps, possibly, presumably, seemingly,
supposedly, surely, (un)arguably, undeniably, undoubtedly, unquestionably,
it is certain that, it is perhaps the case truth,and, without question.
I know, I remember, I see, I don’t know, I can’t remember,
I don’t remember, I don’t see, I can’t see, I recall, I don’t recall,
I can’t recall
Conversely, emphasis markers are markers that emphasize or stress the meaning
conveyed by the speaker [15:184]. Examples are found below:
By no means, by no stretch of the imagination, definitely, do, I cannot too
often point out that, I emphasize (strongly) that, I insist that, if I ever heard
one, indeed, mark my words, on earth, really, that’s a X, to say the least,
without exaggeration
Mitigation markers are another type of commentary pragmatic markers which
indicate the speaker’s determination to minimize face loss related to the meaning
conveyed by the message [4, 14, 15]. Highlighted in this paper are the pseudo-
conditionals some examples of which are found below [15:183]:
If I may interrupt, If it’s not too much trouble, If you don’t mind, Unless
I misunderstood you, Unless I’m hearing it incorrectly
Another framework employed in this study is Searle’s [51] five categories of
illocutionary speech acts. These are representatives, directives, commissives,
expressives and declarations. Representatives refer to the speaker’s assertion
while directives pertain to the speaker’s commands or requests to the receiver.
Moreover, commissives denote the speaker’s commitment to a future action while
13
expressives signify the speaker’s feelings and emotions. Finally, declarations per-
tain to official pronouncements of the speaker to impose changes in the status of
a situation. Searle [51] asserts that a speaker should deliver an utterance with
intended meaning to perform an illocutionary act.
It should be pointed out that English frameworks were used to analyze the cor-
pus which may be in English or Filipino. These two languages are much alike
as English serves as the basis of Filipino, being heavily influenced by American
English and Spanish [6]. As it is, English, which plays an intrinsic role in Phil-
ippine cultural heritage [43], and Filipino are the two official languages of the
Philippines.
7 Results
7.1 Commentary Pragmatic Markers Demonstrating Power, Control,

and Resistance in Selected Philippine and American Police Interviews
Table 2 above shows the frequency of occurrence of commentary pragmatic mark-

ers. The PH corpus generated a total of 42 CP markers while the AM corpus pro-
duced a total of 173 CP markers. The most dominant CP marker employed is that
of evidential markers while substantially less is that of mitigation markers with no
occurrence at all in both corpora.
7.1.1 Evidential Markers
Table 2 indicates that a total of 89 evidential markers were employed in the AM cor-
pus while only 20 were employed in the PH Corpus.
It is to be noted that evidential markers are most frequently used by the
police. Extract 1 above shows the use of the evidential marker I know, manifest-
ing the speaker’s comprehension of a situation or the speaker’s knowledge about
a matter at hand [60]. This may indicate the power that he has over the suspect
as the police officer is very well-informed about the nature of the case and the
background of the interviewee. This evinces the element of power as the author-
ity comes from the role of the speaker (an interviewer) in the interview process.
It is important to note that the case tackled in Extract 1 is a murder case, gaining
traction and seeking the national limelight in 2009 [5]. As the police already
knew from the beginning that the interviewee is truly the culprit, he is adamant
that the interviewee is not allowed to go home. Although the police uttered that
he understands the interviewee’s wishes with the evidential marker I know, he
remains firm in taking her into custody. This is where control comes in. As men-
tioned earlier, control is defined in this study as power over the other, being
able to influence the other interlocutor. With the interviewer’s utterance, he was
able to exude control over the other speaker as he prohibited her from going
home. The marker “I know” per se is significant in exhibiting power and con-
trol in this situation however, the presence of the word “but” likely holds equal
13
Table 2 Frequency of Occurrence of Commentary Pragmatic Markers in Selected Philippine and Ameri-
can Police Interviews
Frequency of CP Evidential markers Emphasis markers Mitigation markers Total
markers
PH CC 1 0 14 0 14
PH CC 2 14 4 0 18
PH CC 3 1 3 0 4
PH CC 4 2 1 0 3
PH CC 5 3 0 0 3
Total 20 22 0 42
AM CC 1 3 41 0 44
AM CC 2 24 10 0 34
AM CC 3 14 11 0 25
AM CC 4 31 8 0 39
AM CC 5 17 14 0 31
Total 89 84 0 173
Total 109 (50.7%) 106 (49.3%) 0 (0%) 215
NB The percentages were arrived at by dividing each type of marker by the total number of commentary
pragmatic markers multiplied by 100
importance. The phrase I know but has a stronger connotation as this may show
that the speaker simply acknowledges the other speaker’s message but does not
think of it as something important.
As for Extract 2, given the context that the interviewee, who is a suspect,
feigns ignorance of her crime and has been constantly denied the charges, she
seems to pretend that she does not really know what was going on. The three-
part interview with Dippolito illustrates that the police officers have already
gathered ample evidence related to the crime and that the sole purpose of the
interview was to make her voluntarily confess to her crime. With her consistent
denial and unremorseful acts, this can be taken as an act of resistance. The use
of the marker I don’t know shows her persistence in acting innocent until the end
of the interview, substantiating Szczyrbak’s [60] claim that this specific marker
represents a speaker’s benightedness about the matter at hand.
Other evidential markers frequently used in the AM CC are obviously, clearly,
and possibly. These markers, when used independently, may show power, con-
trol, or resistance. However, as these are employed in utterances, they seem to not
signify any of these elements and merely act as adverbs. Examples of these are
found in Extracts 3, 4, and 5 below.
13
Extract 3:
P3: =Okay, >well, you can’t talk to your husband. He’s not here right
now.< (1.0) Let him go home. He’s (.) taking care of the house and the
dogs. Um::, well, (2.0) obviously your husband is alive. (.) You saw him, right?↑=
(AM CC 2)
Extract 4:
P: =Okay. (0.2) Uhm, (.) >in that uniform, clearly identifiable as a police officer?<=
(AM CC 3)
Extract 5:
P: =Okay. (.) So:: in that scenario, Officer Kueng, (.) possibly (2.0) by
default, >sitting in the passenger seat, being the con,< (.) the contact
officer?=
(AM CC 3)
On the other hand, the PH corpus contains only two evidential markers namely,
I can’t remember and I knew which surfaced in PH CC 2. Extracts 6 and 7 below
fall into the same case, that is, PH CC 2. This is a qualified theft case in which a
huge amount of money was thieved by the motel’s staff. In Extract 6, the police asks
the interviewee who is in possession of the CCTV file as this is a crucial piece of
evidence. In response, the interviewee, who is a complainant, utters the evidential
marker I can’t remember (the English counterpart for Di ko na maalala), represent-
ing her lack of full knowledge of the information. Contrary to the evidential marker I
don’t know, the marker I can’t remember does not demonstrate resistance nor power
or control. It simply shows the speaker’s inability to recollect the person who has the
CCTV file.
Extract 6:
P: >Sinong may dala nung ano< (2.0) CCTV? (Who has the CCTV
file?)
I: Ano po?= (What?)
P: =Sino may dala? (Who has it?)
I: =Di ko na:: maalala. (2.0) Si XXX dun yung USB (). (I can’t
remember. It’s XXX who has the USB.) (Power) (PH CC 2)
(PH CC 2)
As seen in Extract 7 below, the evidential marker I knew was used in one
utterance. However, the marker per se does not show any sign of power, con-
trol, or resistance. Based on the researcher’s observation during the inter-
view process in the precinct, Philippine police officers tend to interview the
13
interviewees while in front of the computer encoding the responses of the inter-
viewees simultaneously for an easier, faster, and smoother process. As reflected
in the extract below, the police officer leads the conversation in an eliciting
manner which allows the interviewee to merely continue the interviewer’s
statement. In this context, I knew does not function as an evidential marker as it
was preceded by the word when, changing the meaning as well as the purpose
of the marker. The phrase When I knew can then be understood as a conjunctive
phrase as it implies abruptness concerning the case at hand.
Extract 7:
P: Ayun na ayun na kaagad ginawa mo? Hindi mo muna:: pinaalam
sa:: ano ng motel? (You took it right away? You did not let
the [] of the motel know first?)
I: Ako po ang ano dun, Sir. (6.0) (I’m the authority there, Sir.)
62 P Noong malaman ko (4.0) na na wala ang cashier (1.0) ay= (When I knew that
the cashier already left…)
I: Tinignan ko po yung drawer. (I checked the drawer.)
P: Tinignan:: ko po:: agad (3.2) ang sales ng nasabing:: (1.7)
motel. >Anong tinignan mo nung madiskubre mo?< (I checked
the sales of the motel right away. What did you see?)
(PH CC 2)
7.1.2 Emphasis Markers
The emphasis marker really appears to be the most frequently used by suspects in the
AM corpus with 38 occurrences and only 5 occurrences in the PH corpus.
Extract 8:
P2: =What’s your understanding? (.)
I: I was told one thing and:: now it’s totally like all these things are, (.) like, I don’t, I
mean, I don’t really (.) know what happened.=
(Resistance and Power) (AM CC 2)
Extract 8, which describes a murder case, manifests an occurrence of the empha-

sis marker really which stresses the speaker’s benightedness of what truly transpired.
This utterance in AM CC 2, which shows constant denial as earlier mentioned, conveys
resistance as the suspect still somehow feigns ignorance of the act.
Another use of really in AM CC 2 does not serve its purpose as an emphasis marker
but rather, as an adverb. When asked if she understood her rights read to her, the inter-
viewee responded with the use of really, modifying the word group paying attention
and expressing such act but to a lesser extent. This can also be a form of resistance as
13
the interviewee seems to be not focused during the interview, more so when her rights
were read to her, possibly implying that she is not interested in the interview process.
Extract 9:
P: =Now (.), >did you understand your rights?< (2.0) You didn’t understand them?=
I: =<I wasn’t really paying attention.>= =
(Resistance) (AM CC 2)
Extract 10:
P1: <Pumunta:: kami doon sa Maricaban Police Station para tignan kung siya talaga
ang nangholdup sa akin.>= (We went to Maricaban Police Station to verify if he was
really the culprit.)
I: =Tas pagkatapos po nun:: >pagtingin ko siya talaga<.= (I saw that
it was really him.)
(PH CC 3)
In the PH corpus, the marker really merely functions as an emphasis marker,

not denoting any element of power, control, or resistance. As can be seen in
Extract 10 that is found in PH CC 3, a robbery case, the victim is attesting that
the suspect was indeed the culprit as he claimed that he saw the culprit’s face
clearly. In this context, the emphasis marker really truly served its purpose.
Extract 11:
I: =Di ko nga rin po alam, Sir ↑ eh.= (I also don’t know, Sir.)
(PH CC 5)
Another significant finding is that of the Tagalog/Filipino emphasis marker nga

which appears to add stress to the message of the speaker. Although it does not have
a direct English counterpart, Bautista [2] claims that this word acts as an enclitic
which serves as an emphasis marker in the Tagalog-English discourse or terse Eng-
lish, as she terms it. This can be seen in Extract 11.
According to Bautista [2], “nga” is an affirmation or confirmation which,
in this context, indicates that the interviewee exhibits the same knowledge as
the other interlocutors present in the interview. The interviewee stresses that he
indeed does not know of what is being asked. Similar to the evidential marker
I don’t know, the marker nga per se, although considered to be an emphasis
marker, is not able to demonstrate resistance nor power or control. It plainly
indicates affirmation, confirmation, or emphasis.
13
7.1.3 Mitigation Markers
Mitigation markers were not employed at all by both interlocutors across the 10
datasets. Cultural differences may greatly contribute to this finding. Hall [18]
deemed Americans as belonging to a low-context culture hence, this may be a
basis for not employing mitigation markers. As speakers with direct communi-
cation style, weakening the intensity of the statements may not be their utmost
priority. Conversely, as Filipinos are considered as belonging to a high-context
culture [18], the presence of Tagalog/Filipino mitigation markers in the PH Cor-
pus is noteworthy. These can be seen in the extracts below.
Extract 12:
P: >Matanong ko lang ma’am, (.) saan at kailan ito nangyari?< (May I just ask,
Ma’am, where and when did this happen?)
(PH CC 1)
Extract 13:
P: Matanong ko lang, (3.0) alam mo ba (6.0) kung ano ang posisyon nitong:: (2.0)
>tinutukoy mong tao?< (5.0) (May I just ask, do you know what his position is?)
(PH CC 1)
Extract 14:
P: Bago tayo magpatuloy (.), maaari mo bang:: ibigay ang iyong buong pangalan?
(Before we proceed, can you state your full name?)
(PH CC 1)
Extract 15:
P: Maaari mo bang isalaysay ang mga pangyayari? Sige, Sir. Kagabi po? Humigit
kumulang:: (12.7) ↑ika-11:08 ng gabi? Hunyo 6, 2022 ay? (Can you narrate what
happened? Alright, Sir. Last night? Around 11:08 in the evening, June 6, 2022…)
(PH CC 2)
Examples of Filipino mitigation markers are "Matanong ko lang po" (May I just
ask) and "Maaari mo bang…" (Is it possible that…/Can/Will you…). It is to be noted
that these mitigation markers only appeared in PH CC 1 and 2. Instead of asking
directly, the police officers alleviated the tension during the interviews by using
these mitigation markers. Mitigation markers, in this case, do not signify power,
control, and resistance. It is also relevant to note that the use of these markers ema-
nated from the question template followed by the police. Although Del Rosario and
Ballesteros-Lintao [9] cited that the Philippine police do not follow a specific struc-
ture in investigative interviewing, the researcher observed that the police officers,
particularly those in the Pasay City Police Station, follow a premade set of questions
when conducting the interviews. It was remarkably discovered that the Filipino miti-
gation markers were already part of the premade questionnaire.
13
Indeed, the use of commentary pragmatic (CP) markers in both corpora varies
as these do not serve their function of: indicating the speaker’s certainty or uncer-
tainty (evidential markers), putting emphasis on the meaning (emphasis markers),
and weakening the gravity of the meaning always conveyed (mitigation markers).
Generally, Americans, particularly interviewers, make use of CP markers more
often than Filipinos. One feasible reason is that Americans, being native speakers
of English, have sufficient knowledge about these markers and their uses, mirroring
the element of power. Filipinos, conversely, are probably not aware of these markers
and their functions as well as importance, may it be in English or Filipino. However,
the presence of the markers “ah” and “eh” in the guise of a gap filler is noted. Fili-
pino interviewers as well as interviewees employ these in their utterances perhaps
because this is already part of the linguistic repertoire of the Philippines. Based on
the researcher’s observation in Philippine police interviews, Philippine police offic-
ers do not focus on the content of the message (choice of words) rather, on eliciting
the needed information without regard for how the utterances are stated.
7.2 Illocutionary Speech Acts Demonstrating Power, Control, and Resistance

in Selected Philippine and American Police Interviews
Table 3 below shows the frequency of occurrence of illocutionary speech acts. The PH
corpus generated a total of 976 illocutionary speech acts while the AM corpus pro-
duced a total of 2,885 illocutionary speech acts. Representatives are the most dominant
type of illocutionary speech act employed followed by directives. As can be seen in the
table below, commissives, expressives, and declarations were the types of illocutionary
speech acts not found in the PH corpus. Perversely, the AM corpus contains all types of
illocutionary speech acts.
7.2.1 Representatives
Representatives are the most frequently used speech acts in both corpora. There are 662
speech acts in the PH corpus and 1,781 in the AM corpus. Firstly, representatives may
be in sentence form as these serve as assertions, inferences, claims and suggestions. It
can then be said that most of the statements made by both interlocutors are considered
representatives as these are based on their assumptions. These can be seen in Extracts
16 and 17 below.
13
Table 3 Frequency of occurrence of illocutionary speech acts in selected philippine and american police
interviews
Frequency of REP DIR COM EXP DEC Total
speech Acts
PH CC 1 115 57 0 0 0 172
PH CC 2 154 62 0 0 0 216
PH CC 3 131 49 0 0 0 179
PH CC 4 166 81 0 0 0 247
PH CC 5 96 66 0 0 0 162
Total 662 315 0 0 0 976
AM CC 1 305 265 1 9 1 581
AM CC 2 180 122 13 40 13 368
AM CC 3 838 435 0 13 0 1286
AM CC 4 264 126 0 1 0 391
AM CC 5 194 57 0 7 1 259
Total 1781 1005 14 70 15 2885
Total 2,443 (63.3%) 1,320 (34.2%) 14 (.36%) 70 (1.81%) 15 (.39%) 3861
N.B. The percentages were arrived at by dividing each speech act by the total number of speech acts
multiplied by 100
Extract 16:
I: =Opo, high school. (2.0) Sa Paranaque po yun, Sir. (Yes, High school, in
Paranaque, Sir.)
P: Pag tinatanong alam na lahat yung isasagot eh. ↓ (8.0) (You already know the
answers to all questions.)
(Power) (PH CC 3)
Extract 17:
P: >(.) I know Atherton hated losing him.=<

I: He:: >hated losin’ Atherton<.
(Power) (AM CC 5)
Both utterances above act as assertions as the speakers assume something to be

the case. In Extract 16, the speaker, who is the police (interviewer) presumed that
the interviewee already knows what and how to answer the questions asked even
though there was no implication of that. Further, in Extract 17, the interviewer like-
wise surmised that the Atherton players, the students of the witness’ father, never
wanted to lose him as a coach. This was proven by the interviewee in his response,
giving a counterargument that his father also hated losing Atherton. These utter-
ances evince power as the speakers merely epitomize an institutional role, that is a
police officer, and do not directly exude influence over the other speaker.
13
Representatives can also be in question form as these act as inferences, confirma-

tions, and clarifications, mostly uttered by the police. This can be seen in Extract 18
below. As illustrated in Extract 18 which is from the PH corpus, the police is merely
clarifying the interviewee’s statement regarding her address.
Extract 18:
P: =Anong address mo?= (What is the address?)
I: =XXX Lati, XXX.
P: ↑Anong lati?= (What lati?)
(PH CC 1)
Worth highlighting are Extracts 19 and 20 which are lifted from the AM corpus.
Extract 19 is likewise a clarification, although in interrogative form. Following this,
it has been revealed that some representatives are a repetition of what the previous
speaker uttered as seen in Extract 20.
Extract 19:
P: =What did you say? ↑=
(AM CC 5)
Extract 20:
P: Your girlfriend. What is her name? ↑=
I: =Breonna Taylor.=
P: =Breonna Taylor.=
(AM CC 5)
Extracts 18 to 20 ought not to show any sign of power, control, or resistance.

However, an example of a representative that reflects resistance can be seen in
Extract 21.
The interviewee, who is a suspect in a second-degree manslaughter case in the
United States, showed resistance as reflected in Extract 21. He refused to give his
address to the police officers for an unknown reason. However, legally speaking, all
interviewees have the right to refuse to answer a question posed by the police, espe-
cially if they are pushed to the wall. Nonetheless, it is evident that this utterance,
which is explicitly stated, shows some resistance.
Extract 21:
P: =All right. Is there an address we could get for you? ↑=

Attorney: =Do you need it? ↑ (.)
I: I’d rather not give an address right now.˥
(Resistance) (AM CC 3)
13
7.2.2 Directives
Directives are unquestionably present in both corpora, accumulating a total of

315 in the PH corpus and 1,005 in the AM corpus. These are found to be mostly
in question form but may also sometimes be in imperative form. Moreover, ques-
tions can be deemed as directives as these implicitly elicit answers from the inter-
locutors. These evince the power and control of P to demand a response from
I. The elements of power and control are reflected in this speech act as the role of
the interviewer, that is the police, is to influence the interviewee to respond to his
questions which are both evident in Extracts 22 and 23.
Extract 22:
P: Pano? ↑ Pano:: kamo bakit di kayo (.) magkaapelyido ni JR? Bakit
dalawa apelyido mo?= (How? How again did you and JR not have the same last
name? Why do you have two?)
I: =Naka::dalawang kasal ang tatay namin, Sir eh, (.) kasal sya sa unang asawa nya
eh:: >di sila nagkaanak iniwan nya raw.< () Parang naapprove yung apelyido ng
tatay namin galing pang ano na sa:: (Our father had two marriages, Sir. He was
married to his first wife but they weren’t able to bear a child that’s why he left her.
His last name was just approved…)
(Power and Control) (PH CC 5)
Extract 23:
P: Was it?ˤ!I feel like I’ve heard of it. [I don’t think I’ve seen it
before]<.
I: [It’s an old movie].
(Power and Control) (AM CC 5)
Further, some directives begin with okay in the AM corpus as can be seen in the
excerpts below. This is probably an acknowledgement expression to assure the other
interlocutor that s/he was understood. Hence, no sign of power, resistance, or control
is evinced in this marker as it merely acts as an acknowledgement.
Extract 24:
I: No he wasn’t. He was, and he was driving like a:: - like a silver SUV.=
P: =Okay. So:: you and Breonna hadn’t had any kind of interactions with police or
anything lately?
(AM CC 5)
Extract 25:
I: Yes.=
P: =Okay. Uhm:: it's (.) >kind of< also been (.) stated that (.) any questioning from
the FBI::, (2.0)> you will not be answering questions from< them. ls that clear?
(AM CC 3)
13
7.2.3 Commissives
It is worth noting that there is no appearance of commissives in the PH cor-

pus. However, the AM corpus comprises 14 utterances that reflect a commis-
sive speech act. As defined, commissives refer to commitment such as promises
or threats. In Extract 26 below, it is observable that the police officer is giving
his word to the interviewee that he will allow her to make a phone call but, at a
later time.
Extract 26:
I: Yeah, (.) but I wanted to make a phone call.=

P3: =Okay, so:: well, >phone call. We’ll be willing to do that later,< (.) not right
now though.=
I: =But while:: I’m still here?=
P3: =Um, yeah, later on (.) we will. (.) Okay?=
(Power) (AM CC 2)
This utterance indicates power as the interviewer’s authority was imposed on

the other interlocutor by not allowing her to make a phone call. However, it can
be inferred that the element of control is not distinctly manifested. No actions in
response to the utterance were taken by the interviewee hence, control is not mani-
fested in this extract.
7.2.4 Expressives
Similar to commissives, expressives are only found in the AM corpus which

totals 70. This type of speech act pertains to the speaker’s expression of emo-
tions. Commonly used expressives are Thank you and I’m sorry. The PH cor-
pus does not contain expressives presumably because Filipino police interview-
ers do not see the benefit or significance in uttering these markers in police
interviews. It is likely that they view the interviewees’ responses as merely part
of the interviewing process. They also perhaps do not see the essence to utter
such words of gratitude or apology as they regard themselves as someone of
higher authority and high self-esteem. Below are extracts showing the use of
expressives.
13
Extract 27:
P:...leave ya alone. Let’s find out what happened. So the more we know we can more
we can look into it and see what happened and...
I: ()
P: Thank you. Now, we’re gonna put this up and I can just listen.
(AM CC 5)
Extract 28:
I: Like his sled or something.
P: I'm sorry I couldn't hear you. Could you say that one more time? with his what=
(AM CC 1)
These expressives are frequently uttered by the police in American police inter-
views. Thank you was used in the utterance of the police probably because he was
thankful that the interviewee responded adequately to the question. Conversely, the
police repeatedly apologized perhaps to build rapport with or express sympathy to the
interviewee.
7.2.5 Declarations
Findings revealed that declarations are only found in the AM Corpus in the form of
Miranda rights. Only two out of the 10 datasets contained the reading of Miranda
rights before proceeding with the investigation. As the AM corpus contains mostly
interviews with suspects, the reading of Miranda rights is compulsory. Examples of
this speech act are seen below.
Extract 29:
P: If you have a (.) >you have the right to the presence and representation of a lawyer
before you make any statements during any questioning.< Do you understand that?˥
Extract 30:
P: >Any statement can and will be used against you in the court of law. Do you
understand that?<˥
As declarations in this type of discourse can only be uttered by the police,

power is embodied by the interviewers based on their ascribed discursive and
institutional role, that is, being the more powerful or the advantaged. Control is
likewise concretized by the police when uttering declarations as the act of being
arrested serves as the police’ direct influence over the other interlocutor.
13
Representatives and directives were the speech acts most used by the inter-
locutors in both corpora. All five speech acts were noted in the AM corpus
however, the PH corpus does not contain commissives, expressives, and decla-
rations. Worth noting is the similarity in the number of representative and direc-
tive speech acts in both corpora. As the corpus contains police interviews, it is
envisaged that representatives and directives speech are persistently employed
because of their functions, which are (1) to explain a speaker’s claim and (2)
to make the other interlocutor do an action, respectively. Hence, representatives
and directives are the speech acts that mostly evince power and control.
7.3 Turn‑taking System Reflective of Power, Control, and Resistance in Selected

Philippine and American Police Interviews
Both corpora observed a questioner-responder turn-taking system; however,

proper distribution of these roles was not noted. As there was a presence of
another interlocutor interrupting the turn-taking system, the conversation did not
flow smoothly.
As observed in the PH corpus, the police took the role of the questioner while
the interviewee acted as the responder, supporting the assertion of Haworth [21]
regarding the attributed roles of the interviewer and interviewee. There are, how-
ever, instances in the PH corpus where these roles were inverted, and the con-
versation became convoluted. One observation is the presence of a third party
which dismantled the turn-taking system. In the usual setting in American police
interviews, a desk officer and an investigator conduct and lead the interview. The
desk officer customarily asks the interviewees regarding basic information such
as name, address, and other pertinent details while the investigator continues
the interview, asking the interviewee questions related to the incident or case
at hand. However, this is not reflected in the PH corpus. In PH CC 2, the inter-
viewee, who is a complainant, was interviewed by a desk officer and an investi-
gator simultaneously. The desk officer, who was supposed to be asking her about
basic information, proceeded to ask her questions related to the investigation.
As a result, the investigator, who was supposed to be the one leading the main
interview, served as the third-party, disarraying the turn-taking system. External
factors such as background noise and other distractions also greatly affected the
conversation, making it inconsequential. An example of the exchange of utter-
ances can be seen in Extract 31.
13
Extract 31:
P1: Anong hawak ng XXX Management? Anong hawak ng (.) Puro
XXX?= (What comprises XXX management? What do they head? Merely XXX?)
I: =Puro XXX. (Merely XXX.)
P1: XXX lang?= (Only XXX?)
I: =Opo. (29.0) (Yes.)
P2: Habol mo yun, Ma’am ah. (.) Secretary certificate. ↑Alam
niya yun alam ni XXX yun. Kasi:: korporasyon ‘to hindi niyo
p-pwedeng ano. (17.0) (Please send it right away, Ma’am, the
secretary certificate. He knows that, XXX knows that. Since this
is a corporation, you can’t complain without an authorization
letter.)
P1: >Gaano katagal empleyado ‘tong< si:: ano (.) XXX?= (How long has XXX been
working in your company?)
I =Dati po sa Pasay, nung:: December 10 lang po. (4.0) (In Pasay branch, he
transferred last December 10 only.)
(PH CC 2)
Extract 31 presents an unorganized turn-taking system as the presence of P2,

another investigator, disrupts the flow of conversation. For one, P1 and I discuss the
structure of XXX management and P2 suddenly interposes, giving a piece of advice
that is of a different context from the situation initially discussed. As mentioned
earlier, PH CC 2 is a robbery case in which the victim also acts as a complainant,
on behalf of the corporation involved. Worth noting as well is the positioning of
the interviewer and the interviewee as seen in Fig. 2. The questioning occurred in
a common room, where other police officers were also present. Rapport-building
is indeed significant in police interviews [30]. Included in rapport-building are the
immediacy behaviors such as open body posture and eye contact [10] which is not
evident in the figure below. This can greatly affect the turn-taking system and can
even hinder the attainment of rapport-building in police interviews which can facili-
tate information gain [3]. As such, the turn-taking system as reflected in questioner-
responder roles is not consistent due to the irregularity of the process in investiga-
tive interviewing in the Philippine context. The interviewer-interviewee positioning
considerably reflects power and control as it is the interviewer only who has access
to the records hence, dominating the interview process.
In the American context, it is commendable that questioner-responder roles were
followed. Although there is a presence of two investigators in the interview process,
specifically in AM CC 2, it evinced a proper turn-taking system, achieving a suc-
cessful interview result. No overlaps and interruptions were done by the two inter-
viewers. Extract 32 below shows that there are two interviewers and the interviewee
in an isolated room, facilitating a smoother and uninterrupted conversation. AM CC
2 is a police interview with a suspect, Dippolito, who committed murder against her
husband, yet firmly resists the charge against her during the interview.
The positioning of the interviewer and interviewee in Fig. 3, although not
directly face-to-face, is a good example of an open body posture which can help
13
Fig. 2 Interviewer-interviewee
Positioning in PH CC 2
establish rapport and eventually, gain information about the case and elicit volun-
tary responses from the interviewee. From this, it can be inferred that the inter-
viewer exudes both power and control. His institutional role as a police officer
allows him to exemplify power and eventually, manifest control as part of his
duty is to elicit responses from the interviewee.
13
Fig. 3 Dippolito and Police Officer During Interview in AM CC 2
Extract 32:
P1: Okay. >You’re being arrested for soliciting< (.) to commit
murder. >Okay, and which that means is,< (2.0) you attempted to hire someone to kill
(.) somebody else. Meaning your husband. Okay? (.) And that’s why:: you’re here
>and that’s what you’re being charged with.<
I: [inaudible] No.=
P1: =No, you don’t understand ↑ or˥…=
I: =No::, I never done that.=
P2: Well, that’s what you’re being charged with.↑=
I: =Okay.=
P2: =And uh, (.) we have plenty of evidence to back it up. Okay? ↑ So::, with your
rights in mind, (.) we want to give you an opportunity (.) to:: (2.0) do some soul
searching maybe↑ and:: maybe get a lot off your chest and (.) tell us the truth.
>That’s what we want to hear.< I mean::, this has been worked for a couple days
now. It’s not just the first (.) day we’ve been doing this, (.) in reference to this case,
and we have a lot of information to support our charge. This is not what we’d call a::
quick little thing. So::,> we know when you’re lying to us and all of that, we just want
to hear the truth. I mean<, it’s done, it’s over with now. You know, and uh, this is
your opportunity to tell us the truth. That’s all we want to hear, and:: we know the
truth, (.) so. I know it’s hard:: ↑ <to commit to that> but (.) now’s your time, you
know? You have anything to say about this? ↑
I: >I want to talk to my husband.<
(AM CC 2)
As can be seen in Extract 32 above, although there were two investigators, there
was proper distribution of questioner-responder roles as the police appropriately
devised the right timing as to when to speak. There was no significant overlap
between the two interviewers nor between the interviewer and interviewee through-
out the interview process. Emotional paralinguistic features (e.g., crying) may have
happened, causing the overlap between the interviewer and interviewee however, it
did not significantly affect the turn-taking process. Although the interviewee was
13
adamant in resisting the charge against her, the element of resistance was not evident
throughout the interview; however, the elements of power and control were observ-
able. Since the beginning, the police had the upper hand in the interview process as
the very goal of the interview was to elicit a response from the suspect, making her
surrender to the police.
The utterances of the interlocutors establish the flow of conversation and like-
wise play a crucial role in evincing power, control, and resistance in this type of
discourse. This accords P superiority in the interview process as power and con-
trol are known to be ascribed to the role of the “more powerful”. The form power
over was clearly manifested by the police as they led the conversation. Power and
control as evinced by the findings of this study are often manifested by the police
and resistance is exhibited by the interviewees, specifically the suspects. Witnesses,
complainants, and victims do not really see the need to show resistance as they con-
tribute to the investigation process. Nevertheless, power, control, and resistance may
be demonstrated by both interlocutors, the police and interviewee, in both Philippine
and American contexts.
As previously mentioned, Levinson [32] claims that a proper turn-taking sys-
tem occurs when questioner-responder roles are properly distributed, however, as
observed in the data, this turn-taking system was not heavily observed throughout
the interview process in both corpora. It has been observed in the PH corpus that
the presence of another investigator usually disrupts the turn-taking system. Their
inputs most often are side remarks or additional commentaries that are no longer
considered relevant to the current matter being discussed. This is probably due to
the police officers yearning to involve themselves in the conversation because of
their curiosity in the case. They likewise seem to follow a proforma as they appear
to sound structured when conducting interviews. Although there is no structure used
by the Philippine police provided by the government [9]. Philippine police offic-
ers utter methodic and structured questions such as “Maaari mo bang isalaysay ang
mga pangyayari? (Can you narrate what happened?), Matanong ko lang ma’am,
saan at kailan ito nangyari? (May I just ask, Ma’am, where and when did this hap-
pen?, Matanong ko lang alam mo ba kung ano ang posisyon nitong tinutukoy mong
tao? (May I just ask, do you know what his position is?) and; Bago tayo magpatu-
loy (.), maaari mo bang:: ibigay ang iyong buong pangalan? (Before we proceed,
can you state your full name?)” Conversely, although there is a presence of another
interlocutor in the AM corpus, may they be an investigator or a lawyer, the turn-tak-
ing system appears to remain organized as their utterances are relevant to the current
discussion point. Moreover, even though overlapping is prominent in the exchange
of utterances in the AM corpus, this does not seem to derange the flow of conversa-
tion as the discussion incorporates relevant and sensible arguments.
8 Discussion
Power, control, and resistance are mostly mirrored in evidential markers, empha-
sis markers, representatives, and directives. It was revealed that power and control
are utilized more by the interlocutors in the AM corpus. Likewise, resistance is
13
employed mostly by interviewees, particularly the suspects, in the AM corpus. In

the Philippine context, findings indicated that interviewees are more cooperative as
they are victims, witnesses, and complainants. What is striking is the fact that police
officers in both Philippine and American contexts evince power and control in their
utterances to be able to achieve the goal of police interviewing, that is, to gather
information and elicit voluntary responses from the interviewees. As cited earlier,
this is a salient finding as interlocutors are found to be compelled to use power and
control to attain a certain goal when they could have not employed these at all.
Resistance is also found to be employed mostly by suspects in the American context.
Witnesses and victims do not utilize resistance in their utterances rather, cooperate
more with the interviewers. Heydon [26] claims that interviewees are more likely
to give accurate information and response if they trust the professionalism of the
interviewer.
Primarily, evidential markers evincing power, control, and resistance emerged
from both corpora. As yielded in the results, the positive forms I know evince
power and control while the negative form I don’t know demonstrated resist-
ance. Subsequently, the emphasis marker really appears to be the most frequently
used across the 10 datasets, manifesting resistance and power. However, it does
not always serve its function as an emphasis marker and occasionally acts as an
adverb. Another important finding in the PH corpus is the presence of the enclitic
nga which serves as an emphasis marker in the Tagalog/Filipino discourse of
police interviews, proving Bautista’s [2] claim on this enclitic being an emphasis
marker. This enclitic displays resistance and power depending on how it is used
and uttered. Some evidential markers, perversely, do not show any sign of power,
control, or resistance.This may be because not all commentary pragmatic mark-
ers function as such as they may also serve as merely phrases with no underlying
meanings.
As regards illocutionary speech acts, representatives obtained the highest fre-
quency of occurrence in both corpora, indicating elements of power and resistance.
This is most likely due to its function which is to mainly explicate one’s claims. It is,
however, important to note that not all representatives evince these elements. Some
claims merely act as claims with no implicit meaning that express power, control,
or resistance. Directives, likewise, evince power and control. These are employed
mostly by the police. As earlier cited, the elements of power and control are reflected
in this speech act as the interviewer exercises his authority and influence over the
interviewee to elicit responses from them. This affirms Barus et al.’s [1] assertion
that directive speech acts are employed by the police to gather information, the very
goal of police interviewing. Particularly in the AM corpus, the ascribed discursive
roles of the interviewers greatly contribute to these speech acts being performed by
them, corroborating Haworth’s [21] claim. This is equally true for the PH corpus
as Filipino police interviewers seemingly have high-self-esteem. It must then be
pointed out that both speech acts were employed mostly in the AM corpus than the
PH corpus.
Even though the Philippine policing system is adopted from the American polic-
ing system, it can be said that the latter is finer and more acceptable than the former
in some ways. The Americans having a spacious, secluded, and quiet investigation/
13
interrogation room makes their policing system sufficiently better than the Philip-
pines. Prestogeorge [45] states that a good interrogation/interview room must prefer-
ably be 8 × 10 feet big (large enough for at least 3 people), soundproof, and tamper-
proof. It is unfortunate that the Philippines, particularly the Pasay Police Station,
does not have such space for the criminally involved. Similarly, the positioning of
the interviewers and interviewees may also hold significance in police interview-
ing. This facilitates immediacy behaviors such as open body posture and eye contact
which are crucial in rapport-building. Contrarily, the implementation of Republic
Act No. 7438, An Act Defining Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custo-
dial Investigation as well as the Duties or the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating
Officers, is a competent aspect of the Philippine policing system. Because of this
policy, Philippine police investigators do not inundate interviewees with questions
and compel them to respond, especially when they are not able provide a lawyer for
suspects. They likewise seem to follow a proforma as they appear to sound struc-
tured when conducting interviews.
The preceding paragraphs may all point to cultural differences. Hall and Hall [19]
claim that Americans belong to a low-context culture (LCC) as they heavily rely
on the explicitly stated message, enabling them to communicate in a direct man-
ner. Nam [44:378] cites the following as features of LCC: "patterns of direct verbal
assertiveness, linear logic, straightforwardness, and transparent messages”. Con-
versely, Filipinos are considered to belong to a high-context culture (HCC) accord-
ing to Hall [18]. Maintaining harmony between the two interlocutors is significant in
HCC hence, a more indirect manner of speaking is expected in this communication
style [39]. This supports the findings of the study. Compared to the AM corpus, the
PH corpus contains consecutive Q–A turns in which one question is equivalent to
one answer. It is important to note that the AM corpus involves the same turns, that
of Q–A turns however, a longer answer is provided by the interviewee. It can then
be averred that Philippine police interviews exhibit indirectness based on the quicker
turns uttered by interlocutors. Further, Nam argues that the way the message is being
delivered is more important in HCC. This includes paralinguistic features such as
gestures, tone, pitch, nuance, and silence, as well as context [39]. Hence, the use of
these linguistic features is not very evident in the PH corpus. This is a form of face-
saving act, a characteristic of collective and hierarchical cultures, which is the very
opposite of the AM corpus. Indeed, all the abovementioned linguistic features are
embedded in culture and associated with institutional roles which ultimately con-
tribute to evincing power, control, and resistance.
9 Conclusion and Recommendations
Power and control are mostly employed by the police in both contexts while resist-
ance is evidenced only in the American sample. These may be demonstrated by
both interlocutors, the police and the interviewee, as reflected in the commentary
pragmatic markers and speech acts present in both Philippine and American corpus.
Even though the Philippine legal system is highly patterned after the American legal
system as a result of the Philippines once colonized by the US, differences between
13
the two policing systems can be identified in relation to investigative interviewing

practices. Findings revealed that the American police tend to employ commentary
pragmatic markers and illocutionary speech acts more often than the Philippine
police. However, what is striking is the fact that police officers in both Philippine
and American contexts evince power and control in their utterances to be able to
achieve the goal of police interviewing, that is, to gather information and elicit vol-
untary responses from the interviewees. As cited earlier, this is a salient finding as
interlocutors are found to be compelled to use power and control to attain a certain
goal when they could have not employed these at all. Resistance is also found to be
employed mostly by suspects in the American context. Witnesses and victims do not
utilize resistance in their utterances rather, cooperate more with the interviewers.
This then shows that power symmetry can be achieved in police interview discourse
whilst simultaneously attaining the goal of police interviewing.
Finally, this paper recommends that further studies be conducted on Philippine
and American police interview discourse focusing on other linguistic and/or para-
linguistic features. Considering that this study is limited to five Philippine police
interviews only due to the extreme difficulty of gathering such kind of data, it is
recommended that more samples be included which may be gathered over a longer
period. It is with the hope that, as the field of Forensic Linguistics becomes accessi-
ble to many, data gathering will not be as laborious and restricted allowing for more
studies on investigative interviewing to be conducted.
References
1. Barus, R.D., A. Saragih, and T. Zein. 2017. Speech acts in police investigative interviews. Linguistik
Terapan 14: 3. https://doi.org/10.24114/lt.v14i3.11269.
2. Bautista, M.L.S. 2004. Tagalog-English code switching as a mode of discourse. Asia Pacific Educa-
tion Review 5: 226–233.
3. Brimbal, L., & Hill, S. (2022). Rapport building in interviews and interrogations: Translating
research to practice. National Policing Institute. https://www.policinginstitute.org/onpolicing/rappo
rt-building-in-interviews-and-interrogations-translating-research-to-practice/
4. Brown, P., and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
5. CBS Miami. (2021). Former lover of Dalia Dippolito, South Florida woman convicted of murder-
for-hire plot to kill husband, Found Dead. CBS Miami. https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/
walkertho-dippolito-former-lover-found-dead/
6. Chureson, O. 2013. The impact of English as a global language on Filipino language practices.
International Forum Journal 16 (2): 22–36.
7. Clarke, C., and Milne, R. (2001) National Evaluation of the PEACE Investigative Interviewing
Course. In: Police Research Award Scheme. London: Home Office.
8. Coulthard, M., A. Johnson, and D. Wright. 2016. An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language
in evidence. Routledge.
9. Del Rosario, V.A.B., and R. Ballesteros-Lintao. 2018. Investigative interviewing: Assessing ques-
tioning strategies employed to children in conflict with the law. International Journal of Legal Dis-
course 3 (1): 51–76.
10. Dion Larivière, C., Q. Crough, and J. Eastwood. 2022. The effects of rapport building on informa-
tion disclosure in virtual interviews. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 38: 1–9.
11. Ehrlich, S. 2010. Rape Victims: The Discourse of Rape Trials. In The Routledge Handbook of
Forensic Linguistics, ed. M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, 265–280. Routledge.
12. Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London and New York: Longman.
13
13. Fox Tree, J.E., and J.C. Schrock. 2002. Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Prag-
matics 34 (6): 727–747.
14. Fraser, B. 1991. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14 (2): 219–236.
15. Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6 (2): 167–190.
16. Gibbons, J. 2003. Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Hoboken:
Wiley.
17. Greatbatch, D. 1988. A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in society 17 (3):
401–430.
18. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor.
19. Hall, E.T., and M.R. Hall. 1990. Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural
Press. Inc.
20. Harris, S. 1989. Defendant resistance to power and control in court. In Working with language: A
multidisciplinary consideration of language use in work contexts, ed. H. Coleman, 131–164. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
21. Haworth, K. 2006. The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse
& society 17 (6): 739–759.
22. Heffer, C. 2010. Narrative in the trial: Constructing crime stories in court. In The Routledge Hand-
book of Forensic Linguistics, 199–217. Routledge.
23. Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an ’overhear-
ing audience’. Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. III: Discourse and Dialogue.
24. Heydon, G. 2005. The language of police interviewing. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
25. Heydon, G. 2012. Helping the police with their enquiries: Enhancing the investigative interview
with linguistic research. The Police Journal 85 (2): 101–122.
26. Heydon, G. (2019, June 30). Lecture on police investigative interviewing. RMIT University.
27. Holt, E., and A. Johnson. 2010. Legal talk: Socio-pragmatic aspects of legal talk: Police interviews
and trial discourse. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. M. Coulthard and A.
Johnson, 21–36. Routledge.
28. Inbau, F., J. Reid, J. Buckley, and B. Jayne. 2011. Criminal interrogation and confessions. Jones &
Bartlett Publishers.
29. Johnson, A., and M. Coulthard. 2010. Introduction current debates in forensic linguistics. In The
Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, 29–44. UK: Routledge.
30. Keats, D.M. 1993. Skilled Interviewing. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
31. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
32. Levinson, S. (1992) Activity types and language. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings,
66–100.
33. Ballesteros-Lintao, R. and Gahar, R. (in press). Investigative interviewing in the philippines: Vic-
tims/complainants, witnesses/informants, and suspects. International Handbook of Investigative
Interviewing and Interrogation.
34. Melad, K. 2022. Assessing the questioning styles and interview strategies of police investigators in
the Philippines [Unpublished undergraduate thesis]. Manila, The Philippines: University of Santo
Tomas.
35. Mendez, J. E. (2021). Principles on effective interviewing for investigations and information
gathering.
36. Mercullo, H.M. 2020. The language of police arrest in the Philippines. Journal of Forensic Research
11: 1–4.
37. Milne, R., and R. Bull. 1999. Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester UK:
Wiley.
38. Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2016). Witness interviews and crime investigation. An introduction to applied
cognitive psychology, 175–196.
39. Nam, K.A. 2015. High-context and low-context communication. In The SAGE encyclopedia of
intercultural competence, ed. J.M. Bennett. Sage Publications.
40. Newbury, P., and A. Johnson. 2006. Suspects’ resistance to constraining and coercive questioning
strategies in the police interview. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 13 (2):
213–240.
41. Official Gazette. (n.d.). The constitution of the republic of the Philippines. https://www.officialga
zette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/
13
42. Philip, G., R. Bongelli, C. Canestrari, I. Riccioni, and A. Zuczkowski. 2013. Negotiating narrative:
Dialogic dynamics of known, unknown and believed in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Lan-
guage and Dialogue 3 (1): 7–33.
43. Palatino, M. (2009). The English language debate in the Philippines. Global Voices. https://globa
lvoices.org/2007/06/17/the-english-language-debate-in-the-philippines/.
44. Povolná, R. (2010). Interactive discourse markers in spoken English. Masaryk University.
45. Prestogeorge, T. (2020, February 20). Best design practices for police interrogation rooms. Fentress
Blog. https://blog.fentress.com/blog/best-design-practices-for-police-interrogation-rooms
46. Rañosa-Madrunio, M. 2014. Power and control in Philippine courtroom discourse. International
Journal of Legal English 2 (1): 4–30.
47. Recuenco, A. (2022). Cops to Undergo Investigation Retraining to Improve Conviction Rate. Manila
Bulletin. https://mb.com.ph/2022/07/21/cops-to-undergo-investigation-retraining-to-improve-convi
ction-rate/
48. Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-
taking in conversation. Language 50: 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010.
49. Sarifuddin, S., M. Tadjuddin, and E. Iswary. 2021. A hate and provocative speech act in social media:
a forensic linguistics study. ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities 4 (3): 363–368.
50. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
51. Searle, J.R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts1. Language in society 5 (1): 1–23.
52. Shepherd, E.W. 1986. Interviewing development: facing up to reality. Police Selection and Training:
The Role of Psychology 59: 325–332.
53. Shepherd, E. W. 1993. Resistance in interviews: The Contribution of Police Perceptions and Behav-
iour. Issues in Criminological & Legal Psychology.
54. Shuy, R.W. 1997. Ten unanswered language questions about miranda. International Journal of
Speech, Language and the Law 4 (2): 175–196.
55. Sidnell, J. 2010. Conversation Analysis. In Sociolinguistics and Language Education, 492–527.
56. Similarities of US and Philippine legal system | Baer reed LPO services. (2018, June 15). Baer Reed
LPO. https://baerreed.com/codeless_portfolio/similarities-us-philippine-legal-system-white-paper/
57. Snook, B., K. Luther, H. Quinlan, and R. Milne. 2012. Let’em talk! A field study of police question-
ing practices of suspects and accused persons. Criminal Justice and Behavior 39 (10): 1328–1339.
58. Szczyrbak, M. 2014. Pragmatic marker use in police interviews: The case of “I mean” and “you
know” (part 1). Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 131 (4): 287–297.
59. Szczyrbak, M. 2014. Pragmatic marker use in police interviews: The case of “I mean” and “you
know” (part 2). Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 131 (4): 371–379.
60. Szczyrbak, M. 2019. Epistemic stance in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing: Focus on mental and
communication verbs. Discourse and Interaction 12 (2): 72–94.
61. The Philippine National Police. (n.d.). Official Gazette. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/featured/
about-the-pnp/
62. Thornborrow, J. 2002. Power talk: Language and interaction in institutional discourse. Harlow:
Longman.
63. Van Dijk, T.A. 2006. Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies 11 (2):
115–140.
64. Veneklasen, L., and V. Miller. 2002. Power and empowerment. In A new weave of power, people &
politics: the action guide for advocacy and citizen participation, ed. L. Veneklasen, V. Miller, D.
Budlender, and C. Clark, 39–58. Oklahoma City: World Neighbors.
65. Wagner, A., and L. Cheng. 2016. Language, power and control in courtroom discourse. In Exploring
courtroom discourse: The language of power and control, 1–10. Routledge.
66. Waring, H.Z. 2017. Classics in discourse and ideology. discourse analysis: The questions discourse
analysts ask and how they answer them, 181–221. Routledge.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.
13
Authors and Affiliations
Ma. Kaela Joselle R. Madrunio1 · Rachelle B. Lintao1
* Ma. Kaela Joselle R. Madrunio

makaela.madrunio.ab@ust.edu.ph
* Rachelle B. Lintao
rblintao@ust.edu.ph
1
University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines
13

Madrunio and Lintao 2023 Power, Control, and Resistance in Philippine and American Police Interview Discourse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Madrunio and Lintao 2023 Power, Control, and Resistance in Philippine and American Police Interview Discourse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Int J Semiot Law

Power, Control, and Resistance in Philippine and American

Ma. Kaela Joselle R. Madrunio1 · Rachelle B. Lintao1

Accepted: 14 August 2023

Keywords Power symmetry · Investigative interviewing · Police interview

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

Having no proper knowledge on the particularities of police investigative inter-

2 Power, Control, and Resistance

relations [63]. Rañosa-Madrunio [46:4] explains that "power is wielded by the

Fig. 1 The Two Dimensions of Interviewee Resistance Shepherd, [58]

resistance, it is an act of opposing the other interlocutor through verbal or non-ver-

Police investigative interviewing is classified by Johnson and Coulthard [29] as a

As regards Philippine police interviewing, Del Rosario and Ballesteros-Lintao’s

4 Forensic Linguistic Studies on Pragmatic Markers and Speech Acts

Szczyrbak [58, 59] emphasizes the importance of pragmatic markers in communica-

5 Method and Corpus

This corpus-based study is descriptive and analytical in nature as it examined power,

takes on the operational definition of an utterance as an uninterrupted statement

1. What commentary pragmatic markers hint at demonstration of power, control,

2. What illocutionary speech acts demonstrate power, control, and resistance in

6.1 Data Gathering Procedure

Table 1 Study Corpus

PH CC 1 31:21 8 Witness Qualified theft

6.2 Frameworks for Analysis

(a) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as to involve the use of a ’current

(2) If, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-constructional

As regards Fairclough’s [12] Critical Language Studies (CLS), it underscored

analyzing language as a social practice at the semantic, pragmatic, and sociolinguis-

7.1 Commentary Pragmatic Markers Demonstrating Power, Control,

Table 2 above shows the frequency of occurrence of commentary pragmatic mark-

(Resistance and Power) (AM CC 2)

Extract 8, which describes a murder case, manifests an occurrence of the empha-

In the PH corpus, the marker really merely functions as an emphasis marker,

Another significant finding is that of the Tagalog/Filipino emphasis marker nga

7.2 Illocutionary Speech Acts Demonstrating Power, Control, and Resistance

P: >(.) I know Atherton hated losing him.=<

Both utterances above act as assertions as the speakers assume something to be

Representatives can also be in question form as these act as inferences, confirma-

Extracts 18 to 20 ought not to show any sign of power, control, or resistance.

P: =All right. Is there an address we could get for you? ↑=

Directives are unquestionably present in both corpora, accumulating a total of

(Power and Control) (PH CC 5)

(Power and Control) (AM CC 5)

It is worth noting that there is no appearance of commissives in the PH cor-

I: Yeah, (.) but I wanted to make a phone call.=

This utterance indicates power as the interviewer’s authority was imposed on

Similar to commissives, expressives are only found in the AM corpus which

(Power and Control) (AM CC 2)

(Power and Control) (AM CC 2)

As declarations in this type of discourse can only be uttered by the police,

7.3 Turn‑taking System Reflective of Power, Control, and Resistance in Selected

Both corpora observed a questioner-responder turn-taking system; however,

Extract 31 presents an unorganized turn-taking system as the presence of P2,

Fig. 3 Dippolito and Police Officer During Interview in AM CC 2

employed mostly by interviewees, particularly the suspects, in the AM corpus. In

9 Conclusion and Recommendations

the two policing systems can be identified in relation to investigative interviewing

Authors and Affiliations

Ma. Kaela Joselle R. Madrunio1 · Rachelle B. Lintao1

* Ma. Kaela Joselle R. Madrunio

You might also like

2 Power, Control, and Resistance

4 Forensic Linguistic Studies on Pragmatic Markers and Speech Acts

5 Method and Corpus

6.1 Data Gathering Procedure

6.2 Frameworks for Analysis

7.1 Commentary Pragmatic Markers Demonstrating Power, Control,

7.2 Illocutionary Speech Acts Demonstrating Power, Control, and Resistance

7.3 Turn‑taking System Reflective of Power, Control, and Resistance in Selected

9 Conclusion and Recommendations