Abstract
In the Nigerian context, studies on police interrogation have acknowledged that investigating police officers (IPOs) wield power during police-suspect interactions (PSIs). We argue that power is not solely wielded by the IPOs during interrogation sessions; the suspect, who is often considered as a lesser participant during interrogation session, adopts argumentation to contest stances with IPOs. This study examines the rationale behind IPOs’ and suspects’ arguments in PSIs with a view to describing the implications of such arguments for power relations in PSIs. The study adopts insights from Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst’s pragma-dialectal theory of argumentation (PTA). The study adopts a qualitative research design. Data for the study come from 12 interrogation sessions on cases of attempted murder, rape, felony and theft, tape-recorded at the Oyo State Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Department (SCIID), Ìyágankú, Ibadan. While IPOs argue by posing a positive self, developing themes around cases, discouraging denials and retaining suspects’ attention, suspects on the other hand argue to affirm positive selves and object justification, counter IPOs’ stances and create extraneous details to distract IPOs. The study posits that argument is a veritable discourse tool for negotiating power in PSIs.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
