Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(1), 2020 – https://tidsskrift.dk/sss
Understanding questions and an-
swers in context: An argument for
multi-channel analysis
Dawn Archer,
Manchester Metropolitan University
Abstract: Currently, understanding what questions and answers mean in
context equates to accounting for the questioner’s role as well as what they
expect to (versus) achieve, the position as well as form/function of their
question(s) within the interaction: and, if spoken, their delivery, as well as
whether a response is given, what type, how, etc. This paper advocates for a
further widening of the linguistic analytical lens beyond traditional syntactic/
pragmatic criteria so that we might account, in turn, for participants’ facial
expressions, body movements and gestures as they deliver their questions
and/or respond to others. The paper argues this is particularly pertinent
when negotiating meaning generally and crucial when seeking to understand
potentially deceptive and/or evasive moves on the part of participants.
Keywords: answer(s), elicitation, face(work), meaning-in-context, multi-
channel analysis, question(s)
1. Introduction
This paper analyses two authentic exchanges, with a specific focus on the
questions and answers contained within them. The first relates to a 2011 US
press interview given by Anthony Weiner, congressional representative for
New York’s ninth district, following allegations he had sexted a 21-year old
(see especially Section 2). The second relates to a UK police interview given
by (then) school caretaker, Ian Huntley, shortly after two ten-year-old girls
from a nearby school – Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman – went missing (see
especially Section 3). These exchanges were chosen for two reasons. First,
they represent activity types that are known to make use of question-and-
196
, Dawn Archer
Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(1), 2020 (196-213)
answer sequences (albeit in activity-specific ways). Second, they each contain
elements of deception and/or evasion. Weiner denies inappropriate behaviour
in the press interview we are focusing upon, for example, but in a later press
conference (CBS 2011) admitted to having “exchanged messages and photos of
an explicit nature with about six women” over a three-year period. His actions
(and then lying about them) precipitated his resignation from Congress in
June the same year. He has since served a prison sentence for additional
sexting offences (this time with a minor). Huntley denies having contact with
the ten-year-olds, Holly and Jessica, in the police interview discussed in this
paper. He was formally charged with two counts of murder on 20th August
2002, nonetheless. It later transpired (at his trial) that he had invited the girls
into the house he shared with Maxine Carr, under the pretence she was inside
(they seemingly agreed because of knowing Maxine). He is believed to have
become physical with the girls shortly thereafter and, when they resisted,
killed them. Although he thought he had covered his tracks by first hiding
(and partially burning) their bodies, and then disposing of their clothes and
possessions, he was ultimately convicted of their murders (17th December
2003), and is currently serving a life sentence in a UK prison.
Choosing exchanges representative of activity types that are known to
(1) make use of question-and-answer sequences, and (2) contain elements of
deception and/or evasion means we can explore how the former can be used in
an attempt to do the latter, and how we might therefore account for the latter
when explaining how questions and answers (sometimes) work in such activity
types. For example, police officers tend to use questions to glean information,
query, accuse, etc., with the ultimate aim of testing the veracity of a witness’s
or suspect’s account of events (see Vrij 2008, Collin 2020, this issue). It is thus
understood that they have “the formal power…to set the interview agenda”
(McKinley and McVittie 2009:176). Evidence of participants playing about with
these normative expectations is somewhat limited, because of the difficulties
associated with securing such datasets. Haworth (2006) nonetheless provides
us with one such example, involving a (now notorious) doctor named Harold
Shipman. He disrupted the interview process “right at the start”, by signalling
a need to “clarify something first” immediately after the police officer began
setting “up the agenda for [their] interaction” following his delivery of “the
mandatory caution” (ibid:739). News interviews are also generally described
as having a well-established structure, such that “interviewers restrict
themselves to questioning and interviewees restrict themselves to answering
interviewer questions, or at least responding to them” (Clayman and Heritage
2002:97). Indeed, Konzett (2012:96) goes as far as to state that “stick[ing] to
this rule” is “vital”, “since an interview in which both parties are allowed to ask
questions is no longer an interview”. Clayman and Heritage (2002) go on to
provide counter examples of politicians disrupting rather than playing what
they call “the interview game” in various ways (by, e.g., asking questions of
their own, attacking the questioner because of their questions, etc.). They still
197
, Dawn Archer
Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(1), 2020 (196-213)
concur with Konzett’s (2012) overall sentiment, though, as they describe these
disruptions as rarities. They then draw upon them as a means of highlighting
the various ways in which the “weighty” institutional framework serves to
shape interviewers’ and interviewees’ “facework”, by constraining “how the
actions” of both can be “interpreted and treated” (Clayman and Heritage
2002:148) and, hence, what is deemed appropriate in facework terms. It is
worth noting here, though, that the “parameters of the permissible” in this case
include interviewers’ “continuing with questioning that will appear reasonable
to the general public” even when they “know privately” that the “interviewee
is lying” (ibid). This means that, contra police officers, news interviewers can
play “the interview game” in ways that condone lying when this suits their
purpose (but see Section 2).
Following Goffman (1967:5), I recognise face to be the line an interlocutor
claims based upon what s/he believes others are assuming about him or her;
and facework to be the actions interlocutors engage in, and occasionally
negotiate over, in order to make what they are doing consistent with that
developing line. When Goffman discussed questions, he described them as
a very controlling form of expression, for example. Indeed, they impact upon
a target’s negative face, that is, their “want” to act freely, without imposition
(Brown and Levinson 1987) just by expecting an answer. In some contexts –
in particular, those with asymmetrical participant roles – they can also affect
a target’s positive face, that is, their “want” to be liked, appreciated, approved
of, etc. (Brown and Levinson 1987). Penman (1994:30) provides the example
of “Did you drink the entire bottle of scotch?” (asked in a courtroom),
which “not only impos[ed] on the” target’s “negative face by asking for
factual information”, but also” their “positive face by suggesting alcohol
indulgence”. As Penman (1994:31) goes on to explain, courtroom questions
are not restricted to establishing “the facts of the matter” precisely because
judicial decision-making (in an Anglo-American context at least) is about
unearthing “the reasons” a defendant or witness behaved/spoke in a certain
way. Questions, in such cases, thus provide barristers (in particular) with an
important means of focusing the jury, judge, etc., on a target’s demeanour
under the veil of getting to “the facts of the matter” (Penman 1994:30–1).
As will become clear, the two press interviewers in the press exchange (see
Section 2) and the police officer in the police interview (see Section 3) also
sought to get to the facts of the matter. The former, moreover, engaged in a
level of impression management (henceforth IM) as part of this, by designing
their questioning sequences in such a way as to give the impression Weiner
was being deliberately evasive for some reason. IM was initially conceptualised
by Goffman (1959:17,22) to capture the process(es) by which people (attempt
to) influence the perceptions of others (in relation to appearance, a person
or persons, object, event, etc.). Such behaviour can be conscious – and hence
strategic – or subconscious – and hence more akin to a learned behaviour.
This paper will reveal that IM was primarily used for the former purpose by
198
Understanding questions and an-
swers in context: An argument for
multi-channel analysis
Dawn Archer,
Manchester Metropolitan University
Abstract: Currently, understanding what questions and answers mean in
context equates to accounting for the questioner’s role as well as what they
expect to (versus) achieve, the position as well as form/function of their
question(s) within the interaction: and, if spoken, their delivery, as well as
whether a response is given, what type, how, etc. This paper advocates for a
further widening of the linguistic analytical lens beyond traditional syntactic/
pragmatic criteria so that we might account, in turn, for participants’ facial
expressions, body movements and gestures as they deliver their questions
and/or respond to others. The paper argues this is particularly pertinent
when negotiating meaning generally and crucial when seeking to understand
potentially deceptive and/or evasive moves on the part of participants.
Keywords: answer(s), elicitation, face(work), meaning-in-context, multi-
channel analysis, question(s)
1. Introduction
This paper analyses two authentic exchanges, with a specific focus on the
questions and answers contained within them. The first relates to a 2011 US
press interview given by Anthony Weiner, congressional representative for
New York’s ninth district, following allegations he had sexted a 21-year old
(see especially Section 2). The second relates to a UK police interview given
by (then) school caretaker, Ian Huntley, shortly after two ten-year-old girls
from a nearby school – Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman – went missing (see
especially Section 3). These exchanges were chosen for two reasons. First,
they represent activity types that are known to make use of question-and-
196
, Dawn Archer
Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(1), 2020 (196-213)
answer sequences (albeit in activity-specific ways). Second, they each contain
elements of deception and/or evasion. Weiner denies inappropriate behaviour
in the press interview we are focusing upon, for example, but in a later press
conference (CBS 2011) admitted to having “exchanged messages and photos of
an explicit nature with about six women” over a three-year period. His actions
(and then lying about them) precipitated his resignation from Congress in
June the same year. He has since served a prison sentence for additional
sexting offences (this time with a minor). Huntley denies having contact with
the ten-year-olds, Holly and Jessica, in the police interview discussed in this
paper. He was formally charged with two counts of murder on 20th August
2002, nonetheless. It later transpired (at his trial) that he had invited the girls
into the house he shared with Maxine Carr, under the pretence she was inside
(they seemingly agreed because of knowing Maxine). He is believed to have
become physical with the girls shortly thereafter and, when they resisted,
killed them. Although he thought he had covered his tracks by first hiding
(and partially burning) their bodies, and then disposing of their clothes and
possessions, he was ultimately convicted of their murders (17th December
2003), and is currently serving a life sentence in a UK prison.
Choosing exchanges representative of activity types that are known to
(1) make use of question-and-answer sequences, and (2) contain elements of
deception and/or evasion means we can explore how the former can be used in
an attempt to do the latter, and how we might therefore account for the latter
when explaining how questions and answers (sometimes) work in such activity
types. For example, police officers tend to use questions to glean information,
query, accuse, etc., with the ultimate aim of testing the veracity of a witness’s
or suspect’s account of events (see Vrij 2008, Collin 2020, this issue). It is thus
understood that they have “the formal power…to set the interview agenda”
(McKinley and McVittie 2009:176). Evidence of participants playing about with
these normative expectations is somewhat limited, because of the difficulties
associated with securing such datasets. Haworth (2006) nonetheless provides
us with one such example, involving a (now notorious) doctor named Harold
Shipman. He disrupted the interview process “right at the start”, by signalling
a need to “clarify something first” immediately after the police officer began
setting “up the agenda for [their] interaction” following his delivery of “the
mandatory caution” (ibid:739). News interviews are also generally described
as having a well-established structure, such that “interviewers restrict
themselves to questioning and interviewees restrict themselves to answering
interviewer questions, or at least responding to them” (Clayman and Heritage
2002:97). Indeed, Konzett (2012:96) goes as far as to state that “stick[ing] to
this rule” is “vital”, “since an interview in which both parties are allowed to ask
questions is no longer an interview”. Clayman and Heritage (2002) go on to
provide counter examples of politicians disrupting rather than playing what
they call “the interview game” in various ways (by, e.g., asking questions of
their own, attacking the questioner because of their questions, etc.). They still
197
, Dawn Archer
Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(1), 2020 (196-213)
concur with Konzett’s (2012) overall sentiment, though, as they describe these
disruptions as rarities. They then draw upon them as a means of highlighting
the various ways in which the “weighty” institutional framework serves to
shape interviewers’ and interviewees’ “facework”, by constraining “how the
actions” of both can be “interpreted and treated” (Clayman and Heritage
2002:148) and, hence, what is deemed appropriate in facework terms. It is
worth noting here, though, that the “parameters of the permissible” in this case
include interviewers’ “continuing with questioning that will appear reasonable
to the general public” even when they “know privately” that the “interviewee
is lying” (ibid). This means that, contra police officers, news interviewers can
play “the interview game” in ways that condone lying when this suits their
purpose (but see Section 2).
Following Goffman (1967:5), I recognise face to be the line an interlocutor
claims based upon what s/he believes others are assuming about him or her;
and facework to be the actions interlocutors engage in, and occasionally
negotiate over, in order to make what they are doing consistent with that
developing line. When Goffman discussed questions, he described them as
a very controlling form of expression, for example. Indeed, they impact upon
a target’s negative face, that is, their “want” to act freely, without imposition
(Brown and Levinson 1987) just by expecting an answer. In some contexts –
in particular, those with asymmetrical participant roles – they can also affect
a target’s positive face, that is, their “want” to be liked, appreciated, approved
of, etc. (Brown and Levinson 1987). Penman (1994:30) provides the example
of “Did you drink the entire bottle of scotch?” (asked in a courtroom),
which “not only impos[ed] on the” target’s “negative face by asking for
factual information”, but also” their “positive face by suggesting alcohol
indulgence”. As Penman (1994:31) goes on to explain, courtroom questions
are not restricted to establishing “the facts of the matter” precisely because
judicial decision-making (in an Anglo-American context at least) is about
unearthing “the reasons” a defendant or witness behaved/spoke in a certain
way. Questions, in such cases, thus provide barristers (in particular) with an
important means of focusing the jury, judge, etc., on a target’s demeanour
under the veil of getting to “the facts of the matter” (Penman 1994:30–1).
As will become clear, the two press interviewers in the press exchange (see
Section 2) and the police officer in the police interview (see Section 3) also
sought to get to the facts of the matter. The former, moreover, engaged in a
level of impression management (henceforth IM) as part of this, by designing
their questioning sequences in such a way as to give the impression Weiner
was being deliberately evasive for some reason. IM was initially conceptualised
by Goffman (1959:17,22) to capture the process(es) by which people (attempt
to) influence the perceptions of others (in relation to appearance, a person
or persons, object, event, etc.). Such behaviour can be conscious – and hence
strategic – or subconscious – and hence more akin to a learned behaviour.
This paper will reveal that IM was primarily used for the former purpose by
198
