AbstractThis paper discusses questions about sources of knowledge in Dutch police interviews with child witnesses. Police officers are instructed to ask these questions in order to allow participants in the criminal procedure to assess the reliability of the testimony. In everyday interaction, asking “how someone knows” implies that what was said earlier is not taken for granted. Therefore, questions about sources of knowledge in police interviews are potentially delicate. This paper aims to show that (a) questions about sources of knowledge are related to a specialized institutional inference system and (b) children sometimes treat those questions as causing a dilemma between the need to provide an answer and the unusual character of the question. Drawing on insights from conversation analysis, the analysis focuses on occasions when children present their answer about the source of their knowledge as self-evident. These responses suggest that the question is not genuine and legitimate. At the same time, children still try to provide a relevant answer. The self-evident answers thus deal with the explicit request for a source of knowledge and, from their perspective, the unnecessary character of the question. Police officers generally ignore the self-evident aspect of the answers in their uptakes. Yet, when they do orient to it, they justify their questions as genuine information seeking questions. Police officers thus treat sources of knowledge as something they did not know, whereas sources of knowledge often can be inferred in everyday language use. We suggest that taking this unknowing stance conveys to the child and to the tape that the police officers are not presuming specific sources of knowledge.
The Interactional Costs of “Neutrality” in Police Interviews with Child Witnesses
