Language Studies

Interrogation Discourse in Iranian Cinema: The Role of Presupposition and Verbal Threats in the Confession-Elicitation Process

Document Type : Research original ,Regular Article

Authors

حسین رحمانی 1
Mojhgan Chegeni 2

1 Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, University of Payame Noor, Tehran, Iran. (Corresponding Author)

2 Assistant Professor of English Teaching Department, Khor.C., Islamic Azad University, Khorramabad, Iran.

10.30465/ls.2026.52875.2218
Abstract
Abstract:
This research, within forensic linguistics and utilizing two complementary approaches, Gibbons' (2008) typology of interrogation questions and Yule's (1996) theory of presupposition, analyzes the discourse of interrogation. The scope of this study is the representation of interrogation discourse in Iranian cinema, and its data are gathered from interrogation scenes in "Metri Shesh-o Nim". Results indicate that the represented defendants are aware of presupposition techniques and, by systematically rejecting them, block the path to a quick confession. This compels the interrogators to rely on verbal threats as an ultimate strategy. Statistically, declarative questions, which contain greater discursive pressure, were the most frequently used type of question. Furthermore, open questions were employed not with the aim of obtaining new information, but primarily to confirm the interrogator's pre-established presuppositions. By focusing on the cinematic representation of interrogation, purely linguistic threats, and the integration of the two aforementioned theoretical frameworks, this research represents a novel step in Persian studies in this field.
Keywords: Forensic Linguistics, Interrogator, Defendant, Threat, Question, Yule’s Theory of Presupposition

1. Introduction
Forensic linguistics examines the intersection of language and the legal process, with interrogation discourse representing a critical site where power asymmetries become linguistically manifest. This study analyzes the representation of police interrogation in Metri Shesh-o Nim (6.5 Per Meter) through the complementary frameworks of Gibbons' (2008) typology of interrogation questions and Yule's (1996) theory of presupposition. The research operates on the premise that interrogation represents the antithesis of "ideal dialogue" (Wang, 2006), where hierarchical structures create inherent power imbalances. In such institutional settings, language becomes a tool for control rather than communication, with questions serving as vehicles for presuppositions that frame the interaction according to the interrogator's narrative. This study addresses four research questions concerning: (1)defendants' reactions to presupposition-laden questions, (2)interrogators' strategies when presuppositions are rejected, (3)the distribution and function of question types according to Gibbons' taxonomy, and (4)the strategic purposes of open questions beyond information gathering.

2. Materials & Methods
The research employs a qualitative case study design, analyzing four interrogation sequences from Metri Shesh-o Nim involving different suspects: Hasan Gavi, Naser Khakzad's former fiancée, a disabled man and his young son, and the main suspect Naser Khakzad himself. Data collection involved meticulous transcription of 106 conversational turns from these scenes. The analytical approach combined two theoretical frameworks: Gibbons' (2008) classification of interrogation questions (declarative, tag, yes/no, alternative, open, and projective questions) and Yule's (1996) taxonomy of presupposition triggers (existential, factual, lexical, structural, non-factual, and counterfactual). Each interrogative utterance was coded according to both frameworks, with particular attention to how presuppositions were embedded within different question types and how suspects responded to these linguistic maneuvers. The analysis focused on the dynamic interplay between interrogators' imposition of presuppositions and suspects' resistance strategies, examining how these discursive negotiations ultimately shape the outcomes of the interrogations.

3. Discussion & Results
The analysis reveals several significant patterns in the interrogation discourse:
3.1. Quantitative Distribution of Question Types
The aggregated data from all interrogation scenes shows declarative questions as the most frequent type (42 instances, 47.19%), followed by open questions (20 instances, 22.47%), yes/no questions (16 instances, 17.98%), tag questions (5 instances, 5.61%), alternative questions (4 instances, 4.49%), and projective questions (2 instances, 2.25%). This distribution indicates interrogators' preference for question types that exert greater discursive pressure and control over the interaction.
3.2. Strategic Use of Presuppositions
Interrogators systematically embed multiple types of presuppositions within their questions. For instance, in interrogating Hasan Gavi, the question "You stuffed the drugs in their stomachs so they wouldn't be discovered, right?" contains existential presuppositions (>>drugs exist, >>they were concealed), lexical presuppositions (the verb "stuffed" presupposes deliberate concealment), and structural presuppositions (the tag question format presupposes agreement). Similarly, when questioning Naser Khakzad, interrogators use projective questions like "Do you remember the night you called Hamid and told him to come get their child alive?" which presupposes the truth of the embedded proposition (>>Naser made this call).
3.3. Suspect Resistance Strategies
Despite the power imbalance, suspects demonstrate remarkable linguistic agency through various resistance strategies:
Systematic rejection of presuppositions: Suspects consistently deny the presuppositions embedded in questions rather than simply answering the surface question.
Frame breaking: Hasan Gavi challenges the interrogator's conceptual framework by asking "What gang? These are our childhood friends from the neighborhood."
Topic shifting: Suspects frequently attempt to redirect the conversation away from incriminating topics.
Emotional appeals: Suspects invoke emotional language and personal relationships to mitigate pressure.
3.4. Escalation to Verbal Threats
When linguistic strategies of presupposition fail, interrogators consistently escalate to explicit verbal threats. These threats range from legal consequences ("Do you want me to take this footage to the judge tomorrow and have your sentence doubled?") to personal and emotional coercion ("Would you like it if while you're in prison he divorces you in absentia and then you hear he's married someone else?"). This pattern suggests that in the cinematic representation, the interrogative process relies ultimately on coercion rather than discursive persuasion.
3.5. Instrumental Use of Open Questions
Contrary to their apparent purpose, open questions are employed not primarily for information gathering but to confirm the interrogator's pre-established presuppositions. For example, questions beginning with "how" and "why" typically presuppose the truth of their embedded propositions rather than genuinely seeking new information.

4. Conclusion
The interrogation in Metri Shesh-o Nim depicts a discursive battlefield where language is weaponized. Interrogators assert control through frequent declarative questions and strategically embedded presuppositions. Yet suspects exhibit discursive agency, actively recognizing and resisting these tactics. The consistent escalation to verbal threats when manipulation fails critiques the process as fundamentally coercive, not truth-seeking. This study contributes to forensic linguistics by integrating Gibbons' and Yule's frameworks, revealing precise linguistic mechanisms of power in an Iranian cinematic context. The findings both resonate with and nuance Western research, particularly in highlighting suspect resistance. Future comparative studies across cultures and film traditions could further illuminate the nexus of language, power, and institutional discourse.

Keywords

Forensic Linguistics
Interrogator
Defendant
Threat
Yule’s Theory of Presupposition
Subjects
Beller, S. 2002(. Conditional promises and threats—cognition and emotion. In: Gray, W.D., Schunn, C.D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 113–118.
Benneworth, K. (2006). Repertoires of paedophilia: Conflicting descriptions of adult-child sexual relationships in the investigative interview. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 13(2): 190–211.
Briant, N. A. (2014). A pragmatic analysis of presupposition in Genndy Tartakovsky’s Hotel Transylvania. M.A. Thesis: Yogyakarta State University. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/3351 4805.pdf on July, 9, 2020.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25 (3), 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3
Dabbagh, L. A. (2013). The theatre and presuppositions. Al-Ustath, 205(2), 1- 10.
Danet, B., Hoffman, K., Kermish, N., Rafn, J. and Stayman, D. (1980) ‘An ethnography of questioning in the courtroom.’ In: Shuy, R. W. and Shnukal, A. (eds) Language Use and the Uses of Language. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 171-179.
Drew, P. (1985). "Analyzing the Use of Questions in Courtroom Discourse." Text, 5(3), 201-224.
Edwards, D. (2006). Facts, norms and dispositions: Practical uses of the modal would in police interrogations. Discourse Studies 8(4): 475–501.
Edwards, D. (2008). "Intentionality and Mens Rea in Police Interrogations." Language in Society, 37(1), 27-49.
Gibbons J. (2008). Questioning in common law criminal courts in Gibbons J. and Turell, M. T (Eds). Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Harris, S. (1984). “Questions as a mode of control in magistrates’ courts,” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 49: 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1984.49.5
Haworth, K. (2006). The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse & Society 17(6): 739–759.
Heydon, G. (2005). The Language of Police Interviewing: A Critical Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ji, Y. (2011). "Presupposition in Advertising Language." Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 331-343.
Johnson, A. (2008). “From where we’re sat …”: Negotiating narrative transformation through interaction in police interviews with suspects. Text & Talk 28(3): 327–349.
Komter, M. (2003). The interactional dynamics of eliciting a confession in a Dutch police interrogation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36(4): 433–470.
Liang, J., & Liu, H. (2016). "Presupposition in Political Speeches: A Case Study of Hillary Clinton." Discourse & Communication, 10(3), 299-316.
Linell, P and Linda J. (1991). Suspect stories: Perspective-setting in an asymmetrical situation. In Ivana Marková and Klaus Foppa (eds.) Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead, U.K.: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. 75–100.
Lukes, S.S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Shuy, R. (1998). The Language of Confession, Interrogation, and Deception. London: Sage.
Song, S. (1995). A study of threatening acts in Korean. Language Research, 31(3), 485-512.
Stokoe, E. (2009). “For the benefit of the tape”: Formulating embodied conduct in designedly uni-modal recorded police-suspect interrogations. Journal of Pragmatics 41(10): 1887–1904.
Stokoe, E., & Edwards, D. (2007). "Blacksmiths and Ironing Boards: The Embeddedness of Gender in Police Interview Discourse." Discourse & Society, 18(6), 719-745.
Stokoe, E. (2010). “I’m not gonna hit a lady”: Conversation analysis, membership
categorization and men’s denials of violence towards women. Discourse & Society 21(1): 59–82.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1970). Threats and promises. In: Swingle, P. (Ed.), The Structure of Conflict. Academic Press, London, pp. 155–191.
Walker, A. G. (1987). “Linguistic manipulation, power, and the legal setting,” in Kedar, Leah (ed.), Power through Discourse. Norwood NJ: Ablex, pp. 57–80.
Wang, J. (2006). ‘Questions and the exercise of power.’ Discourse and Society 17/4, 529-548.
Watts, R. (1991). Power in Family Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Woodbury, H. (1984) ‘The strategic use of questions in court.’ Semiotica 48/3-4, 197-228
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 
Language Studies
Volume 16, Issue 1
March 2025
Pages 305-338

  • Receive Date 15 September 2025
  • Revise Date 26 January 2026
  • Accept Date 09 February 2026

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us