This study aims to analyze question-answer structures during the interrogation of a suspect in order to identify optimal combinations of communicative strategies and tactics which influence procedural effectiveness. On the one hand, it examines the types of questions and tactics used by the investigator; on the other hand, it demonstrates the relationship between the type of questions posed by an investigator and the response strategy of a person being interrogated. The object of the study is the interrogation of a suspect as a genre of institutional discourse within criminal proceedings. The subject of the study is the question-answer structures, the investigator’s communicative strategies, and the verbal responses of the person being interrogated. The material for the study was a simulated interrogation text in a case of embezzlement, as well as the regulatory framework of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and theoretical principles of legal linguistics. The research methodology included discourse analysis, pragmatic analysis, a method for modeling communicative situations, and an analysis of the functional semantics of utterances. The scientific novelty of this study lies in the development of an adaptive communicative interrogation model, the systematization of question types by the investigation stage, and the identification of linguistic markers of unreliability, which contributes to the theory of legal communication. The analysis revealed that the effectiveness of interrogation depends on the synchronization of four communicative strategies: gradual narrowing of focus, controlled empathy, evidentiary pressure, and linguistic mirroring. A stable correlation was established between the type of an investigator’s question and a suspect’s defensive response strategy, with open-ended questions provoking evasion, and evidentiary questions leading to partial confessions. The results of this study can be applied in training investigators, developing methodological recommendations for interrogations, and enhancing the evidentiary value of testimony obtained. The findings can serve as a basis for optimizing interrogation tactics and minimizing the risk of evidence being declared inadmissible.
Valentina Nikolaevna Shashkova (Wed,) studied this question.