<!-- image -->

## Understanding questions and answers in context: An argument for multi-channel analysis

Dawn Archer, Manchester Metropolitan University

d.archer@mmu.uk

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. Th is  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.  Th e  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,  multichannel analysis, question(s)

## 1. Introduction

Th is  paper  analyses  two  authentic  exchanges,  with  a  specifi  c  focus  on  the questions and answers contained within them. Th e fi  rst 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). Th e second relates to a UK police interview given by (then) school caretaker, Ian Huntley, shortly aft  er two ten-year-old girls from a nearby school - Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman - went   missing (see especially  Section  3).  Th ese  exchanges  were  chosen  for  two  reasons.  First, they  represent  activity  types  that  are  known  to  make  use  of  question-and- answer sequences (albeit in activity-specifi  c 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 off  ences (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 20 th 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  thereaft  er  and,  when  they  resisted, killed them. Although he thought he had covered his tracks by fi  rst hiding (and partially burning) their bodies, and then disposing of their clothes and possessions,  he  was  ultimately  convicted  of  their  murders  (17 th   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 offi cers 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   diffi culties 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   s  ignalling a need to 'clarify something fi  rst' immediately aft  er the police   offi cer 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.). Th ey still concur with Konzett's (2012) overall   sentiment, though, as they describe these disruptions as   rarities. Th ey 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). Th is means that, contra police offi cers, news   interviewers can play 'the interview game' in ways that condone lying when this suits their purpose (but see Section 2).

Following Goff  man (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 Goff  man 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   aff  ect 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 offi cer in the police interview (see Section 3) also sought to get to the facts of the matter. Th e 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 Goff  man (1959:17,22) to capture the process(es) by which people (attempt to) infl  uence 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. Th is paper will reveal that IM was primarily used for the former purpose by the two press offi cers  and Weiner (see Section 2), as well as Huntley when answering  a  particularly  loaded  polar  interrogative  from  the  police  offi cer ('was there any occasion that you actually came into   contact physical contact with the girls?': see Section 3). Th at is, to strategically manage - as a means of infl  uencing - 'the perceptions of others' (Archer 2018:202). It thus picks up on   Goff  man's (1959) notion that performers (as he labelled them)   deliberately adapt  their  behaviour  as  a  means  of  making  a  certain    impression  on  their audience  and  do  so  in  ways  that  implicitly  ask  that    audience  to  take  their performance   seriously. When seeking to understand the meaning of   questions and  answers,    especially  where  deception  (or    evasion)  is  a    possibility,  this means   considering not only whether (and, if so, how) the expectation and/ or outcome of   deceptive or evasive responses is   infl  uencing and informing the questioners' strategies and question design, but also how the respondent seeks  to  deal  with  this.  In  Weiner's  case,  for  example,  IM  proved  to  be  an important means by which he sought to defend the (political)   reputation he had built over several years against   credibility damaging - and what proved to be career-  destroying -   allegations (see Hall 1972, for a discussion of   political impression management). Huntley's projection of a 'positive public image' (Goff  man 1955:214), in contrast, had been craft  ed during a few brief   television interviews he had given shortly aft  er Holly and Jessica went missing (during which he admitted to being the last person to see them alive). His goal was nonetheless similar to Weiner's: that of maintaining 'credibility in the eyes of  others'  (Gass  and  Seiter  2015:90).  As  Section  3  will  highlight,  Huntley sought to do this by   providing the police offi cer with an answer she was likely anticipating at this point (i.e., no ),  but it was undermined by   contradictory non-linguistic behaviours on his part.

We might note an additional fact about IM at this point, namely, that it is  sometimes used with the aim of deceiving others. Indeed, a widely cited hypothesis holds that liars tend to 'put more eff  ort into making a   convincing impression  than  truth  tellers'  (Vrij  2008:194).  Deceptive  IM  can  thus  take various forms. Houston et al (2012) advise their readers to pay attention to an  interlocutor's  sudden  or  marked  use  of  religious  belief/values/  character references,  credibility  labels  and/or  proof/evidence  frames,  for  example. Archer  and  Lansley  (2015:237-8)  suggest  paying  attention,  in  addition,  to interlocutors'  attempts  to  represent  others  in  ways  that  advantage  self  over those others. Politeness that seems 'inappropriate' to - by being at odds with - the context may also prove signifi  cant, given that IM is 'largely achieved using  linguistic  features'  that  include  '(non)adherence  to  politeness  and conversational rules' (Archer 2018:206, see also Holtgraves 2013). As Section 2 will highlight, the last two examples are both drawn upon by Weiner, such that  he  uses  the  honorifi  c  'sir'  repeatedly  at  the  point  his  interaction  with a  press  interviewer  grows  increasingly  hostile  as  a  means  of  characterising that particular press interviewer as someone who was preventing him from continuing with the interview. Claims about detecting deception should never be based on two   examples of one indicator, of course. My analyses in   Sections 2  and  3  thus  focus  on  specifi  c  linguistic  content,  body  movements,  facial expressions, gestures, voice quality, etc., that appear to have been   triggered by  a  stimulus  -  such  as  a  question  -  to  the  extent  of  clustering  across  the communication channels at that point or shortly thereaft  er (Houston et al. 2012, Archer and Lansley 2015). Behaviours that do not appear to match the participant's verbal account but, instead, point to inconsistencies within and/ or across these 'communication channels' (as Archer and Lansley 2015 call them) are particularly prioritised. 1 In Goff  manian terms, this is akin to paying as much attention to the messages that individuals give off (unwittingly) as we might their intended messages (Goff  man 1959).

## 2. Weiner press interview

Congressman Anthony Weiner was forced  to  combat  allegations  of    sexual inappropriacy  when  a  twenty-one-year-old  female  student  alleged  he  had sent her a sexually explicit photograph on Twitter (on May 27, 2011). Extract 1 captures the fi  rst 91 seconds of a 7-minute, 34-second interview given by Weiner (shown as W below) on May 31, 2011. Th e female interviewer, Dana Bash (shown as I1 below), worked then - as she does now - for the US cable news channel, CNN. Th e name of the male interviewer (shown as I2 below) is not known.

## Extract 1: All you have to do is say no to the question

- 1 I1 you say that you were hacked which is potentially a crime so why haven't you asked the capitol police or any law enforcement to investigate it
- 2 W (tut) look this was a prank that I have now been talking about for a couple of days (.) I'm not gonna allow it to decide what I talk about for the next week or the next two weeks (H.) erm and so I'm not gonna be giving anything more about that today I think I've been pretty responsive to you in the past-
- 3 I1 -but but with respect you're here which we- which we appreciate but you're not answering the questions can you just say why you haven't ak- asked law enforcement to investigate what you are alleging is a [(.) crime
- 4 W [you- you know Dana if I was giving a speech to forty fi  ve thousand people and someone in the back of the room threw a pie or yelled out an insult would I spend the next two hours responding to that [no I would get back (.)
- 5 I2 [this is- that-
- 6 W I would ge[t back              [I would get back-
- 7 I2 [this is not that [situation             -this is not that situ[ation
- 8 W [I would I would get [back- well why don't you do- do you wanna do the briefi  n[g
- 9 I2 [you[you were hacked your- you said-

## Dawn Archer

- 10 W -do you wanna do the briefi  ng sir-

```
11 12 -from your Twitter account- 12 W -sir 13 I2 a lude photograph was sent to a a- [college student 14 W [sir sir 15 12 answer the question was it from you o[r not 16 W [sir . permit xx permit me do you guys want me to fi  nish my answer 17 I2 yes this que- this [answer 18 W [ok 19 I2 did you send it or not 20 W (.) if I were giving a speech to a forty fi  ve thousand people and someone in the back threw a pie or yelled out an insult I would not spend the next two hours of my speech responding to that pie or that insult I would return to the things that I wanna talk about to the audience that I wanted to [talk to- 21 I2 [all you have to do is say no- 22 W -and that is what I intend to do this we[ek 23 I2 [all you have to do is say no to the question
```

(Rep. Weiner Defends Handling of Photo Scandal, YouTube clip accessed 04/04/2019)

Bash's fi  rst utterance contained a why -interrogative (see turn 1) which,   because it made use of negation, served to 'indicate the speaker's expectation of and preference for' a specifi  c answer (Archer 2005:26). It was made   particularly conducive  (and,  hence,  constituted  a  marked  attempt  by  Bash  to  control Weiner) due to being part of a so construction, and being framed within a statement that,

- (i) reported - in order to echo - Weiner's purported claim of being hacked (thereby potentially damning him with his own words) and
- (ii) signalled  the  interviewer's  own  evaluation  of  that  claim  as  a potential crime (against Weiner).

It  thus  fi  ts  Weinstein's  (2001:107)  criteria  of  a  probing  question,  that  is,  a requirement that X - in this case, Weiner's failure to report the incident - 'be further examined' , but in such a way as to provide a satisfactory   account (  given Bash had eff  ectively made this into an 'issue'). Weiner's facial   expressions, in particular, are thus worthy of note at this point. As Bash   delivered her   statement/ probing question, Weiner demonstrated lip, cheek and jaw   movements that were indicative of an anger response, specifi  cally, lip pressing, cheek blowing and jaw clenching (see, e.g., Lansley 2017). Th ere was also an audible 'tut'   prior to Weiner providing an answer. We might label this type of   linguistic feature a surge feature, following Taavitsainen (1999:219-220), given its   association with  'personal  aff  ect'  and,  in  some    cases,  emotional    outbursts.  Weiner's linguistic response, immediately   thereaft  er, suggests that - his surge feature apart - he was very much aware of, and engaged in, (  deliberate) IM from this point onwards. Th e imperative, look , had a '  performative nuance' (  Ghezzi and Molinelli 2014:129); in the sense of demanding Bash pay   attention to what he was about to say (see also Aijmer 2018). Rather than directly   addressing her negatively structured why -  interrogative, however, he introduced the idea that  whatever  had  occurred was  a  prank .  Th is  particular  turn  thus  shares some similarities  with  the    defensive  IM  tactic  of    justifi  cation  (Tedeshi  and Melburg 1984) in that Weiner was   endeavouring to explain (away) a negative circumstance. In this case, though, it was an attempt to   trivialize what had occurred through carefully selected word choice(s) on the politician's part (cf. Bolino et al. 's 2008 defi  nition of justifi  cations as providing a reason or excuse for some negative action).

It  is  worth  noting  that  responding  without  answering  -  by  changing the  textual  content  of  the  question  -  equates  to  a  covert  type  of  evasion; tantamount to concealing the fact that a cooperative answer has not been given (  Galasiński 2000:62). Th ere was evidence of additional evasive moves in this turn too (  given what ultimately transpired). Weiner signalled (i) he had been responsive previously, for example, (ii) as well as providing evidence (from his perspective) that he was currently being harassed beyond what was reasonable by this point. In terms of his non-linguistic communication   channels, Weiner repeatedly looked to the left    and  right  (towards  where  Bash  was  standing) as he delivered his turn. He also shook his head (twice) when stating he was not gonna allow it to decide what he would talk about during the next week or  next  two  weeks .  Th ere  was  a  marked  shoulder  shrug,  in    addition,  when he claimed he had been pretty responsive…in the past . For Western   cultures, in    particular,  although  shoulder  shrugs  can  indicate  resignation  (and  even powerlessness: see, e.g., Givens 2002), they are more commonly understood to signal '  hesitation, uncertainty, doubt and[/or] lack of knowledge' (see, e.g., Jokinen and Allwood 2010:26). As such, we might be tempted to assume that Weiner had not been as responsive as he could have been (at this point), in spite of his protestations.

As  utterance  3  of  Extract  1  reveals,  Bash  initially  responded  with but but  with  respect  you're  here  which  we-  which  we  appreciate  but  you're  not answering the questions. Linguistic features such as with respect and appreciate prior  to  a    contrastive  conjunction, but , eff  ectively  equate  to  using  overt linguistic    politeness  markers  as  a  means  of  pre-empting  -  by  varnishing  a    face-threatening  accusation  (see,  e.g.,  Johnson  and  Cliff  ord  2011)  that, in  this  case,  related  to  Weiner's  evasiveness.  Bash  then  went  on  to  use  an indirect request for   information ( can you just say ) that pre-modifi  ed   another (  negatively-constructed) whyinterrogative.  Once  again,  then,  Weiner  was being  invited  to  defend  his  position:  albeit  with  increasing  judgemental overtones from Bash (see Section 4).

Weiner's  linguistic  response  at  this  point  was  more  equivocation.  He referred to a hypothetical situation where he was giving a speech in a public context and someone threw a pie or yell ed out an insult. Th e throwing of pies is not as odd as it might fi  rst appear, in a political context, given it can refer to protest that is designed to ridicule, embarrass and humiliate (Kuntzman 2005).  Th e  metaphor was accompanied by one manipulator (when Weiner touched his nose) and several (largish) arm illustrators 2 ,  all  of  which  acted as a prelude to Weiner's rhetorical question: would I spend the next two hours responding to that (which he immediately answered) no (see turn 4).

At this point, Weiner was suddenly interrupted by I2 (the male reporter); and he seemed determined to emphasize that this [was] not  that  situation , given his repetition of this phrase (see, e.g., turns 5 and 7). Th e interruption instigated a pattern of face-threatening repetition from Weiner in return (see, e.g., turns 6 and 8), which he then exacerbated further by repeatedly asking (from turn 8) whether I2 wanted to do the briefi  ng (increasing his volume as he did so) .

Well why don't do- wha- do you want to do the briefi  ng and do you want to do the briefi  ng sir are examples, moreover, of a special type of rhetorical question - epiplexis - used 'to reproach, rebuke, upbraid' , etc. (Zimmerman 2005:93). Such tactics are obviously face-threatening: in this case, having   implications for both I2's negative face (his 'want' to get the answers he needed rather than being impeded in his actions) and positive face (his 'want' to be approved of and, hence, taken seriously as an interviewer).

As the above transcript reveals, the overlapping (which began   noticeably from turn 4) also increased further at this point, allowing Weiner to frame I2  as  preventing  him  from  answering  (thereby  impacting  on  his  own negative face). Such a move is in line with Archer and Lansley's (2015:237-8) deception-related  tactic  of  representing  others  in  ways  that  advantage  self (see Section 1).   Another of Weiner's tactics at this point - that of repeating sir (i.e.,  an  overly  polite  term of address, given the confl  ictive exchange) as a  type  of  request  to  be  allowed  to  continue  -  constitutes  an  additional  IM (as well as potentially deceptive) move on his part (ibid.). When the (staged) requests to continue failed, he then addressed all but I2, to ask whether those guys  want [ed  him] to  fi  nish [his] answer (see  turn  14),  thereby  impacting upon the male interviewer's negative face . Although I2 continued to respond too,  Weiner  ignored  (most  of)  those  responses  and  instead  reiterated  the hypothetical throwing pies scenario he had mentioned previously, prompting I2 to   comment (somewhat frustratingly); all you have to do is say no to the question (see turn 12).

Turn 14 is interesting because it gives us a layman's perception of   questions in this and, arguably, other settings too: namely, that questioners tend to ask questions on the assumption that their questions will get answers from their target  (even  if  some  constitute  dispreferred  responses,  e.g.,    non-  answers, refusals rather than acceptances, etc.). Some 14 turns later, Weiner made a related suggestion to the same interviewer (I2), albeit focussing on   interviewer versus interviewee roles in this instance: why don't you- why don't you let me do the answers and you do the questions (turn 26). Th is adheres to the   generally held belief highlighted in the Introduction to this paper: that '  interviewers' tend to 'restrict themselves to questioning and interviewees…to answering interviewer questions, or at least responding to them' (  Clayman and   Heritage 2002:97) in the main. It is  worth  noting,  however,  that  their  rationales  for highlighting such (seemingly similar) perceptions were very   diff  erent.   Weiner was  continuing  to  frame  I2  as  someone  who  was    preventing  him  from responding. I2, in contrast, was insinuating that Weiner was being   consistently and   deliberately evasive: seemingly, because he had something to hide. Several days later it transpired that I2 (and other reporters) were right to be   suspicious. As noted in the Introduction, Weiner admitted to sexting   shortly thereaft  er, and has since served a prison sentence for additional   sexting off  ences.

## 3. Huntley police interview

Ian Huntley was a caretaker at Soham Village College (in Cambridgeshire, England) when Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman went missing on 4 th August 2002. In a television interview, not long aft  er, Huntley admitted he had   spoken with the 10-year-olds on the Sunday they had disappeared, when he had been outside  grooming  his  dog;  and  aft  er  they  had  spoken,  had  watched  them walk away in the direction of the church. Huntley was fi  rst questioned by the police,  in  connection  with  the  girls'  disappearance,  twelve  days  aft  er  their disappearance. His girlfriend, Maxine Carr, was also questioned. Both were released  without  charge  at  that  time  but  then  subsequently  arrested  in  the early hours of 17 th August (on suspicion of murder). Extract 2 is a very short excerpt from one of Huntley's police interviews, where he was questioned by a female police offi cer (shown as PO, below). 3

Extract 2: Huntley police interview

1 PO Throughout any of this Ian was there any occasion that you actually came into contact physical contact with the girls?

- 2 IH physical contact     [no
- 3 PO [mm   ok

Th e police offi cer (henceforth PO) is not visible in the video. When   seeking to  make  sense  of  this  short  clip,  we  are  thus  reliant  on  what  she  said  and how she said it - as well as,  importantly,  how  Huntley  responded  verbally and   behaviourally. Th e fi  rst thing we might note, however, relates not to the example itself but to the activity type it represents (Levinson 1992).   Namely, that the power asymmetry tends to be more marked in this activity type than it  is  in  press  interviews  (even  in  coercive  ones,  such  as  Weiner's,  where  a discursive power struggle ensued: cf. Section 2). Th is  said, it is possible for suspects to stay silent or answer with no comment within the UK. UK police offi cers  can  also  downplay  the  typical,  ritualized  '  question-answer  routine' in order to make the activity feel 'more like a conversation' (Shuy 1990:180) for the   interviewee. Th is is especially the case when the PEACE   interviewing model is being used, due to its emphasis on enhanced   cognitive   interviewing techniques  (and,  hence,  the  establishment  of  some  level  of    rapport  as  an important  fi  rst  step  of  the  interviewing  process:  see,  e.g.,    Mulayim  et  al. 2014:39-40).  We  do  not  have  suffi cient  detail  to  know  how  the  PO  dealt with her full interaction with   Huntley, but - assuming her adherence to the PEACE model - Extract 2 (above) likely occurred as part of the third phase of   interviewing, that is, at the point questions were being asked as a means of clarifying or   potentially   challenging the interviewee's account. 4 Assuming the PO was familiar with a second,   alternative (but complimentary)   interviewing model  -  that  of    Conversation  Management  -  she  may  have  also  been  as interested in   Huntley's nonverbal behaviours (ibid:41) as we are below.

Let's begin with the polar question the PO asked in turn 1, of Extract 2, which was pre-empted by an indirect reference to the girls' disappearance: throughout any of this. Huntley responded facially to this indirect reference using lip/mouth movements that included a lip lick indicative of a dry mouth, and muscular tension around the jawline (Lansley 2017). From this, the PO might have inferred a level of discomfort on Huntley's part. Th e PO followed her  indirect  reference  to  the  girls'  disappearance  with  a  direct  fi  rst-name address: Ian . Personal names in medial position, as here, eff  ectively serve as attention getters (cf. Aijmer 2018): in this case, we might recognise it as a sort of 'performative' , aimed at directing Huntley's attention to the import of the PO's upcoming question (cf. Ghezzi and Molinelli 2014:129). When the PO went on to ask her polar question, it required Huntley to explain whether there was any occasion he had had physical contact with the 10-year-old girls.

A  question  such  as  this  would  have  been  stress  inducing  for    Huntley, whether  he  was  innocent  or  guilty  of  harming  Holly  and  Jessica.  What  is potentially  signifi  cant  for  our  (multi-channel)  analysis,  then,  is  how  he responded to the question, behaviourally, as it was being asked. He changed his position during the words that you actually came into contact , for example, suggesting thereby that he seemed to be anticipating the question might prove problematic for him . Th is was followed by him shuffl ing in his seat at the point the PO made clear by actual contact she meant physical (potentially, sexual) contact , and Huntley then leaning back in his seat, thereby adding weight to the interpretation that the question had, indeed, unsettled him.

When Huntley responded verbally to the PO's polar question, he did so by repeating part of her question physical contact - before quickly   answering no . Recapitulary echoing questions, as Quirk et al (1985:835-6) label them,   repeat all or part of a message 'as a way of having…content confi  rmed' , but can also 'have other functions' , such as when they are used to express '  incredulity' (see also Collin 2020, this issue, Mortensen 2020, this issue). An analysis based on the transcript alone potentially allows for either or both possibilities (i.e., a clarifi  cation/confi  rmation-seeking move and/or a signal of his   incredulity at being asked such a question). Especially if we read the PO's   self-correction from contact to physical  contact as  a  means  of    introducing  the  topic  of  a new type of contact at this  juncture  based,    importantly,  on  the    knowledge that Huntley had previously admitted (in televised press   interviews) he had talked with the girls (albeit aft  er they fi  rst approached him to enquire about his   girlfriend). Part of my argument for including facial and body movements as well as   prosodic features, as part of such analyses, is that they can lead us to make very   diff  erent interpretations of the   meaning   potential of   questions and answers. In this case, for example, I would   contend that Huntley's echo of part of the PO's previous turn was a means of giving himself some   thinking time. My argument is based on a lack of prosodic   features indicating   incredulity, and Huntley not waiting for a verbal signal, from the PO, confi  rming her   question centred on potential physical   contact with the girls. Instead, his no overlapped with the PO's mm .  It  remains   possible that the PO used a head nod, which Huntley interpreted as   confi  rmation, given she is not in shot   herself;   serving as a useful reminder that we should not base any   interpretation - and   assessments of deception   especially - on any one   behaviour (see   Introduction). Th ere are other   potential   indicators of   deception that cluster at this point, though, such as Huntley answering a   question with a question, and his volume   decreasing on no ,  when  compared  with  the  echo  question  (Lansley  2017:49,  Archer and Lansley 2015). Huntley's body language is signifi  cant at this point too. He   anchored his hands, clasping them together in a way that (advertently or inadvertently) covered his genital area. Glass (2014) suggests such behaviour can indicate a person is feeling vulnerable or uneasy (  possibly, due to a fear of being caught in a lie). Huntley gave off   (Goff  man 1959) two further,   potentially revealing micro movements in addition: a single-sided shoulder shrug and a headshake that was out of sync with his uttering no .  Signifi  cantly, for this analysis, both may be   indicative of deception when they cluster with other deceptive   indicators, as here (see, e.g., Lansley 2017:39) . Goff  man's argument that interlocutors communicate intentionally through the things they say, in conjunction with their facial expressions and other controlled body language, but also inadvertently give off   impressions they did not specifi  cally intend, is echoed by Schneider (1981), albeit using diff  erent terminology. Schneider labels the inferences people want others to draw from their self-presentation as calculated impressions , and those that are given off   as secondary impressions . It is the latter, more diffi cult to control impressions that have 'the capacity to alter the meaning of the calculated impression and in extreme cases…spoil it' , according to Schneider (1981:33). It is likely that Huntley, for example, was seeking to persuade the PO that there had been no untoward physical   contact between  him,  Holly  and  Jessica,  but  his  body  language,  language  choices and  volume  decrease  suggested  a  very  diff  erent  reality  that  was  ultimately confi  rmed at his court case (and resulted in his imprisonment).

## 4.  Th e  multiple  factors  from  which  questions  glean  their  meaning-incontext: a summary

Th is  paper has demonstrated that the meaning-in-context of questions and answers is shaped by and/or interpretable using a number of interdependent, multi-channel  factors,  some  of  which  appear  to  be  ignored  by  researchers currently.  Th e  most  commonly drawn upon factors tend to be a question's syntactic  form  and  interactional  force/function  in  context,  of  course.  Less commonly discussed, perhaps, is a question's position within - in conjunction with what the questioner intends to achieve by - an exchange: possibly   because the inclusion of a questioner's intentions takes us fi  rmly into the territory of (socio)pragmatics (see, e.g., Archer 2005) and debates around whether it is possible to accurately retrieve speaker intention.   As Grimshaw noted some 30 years ago, for example, what 'is in people's heads is accessible neither to   analysts nor to interlocutors (nor even...to those whose behaviour is under investigation)' (1990:281). We are thus reliant, at best, on an assessment of plausible  intentions,  using  the  evidence  available  to  us  (whether  we  are participants of an interaction as it unfolds or analysing it post event for some reason, as here). Consider Extract 2, relating to Weiner (discussed, at length, in Section 2). Bash initially asked two questions of the then Congressman. Th e second question seemed to be necessary, from the interviewer's perspective, because Weiner had evaded (and, hence, not answered) the fi  rst. Evidence for such an interpretation includes both questions seeking the same information: why Weiner had not asked the capitol police or any law enforcement to   investigate the malicious hacking of his Twitter account, given it was potentially a crime . Bash  also  used  superfi  cial  politeness  (see,  e.g., but  with  respect  you're  here which  we-  which  we  appreciate )  to  varnish  an  otherwise,  face-threatening accusation that Weiner was not answering the questions .  It  is  partly because Bash repeated the same question in such close proximity to the fi  rst that she was able to frame Weiner as being deliberately evasive. Note, however, that Weiner was able to continue evading her question: in spite of the interviewer's use of an interrogative structure that is deemed to be highly conducive (  Archer 2005).  Th is  particular  interaction  is  thus  a  useful  reminder  that,  although 'certain  question-types  have  the  capacity  to  constrain…the  addressee's response' (Archer 2005:54) by restricting what they might do (Wartenberg 1990), interlocutors like Weiner can still opt to respond such that they 'avoid giving' the requested information (Archer 2005:60). Hence, the importance of studying not only the expectation of a response (verbal or otherwise) and interactional  capacity  to  compel  that  response  but  also  the  responses  that questions actually receive in context. It is only by so doing, in fact, that we allow 'the answerer' (not just 'the questioner') to have some 'power over what happens next within a given encounter' (Sarangi 2010:236) and give due credence, thereby, to the notion of meaning being negotiated in context by all participants. We might note Sharrock's (1979:142) suggestion, for example, that the format of an answer 'is in an answerer's control' to the extent of being constrained as much 'by the answerer's sense of what the [best] answer is' as it  is  'by  the  form  of  the  question'  itself.  Th is  may be especially relevant in situations where questions can create credibility issues for respondents. It is for such reasons I also advocate paying attention to the potential use of IM by both the questioner (when asking his or her question/s) and the respondent (when answering them) in this paper. I have already noted Bash's implicature that Weiner was being evasive. Th e structure of Weiner's fi  rst response to Bash (see Turn 2 of Extract 1) seems to support such an interpretation, given   Weiner changed the textual content of - as a means of avoiding having to answer - the interviewer's question (Galasiński 2000:62). Weiner seemed to want to appear cooperative, nonetheless: hence, presenting himself as a victim of a prank , and as  someone  who,  in  spite  of  being  responsive  previously,  was  now  being harassed beyond what was reasonable (see Section 2). His second response to Bash was also evasive - and arguably too evasive - given that Weiner   employed a metaphor relating to throwing pies and a rhetorical question he was careful to answer himself, would I spend the next two hours responding to that no (Turn 4), which resulted in I2's (repeated) interruption of Weiner from that point onwards. As noted in Section 2, I2 was particularly at pains to emphasize that this was not  that  situation (see, e.g., Turns 5 and 7). As noted in the   Introduction, questions  that  expect  answers  will  always  tend  to  impact  upon  a  target's negative face (i.e., their 'want' to act freely, without imposition) and can also aff  ect  the  target's  positive  face  in  some  contexts.  Hence  the  importance  of paying attention to interlocutors' face(work), as well as any attempts on their part to engage in IM, when seeking to understand questions and answers in context.  For  example,  I2's  continuous  interruption(s)  had  implications  for Weiner's negative face (because of impeding him from continuing) and his positive  face  (because  of  the  growing  insinuation  that  Weiner  was  being evasive not because he was fed up of answering something he had previously dealt  with  but  because  he  had  something  to  hide).  At  this  point,  Weiner became the questioner, repeatedly asking I2 (from Turn 8 of Extract 1)   whether he wanted to do the briefi  ng (increasing his volume as he did so) . As   mentioned previously  (see  Section  2), well  why  don't  do-  wha-  do  you  want  to  do  the briefi  ng and do you want to do the briefi  ng sir are examples of a special type of rhetorical  question  -  epiplexis  -  used  'to  reproach,  rebuke,  upbraid' ,  etc. (Zimmerman 2005:93). I have suggested such tactics were deliberately face threatening on Weiner's part: having implications for both I2's negative face (his 'want' to get the answers he needed rather than being impeded in his actions) and positive face (his 'want' to be taken seriously as an interviewer). In terms of IM, Weiner seemed to be seeking to frame I2 as preventing him from  answering,  even  going  as  far  as  lamenting,  via  a  negative why -interrogative, that he should let him do the answers whilst he do the questions (turn 26). I2,  in  contrast,  sought  to  frame  Weiner  as  being  inappropriately evasive: hence comments such as all you have to do is say no to the question (see turn 12). It is worth reiterating, here, too, that Weiner's IM, when viewed in  conjunction  with  telling  facial  expressions  and  body  movements,  was ultimately indicative of deception on his part. Simply put, he - like Huntley gave off (Goff  man 1951) impressions that served to contradict what he said when responding to questions (which included asking questions of his own). Yet, previous analyses of questions and answers have tended to exclude facial expressions and body movements from their analyses - even when they would be enriched by their inclusion. As this Section has discussed Weiner at length, thus  far,  let's  focus  on  Huntley  at  this  juncture.  I  noted,  in  Section  3,  that Huntley gave off   several facial and body movements at the point the PO asked her question about his physical contact with Holly and Jessica. Th ere were also give-away  signs  (verbal  and  nonverbal)  when  he  echoed physical  contact , thereby answering a question with a question, before answering no (  overlapping with the PO's mm as  he  did  so).  His  volume was lower, with regard to the latter, than it was when asking physical contact , for example. He also gave off (Goff  man 1959) a single-sided micro shoulder shrug and a micro headshake, which was out of sync with the no response. All of which served to contradict his denial of having had physical contact: and thereby suggested that he had (which  ultimately  proved  to  be  the  case).  Th is  paper  contends  that  it  is seemingly insignifi  cant  secondary  impressions,  such  as  this,  that  have  'the capacity to alter the meaning' of a calculated impression, to use Schneider's term, 'and in extreme cases to spoil it' (cf. Schneider 1981:33). I suggested in Section 3, for example, that Huntley was probably seeking to persuade the PO there had been no physical contact between him and the girls. When certain types of behaviour 'suggestive of inconsistency' cluster across the communication  channels  'within  a  seven-second  window' ,  however,  they may indicate  that  the  truth  is  very  diff  erent  (see,  e.g.,  Archer  and  Lansley 2015:232-3, 236). 5

## 5. Concluding comment

Th is paper has sought to demonstrate  not only that questions are communicative  acts  of  elicitation,  whose  meaning-in-context  is  shaped  by and/or interpretable using a number of interdependent, multi-channel   factors, but that multi-channel approaches can also help researchers better account for the impressions interlocutors like Weiner and Huntley give off (  Goff  man 1951) when asking and responding to questions. Th is includes having the   potential to  help  us  detect  deception:  especially  when  inconsistencies  are  triggered by a stimulus - such as a question - and cluster across the   communication channels at that point or shortly thereaft  er (i.e., within a seven second   window of  a    stimulus).  Researchers  interested  in  explaining  the  characteristics  of questions for the purposes of a grammar textbook, for example, may not want to include all the multi-channel factors that this paper argues (help to) shape questions (and the answers they glean) in their context-of-use. I say this as the type of analysis advocated by this paper will have to focus as much on what a questioner means when asking X as they do on the formal structure of a given question or (set of) questions. An   interest in what the questioner means is paramount for anyone interested in   meaning-in-context, however. I would argue that so, too, is paying equal attention to the message(s) a questioner and their   respondent(s) may be giving off  , albeit unwittingly (cf. Goff  man 1959), as they interact together. As this paper has shown, this means   paying   attention to  a  participant's  facial  expressions,  body  movements  and  gestures  when asking and/or responding to questions, as well as their face(work) and their use of IM (including instances where they might be   using IM for   deceptive purposes).  It  remains  the  case,  of  course,  that  what  'is  in  people's  heads  is accessible   neither to analysts nor to interlocutors (nor even...to those whose behaviour is   under investigation)' (Grimshaw 1990:281). As such, we must use the best evidence available to us (whether we are engaged in an   interaction as  it    unfolds  or    researchers  analysing  it  post  event)  in  order  to    assess  the most plausible   intentions of those involved. I would contend that the kind of approach   advocated here encourages us to use more of the evidence available to us - by insisting we pay attention to all communication channels rather than prioritising (  certain aspects of) language only.

## Notes

- 1 Th is multi-channel approach has been devised by the EIA Group, and is based on 27 research-validated criteria tested in diverse fi  elds (i.e., intelligence services, law enforcement, fraud investigation, etc.: see Archer and Lansley 2015).
- 2 Friesen et al. (1980) introduced the terms, manipulator and illustrator, as part of their three-part coding system for classifying hand movements (alongside emblem ). As Bull (1989:159) notes, manipulators 'satisfy self or bodily needs' , and can range from self-soothing/stroking behaviour through scratching an itch to manipulating an object (by, e.g., tapping a pen on a desk). Illustrators, in contrast, 'follow the rhythm and content of speech, and typically do not involve contact with an object or part of the body' (ibid.).
- 3 Th e clip was made available to the author for analysis as part of the Investigation Discovery series, Faking It: Tears of a Crime (see Series 2, Episode 1) .
- 4 Aft  er establishing some level of rapport and explaining the aims of the interview, a police offi cer will invite their interviewee to provide a (free) account, in   relation to the matter under investigation, during the fi  rst phase of the interview. In the second  phase,  areas  of  investigative  interest  (including  topics  not  raised  by  the interviewee) will be developed/covered in more depth thereby setting up the third phase (i.e., the asking of questions designed to clarify or challenge the interviewee's free account).
- 5 Th e argument for paying 'especially close attention to [a] person's cross-channel behaviour  immediately  aft  er  a  prompt  for  question  (i.e.,  up  to  seven  seconds)' (  Archer  and  Lansley  2015:232)  is  based  on  an  understanding  of  being  able  to 'reasonably  conclude…the  behaviour  is  directly  associated  with  the  stimulus' (  Houston et al. 2012:30).

## References

- Aijmer, Karin. 2018. Positioning of self in interaction: Adolescents' use of attention-getters. K. Beeching, C. Ghezzi and P . Molinelli (eds.) Positioning the Self and Others : Linguistic Perspectives . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 177-196.
- Archer, Dawn. 2018. Negotiating diff  erence in political contexts: An exploration of Hansard. A. Haselow (ed.) Dialogism and language change .  Special   issue of Language Sciences 68,  22-41.  Online  (accessed  10  Jan  2018):  https://doi.org/10.1016/j. langsci.2017.12.005.
- Archer, Dawn. 2005. Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640-1760): A  Sociopragmatic  Analysis .  Pragmatics  and  Beyond  New  Series.  Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Archer, Dawn and Cliff   Lansley. 2015. Public appeals, news interviews and   crocodile tears: An argument for a multi-channel annotation scheme. Corpora 10(2), 231258.
- Bolino, Mark C., K. Michelle Kacmar, William H. Turnley and J. Bruce Gilstrap. 2008. A Multilevel Review of Impression Management Motives and Behaviors. Journal of Management 34(6), 1080-1109.
- Brown,  Penelope  and  Stephen  C.  Levinson.  1987. Politeness:  Some  Universals  in Language Usage . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Bull,  Peter  1989.  Psychological  Approaches  to  Transcription.  D.  Roger  and  Peter Bull (eds.) Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective . Clevedon, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 150-165.
- CBS. 2011. Weiner Admits Tweeting Lewd Photo & Having Multiple 'Inappropriate' Online  Relationships.  Online  (accessed  4  April  2019):  https://newyork.cbslocal. com/2011/06/06/shirtless-photos-allegedly-of-anthony-weiner-posted-on-biggovernment-com/.
- Clayman,  Stephen  and  John  Heritage.  2002. Th e  News  Interview  :  Journalists  and Public Figures on the Air . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Collin,  Winnie  2020,  this  issue.  'It  was  probably  that  guy?'  -  Th e  functions  of reconstructive  speech  acts  in  investigative  training  interviews. Scandinavian Studies in Language 11(1), 170-195.
- Friesen,  Wallace  V .,  Paul  Ekman  and  Harald  Wallbott.  1980.  Measuring  hand movements. Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour 4, 97-113.
- Galasiński, Dariusz. 2000. Th e Language of Deception: A Discourse Analytical Study . London: Sage Publications.
- Gass, Robert H. and John S. Seiter. 2015. Persuasion: Social Infl  uence and Compliance Gaining . (Fift  h Edition). London and New York: Routledge.
- Ghezzi,  Chiarra  and  Piera  Molinelli.  2014.  Italian guarda,  prego,  dai .  Pragmatic Markers and the Left   and Right Periphery. K. Beeching and U Detes (eds.) Discourse Functions in the Left   and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change . Leiden: Brill, 117-150.

- Givens, David B. 2002. Th e Non-Verbal Dictionary of Gestures, Signs & Body   Language Cues . Spokane, Washington: Center for Nonverbal Studies Press.
- Glass, Lillian. 2014. T he Body Language of Liars : From Little White Lies to   Pathological Deception :  How to  See  through  the  Fibs,  Frauds  and  Falsehoods  People  Tell  you Every Day. Canada : Th e Career Press.
- Goff  man, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior . Chicago: Aldine.
- Goff  man, Erving. 1959. Th e Presentation of Self in Everyday Life . Arden Ci: New York. Grimshaw, Allen. 1990. Research on confl  ict talk: Antecedents, resources, fi  nding, Confl  ict  Talk  :  Sociolinguistic  Investigations  of
- directions.  A.D.  Grimshaw  (ed.) Arguments and Conversations . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 281-324.
- Hall, Peter. 1972. A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis of Politics. Sociological Inquiry 42(3-4), 35-75.
- Haworth,  Kate.  2006.  Th e  dynamics  of  power  and  resistance  in  police  interview discourse. Discourse & Society 17(6), 739-759.
- Holtgraves,  Th omas  M.  2013. Language  as  Social  Action  :  Social  Psychology  and Language Use . New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Houston, Philip, Michael Floyd and Susan Carnicero. 2012. Spy the Lie . New York: St Martin's Press.
- Johnson, Alison and Ruth Cliff  ord. 2011. Polite incivility in defensive attack:   Strategic politeness and impoliteness in cross-examination in the David Irving vs. Penguin Books  Ltd  and  Deborah  Lipstadt trial. Journal  of  Politeness  Research:  Language, Behaviour, Culture 7(1), 43-71.
- Jokinen, Kristina and Jens Allwood. 2010. Hesitation in Intercultural   Communication: Some  Observations  on  Interpreting  Shoulder  Shrugging. Proceedings  of  the I nternational  Workshop  on  Agents  in  Cultural  Context,  Th e  First  International Conference on Culture and Computing . Kyoto: Japan, 25-37.
- Konzett,  Carmen.  2012. Any  Questions?  :  Identity  Construction  in  Academic Conference Discussions . Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
- Kuntzman, Gersh. Pie-Faced: Why throwing a pie at someone who deserves it is one of the most celebrated traditions in our so-called culture. Newsweek , April 18 2005. (Accessed 12/04/2019).
- Lansley, Cliff  . 2017. Getting to the Truth : Th e practical, scientifi  c approach to behaviour analysis for professionals . Manchester: EIA Group.
- Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. Activity types and language. Paul Drew and John   Heritage (eds.) Talk at Work : Interaction in Institutional Settings .  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66-100.
- McKinlay,  Andrew  and  Chris  McVittie.  2009. Social  Psychology  and  Discourse . Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
- Mortensen, Sune S. 2020, this issue. A question of control? Forms and functions of courtroom  questioning  in  two  diff  erent  adversarial  trial  systems. Scandinavian Studies in Language 11(1), 239-278.

- Penman,  Robyn.  1994.  Facework  in  communication:  Conceptual  and  moral challenges. Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.) Th e Challenge of Facework: Cross-cultural and Interpersonal Issues . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 15-45.
- Quirk,  Randolph,  Sidney  Greenbaum,  Geoff  rey  Leech  and  Jan  Svartvik.  1985.  A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language . London: Longman.
- Rep. Weiner Defends Handling of Photo Scandal. YouTube clip. Online (accessed 4 April 2019): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05-\_LIOd5nM.
- Sarangi, Srikant. 2010. Th e Spatial and Temporal Dimensions of Refl  ective Questions in Genetic Counselling. Alice Freed and Susan Ehrlich (eds.) Why Do You Ask? :  Th e Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse .  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 235-255.
- Schneider, David J. 1981. Tactical self-presentations : Toward a broader conception. James T. Tedeschi (ed.) Impression Management Th eory and Social Psychological Research . New York: Academic Press, 23-40.
- Sharrock, Wes. 1979. Portraying the professional relationship. Digby C. Anderson (ed.) Health Education in Practice . London: Croom Helm, 125-146.
- Shuy,  Roger  W .  1990. Th e  Language  of  Confession,  Interrogation,  and  Deception . Th ousand Oaks, London: Sae.
- Taavitsainen,  Irma.  1999.  Personality  and  style  of  aff  ect  in  the  Canterbury  Tales. Geoff  rey Lester (ed.) Chaucer in Perspective: Middle English Essays in Honour of Norman Blake . Sheffi eld: Sheffi eld Academic Press, 218-234.
- Tedeshi, James T. and Valerie Melburg. 1984. Impression Management and Infl  uence in the Organization. Samuel B. Bacharach and Edward J. Lawler (eds.) Research in the Sociology of Organizations . Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI, 31-58.
- Vrij, Aldert. 2008. Detecting Lies and Deceit : Psychology of Lying and its Implications for Professional Practice . Second edition. Chichester: Wiley.
- Wartenberg,  Th omas  E.  1990. Th   e  Forms  of  Power  :  From  Domination  to Transformation . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
- Weinstein,  Rebecca  J.  2001. Mediation  in  the  Workplace  :  A  Guide  for  Training, Practice, and Administration . London: Greenwood Publishing Group.
- Zimmerman, Brett.  2005. Edgar  Allan  Poe  :  Rhetoric  and  Style .  Montreal:  McGill Queen's University Press.