Multilingual police interaction: a conversation analysis of crime control in border checks

4.1.1 Interactional and multilingual practices to accomplish legal work

In the police encounter on which the single-case analysis is based (extract 1), a French driver is stopped and asked to open the trunk of his car for a physical examination. From the moment the police officer (PO) finds a jar containing a plastic bag of marijuana inside a suitcase in the trunk (i.e., warrants suspicion), the driver (DR) becomes a suspect of the possible crime of apparent illegal possession of drugs.

Once suspicion is secured, PO must resolve whether the configuration that has confirmed DR as a suspect will lead to him ultimately being treated as a criminal or not.

In line 01, PO asks if DR has more (marijuana). The object is not stated overtly but can be inferred since PO is holding the jar containing the plastic bag of marijuana, thus focusing the police investigation on how much marijuana DR has. In epistemic terms, PO requests information from a K– position (Heritage 2012), since he is asking about something that is in the DR’s knowledge domain (how much marijuana DR has), which in turn positions DR in a K+ position.

Access to this information is crucial to resolving the encounter. The final outcome of this crime investigation depends on the amount of marijuana that DR has. This is because in Spain, according to the Spanish Criminal Code (Código Penal), the possession of a maximum of 100 g of marijuana is allowed if it is for personal use in private spaces or in clubs authorized for its use. In this case, less than 100 g of marijuana have been found. Therefore, it is vital in this police investigation to know whether DR has any more marijuana in order to determine the possible legal consequences for DR due to his possession of drugs.

As such, the PO’s question in line 01 is an example of a questioning practice through which key legal goals (i.e., legally relevant information for a criminal investigation) can be achieved (Ferraz de Almeida and Drew 2020). Also, it is a polar question with a relevant difference between answering yes or no, as a negative response gives DR a chance to be released.

This questioning practice was also observed in Spanish conversations. For example, the following extract (2) represents a police encounter conducted entirely in Spanish, in which DR is found with a bag containing a small amount of cocaine. Extract (2) begins immediately after the cocaine was found.

As can be seen in this transcript, both P1 and P2 ask DR if he has more (drugs, cocaine) (lines 01 and 02), as what is meant can be inferred since these questions are formulated just after the cocaine was found. However, neither P1 nor P2 mention the direct object of the question. But this conversation is with a French civilian who speaks proficient Spanish (he informed the officer that he visits Spain frequently), so DR treats the police officers’ questions without expressing any difficulty understanding (line 04). In fact, DR clearly claims not to have any more (cocaine) via the negative marker “no” plus a refusal gesture (head shaking) while providing an explicit response, no hay más ‘there is no more’ (line 04). After that, the police continue with the physical examination of the car. Thus, in the Spanish conversation in extract (2), the question-answer sequence that deals with the possibility of DR having more drugs does not alter the progressivity of the encounter.

This contrasts with what occurs in encounters with non-Spanish speakers, as in the following police interaction (extract 3), in which the stopped driver (a Belgian, non-Spanish speaker) has also been found to have a small amount of cocaine in his car.

In extract (3), PO formulates three different questions in order to obtain a response from DR. In the first two questions, the object of the question (cocaine) is absent. In his first attempt to be clear about the trouble source, PO adds “in the car?” (line 03). PO includes a reference to the spatial location to which the action llevar ‘carry’ refers. PO is thus shaping and constraining the meaning of llevar, which in this case is limited to “in the car”, since this is the space that the police are investigating. It should also be noted that PO says “in your car?” in English. He is thus alternating languages in conversation (code-switching), which can be used as a repair mechanism to overcome difficulties during L2 interactions (Gafaranga 2000).

However, this practice does not successfully achieve a response, which ultimately leads PO to ask a question referring to the object, the configuration that warrants suspicion, “cocaine” (line 05). “Cocaine” is said in English, which demonstrates that PO is aiming to resolve the lack of intersubjectivity with DR by targeting his last two questions (lines 03 and 05) via recipient design (Sacks et al. 1974), in other words, by tailoring his speech out of consideration of the fact that DR is not a Spanish speaker.

In line 07, DR responds with the negative marker “no” plus an explanation, thus aligning with the polarity of the PO’s answer and even providing further details. Therefore, PO has successfully obtained an answer by adding the object of the question (in English) that was misleading in his initial turn in line 01. This answer satisfies the PO’s question, since PO stops his interrogation (line 09), and asks DR to move (so DR can be situated at a certain distance to the vehicle) while PO continues examining the vehicle. Hence, by repairing and solving the design of his question, PO can resume the progressivity of this encounter by moving from one phase (interrogation) to another (vehicle examination).

As seen in the previous extracts, the PO’s questions do not initially include the object. This is because in Spanish, the question formulation tienes más? ‘have more’ assumes the recipient will be able to infer what the question is about. However, the omission of the object of the question might trigger delays in the progressivity of the question-answer sequence, especially in police interactions with non-Spanish speakers, as occurs in the police checks in extracts (3) and (1).

In extract (1), after the PO’s initial question, DR initiates a repair “eh?” (line 03), which may deal with a problem with hearing or understanding (Schegloff et al. 1977). Then, PO offers a repair solution by repeating the same question (again, in Spanish) but including the object (marijuana) (line 05). Thus, PO treats the initial absence of the word marihuana as a problem that needs to be repaired. PO also visibly locates the repair solution by pointing twice at the bag containing marijuana.

From DR’s response, it seems that the repair initiated in line 03 has been resolved, as DR gives an affirmative answer, sí ‘yes’ (line 07), which aligns with the previous yes/no question. But something in DR’s answer has not satisfied PO, as he decides to interrupt DR’s response (line 08). It could be the way in which the response is produced, with hesitation markers “ergh” “ah” that could express doubt or uncertainty, and because by extending his arm towards the bag, DR is focusing his attention on the marijuana that has already been found, in contrast to what PO is asking about (i.e., other, additional marijuana). Also, the DR’s affirmative answer is unusual, since suspects usually resist being recognized as criminals (such as the implication that they have more drugs) as this goes against their interests (Cerović 2022). Therefore, in line 08, PO expands his question in order to clarify any potential confusion, which he does by asking aquí en el coche? ‘here in the car?’ (line 08) in an attempt to clarify what specific information he is looking for. PO does this by guiding DR’s attention to the trunk of the car instead of the jar containing marijuana. While PO says “in the car”, PO points at the trunk, and is therefore again using a deictic gesture to visually locate what he is asking about, in this case, the possibility of finding more marijuana in the trunk of DR’s car.

After a brief silence (0.3 s) (line 09) in which DR does not take the opportunity to answer (which may signal some problem), PO decides, for the first time, to switch from Spanish to English. The question “do you have some marihuan” (line 10) could be considered a repair practice (forward orienting repair) that reduces the progressivity of this sequence by asking a similar question in a different language in order to make it more accessible to DR (Svennevig 2010). This is an example of language choice being employed as a repair mechanism to overcome potential conversational difficulties (Gafaranga 2000). At the same time, this language shift identifies DR as a novice Spanish speaker, as someone who might have trouble understanding Spanish. Consequently, this language alternation exhibits recipient design (Sacks et al. 1974). As such, PO acts in consideration of possible linguistic obstacles that might interfere with the correct satisfaction of his question.

However, none of the PO’s previous attempts to repair the understanding issues have been successful, as DR reports in his native language (French), that he does not understand the PO’s question, je ne comprend ‘I do not understand’ (line 12). Hence, DR manifests an explicit comprehension problem, which could be a result of DR’s lack of proficiency in both English and Spanish, or also because of how PO transforms the meaning of his original question when he switches to English. While in Spanish PO asks if DR has más ‘more’ marijuana, in English PO asks if DR has “some” marijuana. This suggests that PO does not have access to the word “more”, and using the word “some” gives a totally different meaning to his original question. In fact, it is obvious that DR has some marijuana, as PO is holding the jar containing it.

Faced with this explicit manifestation of lack of understanding, PO slows down his speech, pausing for 0.2 s between each of the different parts of his question (lines 13–15). As he did in Spanish, PO adds the clarification “in your car?” (line 15) and uses deictic gestures (pointing at the car) in combination with his speech, thus supporting his verbal communication with embodied resources to facilitate understanding. In line 17, DR gives an affirmative response to PO’s polar question, “yeah yeah”. However, once again, his embodied response focuses on the marijuana that has already been found (pointing at the bag). So, while DR aligns with PO through verbal communication, there is constant misalignment when it comes to their non-verbal behaviour.

As happened in lines 07–08, PO is not satisfied with DR’s response. In line 18, the silence of 0.8 s indicates a delay in the progressivity and hence, addresses a potential problem. PO rubs his nose, which is a self-adaptor (Ekman and Friesen 1969) that might not involve any intention to transmit a message, since such gestures are often performed unintentionally (Ekman and Friesen 1969: 85), although they might still indicate some problem (dissatisfaction) with DR’s previous response. In fact, in line 19, PO initiates a third-position repair, by offering DR the possibility to confirm whether he only has the marijuana that has already been found. Interestingly, due to the lack of access to the word “more”, PO leads the conversation to the point of using “only”, a word whose meaning contrasts with “more/other”, thus limiting the scope to what is true, that is, the finding of marijuana that is inside the jar. Hence, PO’s limited English skills may have led him to search for an alternative means of access to DR’s territory of knowledge. In fact, word selection is an example of recipient design (Sacks et al. 1974), as PO uses the word “only” in clear reference to DR’s embodiment conduct, which has always been focused on the bag containing marijuana.

In line 21, DR displays a receipt of understanding by providing an affirmative response “yeah yeah yeah”. Also, for the first time, DR aligns with PO’s question both verbally and non-verbally as he nods, a head gesture that also indicates affiliation (Stivers 2008). Thus, PO finally gets an expected answer, that is, DR claiming that he does not have any more marijuana (i.e., a suspect pushing back suspicion). Consequently, “only?” is designed in accordance with PO’s preference (and expectations) for obtaining an answer that can converge with the police expectations (Heinemann 2005). DR’s answer is treated by PO as satisfactory since it ends this interrogative sequence and allows PO to resume the progressivity of the encounter. In fact, after DR’s response in line 21, PO begins to search the trunk of the car, thus moving this police check to another phase (second vehicle search). This also shows that what is assessed in these border checks is not just what is said, since the outcome of these encounters is also based on physical examination (Mora-Rodriguez 2022).

In the first segment of extract (1), there is another matter that warrants further attention. Going back to the PO’s questions in lines 10 and 13, it can be seen that he uses the word marihuan when he switches to English. However, this word does not exist in English or Spanish, and does not in French either. So it is worth exploring some possible interpretations of why PO says marihuan instead of “marijuana”.

4.1.2 What is marihuan?

In the data collected for this research, it has been identified that some Spanish police officers translate the Spanish word marihuana /maɾiˈwana/ to marihuan /maɾiˈwan/ when talking with non-Spanish speakers. The following extracts document two instances of police encounters in which different police officers say marihuan /maɾiˈwan/ (a word that does not exist in Spanish, French or English) when questioning non-Spanish speakers about possession of this drug.

In the police check in extract (4), PO asks DR (an English speaker) about drug possession, asking the entire question in Spanish, with the exception of the word marihuan /maɾiˈwan/ (line 01). Interestingly, the word hachís /ha.ˈʧis/ is pronounced in Spanish, which may be intelligible to the recipient since it is very similar to its English translation, ‘hashish’ /hæʃˈiːʃ/. The same logic could apply to marihuana, especially considering that “marijuana” has Mexican-Spanish roots. However, PO finds it necessary to change the Spanish pronunciation so that DR will presumably understand it better.

A similar practice is observed in the police check in extract (5), in which a French driver is stopped. First, PO pronounces the word in Spanish, marihuana /maɾiˈwana/ (line 01), but then, after a short silence, PO says marihuan /maɾiˈwan/ (line 03). Then, in line 06, PO pronounces it in French, marijuana /maʁi’rwana/ thus designing the question in accordance with DR’s French identity. However, DR constantly delays his answer to PO’s question, even initiating repair (line 07). Since asking for marijuana in different languages has proven to be unsuccessful for securing a response, in line 08 PO returns to his native language (Spanish), and finally gets a response that aligns with the polarity of his question.

From the analysis of extracts (1), (4), and (5) it can be observed that marihuan is a word choice that is oriented towards recipient design as it is produced considering the identity of the recipient, a non-Spanish speaker. In fact, throughout the entire data collection, the use of marihuan is only observed in police encounters with non-Spanish speakers. As such, it could be argued that the officers are “recipient designing” their language choices on the basis of the reification of “national” varieties as boxed languages. However, it may be worth considering other possible reasons why the Spanish police pronounce it as marihuan /maɾiˈwan/.

To begin with, marihuan could be viewed as an imitation of the way speakers of one language (in this case English as a lingua franca) speak. So, when Spanish police officers say marihuan, they are imitating English by silencing the last vowel of “marijuana” in order to make it sound more like English. In fact, in several cases the distinction between Spanish and English resides in pronouncing or silencing the last vowel of a word. In particular, this applies to the so-called “silent ‘e’ rule”. In English, many words end with a silent “e”, while the Spanish equivalent ends with a pronounced vowel. Examples include words like chocolate /tʃoko’late/, ‘chocolate’ˈ/tʃɒk.lət/; teléfono /te’lefono/, ‘telephone’ /ˈtel.ɪ.fəʊn/; or even another drug, namely cocaína /koka’ina/ ‘cocaine’ /kəʊˈkeɪn/, which according to the data analyzed, Spanish police officers tend to pronounce correctly when speaking in English by not pronouncing the final “e”. As such, the police officers in extracts (1), (4) and (5) may be incorrectly applying the “silent ‘e’ rule” in their use of a word, “marijuana”, that does not end with “e”. This practice of hypercorrection involves the excessive application of a language rule that has apparently not been adequately mastered (DeCamp 1972).

In recent years, the concept of translanguaging has also drawn the attention of scholars interested in language practices in bilingual and multilingual contexts, and the use of marihuan by Spanish police officers could be interpreted as an example of this practice. Translanguaging involves the mixing of languages (Wei 2018), which creates a new language repertoire that goes beyond the normative boundaries of named languages (García and Wei 2014). Taking this approach, marihuan could be interpreted (from a translanguaging perspective) as a new word that results from the integration of different named languages (e.g., Spanish and English) but without being under any linguistic rules or limitations, since marihuan is not officially recognized in Spanish, English (or French). Hence, marihuan could be a product that originates in the local environment where the interaction occurs (Wei 2018), that is, as a result of the linguistic repertoire that Spanish police officers have due to their everyday interaction in a multilingual context, and that they use in their attempts to locally manage their communication with people who have different linguistic backgrounds and competences (see Mazzaferro 2018).

4.2.1 Police use of foreigner talk: simplifying speech to secure understanding

After the end of the first segment of extract (1), PO examines the trunk of the car in order to check whether DR is telling the truth, that is, if he only has the marijuana that was already found. During the trunk inspection, PO does not find any more drugs. Since the only configuration that warrants suspicion is the small plastic bag of marijuana, PO decides to discuss how best to resolve this encounter with another police officer (who initially stopped DR).

As explained before, while the amount of marijuana that DR has is within the limits of Spanish law, DR is certainly taking drugs from one country to another at a border crossing (a public space, which is illegal). However, this police check represents a conflict of interest. According to the feedback received from the police and in line with what was observed during the field research, the main mission of these border checks is to prevent drug trafficking, to find hard drugs (e.g., cocaine, heroin) or large amounts (kg) of soft drugs (e.g., marijuana). Thus, in situations such as the police encounter in extract (1), the police find themselves in the position of having to make a discretionary decision, whether to sanction it (which implies spending time making a police report) or not (in alignment with the police objectives).

While PO and the other police officer are discussing how they should resolve this encounter while standing near to DR’s vehicle, DR is watching and listening to them. The analysis of the second segment begins when DR decides to account for his possession of marijuana. By now, a new police officer (P2) has arrived at the location of this police check. Therefore, in segment 2 there are three police officers, but only one (P2) directly interacts with DR.

In line 22, DR accounts for his possession of marijuana. In his attempt to be treated as innocent (as someone who is not doing anything illegal), he uses the Spanish hay una carta ‘there is a letter’, the English “for”, and a final word that is associacione ‘association’, which DR pronounces in a way that could be interpreted as either Spanish, or French, or even Italian (since the last “e” mimics the Italian pronunciation). This word is very similar in these three languages, and although it is not articulated perfectly in any of them, it could be understood in the context where is produced. Thus, associacione is a word that arises from DR’s attempt to be understood in a Spanish context, in an encounter with the Spanish police. As such, in line 22, DR is alternating between different languages within the same conversational unit, which is intra-turn code-switching. This can also be viewed as a “chaotic practice” since it can be interpreted “as a sign of lack of mastery of either or both languages” (Mabule 2015: 340).

DR’s report of the ‘association letter’ constitutes a resource in the defense of his innocence. That letter may be interpreted as an alleged authorization to buy marijuana (although it was never shown). DR’s attempt to be treated as innocent is based on his self-categorization as a smoker, fumar ‘smoke’ (personal use) (line 24), and who has a letter (authorization) that entitles him to smoke marijuana. As such, DR depicts himself as being involved in mundane activities, as a form of resistance to being treated as extraordinary (i.e., innocent vs. criminal) (Kidwell 2009; Sacks 1984). Consequently, DR has used some Spanish words that are necessary for him to be categorized as innocent as opposed to criminal, thus claiming membership of a certain group in a high-stake setting and for a particular reason (Stokoe 2010), which can be summarized as follows (cf. Table 1):

DR’s account gets no response from PO, even though he is the recipient as indicated by the DR’s request for attention, monsieur? ‘sir’ (line 26). DR is allocating the next turn to PO since PO is the only policeman at this police check, and therefore the only possible recipient. The lack of response is taken by P2 as a cue to intervene in a transition relevance place of the conversation (Sacks et al. 1974). In line 28, P2 responds to DR’s account by reporting that it is illegal to have marijuana in the car.

Specifically, P2 says es prohibido ‘is prohibited’, which is not grammatically correct in Spanish. Es prohibido is a grammatical distortion of está prohibido. In Spanish, “to be” can either be ser or estar. Ser is used when talking about permanent states, while estar is something non-permanent. Es prohibido is ungrammatical in Spanish because laws and rules can change (i.e., are non-permanent), and therefore es cannot be used in Spanish to say that something is prohibited; the correct form is está prohibido.

When P2 says es prohibido, this is a form of foreigner talk (Ferguson 1975), when a native speaker intentionally simplifies their language when in conversation with foreigners based on their expectations of how non-native speakers use their language. P2 could quite conceivably be using the Spanish es in imitation of the English ‘is’ in order to be more easily understood by DR, who is a foreigner and hence likely not to have a full grasp of the Spanish distinction between ser and estar.

After a long delay of 1.4 s that might signal a forthcoming dispreferred response, such as upcoming disagreement (Pomerantz 1984), DR rejects P2’s report using the negative marker “no” (line 30), which displays dispreference (Pomerantz 1984; Schegloff 2007). In addition, DR again uses the Spanish verb fumar, thus referring to the category of smoker (personal use, ‘allowed’ as opposed to ‘prohibited’) as a ‘category-based denial’ (Stokoe 2010) in response to (and showing resistance to) P2’s claim.

The practices of foreigner talk have also been observed when the police report a crime. This is a high-stake moment with serious consequences, and in multilingual encounters such as border checks, police officers should simplify their speech in order to avoid possible misunderstandings. In the following extract (6), a French speaker is found to be hiding marijuana, despite having initially denied it, prompting the police to report the crime. That is why PO informs DR that he will get a police report.

In line 01, PO says, in Spanish, una denuncia te llegará a tu casa ‘a police report will arrive at your house’. The syntactic order of this sentence is non-standard. The more commonly heard form would be te llegará a tu casa una denuncia/te llegará una denuncia a tu casa. Therefore, by altering the grammatical order, PO first highlights the result of the police investigation (a report), making this information accessible to DR from the outset. Then, in line 03, PO says no problema, which imitates the English ‘no problem’, simplifying the Spanish no hay/no es un problema ‘there is/is not a problem’. In fact, in Spanish it is not correct to say no problema: that is an imitation of how a foreigner would say ‘no problem’ in Spanish, and is therefore an example of foreigner talk.

Another example of foreigner talk when reporting a crime can be seen in the case described in the earlier extract (2), in which DR was found to be in possession of cocaine, which is a hard drug and hence constitutes a crime. DR, who is a French speaker but speaks good Spanish, only receives an administrative sanction because it was only a small amount of cocaine for personal use. At the end of the encounter (extract 7), PO hands him a police report.

Despite the fact that DR speaks proficient Spanish, the way PO addresses DR suggests the latter is a relatively novice speaker. In line 01, PO uses monsieur ‘sir’ to get DR’s attention. Monsieur is a good example of recipient design as PO chooses a French word in accordance with DR’s nationality (France). Then, in line 03, PO simplifies the delivery of the administrative sanction to just three words, esto ‘this’ manda ‘rules’ “okay?”. This is a very simple grammatical structure with all the prepositions left out, and which mimics stereotypes about how non-natives speak a foreign language. PO is converting complex information into short units of information, one of the characteristics of foreigner talk when used to achieve understanding in intercultural encounters (Bremer et al. 1996).

Both the second segment of extract (1), and extracts (6) and (7) show how police officers reduce and simplify their language when reporting crimes (police evaluations of illegal actions) when speaking to non-native Spanish speakers. This shows that police remove complex grammatical features from their statements when delivering “bad news”, thus accommodating their speech to the needs of non-native speakers in high-stake situations (such as the resolution of crime) to ensure understanding.

4.3.1 Epistemics in intercultural communication

In the third segment of the conversation introduced in extract (1), PO has finished discussing how this encounter should be resolved. PO resumes his conversation with DR, who previously gave his account of why he was carrying marijuana. Faced with DR’s attempt to be treated and recognized as someone who has done nothing wrong, PO makes an epistemic claim of knowledge to determine his authority on the matter discussed in this investigation, which is whether DR’s possession of marijuana is illegal or not.

In line 32, PO issues an assessment that defines DR’s activity as illegal. By doing so, PO is manifesting that he has primary epistemic rights to evaluate DR’s conduct (Heritage and Raymond 2005). In fact, PO has both the entitlement and the obligation to issue an assessment, since asserting what constitutes suspicion (and ultimately a crime) is part of his duty in these border checks (Mora-Rodriguez 2022). Beyond that, the interest is in the resources that PO employs to index epistemic authority towards a recipient who is not a Spanish speaker, that is, with someone who is not from Spain, and therefore might not be aware of that country’s laws.

The PO’s assessment in line 32 is supported by the context where this encounter takes place, in Spain. The reference to the country is used by PO as a source of knowledge authority that entitles him to assess DR’s activity. This is because PO, in his role as an institutional professional (the Spanish police), has an epistemic advantage since he is required to have extensive knowledge of the criminal code with regard to offenses that occur, specifically, in Spain. His daily routine consists of acting and taking decisions in accordance with the Spanish legal system, so he can make an epistemic claim based on his specialist expertise. In contrast, as a lay participant, DR might be experiencing a situation like this for the first time. This is a characteristic of institutional encounters, in which one party has less experience than the other, highlighting knowledge asymmetries between participants (Drew and Heritage 1992).

Any multilingual interaction that takes place in these border checks involves a Spanish police officer (a ‘local’) and someone who is not from Spain (a ‘visitor’, ‘foreigner’; an ‘outsider’). That is, indeed, a feature that strengthens the superior epistemic position of the Spanish police when it comes to conversations with non-native Spanish speakers, as the former are in a K+ knowledge position in which they display community-membership expertise (Clark 1996). In this regard, the institutional and local (Spanish) context is used by PO as a resource to provide grounds for his assessment.

The reference to Spain as a resource to index epistemic authority, and as way of allowing access to knowledge about the rules that shape these encounters (i.e., the rules of Spain), is a practice that has only been detected when the interaction is with non-Spanish speakers. Another example is the police encounter in extract (8), in which a driver from Romania states that he only has a photocopy of his ID (which is not valid proof of identity in Spain).

In line 01, PO asserts a claim of knowledge based on his epistemic domain (the Spanish legal system), and after a delay of 1 s (line 02) that could potentially lead to disagreement (Pomerantz 1984), he ultimately receives the preferred response (line 03) that acknowledges (i.e., confirms and accepts) the previous remark.

A Spanish officer can also use a reference to Spain to position civilians in a subordinate role, for example, when people express discomfort with police decisions. An example of this can be seen in extract (9), in which a French couple argues with the police about the decision to search their car.

In lines 01 and 03, PO refers to information that is closer to the DR’s ‘territory of information’ (Kamio 1997) since the concept of Francia ‘France’ (line 01) and the French police (Gendarmerie) (line 03) is information that is connected to DR’s nationality. In addition, PO breaks down this information by presenting the parts of his explanation one at a time, clearly distinguishing them by providing pauses between each. First, PO refers to Francia (location, context) (line 01), then to gendarmería (subject) (line 03), and finally to the action that refers to the (French) police authority (lines 05–07), as an example of police interventions on the free movement of people. This practice is called ‘speaking in installments’ (Clark 1996), where each installment is oriented towards enhancing intersubjectivity (Svennevig 2018). Overall, PO establishes a common ground of knowledge with DR on the police authority to stop people. Only when PO has established this does he then claim his authority by referring to Spain (line 11), which in turn stresses the relevance of the fact that they are in the Spanish territory and as such, governed by the laws of Spain.

The reference to Spain shows how police officers display their authority using information that is in their epistemic domain (Spanish regulations), and that may be not be familiar to someone who is not from Spain. However, although this resource can also serve to balance the asymmetries in knowledge that exist with outsiders in order to achieve understanding and intersubjectivity in intercultural moments (Bolden 2014), at the same time it reinforces the authority of the police over them. The reference to Spain situates the Spanish police in an epistemically (and deontically) superior position, both by belonging to the police, but also by displaying community(local)-membership expertise.

4.3.2 Speaking in installments

Returning to the third segment in extract (1), it is important to note that while PO was informing DR about the illegality of his activity (line 32), PO is putting the jar containing the small bag of marijuana back into the suitcase where it was found, in the trunk of DR’s car. This action is crucial, as it reveals that PO’s has made his final decision on the resolution of this encounter. In doing so, PO is actually informing DR that he is allowed to continue his journey and will not be receiving any sanction. Otherwise, the marijuana would have been confiscated in accordance with the protocol that is applied when police decide to report and punish the illegal possession of drugs. So, at that point, the police investigation is complete and the only thing left to do is to achieve closure. This phase is known as the “completion of the funnel of suspicion” (Mora-Rodriguez 2022: 174), in which the police decide that there is nothing more to investigate.

In line 34, PO produces a tag question, “okay?”, which comes immediately after his assessment and is therefore oriented towards obtaining a preferred response (Pomerantz 1984), since PO is asserting a K+ position (PO is providing an evaluation based on his expertise, not asking a question), and consequently the tag question “okay?” is seeking DR’s confirmation and acceptance. And indeed, this is what actually occurs. DR aligns and affiliates with PO’s claim through the affirmative markers sí sí (line 35), which is consistent with the polarity implied by the previous “okay?”, and repeats (in French) illégal ‘illegal’ as a receipt of understanding (line 35). As such, DR aligns with PO without offering any resistance, which reinforces and acknowledges PO’s epistemic authority.

Once alignment and affiliation are secured, PO explains why DR’s action is illegal (lines 36–45). In doing so, PO demonstrates his knowledge of the matter in a gradual manner (Heritage and Raymond 2012). Considering the language barriers and difficulties in this multilingual encounter, PO uses iconic gestures (line 37 – smoking gesture) (line 39 – thumbs up) to illustrate his speech, thus relying on verbal and non-verbal strategies to enhance intersubjectivity, which is in line with findings on the communication of rights in police interviews with L2 speakers (Berk-Seligson 2009; Pavlenko 2008).

PO also separates each part of his explanation into different installments (a practice observed in extract 9). PO’s account is broken down as follows:

• Installment 1 – Reference to DR’s self-identification (“smoke”/smoker) (line 37)

• Installment 2 – Reference to personal, private space (“in your house”) (line 37)

• Installment 3 – Positive evaluation (“okay”) (line 39)

• Installment 4 – Reference to the configuration that warrants suspicion (“drugs”) (line 42)

• Installment 5 – Reference to the space under investigation (“in the car”) (line 43)

• Installment 6 – Negative evaluation (ilegal) (line 45)

The distinction between each installment is easy to recognize because PO inserts pauses between each of the different constituent components of his explanation, thus allowing time to make sure the recipient fully understands. Giving DR the chance to respond, and to demonstrate (or not) understanding, is an example of recipient design. Hence, the preference for intersubjectivity is prioritized, whereby PO is pre-empting potential misunderstandings by checking that the recipient comprehends each part of his explanation. PO is breaking down potentially complex information (as he is explaining what constitutes a criminal activity) in order to prevent problems with understanding. Hence, speaking in installments (Clark 1996) is a practice that speakers can use to adjust their speech to the cognitive demands of an interaction, to enhance understanding (Clark 1996; Svennevig 2018).

The delivery of information in installments has also been observed when police tell suspects about their rights, when recipients again get the chance to signal understanding problems (Urbanik and Pavlenko 2021: 104). As such, the present study contributes to the body of research on turn construction in multilingual police settings by describing and analyzing the presentation of information in installments for other purposes, such as, in this case, the delivery of police accounts.

This practice of presenting accounts in installments was identified in other police border checks too. For instance, in the one introduced earlier as extract (6) in which a French speaker is found in possession of marijuana (and receives a police report), at the end of the encounter and after DR’s attempts (questions) to understand why he has been through a police (criminal) investigation, PO acts as follows to justify why the Guardia Civil look for drugs at borders.

PO divides his account into five different turns (lines 01, 04, 06, 09, 16) that explain why DR (a French speaker) has been caught with marijuana (because the Guardia Civil “monitors” the movement of people at borders in order to detect illegal activities, such as the possession of drugs). Each of these installments are recognizable since they are produced either with a rising intonation at the end or by leaving a pause in between (Svennevig 2018). Also, the use of nouns in isolation (e.g., “police”, frontera ‘border’) reflects how PO is simplifying his speech into short utterances in order to tailor his explanation to DR’s needs as a non-Spanish speaker. Speaking in installments, slowing down the pace, and simplifying speech indicate a preference for the achievement of intersubjectivity when police account for their decisions/evaluations.