Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

Linguistic/Cultural Barriers
Words perform two primary functions: they express and they interpret. Words
are the packets of information we use to transfer ideas, feelings, and facts to
others. To borrow from the lexicon of information technology, “expression is the
push function of communications.” At the same time, words shape an individual’s
perceptions of the external world. In the pull mode of communications, they
serve as the data points upon which an internal map is generated. While these
maps appear very real — and very accurate — to an individual, as the product of
interpretation they may reflect only a partially correct representation of a given
experience.
Just as an individual with a limited vocabulary might experience profound
challenges in expressing themselves and interpreting the rich world around
them, a similar phenomenon often occurs in the context of an interrogation. An
intelligence officer constrained by the inability to effectively express (i.e., pose
questions) and interpret (i.e., understand the source’s responses) is likely to be
ineffective in exploring the intelligence potential of a given source. This is, in
sum, the linguistic barrier to success. While reasonably simple in concept, it can
cast an insidious shadow across all EI activities.
EI operations, by definition, are uniquely language intensive. It is through
words that the interrogator explores a source’s knowledgeability and the nature of
any resistance; it is through words that the source reveals scope of knowledge as
well as the logic and methods of a resistance posture; and it is through words that
the interrogator seeks to persuade the source and elicit cooperation. Clearly, such
a complex and dynamic exchange cannot be effectively accomplished through
a barrier of limited language skills. For the United States, which continues to
struggle with a significant shortfall in its foreign language capability, this barrier
can be significant.
The U.S. Foreign Language Gap
The U.S. government has established a relatively straightforward means
of evaluating levels of foreign language proficiency. The scale currently in use
ranges from a value of 1, termed “Elementary” (“sufficient capability to satisfy
basic survival needs and minimum courtesy and travel requirements”) to a value
of 5, termed “Functionally Native” (“able to use the language at a functional level
equivalent to a highly articulate, well-educated native speaker”). 636 It is important
to note that this scale reflects an exponential rather than an incremental increase
in proficiency. U.S. government research has demonstrated, for example, that a
Level 3 speaker could perform as much as four times more productively than a
speaker at Level 2. 637
636
Technically, the scale begins at “0” (“no measurable skill).
637
U.S. General Accounting Office, Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to
Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls (Washington, DC: GPO, January 2002), 5. Cited hereafter
as GAO, Foreign Languages.
236