1.At the beginning of the transcript the barrister uses proper nouns when referring to the witness "Mr Neil" and the man on trail "Mr Peterson".This is because they are key subjects in the matter,therefore important so want everyone else within the jury to understand and not be confused as to who the barrister is referring to when he uses second person pronouns.By the barrister including their names at the beginning at the beginning makes the witness (Mr Neil) want to engage due to it coming across more politely.However after he gains Mr Neil's attention,he refers to him as 'you' letting him know that he is lower than the barrister but also so Mr Neil knows that the questions are being directed to him.The receiver (being Mr Neil) may not expect the barrister to use proper nouns as it may give the witness a feeling of authority,on the other hand could make him feel more isolated and under pressure as all eyes and attention is on him.
2.Where the barrister includes facts about the event "Mr Peterson of having shopped you to the police..." comes across as being prepared dialogue as he is using facts which are therefore already put in place for him.By it also being exaggerated implies that the barrister feels confident with his point and so knows it is going to make Mr Neil feel on edge.This informs the witness that he knows key facts from the event but at the same time tries to prompt Mr Neil into confessing that the allegations put in front of him are true.
Where Mr Neil answers question after a long pause implies that he was not prepared for that question but also could mean that he has something to hide "(2.5)no". As he replies with a one word answer gives the impression that he wants this question to be over fast.
3.As soon as the barrister starts talking you can tell he has the power due to him not only starting of the dialogue, he uses brief pauses to emphases his points he is about to make,adds suspense and draws in all the attention, allowing the audience to briefly think about what he is saying "according to you Mr Neil(.) this ill feeling (.)..." this shows confidence as he is not rushing and wants to be heard clearly.However towards the end of his sentence he starts using filled pauses suggesting that the barrister is feeling more under pressure or does not know how to put is point across.Therefore he could be feeling a bit uptight "when er you have er".Not only does this not make sense it suggests that the barrister is not feeling confident with what he is saying which could make the witness feel more powerful as he is showing his nerves.
The witness is showing power when he interrupts the barrister as this shows courage.The barrister starts of asking a question but it interrupted by Mr Neil before he finishes "you cant remember whether they came to see you" before he can say "or not?" Mr Neil overlaps him by saying "i dont think they did no" implying that he wants to make is clear that he is telling the truth and does not remember the police coming.This shows power as he is taking over.
The barrister shows power when he emphasis' due to it showing certainty about the facts he is bringing forward which hopefully will make the witness back down and feel timid,powerless and out of control as everything is coming out with him having no control over it. "the police have been to see you so many times Mr Neil" the use of a discourse marker "so" emphasis' the point about the police been to see Mr Neil before.
4.The last question from the barrister seems puzzling and unusual due to it coming across as though he/she is backing down to the witness " that didn't cross your mind at all? because he adds "...at all?" on the end makes it seem more friendly and less demanding.Whereas if the barrister just asked bluntly 'that didn't cross your mind?' seems more stub-an and forward.Also because Mr Neil interrupts the barrister when he/she says "at all?"with a blunt "no" leaves the dialogue with the witness having the power as not only does he end the dialogue with a powerful one worded answer,It suggests that he is getting frustrated with the barrister and showing this by being blunt.This implies that the barrister may now feel timid and the witness feels as though he has authority over the situation.
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Monday, 5 October 2015
Same Sex marriages-the controversial issue.
My controversial issue I have discussed is same sex marriages, as I feel it is an issue that is part of our everyday life and therefore important to get a prospective of peoples opinions.Blogger one expresses that she believes same sex marriages should be "celebrated".This suggests that she sees t as a party and therefore people should enjoy individuality and come together.Same sex marraiges also comes across that the issue is deep within Paige's heart as her first sentence is very passionate as she uses the hyperbole "immensely".This word that she believes this to an exceeding extent.
By her using an elipses emphasises and adds tension to the point she is about to make "if they are in love...then they should be allowed to express it".This shows how powerful paige thinks love is.By her using the verb "should" implies that Paige believes same sex marraiges should be honoured and makes the reciever feel they should believe this to.By paige including someone elses opinion within her blog suggests that many people feel the same way even in different cultures "Ms Thus from Amsterdam".As Ms Thus is from Amsterdam this contoversial issue seems more substansial as it is a world wide problem.
Blogger two comes across as though he is questionning peoples views on same sex marriages as he asks a lot of rhetorical questions "its a free world right?" This implies that Liam feels that his opinion should not be looked down on anymore than anyone elses even if you dont agree.The word "free" suggests privacy and independence which questions as to why Liam disagrees with same sex marriages.This could imply that his opinion has been driven into him and that deep down he has some sympathy for gay/lesbian couples.Blogger two also puts someones view in that disagrees with his own " I know that some people are like 'but what normal?' " this shows that some people believe there is no definition for a normal relationship as everyone is unique.This implies that he is trying to persuade people to be against same sex marriages.However, as Liam disagrees with this, he replies with a response of " I think normal is a man and a woman getting married". This gives the impression that Liam does not like change and is very old fashoined and does things by the book.Tis could also be the reason as to why he includes religious views " God created man and woman to be as one".This suggests that he believes everything in life (not just same sex marriages) should have a structure.
Blogger two uses an exclamation mark after the first sentence"Same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed" this suggests he (Liam) is shouting it and therefore wants it to be heard; showing how strong his feeings are about same sex marriages not being allowed.Due to this, I understand that there is no changing Liam's opinion.Liam also seems to be a christain who sees same sex marriages as going against God.This gives the impression that he does not like change and is not very excepting to 'difference' "same sex marraiges in the house of God is disrespectful" The word "is" suggests that is is a fact that same sex marriages within churches are disrespectful towards God so there is no changing that.The noun "house" suggests family,warmth and safety which implies that Blogger two does not except same sex marraiges into this family.It also implies that due to families knowing everything about eachover, he just does not understand them and know how to treat the situation which could make the receiver feel sorry for Laim as he feels scared and confused.
Blogger one-I agree immensely that same sex marriages should be allowed and celebrated as much as any other couple on this earth.If they are in love...then they should be aloud to express it like any other human on this earth.Different cultures,religions and beliefs are nurtured and spoken freely so it is only right that same sex marriages are welcomed into our loving society.They are just ordinary people you see everyday.I disagree with making other people feel bad about themselves-especially if they cant help it! I wouldn't like it and I do not believe that anyone in that matter would like to be discriminated and not allowed the same privileges as others due to their sex life. Such as Ms Thus from Amsterdam says "We are so ordinary, if you saw us on the street you'd just walk right past us,".
I am not the only one who feels this way as the Netherlands have allowed same sex marriages for 12 years and many other countries (like Britain who have followed suit).
Blogger two- Same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed! in my opinion marriage should be between a man and a woman,God made males and females to love one another,get married to declare their love and have children.I know some people are like 'but whats normal? whats love?' but I strongly believe normal is a man and a woman getting married to allow a child to be brought up in a sustainable living environment."the Vatican - in an attempt to stop further legislation - launched a global campaign against gay marriage" and I don't see the harm in expressing their views on the matter.Its a free world right?
I don't agree with same sex marriages being aloud to get married in the house of God due to God creating man and woman to be as one,But civil partnerships I can tolerate.I completely see eye to eye with Denmark who were " the first country to introduce civil partnerships for same-sex couples, in 1989, but it stopped short of allowing church weddings".Yes they want to show that they are in love and want something to show for it and Yes a civil partnership can do that but i am in opposition with them getting a legal ceremony within a church as I do admit, same sex marriages in the house of God is disrespectful as it goes against his creation within marriage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21321731
By her using an elipses emphasises and adds tension to the point she is about to make "if they are in love...then they should be allowed to express it".This shows how powerful paige thinks love is.By her using the verb "should" implies that Paige believes same sex marraiges should be honoured and makes the reciever feel they should believe this to.By paige including someone elses opinion within her blog suggests that many people feel the same way even in different cultures "Ms Thus from Amsterdam".As Ms Thus is from Amsterdam this contoversial issue seems more substansial as it is a world wide problem.
Blogger two comes across as though he is questionning peoples views on same sex marriages as he asks a lot of rhetorical questions "its a free world right?" This implies that Liam feels that his opinion should not be looked down on anymore than anyone elses even if you dont agree.The word "free" suggests privacy and independence which questions as to why Liam disagrees with same sex marriages.This could imply that his opinion has been driven into him and that deep down he has some sympathy for gay/lesbian couples.Blogger two also puts someones view in that disagrees with his own " I know that some people are like 'but what normal?' " this shows that some people believe there is no definition for a normal relationship as everyone is unique.This implies that he is trying to persuade people to be against same sex marriages.However, as Liam disagrees with this, he replies with a response of " I think normal is a man and a woman getting married". This gives the impression that Liam does not like change and is very old fashoined and does things by the book.Tis could also be the reason as to why he includes religious views " God created man and woman to be as one".This suggests that he believes everything in life (not just same sex marriages) should have a structure.
Blogger two uses an exclamation mark after the first sentence"Same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed" this suggests he (Liam) is shouting it and therefore wants it to be heard; showing how strong his feeings are about same sex marriages not being allowed.Due to this, I understand that there is no changing Liam's opinion.Liam also seems to be a christain who sees same sex marriages as going against God.This gives the impression that he does not like change and is not very excepting to 'difference' "same sex marraiges in the house of God is disrespectful" The word "is" suggests that is is a fact that same sex marriages within churches are disrespectful towards God so there is no changing that.The noun "house" suggests family,warmth and safety which implies that Blogger two does not except same sex marraiges into this family.It also implies that due to families knowing everything about eachover, he just does not understand them and know how to treat the situation which could make the receiver feel sorry for Laim as he feels scared and confused.
Blogger one-I agree immensely that same sex marriages should be allowed and celebrated as much as any other couple on this earth.If they are in love...then they should be aloud to express it like any other human on this earth.Different cultures,religions and beliefs are nurtured and spoken freely so it is only right that same sex marriages are welcomed into our loving society.They are just ordinary people you see everyday.I disagree with making other people feel bad about themselves-especially if they cant help it! I wouldn't like it and I do not believe that anyone in that matter would like to be discriminated and not allowed the same privileges as others due to their sex life. Such as Ms Thus from Amsterdam says "We are so ordinary, if you saw us on the street you'd just walk right past us,".
I am not the only one who feels this way as the Netherlands have allowed same sex marriages for 12 years and many other countries (like Britain who have followed suit).
Blogger two- Same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed! in my opinion marriage should be between a man and a woman,God made males and females to love one another,get married to declare their love and have children.I know some people are like 'but whats normal? whats love?' but I strongly believe normal is a man and a woman getting married to allow a child to be brought up in a sustainable living environment."the Vatican - in an attempt to stop further legislation - launched a global campaign against gay marriage" and I don't see the harm in expressing their views on the matter.Its a free world right?
I don't agree with same sex marriages being aloud to get married in the house of God due to God creating man and woman to be as one,But civil partnerships I can tolerate.I completely see eye to eye with Denmark who were " the first country to introduce civil partnerships for same-sex couples, in 1989, but it stopped short of allowing church weddings".Yes they want to show that they are in love and want something to show for it and Yes a civil partnership can do that but i am in opposition with them getting a legal ceremony within a church as I do admit, same sex marriages in the house of God is disrespectful as it goes against his creation within marriage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21321731
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)