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.
Good awareness that techniques change over the course of the text - this is important to discuss. In 1, you could choose a specific example to explore and look at how the pronoun works with other techniques to put Mr N under pressure - he is not on trial though so make sure you always read the contextual information carefully. Also good offering of alternative interpretations - this is vital for the top grades - more exploration of why the more likely interpretation may be the case in context is needed. You need to do this wherever possible e.g. the overlapping talk could be confident or desperate; the "at all" could be friendly, weak, or it could be cynical, showing the audience how unlikely it is - link to what the barrister is trying to achieve and who he is tailoring his language to. Check emphasises and stubborn. Use more terminology. Very promising work.
ReplyDelete