questions on the barrister transcript

Questions on the barrister transcript

1.       In the transcript, pronouns are used frequently. Names are a type of pronouns and this is the most common pronoun in this extract. The barrister shows his authority in this situation, by calling the defendant ‘Mr Neil’ ,  this illustrates to the audience the power he has over him because not only is it a formal way to address someone it is said in a patronising way/ manipulating way.  It shows that he isn’t familiar with the man and calls him a name his friend or family wouldn’t call him on a daily basis, but maybe someone would address him as if he was in trouble.  He refers to him as this the whole way through the extract continuing to manipulate him with the formality, even when the conversation becomes more spontaneous.

2.       In the sections 5-15 it seems suited to a court situation as the barrister holds his power by repeatedly questioning the defendant and when necessary talking over him ‘is that right? What happened?...’ this gives the barrister the upper hand in the conversation and has control over what information he needs to find which is evident to the audience. Mr Neil answers in a closed manner as far as possible and to the audience this means that he is guilty, nervous or unable to remember- he often answers ‘no’ with a prior uncomfortable pause, he also stumbles and becomes noticeably uncomfortable with a lot of utterances and ‘er’ sounds during his conversation. The conversation here is structured by the barrister however later on the questions get noticeably spontaneous due to the nature of the situation, his questions start to adapt depending on this answers and the next set of information he needs to gather.

Later on Mr Neil ‘laughs quietly’ when responding to the barristers question where he raised his voice, this was clearly a natural response that wouldn’t have been pre learnt, it may have come from his nerves of the fact that he is so confident that it is rubbish.  The barrister still goes on to raise his voice to emphasise certain words which would have been unplanned.

3.       From the beginning of the transcript it is clear who has the control in the situation the barrister manipulates his language and language techniques to belittle the defendant. He emphasises words which would reach out to Mr Neil as it would bring him back into the conversation and highlight the importance of what the is saying like when he suggests the ‘police’, this picks out the fat that it is a serious matter and the potential consequences. Mr Neil denies most of what he says and doesn’t give very detailed, truthful answers.

  

4.       To me nothing specifically stuck out to me for being unusual or uncommon in a transcript.