1) What do you notice about the use of proper nouns and/ or pronouns in referring to people and events concerned?
In this text I have noticed that Barrister uses pronouns very often when talking to Mr Neil, ''the rear of your car (.) now (.) did anything happen to you (.) as a result of driving your car'' This shows that the Barrister is intent on making it clear that everything said was because of Mr Neil's actions. The use of personal pronouns emphasises the sense of 'finger pointing' at Mr Neil and his current situation in court. The micro pauses ''(.)'' shows that the Barrister is thinking about what he will ask Mr Neil and it also suggests that he could be trying not to slip up and loose his temper with the way Mr Neil isn't taking the questions in the court room very seriously show by the when he is ''[laughing quietly]''.
2) Which parts of the dialogue seem prepared or part of courtroom conventions and which seem spontaneous?
The Barrister uses both spontaneous and court room talk, an example of the spontaneous is, ''you put two and two together Mr Neil and made five'' This shows his frustration with Mr Neil's response to being criticised about his actions. An example of courtroom conventions is, ''that didn't cross your mind at all?'' This is an example of double questioning which shows that he wants to be sure of Mr Neil's response being the truth.
3) Who seems to have the most power in the dialogue and why?
Although the Barrister is in a position of power and seems as if he would come across as the most powerful speaker in the text it seems that Mr Neil is in fact the one in power in this conversation. I can infer this from the text when the conversation over laps with Mr Neil talking over the Barrister ''or not?'' from the Barrister and '' I don't'' from Mr Neil as he answers the question before the Barrister is finished asking it. This suggests that Mr Neil is not afraid of the Barrister and dares to talk over him in a formal setting such as in the court, the fact that it is in court makes it all the more powerful as it is the Barristers job which would put him in a place of power over the interviewee (Mr Neil). Another reason that Mr Neil seems to have the most power in this text is the amount of micro pauses the Barrister uses throughout, ''(.)''. This frequent use of the micro pause shows that the Barrister id 'treading carefully' with his speech as he is supposed to act in a formal and respectful manner at his place of work in the court. The use of micro pauses could however also suggest that he is nervous around Mr Neil and feels uncomfortable in the current situation.
4) What else seems puzzling/ interesting/ unusual and why?
Something unusual in this text is the emphasised words shown by the underlined text, ''shopped you to the police'' This shows when the Barrister is putting emotion in to what he is saying and it also suggests that he is frustrated with Mr Neil's denial of knowing anything about the incident. This seems to be used most when the Barrister is talking spontaneously and expressing his emotions rather than using courtroom conventions and formal monotone speech.
some good understanding and use of terminolog. Think more about the specific GRAPE and what they are both trying to achieve - they are not just communicating with each other. Micropauses are just like verbal commas or breaths and are not long enough for thought - they are more to do with which parts of the utterance are demarcated or emphasised - you could contrast the frequency of them as you do and say the barrister seems much more measured whereas Mr N seems to be rushing his delivery if you can find good examples to explore tentatitvely.
ReplyDelete