Proper nouns are used by the barrister when referring to Mr Peterson and 2nd person personal pronouns when referring to Mr N. Using second person personal pronouns with Mr N is like the barrister is talking in an accusing tone, with the repetition of Mr N's name the barrister is putting Mr N under pressure. The purpose of using the proper nouns could be to show that he is addressing Mr N specifically and using Mr Peterson's name is like he is trying to remind Mr N of what he did.
The barristers talk and language is more like court room talk and seems planned whereas Mr N's doesn't, "according to you Mr Neil (.) this ill feeling (.) this grudge". The barrister only uses micro-pauses which are probably just him breaking up his sentences where as Mr Neil uses pauses from the shortest of 0.5 seconds and the longest of 2.5. The long pauses coming from Mr Neil could show that he is nervous and trying to come up with answers. His longest pause of 2.5 seconds was before he simply answered 'no' which could imply that he may have been considering a different answer.
Normally the barrister should have the power in this situation but at points it seems that Mr Neil actually has the power. When Mr Neil overlaps the barristers talk with his answer it's showing that he's not scared and is not afraid to give his answer. For example, the barrister says "you can't remember whether they came to see you or not?" and Mr Neil replies over the top "I don't think they did no". This could show power, however, it could also mean that he is rushing to say his answer as he is afraid that the barrister may be catching on that he's worried or afriad. Although the overlapping may actually be Mr Neil being nervous an afraid. This would suggest that the barrister has more power because he is making Mr Neil scared. The rushing of answers could show that he doesn't want the barrister to catch on to his hesitations and is almost being defensive about his answers.
Another way the barrister is showing more power is the way he puts across his sentences. The barrister has an obvious advantage to Mr Neil because it shows in his language the he is prepared whereas Mr Neil is not. This shows power because the barrister can have confidence as he is prepared and confidence allows power.
An interesting thing about this transcript is that even though you would think that it would be serious. The paralinguistic features used in this make it seem like Mr Neil is taking it as a joke as he laughs. However, the paralinguistic features could show that he is amazed with what the barrister is coming up with as he is asking Mr Neil if he has been having multiple problems with the police.
Some extremely perceptive points. Make the most of them by using PEE structure with plenty of terminology to explore what is happening in the quotes and then link on to the tentative interpretations that you are so good at - don't leave anything you've said unexplored e.g. you said Mr N could have been considering a different answer (and I LOVE how you have used the quantification of the pauses and developed a paragraph about the impression they may create) but you didn't explore how this may have harmed the impression he was trying to create on the judge/jury and played into the barrister's purposes. Which other pieces of evidence could have been used to explore this point and develop it further (showing how techniques work together over the course of a dialogue or any kind of text)?
ReplyDelete