It is made clear, throughout the transcript , that the conversation is decidedly formal in nature. This is highlighted by the frequent use of the pronoun 'Mr.' when referring to the two men involved. The constant use of 'Mr Neil' and 'Mr Peterson' inspires a sense of unease in the defendant, Mr Neil, by way of strict formality. In addition to this, the personal pronouns 'I' and 'You' are used often, making the person to which they refer feel singled out, and pressured.
(2) Which parts of the dialogue seem prepared, or part of the courtroom conventions, and which seem spontaneous?
One of the 'planned' sections of the transcript was he barrister's opening speech, which served the courtroom purpose of outlining the facts of the case. It can be assumed that this was done in order to clarify the details of the case to all present (jury, judge etc)
An example of a spontaneous section of the transcript is where the barrister makes a claim about Mr Neil, regarding his previous involvement with the police. This ad hominem was said on the spur of the moment, to surprise, or startle, Mr Neil. It is clear that this has been achieved. The fact that Mr Neil reacted by laughing, a reaction not usually seen in court, shows the spontaneous nature of the statement.
(3) Who seem to have the most power in the dialogue and why?
It is made very clear throughout that, befitting his role, the barrister commands a considerable amount of power over Mr Neil.
One quote that shows this is: "is that right? what happened to this gate?". This set of two questions shows the comfort that the barrister has in questioning Mr Neil. His indication of disbelief in the first question "is that right?" shows that he is comfortable in his superiority over Mr Neil and the fact that he suspects him of being wrong.
Good awareness of key parts of the text. Develop this kind of analysis much further with detailed PEE.
ReplyDelete