Evie Mini Investigation

According to Bruner, adults when talking to children will use Child Directed Speech (CDS). Some of the characteristics of CDS is repetition, tag questions, and modelling an adult/standard version (repair). I will look at the 'all the things' transcript and the 'castle' transcript to see if Evie's grandmother uses these CDS features.

When quantifying repetition I'm only going to count it if the first thing the grandmother says is the exact same as Evie, it still counts if she adds something on the end.

Quantified data:

I expected to find more CDS in the 'all the things' transcript as it was 4 minutes and 33 seconds long while the 'castle' transcript was 3 minutes long. This pattern was found in the quantified tag questions and the repairs but there was 3 more repetitions in the 'castle' transcript.

Analysis:

In both transcripts Evie's grandmother uses multiple tag questions to keep the conversations moving along. A common theme in both of the transcripts is that the grandmother likes to use very general questions such as "what else shall we do" in the 'all the things' transcript and "now what are you going to do" in the castle transcript. The grandmother also uses tag questions that are more typical to the conversation but repeats them multiple times. In the 'all the things' transcript she asks who else they should take a picture of 3 times in the transcript, and in the 'castle' transcript the grandmother asks who's going in the castle 3 times. By doing this it allows the grandmother to be not too intrusive into Evie's conversation and allows her to be more imaginative in her story. There is possible more tag questions in the 'all the thing' transcript as the story is more about Evie and her grandmother rather than just Evie as shown by the use of "you" in 'castle' and the inclusive "we" in 'all the things'. As the grandmother is using 'we' it shows that she recognises that she has an active role in the scenario as picture taker and so asks double the amount of tag questions. In the 'castle' transcript the grandmother could possibly want to get involved less and so would ask less tag questions.

The use of repetition forms a similar function to the tag questions. By repeating the same thing Evie says it shows that the grandmother is listening to her story and possibly helps Evie keep track of what she is talking about. There is possibly more repetition in the 'castle' transcript as Evie is 5 months younger in it so the grandmother would be using repetition as a form of positive reinforcement for her.

The 5 month age gap between the 2 transcripts could also be the reason behind why there is more repairs in the 'all the things' transcript. The grandmother could possibly feel that because Evie has a slightly stronger understanding of language that she doesn't need the positive reinforcement of repetition and that by modelling a standard it could help her learn easier, at Evie's age she probably wouldn't see repair as negative reinforcement and probably wouldn't recognise her grandmother is repairing her. The main use of repair in the 'all the tings' transcript is the repairing to the pronunciation of words, at first when Evie said 'picture' she said it more like 'pitter', however after her grandmother said it correctly Evie began to pronounce the 'c' more often. In the 'castle' transcript there is much less repairs with the main one being when the grandmother elaborates Evie's "sit sit sit" to "do you want grandma to sit there".

Jean Piaget's cognitive development

Jean Piaget looked into the way that children adapt, more specifically assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation is adding a new object into an old skill, whereas accommodation is adjusting an old skill on a new object. For example, assimilation is when a child goes from sucking on a small bottle, to a larger bottle. Accommodation is when a child has to adjust their skill of sucking on a pacifier to sucking on a bottle.
Piaget also noted that throughout a child's life, there are moments when accommodation dominates, when assimilation dominates, and when there is a equilibrium between the two.

From here, he developed the idea of stages of cognitive development:
-The sensorimotor stage (0-2 years) - some language is being developed around this point but the child is mainly learning that they are an agent of action e.g. they learn that they can shake the rattle to make a noise. They also begin to differentiate themselves from the object and around the age of 7 months, gain an idea of object permanence,
-The pre-operational stage (2-7 years) - their language use had matured and they begin to use their imagination and memory. The are still egocentric in the idea that they believe everyone knows what they do. Their thinking is typically done in a non-logical manner and they will classify objects by a single feature (red, big, small etc).
-The concrete operational stage (7-11 years) - they can now have conversations based around number, mass, weight, length, liquid, area, and volume. Their egocentric point of view diminishes. They can think in a more logical manner and can classify objects by multiple features.
-The formal operation stage (11+ years) - They can hypothesise and think about abstract thoughts. They begin to think about the future and ideological problems.

Bibliographyhttp://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/piaget.htm

http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/piaget.htmlhttp://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsypiaget.html

Evie talking transcript questions

In this transcript Evie’s pronunciation of <picture> varies.  How many variations can you find?  Is there a pattern to them?  How might you explain them?

I counted 4 separate variations of the word ‘picture’. One of the patterns I found is that at first she said picture almost like ‘pitter’ but then as she heard her grandmother say it more she began to pronounce the ‘c’ sound more.

Evie’s grandma uses a variety of strategies to keep the conversation moving along.  How many can you find?  Why do you think these are important?

I counted about 5 different strategies the grandmother used to keep the conversations going. She asked Evie questions so that she will hopefully elaborate on the situation. She completed the sentences for Evie, for example when Evie said “cat” and then “in the picture” after the grandmother responded, the grandmother then said “we want cat in the picture okay” which possibly allows Evie to get an understanding of how sentences can be strung together. As show in the last example, the grandmother repeats Evie as shown when Evie says cat the grandmother then also says cat. As well as questioning Evie about the situation, she also asks her to do things such as choose more animals to take pictures of. And finally, the grandmother confirms what Evie is saying, this could suggests that she wants Evie to continue on talking.

In this sequence, grandma follows each of Evie’s utterances with an extended version of what she has said.  What does she add?  Why?

She usually adds either previous information given to her by Evie (for example the amount of cats) or she adds ‘right’. This is allowing Evie to continue the conversation without being intrusive and adding her own information. Evie is essentially having a conversation with herself since the grandmother isn’t adding anything so Evie. But, Evie is learning how to put all the information she has given into a sentence since that is what the grandmother is doing.

Grandma uses a lot of questions in this transcript.  What proportion of her utterances are questions?  How would you classify the functions of these questions? 

Over half of the utterances that the grandmother says are questions. The function of these questions is to allow Evie to continue on and elaborate on what she is saying. Another one of the functions could be that the grandmother is trying to gain more information from Evie so that she can be more involved in the conversation, if she was to say something that Evie wasn’t thinking it could imply that Evie or the grandmother was wrong and so the grandmother could be trying to avoid that by gaining correct information from her.

This sequence entails a misunderstanding about the bath.  How would you describe this misunderstanding?  How might you explain it?

In this sequence, Evie mistakes the toy bath for the actual bath in the bathroom. The way that the grandmother rectifies this is by saying, “no not that bath the house bath”. This could be confusing for Evie since the actual bath is still a house bath but the grandmother also points to the toy house to get Evie to understand that it was the toy bath she was referring to. The reason she might have misunderstood it is that the grandmother told her to ‘find’ the bath rather than to get it.

As you can see very clearly in the video, Evie is thoroughly enjoying playing to the camera and wants to see the video straight away.  How does this awareness of the camera shape the conversation?

This awareness of the camera allows the conversation to gravitate towards it often. Whether it is about taking pictures of how Evie is smiling. The grandmother wants Evie to continue playing with her toys as she is the one to change the conversation from the smiling to the toys. I doubt Evie is playing up to the camera as she doesn’t believe she is being recorded, but rather having pictures taken of the animals and herself.

As with <picture> we can see variations in Evie’s pronunciation of <kangaroo>.  Trying to get it right?  Creative experimentation with sounds and words?  To what extent do you agree with these ideas?

It could be that she is trying to get it right but her last utterance of kangaroo sounded like ‘camroo’ when he first sounded like ‘kaneeroo’ which would’ve sounded more similar because it has the ‘n’ sound. It could be a creative experiment of sounds and words which would’ve made some form of sense since each time they sound different/ Unlike ‘picture’, ‘kangaroo’ doesn’t become more accurate after each time she hears her grandmother say it. To me it sounds like she is making the word shorter and easier for her to say each time.

The Stages of Children's Langauge Development

The development of children's reading isn't based on age, rather it is based on their experience and how long they spend at each stage.


When a child is growing up it is common for a parent or carer to read to their child. Around the ages of 0-4 children are essentially memorising passages of books and focusing on the pictures in the book. This is building a foundation for the child to begin to understand language and patterns in language. The child may also begin to attempt to write by scribbling on a page.


Around the age of 5 the child begins to understand the sounds that construct words and those sounds have specific letter combinations. These early readers should be starting to learn to read short words and their own name. Possibly beginning to write their own name and some of the shorter words they can read. They might be able to read longer words if they are phonetically regular and also read new words which consist of one syllable.


Up until the age of 8, children should be reading at an increasing fluency. They should have a good strategy on figuring out what the next word will be but they may still need assistance for the harder words. They are able to write some of their own ideals down and possible answer questions about the text they read.


After this the child will begin to read more independently and will be seeking out books about their interests. They will begin to the exposed to unfamiliar syntax and vocabulary. They will begin to understand the impact of the text and have open discussions about it.


When they get to about 15 they should be about fluent in reading. They will be able to think analytically about the text and form their own opinions on it. They will be reading to gain information and for a variety of purposes. They may also be able to write essays about the texts they have read.  When they get to around the age of 18, reading should be more efficient for them than listening.


References:
-Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. (2012). Stages of Reading Development. Available: http://www.readingrockets.org/article/stages-reading-development. Last accessed 11th Sep 2015.
-Literacy Development. Available: http://literacy.nationaldb.org/index.php/literacy-development-continuum/. Last accessed: 11th Sep 2015
-Ramoso, K. (2012). Stages of Reading Development. Available: http://www.slideshare.net/KarRamoso/stages-of-reading-development. Last accessed 11th Sep 2015.

Mini Investigation into Language and Gender

The Know and the Fallout 4 trailer – Investigation into Language and Gender 

Hypothesis When looking at 2 transcripts about the same subject, one involving all women and the other all men, the men and women will follow Tannen’s difference pairs. 

-Status:     -Men - 1     -Women - 0 -Support:    -Men - 0    -Women - 0 

-Independence:    -Men - 0    -Women - 0 -Intimacy:    -Men - 1    -Women - 0 

-Advice:    -Men - 0    -Women - 0 -Understanding:    -Men - 0    -Women - 0 

-Information:*    -Men - 0    -Women - 0 -Feelings:    -Men - 2    -Women - 0 

-Orders:    -Men - 3    -Women - 1 -Proposals:     -Men - 1    -Women - 1 

-Conflict:    -Men - 2    -Women - 2 -Compromise:    -Men - 0    -Women - 0 

*as it is a news story I didn’t count this pairing in either transcript 

Key quotes Men  -“Have you heard of Nuzu” “No” - conflict -“We’re gonna be kind of down” - feelings -“I care about you Adam”- feelings and intimacy -“(2) Spoole (.) work”- status and orders 

Women -“let’s take a look and see what you think”- proposals -“but first”- orders -“come on|” “|hey come on”- conflict -“fuzzy and cute”- female topics/ baby talk 

PEE analysis According to Tannen’s difference pairings, men should prefer conflict whereas women should prefer to find compromise. In the transcript I have both men and women use conflict an equal number of times and never seek for compromise. This is shown in the male transcript with one of them saying “have you heard of Nuzu” and the other male saying “no” despite the fact that he was the one to bring up Nuzu and how they are going to talk about it. This shows that he had in fact heard of Nuzu and was only saying “no” to cause conflict between to two of them. In the female transcript they show conflict through interruptions. I would be compromise if it was co-operating interruptions but the first woman said “come on” and the other overlapped her with “hey come on” showing that she is disagreeing with her statement. One reason for the lack of compromise is because it is a news story and they are trying to raise different ideas about the game and cause conflict, not only among themselves, but also among the viewers. 

Another one of Tannen’s pairings is orders vs. proposals. In both of the transcript they both use orders and proposals. The men use three times more orders than the females though and they both use the same amount of proposals. While this does support Tannen’s pairing to an extent as they do follow the pairing, it also goes against Tannen’s theory as they aren’t exclusive in each side of the pairing. With the proposals in each of the transcripts they are referencing the audience with “let’s take a look and see what you think” in the female transcript and “you probably wanna stop” in the male one. The use of the personal pronoun “you” in each of the transcript includes the audience in the story making them more inclined to discuss the same as they are in the comment section of the video. While both of the transcripts use orders it is in a different manner in each transcript. In the female transcript she says “but first” as an order, more to move the conversation on rather than to control the other person. Whereas in the male transcript they use their orders in a more demanding and controlling way, an example of this is “(2) Spoole (.) work”. By telling him to continue working and now join in the conversation could be demeaning but it can be assumed that they are friends and that it is either playful chatter or an inside joke. 

Tannen also has the difference pairing of independence vs. intimacy which isn’t followed in these transcripts. In neither transcript independence is shown and the only time intimacy is shown is in the male transcript. In the male transcript it says, “I care about you Adam”, this admittance of care isn’t something which is stereotypical of male language and thus makes it odd. The people in this video could be friends so this admittance could be common between them but typically this declaration of feelings is something of a female trait. The person who the quote is directed to does respond with an order which is a part of Tannen’s male pairing and could also be a show of status but as explained in the last paragraph it could just be playful conversation amongst friends. 

While it is not a part of Tannen’s pairings, it is interesting to look at the difference in the language they used to describe the dog in the trailer. In the male transcript they don’t boost up the dog and even go as far to say that they have seen a better dog in a different trailer, but in the female trailer they use completely different language to describe the dog. One of the females describes it as “fuzzy and cute” which is a form of baby talk and is stereotypical of females to be on the topic of cute animals. It can also be assumed that when the female spoke this in the transcript that she changed her tone of voice to sound higher as if she was talking to a baby or animal.  

Evaluation and whether or not my hypothesis was supported There are aspects of the transcripts that do follow Tannen’s difference pairings but as a whole they don’t. The two transcripts tend to follow the stereotypically male traits more, possibly because of the topic of the videos which is video games. The rare times when female traits are used are mainly by the men rather than the females. It could be possible that these videos were lightly scripted and so the language would’ve been adapted to fit the assumed to be primarily male audience, however by the interruptions and stutter over words it can be assumed that some of the script was to be improvised. In order to get results without this restriction I could’ve recorded males and females talking about the same subject that aren’t from YouTube, but this could be affected by the ‘observer’s paradox’. 

Apprentice transcript and analysis

A: I was the project manager I lost money (.) but the reason I lost money and I could’ve made a fortune in that shopping centre this morning|

B: |yep|

A: | if we’d started this |morning

C: |could’ve |could’ve

A: | because I’m good at

C: could’ve yeah could’ve should’ve would’ve yeah but ya didn’t right (.)

A: no sir I didn’t 

C: no ya didn’t yeah (3) I think I’ve heard enough for me to make a very very difficult decision here today

B: Sir Alan may I say one more thing please

(3)

C: if you insist

B: I think in this whole competition if you sit back and remain quiet and under the radar (.) people assume they’re safe (.) and I’ve been bold and I know I’m vocal and that puts me|

C: | oh you have been bold alright don’t worry about that (.) I’m sick and tired of you denying all this you know (1) I’m sick of looking at ya at the moment get out that door (3) get back to the bloody house okay (.) get back to the house yeah (.) because you're gonna be the next team leader I'm sick of looking at ya at the moment get out that door and get back to the house


Notes
Despite person Cs instrumental power by the other people calling him 'sir', he doesn’t use very formal language and instead replaces 'you' with “ya”, possibly as an accent. You would expect someone who is in high power to speak formally so this is unusual to the situation. He also repeats what he says a lot as shown in his final turn where he tells person B to get back to the house a total of 3 times. Compared to person A and B who use formal language throughout excluding person Bs “yep” at the beginning of the transcript.

We can apply Brown and Levinson's politeness strategies with the bald on record strategy that person B could be implementing and how that is usually a form of power but they are sing it as someone who doesn't have instrumental power. You can also include Fairclough's unequal encounter theory as person C has more power over person A and B from the star (or when person c starts talking). You can also tentatively argue that person C is slightly flouting the maxim of manner from Grice's maxims as he repeats himself and says phrases such as, “could’ve yeah could’ve should’ve would’ve yeah” which doesn't make much sense but can be understood if you have the pragmatic understanding that it is a phrase that someone uses.

As this transcript is from a television show, we could get a recording from an actual meeting room and compare it to the language used here and see if there are any similarities. We can assume that they won't follow the exact same patterns as the television version would’ve been changed to make it more interesting but there could be similarities to explore.

You could investigate in this how someone in a position of instrumental power uses imperatives. You can compare this to the features he uses which is less formal to show how much power he has that person A and B still follow his orders.

Investigation into persuasive language in IGN tweets

-The IGN tweets used 5 AFOREST techniques across 18 tweets (1 every 3.6 tweets)
-The IGN tweets used 4 personal pronouns across 18 tweets (1 every 4.5 tweets)
-The IGN tweets used 15 hashtags across 18 tweets (1 every 1.2 tweets)

Personal prounouns
There are 4 personal pronouns in total but they aren't all inclusive towards the audience, only 25% are when they used the inclusive "your". The other 75% they chose to use "we" but in an exclusive manner and uses the "we" in reference to themselves as an organisation.

Hastags
The amount of hashtags used is between 0-3. There was one tweet which was an anomaly since it had 3 hastags where the other tweet only had about one or two.

Organisations use influential power via twitter to generate trust for their site
Support the hypothesis
-It's all click bait - gives you enough information to get a rough idea but not enough information to give you the whole picture
-Does use persuasive techniques to draw attention to their site, such as AFOREST and hashtags
Doesn't support hypothesis
-All the tweets are very similar to one another - they all follow the same structure
-There are anomalies in the tweets and the personal pronouns vary from inclusive and exclusive

Evaluation
Conclusion
It does agree with my hypothesis to an extent but there are some features that disprove it. One example of this is the use of exclusive pronouns which were used 3/4 times when personal pronouns were used. In order to gain a wider range of results we could've used another organisation and steer away from IGNs formula. There wasn't much of a problem with the sample method as there wasn't much variety when we selected every 5th tweet. Counting was the easiest way to quantify the data as a thread as you can make decision and discuss anything in the count which is odd and why.

Romance novel extract

The wind from the ocean was a simple breeze from where she sat on the cliff. A vintage white bench a safe enough distance from the end but close enough to see the view. The noon sunset painted the sand with a deep orange that glistened from the light, perfectly complimenting the natural beauty of the aquamarine sea. Alice pushed a strand of cherry red hair behind her head and sighed. After a day like today, she needed some relaxation.

"Alice? Are you okay?" A voice called, startling Alice to turn to her left to meet the source of the intrusion.

"D-Daniel! Don't sneak up on my like that, you scared the life out of me," Alice squeaked flattening out her yellow sun dress which crinkled when she jumped.

"I apologise, was just wondering if the pretty lady would like some company," he joked before taking the remaining spot on the bench.

Normally Alice would say no. Not because she didn't like Daniel, quite the opposite in fact. No, it was because the cliff-side was her private domain where she could go get some alone time. But, something in Daniel deep eyes convinced her other wise. The smirk he sent her after she responded sent butterflies in her chest, assuring her that she made the right choice.

"The view is beautiful," Daniel said after a pause, staring at Alice as the wind blew her hair as if it was waves.

"I know," she replied, her gaze briefly flashing to him from where it was focused on the horizon. When she saw what he was referring to a deep blush flooded her cheeks.

Language and Gender Theories

Dominance
This theory suggests that men are more likely to take dominance in a conversation than women. Zimmerman and West conducted an experiment at UC Santa Barbara and found that in same-sex conversations the interruptions were spread evenly among the participants. Whereas in mixed-sex conversations the males were responsible for 96% of the interruptions. Spender also agrees with this theory saying that any interrupting woman were seen as rude. Many will argue that his theory reflects the patriarchal social order. However, Beattie criticised Zimmerman and West as they may of had one man in their experiment who frequently interrupted. Beattie conducted his own research and found that the interruptions over a 10 hour long recording was equal, with men interrupting more but so slight it's not significant. 

Difference
Tannen addresses the linguistic differences between men and woman and how they have been created form the different subcultures that they have been brought up in. Tannen argues that male and female language has 6 contrasts:
-Status vs support - Men see language as a way of asserting and gaining dominance, or preventing others from asserting on them. Women see language as a form of establishing connections. Women seek to gain support for their ideas and support others.
-Independence vs intimacy - Men seek to have independence and won't seek support as it is seen as diminishing their status. Women will strive to gain intimacy and will admit to support and closeness.
-Advice vs understanding - Men use language as a means to solve problems, whereas women would convey sympathy.
-Information vs feelings - Men will have shorter conversations that mainly concern facts. Women would have long conversations discussing feelings and emotions.
-Orders vs proposals -  Men tend to use imperatives and may prefer to hear them. Woman will often use suggestions and hidden directives. 
-Conflict vs compromise - Men will seek conflict and will use their language to resist. Women will try to find a middle ground.

Report talk and rapport talk
Tannen also looked into the report talk (men) and rapport talk (women).

Women:
-Talk too much
-Speed in private contexts
-Build relatives
-Overlap
-Speak symmertrically

Men:
-Get more air time
-Speak in public
-Negotiate status/avoid failure
-Speak one at a time
-Speak asymmetrically

However, Deborah Cameron from The Guardian wrote a article on language of men and women and criticised the stereotype that women talk more than men. She looked into 56 research studies and found that:
-34 of them said men talk more than women
-2 of them said women talk more than men
-16 of them said they talk the same amount
-4 of them said there was no clear pattern

Bibliography
http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/gender.htm#lakoff
http://www.allinfo.org.uk/levelup/enb2gender.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/01/gender.books
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/bassr/githens/theories.htm
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/courses/ling/ling201/res/diss/2004/white.doc

Wareing's Social Power

Wareing's social power - the power that someone has in a social circle. This can be influenced by many factors such as age and gender.

The quote, "that's nice (.) that's great (.) for you" is an example of Wareing's social power. There are many ways to gain social power within and group and one of them is through the use of comedy. By controlling the jokes in a room it allows someone to seem humorous to their social group and thus would become the centre of attention as the group would seek out entertainment. In the context of this quote it is within a group of friends, it can be assumed that they have been friends for a long time as the type of humour used was sarcasm. Sarcasm has a undertone of belittling towards a person, lowering their power to boost your own. Within a group of friends being sarcastic with one another and belittling is normal as the friends will know that they are joking and only using it as a humour technique. It is shown that this persons humour was successful and they gained attention from it due to the laugh that followed.

Language and Power - Legal transcript

Plan

Paragraph 1
-Overview of the text, explaining the context. In the court of law the barrister had instrumental power while Mr Neil is trying to gain influential power.
-“Because it is in a Scottish court…” the effect on language? Any slang? Unequal encounter?

Paragraph 2
How Mr Neil tries to gain influential power.
-The interruptions ending the barristers sentences taking away his power to add to his own.
-“[Laughing quietly]” as a form of patronising? Laughing to show that the barrister may have instrumental power but nothing that in influential, almost as if he cannot control Mr Neil.

Paragraph 3
-How the barrister has instrumental power but not influential power, the power over the witness and the judge. Link back to being interrupted and the laughing.
-The barrister uses a lot of pauses, builds up tension?
- The adverb “according to you” puts the blame on Mr Neil despite the fact that he is a witness, trying to get information? Can also be linked in with how the barrister is constantly asking questions.

Overview
Because this transcript is set in a court there is quite a distinction between the 2 people present, the barrister and Mr Neil. The barrister has instrumental power in the court as it is his job to handle the legal matter. The witness, Mr Neil, tried to gain influential power in court by taking away the barristers power. The court was Scottish so there was some effect on the language from that, the slang term “shopped you to the police” was used giving an informal undertone in a formal court of law.

PEE Paragraph
In a court of law the barrister has instrumental power over the witness in the court, which is what Mr Neil is. Having this instrumental power it means that the barrister has got to get the correct information from him. While having this instrumental power, it doesn’t automatically mean that he has influential power. The barrister is trying to persuade the judge that would be present and so would use his instrumental power over the witness to do this. One of the ways that the barrister tries to gain this influential power is through the use of pauses. The pauses build up tension and can also be used to put emphasis on certain statements. An example of this is, “this ill feeling (.) this grudge”, while the barrister repaired his wording it wasn’t because of a mistake, he was putting emphasis on the “ill feeling” buy using the harsher word “grudge” almost as if he is putting blame on Mr Neil despite the fact he is a witness. By blaming Mr Neil he is asserting his instrumental power over him by treating him as almost a ‘lesser person’. Another way that the blame is put on Mr Neil is through the adverb, “according to you”. By saying this it suggest that the rest of Mr Neil's statements are almost ‘lies’, making them redundant. By taking away Mr Neil’s influential power it builds up his own, making his argument more persuasive to the judge. The barrister main job is to persuade the judge by making a well informed case, another way that the barrister in this transcript does this is by asking Mr Neil many questions about the situation. Most of the questions that the barrister asks are repeated phrases of Mr Neil, "you can't remember whether they came to see you or not?" after Mr Neil said the he couldn't remember seeing them. This form question is patronising Mr Neil as it is only giving him 2 options to choose from even though he said that he couldn't remember, asserting his power to question and suggesting that Mr Neil is a liar.