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?
-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.
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.
-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.
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.
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.
Good context and development of your irst idea. Remember to get in theories/concepts using key phrases like 'power asymmetry' and 'unequal encounter' when you are analysing the quotes, as well as key linguistic terminology. Check when your paragraph needs to change as your exploration moves on e.g. the new idea shown by the discourse marker "another way the barrister does..." This should start the new paragraph, giving your essay cohesion.
ReplyDelete