1. What do you notice about the use of proper nouns and/or pronouns in referring to people and events concerned?
From the transcript, the barrister addresses the defendant all of the time as Mr Neil, "so many times Mr Neil", and the witness as Mr Peterson, "this grudge on Mr Peterson". From this, we can interpret that he speaks in a very formal manner by using proper nouns, which he needs to because of his very important job. He may also refer to the defendant as Mr Neil to apply pressure to him, but it also links with how formal he needs to be, therefore he should address him in the correct way. On the other hand, Mr Neil uses pronouns, referring to the police as "em", which is a feature of spoken language as, if it was a written text it would be 'them'. The text reader may notice the difference in formality that the two people speak with.
2. What parts of the dialogue seem prepared or part of court room conventions and which seem spontaneous?
For the majority of the speech, the barrister seems to have planned what he is saying such as his opening few lines which seem like typical courtroom conventions, apart from the time where he responds to the defendants answer of his question, where micro pauses then occur, again a feature of spoken text, "the rear of your car (.) now (.)". This suggests that he may either be thinking of a reply, or purposely hesitating to again pressurise the defendant. Mr Neil however seems to speak spontaneously hen questioned about the gate incident, where pauses occur, whereas he answers almost immediately every time when questioned about the police and his uninsured driving; this may persuade the text reader to think that he has pre-planned his answers when questioned about the police incidents with a swift reply of a number of "no" 's.
3. Who seems to have the most power in the dialogue and why?
From the transcript, it is clear to see that the barrister has the most authority in the dialogue, as he is asking the questions frequently, always pressurising Mr Neil into giving answers, "is that right? What happened to the gate?" This technique of one question after another heavily applies the pressure to the defendant, and this eventually causes Mr Neil to have a 2.5 second pause and reply with a "no" and nothing else, again causing the barrister to keep on questioning him. The text reader will not be surprised by this, as it is the normality for barristers to ask multiple questions to apply the defendant to reveal the truth. After a stint of latched talk with the speech flowing, and the defendant nanswering more swiftly, the barrister eventually criticises the defendant by saying, in as lightly informal manner, that he misunderstood Mr Peterson, who is a witness, "You put two and two together Mr Neil and made 5". Perhaps this was slightly informal for a barrister in a way to speak like that in court, but it is effective as it may frustrate and anger the defendant, eventually persuading him to reveal the truth.
Compared to the barrister, Mr Neil seems to have very little power in the transcript, as the barrister is choosing what questions he wants the defendant to answer, not allowing Mr Neil to have a larger say in the court room; the text reader will understand this and even possibly empathise with the defendant as they realise that his power of saying what he wants is limited due to his needs to answer the questions asked of him in court.
The text doesn't seem unusual to me, as i believe it is very conventional of what should be expected in a court room; constant questioning from the barrister; occasional hesitant replies from a nervous defendant (Mr Neil in this case).
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Thursday, 8 October 2015
Commentary on controversial issue
I chose the death penalty as my controversial issue, which I myself have a view on.
The character of the first blogger, Jonathan, comes across as a more sophisticated man with strong moral views, against the death penalty. He starts off in a formal manner with 'firstly', showing he knows how to begin a piece of writing, compared to the second character Brodus who starts off seemingly in an angry manner with a rhetorical sentence. Furthermore, the use of the shock statistics that Jonathan instantly uses is a feature that would grip the reader almost immediately, possibly then favouring his side of the argument. A man who isn't religious but was brought up by a sophisticated family and private school, it is clear to see as Jonathan uses a formal language and way of writing, and includes good vocabulary and ways of putting his ideas across to the reader in a persuasive, informative manner, such as the use of rhetoric questions and vocabulary such as the death penalty being hailed as 'absurd', furtherly emphasising his clear thoughts on the issue. It is clear to identify the primary purpose of the text as Jon is really trying to persuade and inform the readers, who I would believe to be people of the same social class or age as he is, to take his side of the argument and make them understand the stupidity and cruelty that Jon thinks the death penalty carries.
Alongside talking of the preposterousness of the death penalty, he includes the effects it has on the people designated to the killing of the criminals, which scientifically does have effects such as PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), which again could influence the reader to take his side of the argument. From this, the reader gains an understanding that he is a man who puts as much effort and passion into his posts due to the fact he thoroughly researches into the issue. Ending with a slight conclusion adds to the already established points that he is a sophisticated and formal writer. He also uses educated facts to help convey his point of view, 'Or the killing is against the Hippocratic Oath to preserve a life?' This suggests that he is well educated and has made sure he gets enough facts to help prove his point.
This is a very different approach to the one Brodus took on trying to convey his message, by using direct address when addressing the fact that offenders can not re-offend when they are on death row, 'this could help stop them attacking people in your life.' This is effective as it makes people think of the possible dangers of when a convicted murderer is out of prison and how easily they could re-offend, pushing them to think that the death penalty effectively protects their family. The use of direct address here 'attacking people in your life' acts as a point of threat to the reader, in such a way that the reader's loved ones are possibly at risk of an attack as a direct result of the criminals release from prison.
The second blogger, Brodus, is a young proud American who takes pride in the fact that their country is one of few who still use the death penalty in this modern era. He is a well known blogger in America for the strong points of view he expresses. The views in this blog are a slight similarity of my views of the death penalty, the view that proven murderers should not have the right to live if they have taken away someone else's life, but my views are not as strong and abrupt as his. Using the phrase 'It is in everyone's right mind to believe that the person guilty should pay the price and consequently lose his or her life' From saying this it makes readers feel they are idiots if they don't feel the same due to the phrase 'everyone's right mind'. His primary purpose of the blog is to, like Jonathan, persuade his readers to concur with his reasons.
Although the blog is written in continuous prose, this piece of writing doesn't include the level of grammar and vocabulary of which Jonathan uses, showing the difference of academic writing ability of the two men. Compared to the formal and moral stance that Jonathan has, Brodus comes across as a man who doesn't care what others think of his views, as he puts his points across in a seemingly angered manner, constantly stating that murderers on death row deserve what is coming to them and do not deserve to live any more. Different readers may take this in different ways; similar men and women like him (especially Americans) may feel passionate about the controversial views he displays in the blog, whereas people in the same category of people as Jonathan - more sophisticated, possibly higher class - may feel that his points are totally deplorable, and do not take into account Human Rights.
The character of the first blogger, Jonathan, comes across as a more sophisticated man with strong moral views, against the death penalty. He starts off in a formal manner with 'firstly', showing he knows how to begin a piece of writing, compared to the second character Brodus who starts off seemingly in an angry manner with a rhetorical sentence. Furthermore, the use of the shock statistics that Jonathan instantly uses is a feature that would grip the reader almost immediately, possibly then favouring his side of the argument. A man who isn't religious but was brought up by a sophisticated family and private school, it is clear to see as Jonathan uses a formal language and way of writing, and includes good vocabulary and ways of putting his ideas across to the reader in a persuasive, informative manner, such as the use of rhetoric questions and vocabulary such as the death penalty being hailed as 'absurd', furtherly emphasising his clear thoughts on the issue. It is clear to identify the primary purpose of the text as Jon is really trying to persuade and inform the readers, who I would believe to be people of the same social class or age as he is, to take his side of the argument and make them understand the stupidity and cruelty that Jon thinks the death penalty carries.
Alongside talking of the preposterousness of the death penalty, he includes the effects it has on the people designated to the killing of the criminals, which scientifically does have effects such as PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), which again could influence the reader to take his side of the argument. From this, the reader gains an understanding that he is a man who puts as much effort and passion into his posts due to the fact he thoroughly researches into the issue. Ending with a slight conclusion adds to the already established points that he is a sophisticated and formal writer. He also uses educated facts to help convey his point of view, 'Or the killing is against the Hippocratic Oath to preserve a life?' This suggests that he is well educated and has made sure he gets enough facts to help prove his point.
This is a very different approach to the one Brodus took on trying to convey his message, by using direct address when addressing the fact that offenders can not re-offend when they are on death row, 'this could help stop them attacking people in your life.' This is effective as it makes people think of the possible dangers of when a convicted murderer is out of prison and how easily they could re-offend, pushing them to think that the death penalty effectively protects their family. The use of direct address here 'attacking people in your life' acts as a point of threat to the reader, in such a way that the reader's loved ones are possibly at risk of an attack as a direct result of the criminals release from prison.
The second blogger, Brodus, is a young proud American who takes pride in the fact that their country is one of few who still use the death penalty in this modern era. He is a well known blogger in America for the strong points of view he expresses. The views in this blog are a slight similarity of my views of the death penalty, the view that proven murderers should not have the right to live if they have taken away someone else's life, but my views are not as strong and abrupt as his. Using the phrase 'It is in everyone's right mind to believe that the person guilty should pay the price and consequently lose his or her life' From saying this it makes readers feel they are idiots if they don't feel the same due to the phrase 'everyone's right mind'. His primary purpose of the blog is to, like Jonathan, persuade his readers to concur with his reasons.
Although the blog is written in continuous prose, this piece of writing doesn't include the level of grammar and vocabulary of which Jonathan uses, showing the difference of academic writing ability of the two men. Compared to the formal and moral stance that Jonathan has, Brodus comes across as a man who doesn't care what others think of his views, as he puts his points across in a seemingly angered manner, constantly stating that murderers on death row deserve what is coming to them and do not deserve to live any more. Different readers may take this in different ways; similar men and women like him (especially Americans) may feel passionate about the controversial views he displays in the blog, whereas people in the same category of people as Jonathan - more sophisticated, possibly higher class - may feel that his points are totally deplorable, and do not take into account Human Rights.
Sunday, 4 October 2015
Controversial issue class task
Subject - Death penalty
Sites used for research - http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/5-arguments-for-and-against-the-death-penalty/,
First blogger - Jonathan - 71
Second blogger - Brodus - 28
Blog 1 - against the death penalty
Firstly, I shall start things off by stating that a few people have been wrongly accused of murder (which does happen frequently in the courts), and subsequently have been wrongly killed due to the death penalty! Many more around (150) men and women have been again wrongly accused of murder and sentenced to be on death row for a ling period of time, helpless as they are the only ones which know they are on the brink of being innocently killed! Luckily these got away and were eventually found not guilty, but still it is inexplicable that anyone can go through the terror of knowing they they could be killed any minute of any day, be it they are innocent or not. The death penalty still takes away our most basic human right - the right to live. This absurd way of getting retribution of criminals takes away the most basic human right, and is against almost every religion that exists. What if the people forced to carry out a killing, such as doctors using the lethal injection, are religious? Or the killing is against the hippocratic oath to preserve a life? As much as it is unjust for the victim of the death penalty, the people who give the consequent punishment to kill the offender are also scarred for life, knowing they have also ended someone's life. You may be thinking that is not true, but i have evidence of this, as my wife's closest friend was once part of the firing squad, and is now totally ashamed of his actions and hasn't had a job in 35 years.
In addition to these points, I believe it is a cop out for the offenders; in the bigger picture, prison for life is more of a punishment than instant death, which many including myself believe is an easy way out for offenders which commit the most horrendous crimes. Furthermore, it hasn't proven that it dissuades people to commit similar crimes! Thousands of people in the USA (which uses the death penalty) are murdered every year, showing that the death penalty has very little if not no influence - it is absolutely pointless!
To make myself as clear as i can be, the death penalty is totally unnacceptable, is against moral and human rights and should never end someones life for an action they have committed.
Blog 2 - for the death penalty
If a person has wrongly took away someone's right to live, and have deprived friends and family of a person they care for, then why should that offender have a right to live? It is in everyone's right mind to believe that the person guilty should pay the price and consequently lose his or her life because of the terrible offence they have committed. Friends and family of the victim then have closure that the person who committed the crime has paid the price - many relatives of victims of murders usually never even get closure of who committed the crime, so with the death penalty, they are fully put to rest that justice has been done. Another point is that similar criminals are fully aware of what potentially awaits them if they murder someone, therefore they have a huge warning of the consequences; logic obviously says that these criminals would stop carrying out offences; this could help stop them attacking people in your life.
Many people against the death penalty would say that it is cruel, but isn't that what the guilty offenders deserve? Imagine if it was your family member or close friend who was killed, and the murderer was found guilty. Would you want him or her to live an easy lie in prison, not learning from what they have done and not getting full retribution? Or would you prefer that they end up on death row, being scared that any day cold be the day their life ends, and they end up eventually being killed? I'm sure every sane human being has the same answer, as that is the punishment that they fully deserve.
How could any American be ashamed at the fact that our fantastic country still uses the death penalty and we are among other 'controversial countries' who also still use it? I just don't get it. Frequently on the news, you see many offenders for different crimes coming out of prison and re-offending. This is the case with many convicted murderers, many of which don't actually face life imprisonment, get released and commit the same crime again; with the death penalty, everyone is reassured that these horrific animals are not able to be released again and potentially commit another crime.
Sites used for research - http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/5-arguments-for-and-against-the-death-penalty/,
First blogger - Jonathan - 71
Second blogger - Brodus - 28
Blog 1 - against the death penalty
Firstly, I shall start things off by stating that a few people have been wrongly accused of murder (which does happen frequently in the courts), and subsequently have been wrongly killed due to the death penalty! Many more around (150) men and women have been again wrongly accused of murder and sentenced to be on death row for a ling period of time, helpless as they are the only ones which know they are on the brink of being innocently killed! Luckily these got away and were eventually found not guilty, but still it is inexplicable that anyone can go through the terror of knowing they they could be killed any minute of any day, be it they are innocent or not. The death penalty still takes away our most basic human right - the right to live. This absurd way of getting retribution of criminals takes away the most basic human right, and is against almost every religion that exists. What if the people forced to carry out a killing, such as doctors using the lethal injection, are religious? Or the killing is against the hippocratic oath to preserve a life? As much as it is unjust for the victim of the death penalty, the people who give the consequent punishment to kill the offender are also scarred for life, knowing they have also ended someone's life. You may be thinking that is not true, but i have evidence of this, as my wife's closest friend was once part of the firing squad, and is now totally ashamed of his actions and hasn't had a job in 35 years.
In addition to these points, I believe it is a cop out for the offenders; in the bigger picture, prison for life is more of a punishment than instant death, which many including myself believe is an easy way out for offenders which commit the most horrendous crimes. Furthermore, it hasn't proven that it dissuades people to commit similar crimes! Thousands of people in the USA (which uses the death penalty) are murdered every year, showing that the death penalty has very little if not no influence - it is absolutely pointless!
To make myself as clear as i can be, the death penalty is totally unnacceptable, is against moral and human rights and should never end someones life for an action they have committed.
Blog 2 - for the death penalty
If a person has wrongly took away someone's right to live, and have deprived friends and family of a person they care for, then why should that offender have a right to live? It is in everyone's right mind to believe that the person guilty should pay the price and consequently lose his or her life because of the terrible offence they have committed. Friends and family of the victim then have closure that the person who committed the crime has paid the price - many relatives of victims of murders usually never even get closure of who committed the crime, so with the death penalty, they are fully put to rest that justice has been done. Another point is that similar criminals are fully aware of what potentially awaits them if they murder someone, therefore they have a huge warning of the consequences; logic obviously says that these criminals would stop carrying out offences; this could help stop them attacking people in your life.
Many people against the death penalty would say that it is cruel, but isn't that what the guilty offenders deserve? Imagine if it was your family member or close friend who was killed, and the murderer was found guilty. Would you want him or her to live an easy lie in prison, not learning from what they have done and not getting full retribution? Or would you prefer that they end up on death row, being scared that any day cold be the day their life ends, and they end up eventually being killed? I'm sure every sane human being has the same answer, as that is the punishment that they fully deserve.
How could any American be ashamed at the fact that our fantastic country still uses the death penalty and we are among other 'controversial countries' who also still use it? I just don't get it. Frequently on the news, you see many offenders for different crimes coming out of prison and re-offending. This is the case with many convicted murderers, many of which don't actually face life imprisonment, get released and commit the same crime again; with the death penalty, everyone is reassured that these horrific animals are not able to be released again and potentially commit another crime.
Thursday, 1 October 2015
Online Articles evaluation
The Telegraph - Refugee crisis: Many migrants falsely claim to be Syrians, Germany says as EU tries to ease tensions
The Independent - Refugee crisis: Where are all these people coming from and why?
Subject - Refugee crisis
Firstly, both articles use a strapline to engage the audience right away. Although this is a similarity, the independent uses a sufficiently longer strapline, "Refugees have been seeking safe haven in the West for years. Recently, however, something has changed. Thousands have become millions, as nation after nation succumbs to anarchy and fanaticism. Introducing a unique week-long series examining the causes of the current crisis, Patrick Cockburn focuses on the increasingly uninhabitable region of fear and hatred which is driving this alarming exodus"; the reader may think this is a good thing as it is more informative from the start, whereas some viewers may not like the long length of it, preferring the short strapline that the telegraph offers as it is straight to the point and more condensed "A market in fake Syrian passports proliferates in Turkey as EU tries to improve relations between Serbia and Croatia". This direct approach instantly gives the reader the information they want, and subsequently answers the independents headline!
The telegraph also uses more multi modal texts, using more videos and pictures to furtherly engage the audience, compared to the independent just using a minority of pictures, with their main focus of the broadsheet is the text that is contained.
This links in with the amount of text the independent uses compared to the telegraph, which the majority of their content is short facts and quotes from people with views on the crisis. The telegraph may think that people will want to read their content as it is short, snappy and to the point, giving straight up facts about the crisis in an organised manner, compared to the style the independent uses, which is to give their reader a well documented and literate read with much more information, with a staggering amount of paragraphs compared to the telegraph. Facts given by the telegraph are in the form of pie charts, bar charts and fancy maps, whereas the independent has a more formal approach by implementing their given facts and points of view in standard paragraph form, with just the one image of facts to show. Some would argue that the independent is a better newspaper due to the fact that it purely has more content in the form of standard paragraphs; this may differ from the general person looking for news as the telegraph is straight to the point.
The independent give a more relaxed view on the refugees fleeing, as it frequently uses emotive language in context to the wars and why the refugees are fleeing, "The very length of these wars means immense and irreversible destruction of all means". The phrase 'irreversible destruction' implies that the war is having a huge effect on the land the refugees are fleeing from, giving no option for them to leave and never return. In comparison to this, the telegraph just present the facts and where the Syrians and others (who have claimed a fake Syrian passport) are heading, not using any features such as emotive language to captivate the reader.
The Independent - Refugee crisis: Where are all these people coming from and why?
Subject - Refugee crisis
Firstly, both articles use a strapline to engage the audience right away. Although this is a similarity, the independent uses a sufficiently longer strapline, "Refugees have been seeking safe haven in the West for years. Recently, however, something has changed. Thousands have become millions, as nation after nation succumbs to anarchy and fanaticism. Introducing a unique week-long series examining the causes of the current crisis, Patrick Cockburn focuses on the increasingly uninhabitable region of fear and hatred which is driving this alarming exodus"; the reader may think this is a good thing as it is more informative from the start, whereas some viewers may not like the long length of it, preferring the short strapline that the telegraph offers as it is straight to the point and more condensed "A market in fake Syrian passports proliferates in Turkey as EU tries to improve relations between Serbia and Croatia". This direct approach instantly gives the reader the information they want, and subsequently answers the independents headline!
The telegraph also uses more multi modal texts, using more videos and pictures to furtherly engage the audience, compared to the independent just using a minority of pictures, with their main focus of the broadsheet is the text that is contained.
This links in with the amount of text the independent uses compared to the telegraph, which the majority of their content is short facts and quotes from people with views on the crisis. The telegraph may think that people will want to read their content as it is short, snappy and to the point, giving straight up facts about the crisis in an organised manner, compared to the style the independent uses, which is to give their reader a well documented and literate read with much more information, with a staggering amount of paragraphs compared to the telegraph. Facts given by the telegraph are in the form of pie charts, bar charts and fancy maps, whereas the independent has a more formal approach by implementing their given facts and points of view in standard paragraph form, with just the one image of facts to show. Some would argue that the independent is a better newspaper due to the fact that it purely has more content in the form of standard paragraphs; this may differ from the general person looking for news as the telegraph is straight to the point.
The independent give a more relaxed view on the refugees fleeing, as it frequently uses emotive language in context to the wars and why the refugees are fleeing, "The very length of these wars means immense and irreversible destruction of all means". The phrase 'irreversible destruction' implies that the war is having a huge effect on the land the refugees are fleeing from, giving no option for them to leave and never return. In comparison to this, the telegraph just present the facts and where the Syrians and others (who have claimed a fake Syrian passport) are heading, not using any features such as emotive language to captivate the reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)