Transcript Analysis

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).