Transcript analysis

Courtroom transcript analysis

1) What do you notice about the use of proper and/or pronouns in referring to people and events?

What I notice about the transcript is proper nouns are almost always used when the barrister is addressing both of the men involved in the situation. The reason for this is to make it completely clear to themselves and the audience in the courtroom who is being talked about. If they were to use pronouns like he, she and they rather than proper nouns it could create confusion with the listeners. I also feel that although the barrister is the one with the authority he feels it is part of his job to respect the defendant which is why he addresses him with in a formal way with ‘Mr Neil’. The defendant also uses pronouns when referring to the police as ‘em’ which is a shortened version of them. It is a feature of spoken language because when writing you would not use the term ‘em’. It also is showing he either has a strong Scottish accent and these abbreviations come natural to him, but also that he’s not too bothered with talking formally to the barrister.

2) Which parts of the dialogue seem prepared or part of courtroom conventions and which seem spontaneous (said without thinking beforehand)?

Throughout the transcript most of what the barrister says seems to be part of the normal courtroom procedures.  The first introduction to the case from the Barrister is what you would class as a normal courtroom speech. One spontaneous and abnormal part of the transcript that stands out is ‘is that because the police have been to see you so many times Mr Neil that you can’t remember  what they were up to see you about one incident as compared to another incident?’ This is abnormal because the barrister is basically insulting rather than being professional like he should be. Other than this he does act in a normal way throughout the courtroom incident.

3) Who seems to have the most power in the in the dialogue and why?

The person with the power in the dialogue is the barrister. The first reason why I think this is he controls the conversation and it is obvious to see how much more he speaks than the defendant. The lack of speech from the defendant indicates he does not have much power and he is controlled by the barrister.

Another way that shows Mr Neil is not the man in authority is his constant pauses and use of 'ers' and 'ems' it makes me feel like he is constantly thinking or nervous. I get the feeling that Mr Neil is thinking of what to say and is constantly thinking what he should say which indicates suspicion on his behalf. This is especially the case because he is in a courtroom getting questioned and if your not seen as confident then it could alert suspicion to the barrister and the audience. The fact that the barrister is high in authority and the audience is there to analyse and make thoughts on the defendant which shows Mr Neil is under power.

At other parts of the transcript you can see how Mr Neil tries to cross the barristers authority by speaking over him.
barrister-you cant remember whether they came to /see or not/
Mr N-                                                                        / I don't /think they did no.

Although people may see talking over someone as trying to be in power i think Mr Neil goes through the realization that he cant say anything else so he bluntly responds to the barrister because he has nothing else to say. He does this again at the end of the transcript where he says 'no' over the top of the barrister which also supports the fact he knows he has nothing else to say so he is blunt. The fact he says little when speaking over the barrister shows the lack of authority because he doesn't have big persuasive responses but instead short blunt ones.