Questions and answers on the barrister transcript

1. What do you notice about the use of proper nouns and/or pronouns in referring to people and events concerned?
Firstly, the barrister addresses the intended audience (Mr Neil) by his name - e.g. according to you Mr Neil - and most likely does this so that people within the court room (including Mr Neil) know who is being spoken to. This is also a very formal way of speaking so supports the surroundings that they are in; they are in a Scottish court, therefore they will be discussing and important matter and representing the laws and officials of that country. The use of proper nouns could also be used by the barrister as he has a very important job that requires his to speak in a formal manner.
On line 15, the barrister once again uses the proper noun Mr Neil but this time puts emphasis on the words he uses. This could be done to create a more serious atmosphere where Mr Neil would be put under pressure; therefore, may be used as a tactic to make him crack under pressure so that he speaks truthfully and answers quickly. The emphasis on the name could also suggest that the barrister is becoming irritated by Mr Neil and impatient.

On the other hand, Mr Neil uses improper language and second person pronouns such as ''em' (when referring to the police) rather than 'them'; as it would be if in a form of written text. The use of this informal language may suggest that the character has a certain idiolect and most likely a regional Scottish accent that means he does not use correct English Language when speaking.


2. Which parts of the dialogue seem prepared or part of courtroom conventions and which seem spontaneous (said without thinking before hand)?
In this transcript it appears that the more spontaneous and unplanned speech comes from Mr Neil. The use of long pauses and fillers such as 'er' suggest this as it implies that Mr Neil is thinking of a reply and what to say as he is speaking. This would be expected as in a courtroom he would not know the sort of questions that the barrister would ask him therefore his answers would be unplanned.
However, you could argue that Mr Neil planned what he was going to say and what story he was going to tell; but he would not have been able to plan how he would say this as, prior to the courtroom scene, he would only be able to predict what the barrister was going to ask him.

On the other hand, the barristers speech seems more prepared and rehearsed. You would expect the questions that he is asking to be pre prepared as the use of interrogation seems to be a common convention of courtroom procedures. The only part of the barristers speech that you could argue may not be prepared is when he repeats new information that Mr Neil has given him.

3. who seems to have the most power in the dialogue and why?
In this dialogue it seems that the most power and authority lies with the barrister; which would be an expected convention of a courtroom procedure as he has one of the most important roles. The amount of power that he holds could be shown through the frequent amount of questions that he asks.
The barrister could also show power over Mr Neil as he seems to manipulate what he says to make him look guilty; and to try and lure the truth out of him. For example he uses what Mr Neil says to come up with 'you put two and two together Mr Neil and made five', which shows power as he uses manipulation to make Mr Neil seem guilty. This works in the barristers favour as Mr Neil becomes quickly agitated and then goes on to admit the truth.
In addition, the barrister seems to have possession over the conversation as he decides what is going to be spoken about and what he wants Mr Neil to say; once again shown through the use of questioning which seems to be a common courtroom procedure. This could also imply that Mr Neil has little power in the court room as he does not have a large amount of say in the discussion and what is being spoken about - it is almost as if he his being told what to say by the barrister?
Mr Neil also shows a lack of power in the courtroom as he often pauses and hesitates before he says things. This could be seen as lacking power as it makes him come across as nervous and unsure about what to say (cracking under pressure).

4. What else seems puzzling/interesting/unusual and why?
Personally I think that the language used in this transcript seems like a normal courtroom procedure; therefore, I do not find anything that unusual. I believe that frequent questioning form the barrister, and nervous and hesitant replies from Mr Neil are very expected of the type of language used in a courtroom.