Questions on the barrister transcript:

1.       In the transcript, everyone is being called by their proper name. This is using proper nouns as each individual is referred to as their proper name, for example ‘Mr Neil’ this is typical for people who are in a court-room as it indicates formality which is important in this situation. By calling someone by their proper name makes he conversation sound more serious and may or may not make the person being judged feel comfortable because when someone is called by their first and full name the situation automatically becomes more serious as they address you fully rather than a nickname or your first name which is how you are approached by people you know rather than those you don’t. There isn’t many pronouns used throughout the transcript however the pronoun ‘you’ is frequently used to address Mr Neil whilst he is being questioned. This is done to manipulate him and address him in a manner that shows that he barrister has the authority in the transcript as he can address  Mr Neil as ‘you’ despite the formality of the situation.

 

2.       The end of the transcript seems more prepared than the start as at the start of the transcript there are many pauses which makes it seem as though they are thinking about what they need to say and how to say things to get their point across right as you need to be wary of what you say when you are in a court room. This is because in a courtroom you need to be very careful with what you say and the level of formality that you use. This to me makes it seem like the start of the transcript is more planned as the many micro-pauses illustrate thinking and hesitation, whereas the second half of the transcript has virtually no micro-pauses, only overlapping talk which means that the speakers are trying to answer the questions quickly and so that no more questions are asked of him and the text flows better in the second half, further illustrating that it was more of a natural and unplanned response. Also the barrister would of planned his questions for Mr Neil however Mr Neil’s’ response will be more spontaneous.

 

3.       In the transcript the person who has the most power is the barrister (Bar). I think this is because they ask many questions to Mr Neil about the incident such as ‘something to, to do with a gate he wanted you to repair a gate?’ This conveys power as they know a lot of information about the incident and therefore interrogates Mr Neil to get answers from him about the incident as he is suspicious as he already has some idea on what happened during the incident involving Mr Neil.  The barrister also shows authority by stressing certain words and phrases to make themselves heard and stress the importance of what he is saying as well as the importance he has in the court room. He says ‘…so many times Mr Neil’ referring to the many visits Mr Neil has received from the police. By stressing his name makes it clear who he is talking to but also stresses to the court room that he is saying true and that that should be known by the rest of the court.

 

4.       There is nothing in this transcript that is unusual to me; personally I think that it’s exactly how a courtroom would be. This is how I would imagine the language and atmosphere to be like in a court room and therefore was not surprised by anything in the text.  One thing that would most likely appear to be unusual to me would be the number of micro pauses at the start of the transcript this is because although the suspect would need to think about what they are going to reply in return they wouldn’t need to pause all the time as they should know what to say. The pauses to me illustrate nervousness and suspiciousness as there isn’t any need for several pauses unless you weren’t guilty as you would know what to say.

Same sex marriage:

Blogger one:
Isnt your wedding day suppose to be the happiest day of your life? I believe that your wedding day is meant to be filled with happiness and should be shared with those who matter to you and who have contributed to your life, so why do so many people descriminate you if you want to spend the rest of your life with somone of the same sex as you? If somone really loves somone and you are happy together then leave them be. Why interfear with their relationship? Why get invloved? Some peoples lives are filled with such missery that they find that they feel better about themselves when they lower other peoples self esteem. I think that they are brave to commit their lives to someone when they know many will dissagree. They are making history in our world and people are brining them down for doing what everyone wants to do which is just find love with somone and feel as though they mean something to someone, however they just choose that somone to be the same sex as them rather than being opposing sex'. I feel as though these people should be looked up to and be treated the same as any other married couple as they are the same as each and every one of us so there is no need for discrimination.

Blogger two:
I know that they are not effecting anyone by what they are doing, however I just feel as though what they are doing just isnt right and that the way i was brought us isnt reflected in same sex marriages as I was always brought up with the idea that men and women married and not men with men, nor women with women. Not only does it effect me because of the way i was brought up but in todays society children who get brough up with two mums or two dads will be discrimanted at school and will find themselves potentially getting bullied just because what their parents are doing is against the norm. For many years it has always been that a man and a woman fall in love with eachother and marry and are then able to have sex to create a new life. As much as same sex couples are still able to have children I just believe that it is important for every child to grow up with a mother and a father as when they get older and need to talk to people about their troubles they may not feel comfortable with only having the option of talking to a male or only being able to talk to a female, especially as they go through puberty and start to become an adult where they need to make big decisions.

Commentary:

Blogger 1: Blogger one who is arguing that there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage uses many rhetorical questions to express their point and make the audience ask themselves questions about the subject which may change whether they agree or not. They open with a rhetorical question which makes them wonder. The use of the superlative ‘happiest’ in the opening question makes the audience believe that it is supposed to be happy however the use of the rhetorical question may intrigue them and  make then want to find out why your wedding day might not be the happiest day of your life.

They also use personal opinions to express meaning as they use ‘it’s meant to be’  which sounds like it is instructive and therefore makes it hard to disagree. ‘should be shared’ is also a use of an opinion however makes it seem as though that’s how it should be and that is you go against it you’re doing something wrong.

As well as this they also use conflicted assumptions about other people’s life to make their opinion sound more believable. ‘Some people’s lives are filled with such misery’ Here, blogger one is suggesting that other people’s lives are so miserable that they need to lower other peoples happiness just to make them feel better which is an example of a conflicted assumptions as it is a assumption that is made which may not necessarily be true and can be seen as violent.  

Blogger one makes the people in the subject sound almost heroic and that we should be proud of them for ‘making history’ as they are some of the first people to marry people who are the same sex as them and yet they are disgusted that many still disagree. This is because he is from someone who has been in a same sex relationship and therefore know what it feels like to be discriminated from others.

‘There is no need for discrimination’ this is a persuasive opinion as it is almost a command however it is only someone’s opinion.  This is a very persuasive technique as well as commanding which helps to express the importance of the subject.

Blogger 2: Blogger two who is against same sex marriage doesn’t use many rhetorical questions nor strong use of punctuation to express their opinion.

‘I was always brought up with the idea that men and women married and not men with men, nor women with women’ this quotation suggests to me that the way they were brought up is important to this person and that they believe what their mum and dads views are and that they respect their mum and dads opinions and beliefs and follow their beliefs into adult hood and that It isn’t normal for them to have people around them that are couples of the same sex. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they are against them they just might nor necessarily think that that’s the right thing to do and therefore not want anything to do with this sort of thing.

‘in today’s society children who get brought up with two mums or two dads will be discriminated at school and will find themselves potentially getting bullied just because what their parents are doing is against the norm.’ this is a belief that blogger number two has against same sex couples.  This doesn’t mean that this is what will defiantly happen it’s just what they think will happen based on  maybe their background or personal experiences or they might be a younger person who has personally witnessed the changes that are occurring in today’s society. 

‘As much as same sex couples are still able to have children I just believe that it is important for every child to grow up with a mother and a father…’ Again this is just a personal opinion that they believe is important for people who are brought up in a same sex marriage. This is not necessarily being against them it’s just their way of looking out or thinking of how different or how much harder it would be for children who would be brought up in a same sex marriage.