I'm only giving you 2 example paragraphs for legal/courtroom transcripts. You'll have to research others alone.
Here is the imagined question:
'Using the stimulus as a starting point, discuss how legal power can be exerted through language use.'
So - imagine that the first 2 paragraphs have been answered in relation to the stimulus, here is what the next 2 COULD look like...
P3 - Within an extract from the murder case involving ex-athlete Oscar Pistorius, we studied an exchange between a defence barrister and a key witness. Within this exchange, power is exerted by the barrister when he attempts to undermine the witness and make them look less reliable. This is due to the fact that the barrister is probably attempting to defame the witness and prove reasonable doubt over the guilt of Pistorius. At first, 'D' demonstrates upwards convergence by saying to the witness 'let me explain to you what it means...when you testified'. here, the use of the imperative with the fronted verb 'let', along with the rather patronising verb 'explain' characterises the witness as unintelligent and lacking in legal know-how, which might cast doubt over her reliability in this context. Later, further unreliability is cast upon her when the barrister claims that she made 'no mention of the woman's screaming (1) no mention'. The use of repetition to draw attention to the negated common noun 'no mention', particularly when coupled with a planned unvoiced pause for effect, would accentuate the gap in the witness's version of events, despite her otherwise being trustworthy. This would be classed by Goffman as a 'face threatening act'. However, a different aspect of face presents itself later in the extract when the barrister protects the negative face of the witness, presumably to encourage compliance from her. We can see this firstly when the barrister repeatedly uses the imperative phrase 'hear me out', which undermines his opwn ego and makes it appear as if he is asking the witness' permission to continue, despite being in a position of power relative to her. He later follows an extremely long sentence with 'and I apologise for that'. here, the use of the first person singular pronoun and dynamic present tense verb 'I apologise' show that the barrister is deliberately attempting to pander to the negative face needs of the witness so that she will feel more inclined to talk and comply with his wishes.
P4 - In a similar courtroom extract, we examined data where a man named 'Mr Neil' was being interrogated by a barrister having got into a dispute with a neighbour after an incident with a car. Within the extract, we see the barrister attempting to distance himself from the witness in order to elevate his position of power. An example of this, near the start of the extract, is when the barrister uses low frequency lexis such as the noun 'incident', adverb 'previously' and noun 'grudge' to make him sound more educated than the defendant. The barrister subtly mocks the reliability of the defendant by repeating elements of his own words such as 'you can't remember whether [the police] came to see you?'. Here, the contraction 'can't' and dynamic verb 'remember', which would have been said in an incredulous tone, paints a picture of the defendant as unreliable and fanciful, probably causing the jury to discount his evidence. In a similar way to how the barrister in text A appealed to the negative face needs of his witness to encourage compliance, this barrister in this text uses a similar technique by using downwards convergence to speak to him more on his level. On the surface, he appears to sympathise with the defendant, saying, '...the reason there is ill feeling...is that you believe Mr Peterson shopped you to the police.' here, the use of the abstract noun reason, connoting understanding, and the colloquial past participle verb 'shopped' imply that the barrister is attempting to encourage the defendant to cooperate with him as he has started to see things from his point of view. This would make it far more likely that the defendant will say something which will incriminate him.
No comments:
Post a Comment