Language and Power

Plan




Speech Features-




Overlap-
 "or not?"
 "I don't"
could be a possible face threatening act, as the barrister is loosing the face needs to be liked and respected, when the barrister is faced with this he lowers the status of Mr N by being accusative and then threatens the face needs of Mr N by telling him how he feels and thinks, which shows dominance and a mix of influential and instrumental power. Mr N confronted the barrister to deliberately try and confront the barrister and higher his own influential power. When the barrister does not react to Mr N's attempt to higher his status he doesn't allow the chance for Mr N to gain power as he doesn't acknowledge the difficulty Mr N is trying to impose. From the start it is an unequal encounter and there is asymmetrical power in favour of the barrister all the way through.




Divergence-
"'em" , "whether they"
the speech of the barrister diverges away from the colloquial language of Mr N to highlight a substantial difference in the power divide and also when the Barrister uses a higher frequency of formal language and therefore really emphasises the informality in the speech of Mr N.




Convergence-
barrister uses the term "Shopped" which is substantial in the barristers speech as throughout the transcript he uses very divergent language in order to highlight his political power, when the barrister converges he does this at particular moments when he wants to use pragmatic understanding to fully connect with Mr N, when they both share pragmatic understanding it could be related to using herd behaviour to influence a decision or outcome so possibly when Mr N hears "Shopped" he relates the barrister to himself by subconsciously doing this it may lead to him releasing more information to the barrister.




Overview:
In the transcript because the Barrister is questioning Mr N on a incident months previously. The Barrister holds a mix of influential and instrumental power, this is due to his higher status politically over Mr N. Faircloughs unequal encounters also partakes in this text, as the Barrister is able to set the agenda and control the subject; in this case Mr N, this highlights the asymmetrical power in the text.






In this text Speech features are used to assert power and status. On a few occasions the Barrister is overlapped by Mr N "or not?"
                                  "I don't" which could be a possible Face threatening act, the barrister is loosing the face needs to be liked and respected, when the barrister is faced with this he lowers the status of Mr N by being accusative and then threatens the face needs of Mr N by telling him how he feels and thinks, which shows dominance and a mix of influential and instrumental power, Mr N deliberately try's to confront the barrister and higher his own influential power. When the barrister does not react to Mr N's attempt to higher his status the barrister rejects the chance for Mr N to gain power as he doesn't acknowledge the difficulty Mr N is trying to impose apon him. From the start it is an unequal encounter and there is asymmetrical power in favour of the barrister all the way through.








The use of divergence is used to make Mr N look uneducated,
"'em" , "whether they" the speech of the barrister diverges away from the colloquial language of Mr N to highlight a substantial difference in the power divide and also when the Barrister uses a higher frequency of formal language it really emphasises the informality in the speech of Mr N. When the Barrister  uses the term "Shopped";which is substantial in the barristers speech as throughout the transcript he uses very divergent language in order to highlight his political power, the barrister converges. He does this at particular moments when he wants to use pragmatic understanding to fully connect with Mr N, when they both share pragmatic understanding it could be related to using herd behaviour to influence a decision or outcome so possibly when Mr N hears "Shopped" he relates the barrister to himself. By subconsciously doing this it may lead to him releasing more information to the barrister, It could also highlight the stupidity of the speech of Mr N.