Overview: Fairclough’s unequal encounter,   status of both participants, power asymmetry.

Para 1

·         Barrister seems to have most of the power- due to role in court: instrumental power. Leads the encounter, asks questions. Non fluency features. Asks leading questions.

·         Long questions; status allows him to explain himself. Also the conventions of a court room.

·         Questions the witness as if he is the one on trial. Suggesting he wants to ‘blame’ something on Mr Neil- changes how he speaks to him.

·         Partly rehearsed speech? “you put two and two together Mr Neil and you made five…” Very structured in comparison with Mr Neil’s answers. Time to prepare. Mr Neil has no real time- however he may have decided what things he would like to answer/not answer etc…

Para 2

·         Mr Neil influential power- make himself look ‘good’/innocent to the judge: Overlaps, answers quickly, probably thought question was over, ‘no time to waste’; suggesting that he knows what he wants to say- doesn't need to think about his answer.

·         Short answers. Lower power than Barrister.

·         The two long pauses, as if Mr Neil is thinking how he wishes to proceed. The pause before, “no it’s not right.”

·         Seems to gain power throughout, starts off with fillers etc… Suggesting he is guilty? Unsure of what he is going to say/phrase it. However, about halfway through he starts to gain confidence perhaps? “[laughing quietly] that’s not true no”.  The addition of “no” at the end of many of his sentences seems to suggest that he is completely sure in what he is saying. Leaving nothing for the barrister to twist.

Although the barrister has instrumental power from his job in the court room, Mr Neil uses his influential power to try and stop the barrister from portraying him as ‘guilty’ to the judge. This unequal encounter displays the power asymmetry between participants in the courtroom due to the status of the speakers.

The barristers role in the court room means that he able to ask closed/leading questions, “…isn't that right?” and spend a long time structuring his points, whereas the witnesses language, is constrained due to his lack of power and the ‘time limit’ in which he must speak within. The barrister’s instrumental power could also suggest why Mr Neil decides not to challenge the barrister’s arguments and instead replies with short answers. An affordance of the barrister’s job is that he is able to plan what he is going to say. The barristers use of the intensifier “so” to modify “many” lowers Mr. Neil's status since it is highly likely that this was said in a patronizing tone. The barrister is probably using this modifier to portray to the audience (the judge and/or jury) that Mr Neil is in fact ‘troublesome’, perhaps to nullify Mr. Neil's testimony in order to protect his client. However this ‘mocking’ tone is not questioned/corrected by the judge, who holds the most power in the room, which could suggest that it may have not come across as ‘un professional’ or that the judge is in agreement with the fact that Mr. Neil is one for being involved with the police regularly.