Analysis Of Transcriptions For my analysis of transcriptions I will analyse two different types of interviews.

The first interview I will analyse is an interview of Jude Law on Parkinson, which is a semi structured interview. The language spoken by Jude is quite colloquial and almost like he is having a casual conversation rather then being interviewed this is indicated by the line this funny thing I felt like I I I dunno like. He uses lexemes such as funny thing which would be used in a normal conversation adding to the flow of the interview. Further more his personal idiolect comes across in this line. Especially when he says I I I dunno like. It indicates that he is very informal and his personal idiolect and the way he uses elision such as dunno really comes across. When Parkinson asks Jude about his looks and says that some people think he is too good looking to be taken seriously in acting he uses a lot of fillers and repletion. errr I I I and arggh. He uses these a lot especially in this question this may be because he is un easy about the topic on his looks and feels uncomfortable talking about it. This really comes across in the amount of fillers and repetition he uses. Furthermore he may just be nervous and not know how to respond to this. As well as this the repetition of I highlights his uncertainty . He stresses some words such as Boring. This implies that he is tying to get he point across which is that he often thinks that romantic comedy films that he does are boring. Parkinson has many set interrogatives such as What can you learn from something like that. He wants top know what Jude thinks and elicit information on how Jude is feeling by asking probing interrogatives like this. There are many linguistic features used throughout Judes interview, one of which is a pre modifier. I really like that part its a very juicy part. He uses the pre modifier juicy which emphasises one of the roles played by Jude in his movies and also that Parkinson enjoyed it as he puts great emphasis on that particular word. Further more it makes his role sound interesting and interreges the audience. Jude uses many abstract nouns when discussing one of his co actors. watch him at work and he was extraordinary The abstract noun extraordinary really emphasises what a wonderful actor Jude thinks he is and how fondly he thinks of him. Extraordinary is also a evaluative adjective used by Jude which emphasises his opinion. He uses yet more abstract nouns in relation to his co actor his awareness of himself was what fascinated me. All these lexemes such as extraordinary challenging awareness better creates a semantic field on he co actor Sean and how wonderful he is and what a profound effect he had on Jude. It also succeeds in creating a positive image of Sean towards the audience Jude also uses elision throughout the interview. ive done better and im. This elision adds informality to the interview and it also highlights Judes personal idiolect. Parkinson uses some evaluative adjectives to describe the actors Jude learnt from extraordinary actors. This depicits a positive perception of these actors and also

indicates an opinion of these actors from the interviewer which is very interesting as interviewers usually dont let their opinion be known. To conclude Parkinsons interview was a very conversational interview which is emphasised by the elision dunno and wasnt. It seems to be a very positive interview with no pre set serious topic. In contrast the next interview that I will analyse is the interview of George Bush. This interview seems to be very structured with pre determined set questions in the interviewers mind, this is clear as Bush does not use many fillers. The main participants in this interview is George Bush and the interviewer. The interviewer starts by going straight to the central premise of what the conversation will be about which is Iraq. 300 militants were killed and American hel helicopter. This suggests that the interview has a main objective and that is what the interview will be about. Throughout the interview the sentences seem to be long and complex suggesting that this is for a elder and more intellectual audience .The interview is very formal and just wants to elicit facts. Most of Bushs sentences are declarative sentences. well, theres a lot of strong opinions about it. This could be as Bush has so much information to give, and convey to the public so he uses declarative sentences in order to achieve this. Bushs answers seem to be very long and rehearsed. He has some rising internations on the words clauses he uses Iraqis and Hoping. This suggests that he feels very strongly about changing the way things are in Iraq and tries to get his point across by rising intonations. Bush does overlap the interview at one point in the interview hmmm. The interviewer has very few fillers or stutters though out his questions they seem to flow from one to the next. He does have one or two such as aaa which may indicating him thinking this just indicates that he is unsure and is thinking whilst the interview is asking him questions. Bushs idiolect clearly comes across in the way he speaks such as em instead of them and aa instead of ah. Furthermore Bush uses a lot of elision such as isnt and were which highlights his personal idiolect. This is an indication of how he may speak in everyday life. His choice of lexis also indicates his dialect such as the use of the lexemes senate and buddy. This words make it obvious that he is from America as a senate is not used in the U.K. Further more he words are pronounced with an accent reinforcing were he is from. A pre modifier is an example of one of the linguistic features used in the interview. The interviewer describes the war as the deadliest battles of war. The pre modifier deadliest emphasises and highlights how bad the war has got. It also creates an immediate image of thousands of people dying therefore succeeds in getting the interviewers point across. Bush uses a lot of abstract nouns. When he is asked to talk about Iraq and civil war he seems to use a lot of negative abstract nouns violence attack criminality. This

indicates that he wants to emphasise Iraq as negative and does so by using these strong abstract nouns. However when he is asked to talk about his own troops and America he describes America using two positive free morphemes making up the compound word safe - haven .The compounds word really highlights the utopia that Bush is trying to present America as. Furthermore he describes the people of America using the emotive adjective/abstract nouninnocent. He does this to portray himself and his people in a positive way and defiantly does so by using these abstract nouns and compound words. As a result it seems that Bush has carefully picked his choice of lexis and maybe rehearsed this interview to have his desired effect. Towards the end of the interview the language is more colloquial. Such thank you, buddy. Glad youre here. The informality towards the end may be due to the relief of all the serious questions out of the way. Bush refers to the interviewer as buddy which is a contrast of the begging of the interview calling him by his name Juan. It suggests the change of relationship between the interviewer and the interviewee. The similarities of the two interviews I analysed is that both of the interviews seem to have few overlaps and intonations. In both interviewer seems to know when to speak and the interviewee also knows when to speak. Further more both interviews do not always ask interrogatives they also say what the interviewer is feeling and questions from their point of view. The differences are that in the interview of Bush his questions and answers seem to bee much more long and rehearsed and about a particular serious issue. On the contrary in the Jude Law interview the questions and answers are more spontaneous. As well as this the interview is much more informal compared to that of Bush.