Conversation

I believe that person A is someone who has authority, such as a policeman, whilst person B is someone with information such as an eyewitness. The authority figure uses interrogative sentences in order to get the information which they need. This gives the person a sense of authority as speaker B feels the need to answer both questions, showing that person A has authority over person B.

The audience gets the feeling that person B is shocked or nervous. The constant use of hiatus and fillers show how the speaker is struggling to get their words out, or are thinking about what they are saying so as not to do anything wrong. This adds to the assumption that person A has authority, as person B does not want to give any wrong information, presumably because there would be harsh consequences. As well as this, the use of euphemisms such as 'he must have had it', implying the victim died, supports that speaker B is shocked, as they do not want to be as blunt as to say that the person is dead.

Speaker B uses taboo/slang words such as 'bloody' to emphasise the seriousness of the incident, as well has the shock they are in from witnessing the incident. This shows how the incident is obviously serious, and so supports the idea that speaker A is a police officer as this is the sort of situation that they would be involved in.

Speaker B has a lot more speech within the transcript, however speaker A has the authority. This is juxtaposed to the conventions of speech and turn-taking, as someone who speaks more is often presented as domineering and in charge of the situation. However, some may think that speaker B is in charge of the situation since they are the one with the vital information.