Another aspect of witnessing is explored by Brönnimann et al (2013). They on the witness’s act of responding to some kind of prompt. In thinking about this, Edith may be responding to her interviewer’s desire to preserve the memory of the Holocaust. The knowledge that another shares her interest in this act shows that it has historical imperative and an awareness of the importance of her presence in shaping an understanding of that imperative. According to Brönnimann et al (2013), witnesses in court give their testimonials as a response to lawyers who are questioning them on the events that transpired. Therefore, the questions that are asked and the people who are asking those questions may sculpt some witness’s testimony. Their results found that witnesses expressed different emotion, cognitive process, and perceptual process when questioned by people of varying occupation, gender and parties involved in the proceedings (Brönnimann et al, 2013). However, the testimony on which this study focuses is witness testimony of a different kind. The kind of witnessing explored by their essay is that of court testimony, not memorial or educational. In this study’s focus, we will observe holocaust witness testimony in which a survivor of the event attempts to give her audience an understanding of her experience. The stories she tells may be affected by the questions the interviewer asks her. Another factor to consider is that she is being filmed and does not know how many people will view her testimony after it is recorded. The methods that these factors inspire, such as prosodic and language choices, are important in understanding how witnessing differs from other forms of storytelling and narrative.
Another aspect of witnessing is explored by Brönnimann et al (2013). They on the witness’s act of responding to some kind of prompt. In thinking about this, Edith may be responding to her interviewer’s desire to preserve the memory of the Holocaust. The knowledge that another shares her interest in this act shows that it has historical imperative and an awareness of the importance of her presence in shaping an understanding of that imperative. According to Brönnimann et al (2013), witnesses in court give their testimonials as a response to lawyers who are questioning them on the events that transpired. Therefore, the questions that are asked and the people who are asking those questions may sculpt some witness’s testimony. Their results found that witnesses expressed different emotion, cognitive process, and perceptual process when questioned by people of varying occupation, gender and parties involved in the proceedings (Brönnimann et al, 2013). However, the testimony on which this study focuses is witness testimony of a different kind. The kind of witnessing explored by their essay is that of court testimony, not memorial or educational. In this study’s focus, we will observe holocaust witness testimony in which a survivor of the event attempts to give her audience an understanding of her experience. The stories she tells may be affected by the questions the interviewer asks her. Another factor to consider is that she is being filmed and does not know how many people will view her testimony after it is recorded. The methods that these factors inspire, such as prosodic and language choices, are important in understanding how witnessing differs from other forms of storytelling and narrative.