Abstract
This study examines the question of how the feedback of peers and teachers on a collaboratively written student text, mediated by track changes and commenting functions in Microsoft (MS) Word, can act as a form of socialization into an academic or professional discipline. It focusses on a collaboratively written legal memorandum, authored by students of law engaged in the practice of ‘mooting’, i.e. the conduct of mock trials, an activity which requires the development of persuasive legal arguments, both in written and spoken form. This article reports on an ethnographic study of the language socialization observed in a team of law students in Hong Kong, as they went about writing a memorandum for a high-stakes, global arbitration mooting competition. This team was observed over a period of approximately eight months, the first three of which were dedicated to the writing of a 35-page memorandum. The team produced a total of 12 drafts of this memorandum. These drafts were reviewed by the students themselves and the legal academic tutors responsible for training the team, with feedback recorded in MS Word. This article presents a multiple case study of participants in the writing process, noting coaching, peer mentoring and editing roles adopted. The analysis shows how the digitally mediated collaborative writing process supported the socialization of students into the disciplinary culture of the law. The analysis identifies socializing feedback on research process, disciplinary content, discourse and lexico-grammar, and also finds that socializing functions were performed by both experts and novices in the community of practice.
Keywords
As in other domains, the way that people ‘do’ communication in legal contexts has been affected by digital media, which offer additional affordances to legal communicators, including affordances for meaning, relating and being (Jones and Hafner, 2012). In addition, digital media provide additional contexts where members of specialist communities can interact and foster language socialization. However, little research has examined such digitally mediated contexts for language socialization in law. This article addresses the role of digital mediation in 1) legal communication, especially the collaborative construction of legal documents, and 2) language socialization in a law school context. We begin by reviewing work on language socialization, especially in legal contexts, and the potential effect of digital media on the socialization process. Then, we describe a longitudinal study of collaborative writing in an academic legal context, involving use of Microsoft (MS) Word markup tools by both law students and teachers. The study aims to critically examine evidence of language socialization processes in this digitally mediated context.
Language Socialization
Duff (2007: 310) defines ‘language socialization’ as ‘the process by which novices or newcomers in a community or culture gain communicative competence, membership, and legitimacy in the group’. This process is generally seen as one of gradually accumulating expertise, as novices engage in ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ in community activities, moving from peripheral to full participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Research shows that this process is bi-directional in nature. While novice participants may change and develop over time, they can also contest and shape practices of more expert community members (e.g. Fujioka, 2014). In addition, language socialization can be mediated not only by expert community members but also by other kinds of participants, for example peers (e.g. Vickers, 2008).
In research on language socialization, there has been considerable interest in the role of different kinds of participants in the socialization process. Zappa-Hollman and Duff (2015) note a wide range of socializing agents, including some, like roommates, family and friends, that go beyond the immediate community. Much of the literature in the specific area of academic discourse socialization considers how language teaching experts influence the socialization process. However, only a few studies examine the role of feedback from disciplinary experts (e.g. Basturkmen and Shackleford, 2015). The study reported here involves a team of law students and their disciplinary expert teachers and so sheds light on this under-researched area.
The language socialization process may be especially challenging for second language writers, who may ‘face complicated and protracted socialization into new fields’ (Duff, 2017: 261). Relevant research has mostly been conducted in North American contexts, often focussing on international students attending university. However, other geographical contexts tend to be under-researched (Kobayashi et al., 2017). The present study, based in a Hong Kong law school, provides an opportunity to extend existing scholarship. In addition, the study involves extensive direct observation of literacy practices, meeting the need for language socialization studies that go beyond interview data (Duff, 2010).
Legal Cultural Values and Language Socialization in Law
Learning specialized legal discourse involves adopting the cultural values of the legal community and learning to ‘think like a lawyer’, as some put it (Mertz, 2007; Vandevelde, 1996). In part, this involves a technical element of understanding legal reasoning processes and legal argument structure, as described in research on legal genres (Hafner, 2010; Howe, 1990; Maley, 1985). Common moves in legal argument include the identification of issues, description of rules and authorities, application of rules to the facts of the case, and the statement of conclusions. At the same time, ‘thinking like a lawyer’ involves an ideological element as well. Legal professionals are likely to privilege arguments that are ‘rule-oriented’ over arguments that are more ‘relational’ in nature, i.e. appealing to general principles of social justice (Conley and O’Barr, 1990). The question of what counts as acceptable evidence is also an ideological one, being determined by norms of the community.
Previous research addresses the way that law students are socialized into ways of speaking, writing and thinking associated with the legal community. For example, Mertz (2007) shows how classroom interaction in US law schools encourages law students to privilege particular kinds of ‘legally material’ facts, while ignoring other facts that might be considered socially relevant. Maclean’s study suggests that law students writing letters of advice on a practical legal skills course in Australia must learn to ‘add a practical, client-oriented focus on the law to the academic, analytical focus taught in law courses’ (2010: 192). This suggests that the competencies necessary in the professional context differ in some ways to those needed in the academic context, meaning that novice lawyers need to go through a complex socialization process. In spite of some useful contributions (e.g. Cauthen, 2010; Hafner, 2013; Hartig, 2017), more research is needed into law students’ language socialization processes in second language contexts. Such research has the potential to shed light on the values of the discipline as these are expressed through language, as well as how students go about acquiring such disciplinary values and language. This article, reporting on data collected in a Hong Kong law school, aims to contribute to closing this gap.
Digital Media in Legal Communication
The use of digital media in specialized communication can have an important effect on interaction, allowing for new forms of representation and new participation structures made possible, for example, through the use of collaboration tools. In the context of legal professional practice, Townley and Jones (2016) describe the affordances of the markup functions of MS Word to facilitate negotiation of contracts. They note that:‘The drafting of contractual documents now customarily involves making changes and writing comments and explanations in the form of computer-mediated ‘Track Changes’ and markup’ (Townley and Jones, 2016: 79). The affordances of this tool allow lawyers to present revisions to draft contracts or comments on proposed terms in a direct way that requires little elaboration.
In addition, digital collaboration tools like MS Word provide new contexts where language socialization can take place, especially where experts and novices exchange comments and feedback on drafts of writing. However, as Kobayashi et al. (2017) note, ‘much more research is required on how people engage with and develop greater discursive expertise and other knowledge through interactions with these tools and with other actors’ (2017: 251). In this study, we examine the affordances of MS Word as a collaborative writing tool and as a context for socializing feedback. The aim is to explain how participants make use of the tools in order to enable language socialization processes. In view of this, the study addresses the following research questions (one main question supported by three specific ones):
What evidence of language socialization can be found in digitally mediated markup in MS Word?
RQ1: How much markup is provided by participants?
RQ2: What kind of markup is provided by participants?
RQ3: To what extent does this markup reflect disciplinary values of the community?
Context, Methods and Data Sources
The study was an ethnographic observation of a team of law students and their law teacher coaches, preparing for a high-stakes international ‘mooting’ competition. ‘Mooting’ is a common activity in academic legal study, involving the conduct of mock proceedings. Students are typically provided with a set of simulated facts describing a dispute between parties. Students work in teams and play the role of advocates for different parties to the dispute, presenting arguments first in the form of a written ‘memorandum’, then in oral form as part of a hearing before a judge, often a practising professional. The team observed for this study was preparing for a prestigious mooting competition in international commercial arbitration. Called the ‘Willem C. Vis Moot’, the competition is held each year in Vienna.The competition’s counterpart – the ‘Vis East’ – uses the same simulation and is held each year in Hong Kong. Both events are high stakes and attract mooting teams from all over the world.
The team was made up of two coaches and seven students at City University of Hong Kong. In the two years immediately preceding the year of the observation, the coaches had achieved extraordinary success by preparing teams that won both the Vis Moot and the Vis East. The team observed therefore went into the competition as ‘reigning champions’ and could be seen as exemplary in terms of coaching and preparation practices. The seven students included four men and three women, ranging in age from 18–35 (average age 24). Five of the students were locals from Hong Kong, with four identifying as Hong Kong Chinese and one Hong Kong Indian. Two were international students, one French, one Belgian. There were three undergraduates and four graduate students, and of the seven students, five considered English a second language.
The observation lasted six months with three main phases: 1) Writing for claimant and respondent (October to January); 2) Advocacy training (February to March); and 3) The Hong Kong competition (4 competition moots taking place from April 1 to 4). Here we focus on the writing in phase 1. Data collected include: drafts of writing; feedback and comments on drafts; observations of team meetings (videotaped and audio recorded); descriptive and analytical field notes taken by the first author and a research assistant; interviews with law student participants; and records of online interactions in a WhatsApp group set up by the team. While all data inform our analysis, we focus on the written drafts and the feedback that these generated, using the markup tool in MS Word. We further focus analysis on the writing of the ‘Claimant Memorandum’, a 35-page document summarizing arguments for the claimant in the simulated dispute.
The collaborative writing process included two phases. First, weekly drafting in October and November resulted in six drafts. Next, a phase of quick rounds of revision over a five-day period in December also resulted in six drafts including the final version. During the weekly drafting, the team met to brainstorm, identify issues, and assign work. Then, in pairs, students carried out legal research, responded to their assigned issue, and wrote. Next, an assigned editor consolidated the writing into a single draft and submitted it to the coach. Finally, the coach provided feedback, first using the markup tools in MS Word and then in a face-to-face meeting. As well as the coach, students reviewed the submitted draft and marked it up where necessary. In line with the focus of this special issue on English for academic and professional purposes in the digital age, we focus our attention on the MS Word markup in order to examine the potential of this digitally mediated feedback for disciplinary socialization.
In this study, we adopt a mixed-methods approach, where the dominant paradigm is qualitative inquiry, with quantitative data used for triangulation and breadth of analysis. The study follows a case study design (Yin, 2009), considered appropriate for the kinds of complex, social writing practices observed. Prior to analysis, the data were checked to ensure there were no duplicate comments repeated from one draft to the next. Then, marked up drafts were imported into MaxQDA12 (Verbi Software, 2018), a qualitative data analysis program. Each annotation was coded to record its author, type of annotation (insertion, deletion, comment) and its basic function (suggestion – to suggest an edit; comment – providing a metadiscursive comment on the text). Finally, a qualitative, thematic analysis was performed (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Both authors read through the dataset to inductively develop an initial coding scheme, applied to the full dataset by the second author. A process of constant comparison (Richards, 2003) was used to enhance the trustworthiness of the analysis, with repeated reading and coding of the dataset. A sampling of the coding was checked by the first author and cases of difference were resolved. All participants gave informed consent to take part in the study and all names used in the analysis are pseudonyms.
General Trends in the Data
In this and the following sections, we describe evidence for language socialization, as seen in 1) the amount of markup by participants, 2) the kind of markup, and 3) the extent to which this markup reflects disciplinary values of the community.
Amount of Markup
Table 1 shows the number of comments by authors over time. The initial drafts, composed on a weekly basis, are referred to as ‘Draft 1’ (D1) to ‘Draft 6’ (D6). After a complete manuscript had been produced, subsequent revisions are labelled ‘Round 1’ (R1) to ‘Round 6’ (R6). These were detailed revisions over a much shorter time frame, sometimes without MS Word markup.
Amount of Markup (Insertions/Deletions and Comments) by Authors Over Time.
Table 1 shows that all participants provided feedback on drafts at some point. In most weeks, the designated editor created the highest number of markups. Rashid, the primary coach, provided most of his feedback near the beginning of the process, probably with the intention of steering the mooters in the right direction to begin with. Geert, the secondary coach, provided feedback beginning from D6, when the goal was to polish the draft. The three most active individuals in terms of quantity of markup were Rashid, Karen and Jenny. Unlike other individuals, Jenny provided feedback throughout the whole process.
Type of Feedback
Affordances of the MS Word Markup Tools
Markup affordances were used in slightly different ways by different participants. Participants could either use the track changes function, directly editing the text, or they could use comments, selecting part of the text and commenting on it. The function of tracked edits and the function of comments sometimes overlapped, i.e. the editor could use the track changes function to insert a comment directly into the text. Similarly, the editor could use the comment function to suggest an insertion or deletion.
Focus of the Feedback
With respect to the focus of feedback observed, nine main themes emerged from the qualitative analysis. These were:
(1) Forms of expression: sentence-level issues of use of language, including style/register, modality/hedging/boosting, the length of sentences, grammatical accuracy and use of lexis, among others;
(2) Source use: issues of presentation of sources of law and scholarly legal opinion, including citation style, accuracy of source information, need for quotations and length of quotations;
(3) Structure: i.e. paragraph structure;
(4) Adding or revising content: issues of content such as the use of headings, the insertion or expansion or clarification of arguments;
(5) Reducing content: issues of content such as deletion of arguments, deletion of support for arguments, deletion of redundant words and the combination of paragraphs;
(6) Supporting arguments: issues of support for arguments, including the need for authority, the need to use fewer sources and the need to use more varied sources;
(7) Rethinking arguments: macro-level suggestions and requests to rethink arguments and understanding of rules;
(8) Request for research action: requests beyond the text to conduct research, for example, finding cases, archiving cases, finding quotes, among others; and
(9) Compliment: e.g. ‘interesting argument’.
The markup included a mix of more micro-level feedback on use of language (e.g. theme 1), more macro-level feedback on content and argument (e.g. theme 6), and process-oriented feedback going beyond the text and focussing on steps in the legal research process (e.g. theme 8). It is also interesting to note the occasional use of compliments to collaborators (theme 9). We now explore this feedback with reference to three cases, selected because they represent a range of active participants with differing approaches taken to the task of marking up drafts.
Case 1: Rashid: Coaching
Rashid was the principal coach, who met with mooters at least once per week over the drafting period. Rashid’s markup addresses all of the nine emerging themes. He tends to favour the comment tool over the track changes tool but makes use of both. Rashid appears concerned that mooters present the argument effectively in terms of forms of expression, construct arguments that are appropriately supported, think through their arguments carefully in terms of legal content, and adopt an appropriate legal research process. He is the only editor to provide more than a few compliments, suggesting a desire to encourage mooters through positive feedback. Below, we provide examples of Rashid’s feedback that tends to show language and disciplinary socialization processes at work.
Lexico-grammatical Level
At the lexico-grammatical level, we note feedback on the need to: 1) appropriately hedge claims; 2) establish an appropriate level of involvement; and 3) use appropriate lexis for the discipline.
First, Rashid’s feedback at this level often addresses the tendency of students to state claims too strongly.
Example R1 (D2: 43)
Example R2 (D2: 11)
Example R3 (D1: 9)
The comments reference the need to avoid categorical language and boosters in claims, e.g. ‘clear’, ‘simple’, ‘not contentious’, and ‘illegitimate’. Rashid appears to consider the choice of lexis too strong or else questionable because it suggests a simplistic, black and white approach. In contrast, Rashid’s comments – e.g. ‘No dispute is simple’, ‘In law everything is contentious’ – reference a common underlying legal cultural value: that there can be no absolute certainty in legal matters, no absolute right and wrong.
Second, Rashid’s feedback suggests that mooters avoid personal involvement, instead creating distance and objectivity by using the third person instead of second person ‘we’ in the writing.
Example R4 (D1: 9)
Third, Rashid’s feedback at times targets the use of specific, context-bound lexis, as in R5. Rashid comments that the word ‘submit’ is used only in court, i.e. the context of litigation, and is not appropriate in an arbitration context, where it is usual to use the word ‘argue’, or a phrase like ‘the client’s position is’.
Example R5 (D2: 1)
While existing research suggests that the process of language socialization is discipline specific (Duff, 2017), the finding here is especially interesting as it illustrates that mooters are not only being socialized into the legal disciplinary culture as a whole, but are also being socialized into a specific kind of legal culture, that is, the subculture of international commercial arbitration practice.
Discourse Level
At the discourse level, Rashid’s feedback focusses on the need to: 1) use appropriate register and style; 2) appropriately support arguments, with quotations at times; and 3) structure arguments appropriately to the genre.
First, Rashid’s comments sometimes pick up on what he characterizes as a ‘jurisprudential’ or ‘lecturing’ style, as in R6.
Example R6 (D2: 39)
Such comments likely index readers’ expectations that the memorandum adopt a ‘professional’ register, rather than an overly ‘academic’ one. Similar comments have been observed by Hafner (2013) who examined law students transitioning to the professional context. These students frequently adopted what lawyers refer to as an overly ‘academic attitude’ (134), discussing subtle points of the law at excessive length and neglecting the facts of the case.
Second, Rashid’s comments often push mooters to provide support for their arguments. According to the examples: 1) one should use support from a variety of sources, including both common law and civil law cases, arbitral decisions, and legal scholarship (R7); 2) one should not repeatedly rely on the same source (R8); and 3) one should use quotations at times (R9).
Example R7 (D2: 14)
Example R8 (D2: 17)
Example R9 (D2: 1)
Rashid’s comments clarify what counts as evidence for a particular interpretation of the law in this cultural context. It is interesting that both common law and civil law cases are required: this would be unique to the arbitration context, which draws on both legal traditions. Furthermore, the need to supply quotations at times likely references a legal value of precision (Bhatia, 1993), demanding that the exact words used in relevant sources of law be presented.
Third, the comments address argument structure in the genre of claimant’s memorandum. As the claimant initiates proceedings, a claimant must present positive arguments for relief. However, the comments sometimes indicate that mooters found it more convenient to instead refute anticipated arguments of the respondent.
Example R10 (D2: 11)
Such comments indicate there is a conventional way of constructing an argument depending on whether one is writing for the claimant or respondent in this context.
Disciplinary Content Level
Some comments draw mooters’ attention to the disciplinary content of the memorandum, encouraging them to rethink arguments, as in R11. As well as challenging the substance of arguments, Rashid also reminded students to verify details of their arguments and pointed out overlaps.
Example R11 (D2: 45)
Composing Process Level
Some comments concern the composing process, suggesting actions beyond the text. These include reading and taking notes on relevant sources of law, obtaining relevant sources from the library, storing sources in shared folders online.
Example R12 (D3: 24)
Compliments
Rashid was the only editor to provide more than one or two compliments on drafts. In R13 below, he has inserted ‘interesting argument’ after a section heading, indicating appreciation for the content. We also see appreciative comments on quality of research, points made and writing style.
Example R13 (D2: 41)
Comments like R13 indicate that mooters at times present creative legal arguments that coaches appreciate. We can infer that the collaborative writing depends on the bi-directional co-construction of knowledge by mooters and their coaches and is not a one-way process of coaches transmitting knowledge.
Case 2: Karen: Peer Mentoring
At the time of the study, Karen was an 18-year-old Hong Kong Chinese woman in her second year of study for a Bachelor of Laws. She identified as a native speaker of Cantonese, with English and Mandarin as additional languages and considered her English language proficiency between very good and excellent. Similar to Rashid, Karen’s markup covers all of the categories identified, except for ‘compliments’. She uses the track changes tool more frequently than the comment tool, especially as there is a large amount of low level, detail-oriented feedback. Feedback from Karen appears on four drafts and the total number of markups is higher than any other editor. In addition to targeting problematic forms of expression and use of sources, Karen appears concerned to address argument support and critically evaluate the arguments of her teammates, sometimes requesting that they follow up. The markup demonstrates some uptake of Rashid’s earlier feedback. In this section, we focus on examples of such uptake and other potentially socializing feedback.
Lexico-grammatical Level
At the lexico-grammatical level, we note feedback on the need to: 1) appropriately hedge claims; and 2) avoid low-frequency lexis; as well as a host of markup targeting micro issues like formatting and referencing style.
First, some of Karen’s feedback at this level addresses incidents when her peers stated claims too strongly.
Example K1 (D4: 2)
Example K2 (D4: 2)
The comments echo coach Rashid’s feedback on the need to avoid boosters, e.g. ‘clear’ and ‘explicitly’, and suggest that Karen has internalized these legal cultural values. Her own feedback to her peers performs a further potentially socializing function, reinforcing those values.
Second, Karen’s feedback at this level also addresses the use of some low frequency lexis, with suggestions to adopt more common lexis, perhaps in an effort to make the text more reader friendly, a requirement of her coaches expressed in team meetings.
Example K3 (R1: 11)
Example K4 (R1: 10)
A large amount of Karen’s feedback also addresses details of editing work, targeting accuracy and style by correcting typos and formatting issues, rephrasing text, making suggestions about the use of lexis, checking accuracy of references and changing/adding referencing information where necessary (similar to editing work carried out by Jenny, see below).
Discourse Level
At the discourse level, Karen’s feedback picks up on all categories identified in Rashid’s feedback, namely the need to: 1) use appropriate register and style; 2) appropriately support arguments; and 3) structure arguments appropriately to the genre.
First, Karen at times echoed Rashid’s critique of mooters’ writing as ‘jurisprudential’ or as adopting a ‘lecturing style’ (see R6). Such feedback again reinforces the need to avoid an overly academic approach.
Example K5 (D4: 20)
Example K6 (D4: 20)
Second, Karen frequently reminded peers to provide authority to support arguments (K7-K9). The examples show that she is aware of – and reinforces with her peers – the need for a variety of sources, both common law and civil law sources, and for the need to quote at times, in order to improve precision.
Example K7 (D4: 19)
Example K8 (D4: 47)
Example K9 (D4: 14)
Third, some of Karen’s feedback picks up on the need to structure arguments in a ‘positive’ way, as also evident in Rashid’s feedback (R10).
Example K10 (D4: 17)
Disciplinary Content Level
Some of Karen’s comments draw mooters’ attention to disciplinary content, as she asks her peers to rethink arguments (K11-K12). Karen challenges the substance of arguments and reminds peers to verify details of their arguments. Again, the comments reinforce the socializing feedback made by Rashid (R11).
Example K11 (D4: 11)
Example K12 (D4: 10)
In contrast to Rashid, Karen’s feedback tends not to address the composing process. In addition, she does not give compliments to her peers. She appears to be using the MS Word markup functions primarily to discuss the evolving text – both in terms of the relevant legal arguments and their specific expression in language – rather than as a way to encourage research processes.
Case 3: Jenny: Focussing on Details
At the time of the study, Jenny was a 22-year-old woman, also Hong Kong Chinese, in her third year of a Bachelor of Laws programme. She identified Cantonese as her L1, with English and German as additional languages. She rated her own English language proficiency as very good. Jenny provided a large amount of feedback on seven different drafts, spanning the whole drafting period. Unlike Rashid and Karen, her feedback tended to focus more on issues relating to forms of expression and source use, with less attention to more macro issues. She relied heavily on the track changes tool but also used the comment tool sometimes. Such a focus on the ‘details’ is nevertheless important in the construction of the memorandum, given the emphasis in the legal community on accuracy and precision, both in terms of form and content.
Lexico-grammatical Level
The large majority of markup provided by Jenny is at the lexico-grammatical level, indicating that she is concerned to ensure that the mechanical presentation of the text is accurate and precise, in accordance with established conventions. The editing targets features like the accuracy of referencing information (J1), the formatting of sources (J2) and the capitalization of proper nouns (J3).
Example J1 (R5: 19)
Example J2 (R5: xxiv)
Example J3 (R5: 9)
Other kinds of revisions include corrections of typos, spelling (US versus UK), grammatical issues, changes in lexical choices including connectives, and the rephrasing of text segments, for example by introducing quotations from precedent cases, thereby seeking to clarify rules.
Discourse and Disciplinary Content Levels
Jenny also engages at more macro levels at times, although not frequently. One interesting example of this involves an exchange between Jenny and Karen, discussing a disagreement on a legal point. Jenny’s comment is first, followed by two comments by Karen.
Example J4 (D4: 24)
This kind of discussion in the comments was unusual and we must assume that, in general, the mooters preferred to resolve disagreements through other channels. Here, Jenny raises a question about the meaning of ‘price. . . of the buyer’s market’, specifically whether this may refer to the ‘market price’ or the ‘real value’. Karen accepts the point, noting that ‘perhaps ‘real value’ should be used’ and suggests amending the approach and running a related argument.
Discussion and Conclusions
This study illustrates the kinds of values that underlie the collaborative writing of the claimant memorandum. These values find their expression in particular use of language, for example, among others: appropriate hedging of claims; precise use of language; appropriate support for arguments from a variety of sources; and appropriate structuring of arguments. It is interesting to note the clear focus on language in the feedback, highlighting the fact that appropriate use of language is an important part of socialization into this community of practice. The MS Word markup promotes disciplinary values at disciplinary content, discourse, and lexico-grammatical levels. The markup also focusses on research processes, indicating that the collaborative writing process serves to socialize mooters into ways of conducting legal research as well as ways of formulating and presenting arguments.
The study contributes to our understanding of how disciplinary experts use feedback to socialize novices, an under-researched area. In this, it builds on limited existing work, such as that of Basturkmen and Shackleford (2015), who studied the in-class interactions of accounting professors and their students. The authors of that study noted that they were not able to examine the question of uptake. In contrast, the analysis in our study provides some evidence of uptake, especially in the case of Karen, whose feedback often echoes that provided by the coach Rashid, picking up on cultural values and associated forms of expression. In other words, there is evidence here that the socializing strategies used by the coach were successful in influencing student language practices to an extent.
The study continues the tradition, noted by Kobayashi et al. (2017), of examining the potential roles of different kinds of socializing agents. The multiple case study approach taken has allowed us to illustrate strategies of different participants, demonstrating coaching (Rashid), peer mentoring (Karen), and editing (Jenny) roles respectively. The case of Karen supports previous research findings that a novice or newcomer can be an agent of socialization similar to an expert or oldtimer. In contrast, the case of Jenny shows that not all novices will play such a socializing role. The findings also show that socialization is not only discipline specific but can also be specific to the culture of a particular sub-discipline, as evidenced by Rashid’s comments that the word ‘submit’ is appropriate to a courtroom but not to an arbitration hearing.
Considering Rashid’s role as coach, there are signs that the co-construction of the memorandum is a two-way process, with the coach expressing his appreciation for ideas of his team (e.g. ‘interesting argument’). Rashid’s approach, also observed in face-to-face interactions, appears to be to remain open to the team’s ideas and to remain open to learning from the novice mooters. While the digital evidence stops short of showing changes to practice on the part of Rashid, his openness is consistent with findings of previous studies (e.g. Fujioka, 2014) that socialization is a bi-directional process, with novice members of the community also capable of shaping practices sometimes.
It is interesting to note that participants’ feedback addresses both macro and micro concerns: commenting on aspects of meaning as well as aspects of form. In this disciplinary context, language feedback from the coach and peers is frequently constructed as a means to achieve disciplinary goals, e.g. presenting a persuasive argument by hedging it appropriately. English for specific purposes (ESP) teachers can learn from this and strive for this quality of engagement, linking language forms with purposeful action, in their own classes too. That is to say, in ESP classes, students need to see the link between the formal generic conventions that they are learning and communicative purposes vis-à-vis their disciplinary community audience. If they fail to do so, students may end up reproducing target forms for the sole purpose of satisfying their ESP teacher’s requirements rather than to address any meaningful goals. Practically, one way for ESP teachers to achieve heightened engagement may be to provide meaningful tasks and projects linked to disciplinary discourses (e.g. Hafner and Miller, 2019).
If we consider the nature of the expert feedback provided, the study has further implications for teachers of English for specific legal purposes and legal skills teachers. As noted above, the feedback observed addressed issues at disciplinary content, discourse, and lexico-grammatical levels, as well as issues of research and writing process. Similarly, it would be desirable for ESP teachers to target instruction at multiple dimensions – the disciplinary values, the disciplinary discourses, and the disciplinary processes – always keeping in mind the connections between these dimensions.
In terms of its research methodology, this study takes a process-oriented approach, examining the process of students developing disciplinary language. The ethnographic approach taken is in line with recent trends to adopt ethnographic perspectives on academic writing (Paltridge et al., 2016). In contrast to a lot of work on ESP, which often involves the analysis of discursive products, the longitudinal approach adopted in this study offers an alternative or complementary methodology, capable of shedding light on not only the features of disciplinary discourses but also how such features are developed in novice members of the community.
Finally, this study demonstrates how digital tools provide an important context for language socialization, facilitating socializing feedback. The affordances of MS Word markup – to comment on identifiable text segments, to transparently insert or delete text – allowed participants to provide feedback on discursive forms, raising questions, suggesting alternatives, and providing their rationale. Feedback on form was tightly linked to the existing text, with the coach also at times using the insertion/deletion functions to model a particular form of expression. When considering the three cases and their choice of technological affordances, we note that Rashid used the comment tool more frequently than the track changes tool, while Karen and Jenny, both of whom provide a large amount of detailed editing, tended to use the track changes tool more frequently. This choice of tool potentially reflects a high degree of agency assumed by the students. As Ferris and Hedgcock (2014: 291) note, ‘Using ‘track changes’ is a power move, one that signals that the ‘tracker’ is taking control of the document’.
While the digital tools undoubtedly provide another space for language socialization, it must be noted that the MS Word tools were only one part of the socialization context, with other kinds of interactions playing a role. These included interactions in a WhatsApp group and in frequent face-to-face meetings. While some interaction did occur in comments, this was extremely rare: as well as allowing participants to provide clear feedback, the tool did not appear to foster interaction in this study, and therefore likely needs to be supplemented with other tools for effective collaboration and language socialization.
From the point of view of research into language socialization, the digital markup is valuable because of the permanent record that is created. Unlike many studies, which often rely on indirect evidence (Duff, 2010), we were able to provide direct observations of language practices because we had access to this digital record. Specialists are increasingly producing specialized discourse through collaborative writing tools like the one observed here. As they do so, this opens up interesting possibilities to observe language socialization, in contexts that may be easier to access than face-to-face interactions. At the same time, it is important to address some of the unique affordances and constraints of such tools, which may shape the kind of language socialization possible. It is our hope that this study provides a useful step in this direction.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all of the participants for allowing us to observe their mooting preparations. The work described in this article was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China: ‘Oral Advocacy in the Academic Legal Context: Discourse Practices and Second Language Socialization’ (Project No. CityU 11610818).
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The work described in this article was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. CityU 11610818).
