Abstract
Language and disciplinary knowledge are two important factors in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) instruction. Drawing on principles of concept-based instruction (CBI) and conceptual blending, this book presents a model for incorporating conceptual framework into disciplinary discourse socialization in legal writing. Four case studies demonstrate how participants from different professional and linguistic backgrounds change their output in class and master new forms of disciplinary knowledge over the course.
In the introductory chapter, Hartig proposes and distinguishes two types of concepts: discourse-relevant and discourse-structuring, which can be useful tools in teaching ESP and can help ease the tension between language and content once fully explored. The organization and three aims of the book are provided at the end of this chapter. Hartig aims to clarify how language and discipline knowledge are connected in legal reading and writing in both L1 and L2; to provide an empirically derived portrait of participants’ performance and analyse how it is related to professional and linguistic factors; and to offer recommendations for instruction and program design through the findings. The following seven chapters are organized into three parts.
Part 1 consists of two chapters. In Chapter 2, Hartig argues that legal reasoning, legal reading and legal writing are all shaped by discipline-specific norms. She highlights that language use in legal genres can be further linked to culturally specific disciplinary frameworks by introducing IRCA (Issue-Rule-Application-Conclusion) reasoning process in common law systems adopted in the United States. Typical components of a legal memorandum (Question Presented, Short Answer, Statement of Facts and Discussion) are also provided to justify the influence of the common law analysis framework. As legal argumentation emphasizes alternate framing and interpretations of a given event or subject, in Chapter 3, Hartig draws on conceptual blending, the essence of which is to combine selected elements of various spaces within a given frame, to explain linguistic choices in law. CBI is used in class so that students can construct and apply conceptual models and ultimately refine models in concrete problem situations under guidance. Based on these models and notions, Hartig provides a detailed description of her study, including concept model design, forms of instruction and roles played by law faculty and language specialists for the course.
Part 2, with four case studies, aims to discover how individuals from different professional and linguistic backgrounds develop L2 legal literacy when faced with language as well as disciplinary knowledge challenges. In Hong’s case (Chapter 4), prior training exerts great influence on legal analysis. The structure of ‘rule explanation’ is discussed to elucidate that with certain linguistic form and conventions to follow, genre helps to achieve specific functions in legal argumentation. Chapter 5 explores the case of Weixin, who worked as a lawyer assistant after graduation. She enjoys advantages in deriving rules from precedents. She tends to take genre structures as templates into which information can be directly fitted, and too much emphasis on lexicogrammatical correctness actually impedes her progress. Bader (Chapter 6), a Saudi lawyer with years of professional experience in the banking sector, despite limited language proficiency, demonstrates better understanding of genre and faster internalization of the key disciplinary concepts. His attitude towards language as a tool for making meaning helps him to focus accurately in reading and get more options in describing cases. In Chapter 7, the case of Alima, a recent Saudi Arabia law graduate, brings to light the relationship between students’ development trajectory and expectations for the course, or ‘professional vision’. With advanced linguistic skills, Alima produces satisfactory written work. However, further investigation reveals that she over-relies on external support in the writing process and does not make great strides in identifying legal categories.
Chapter 8 focuses on the connections between language and disciplinary knowledge. After summarizing the differences in developing legal literacy among the four participants, linguistic and legal influences are examined as two major factors that affect legal literacy development. Professional experience is also considered as an important factor mediating learners’ understanding of rhetorical situation, which leads to the conclusion that disciplinary concepts have a greater role to play in ESP.
This book makes theoretical and methodological contributions to the field of English for Legal Purposes. Combining CBI and conceptual blending in the study helps to explain patterns at the paragraph and text level by highlighting the different domains of meaning that are blended across text. The multi-approach study enables Hartig to investigate participants’ changes and check if they have internalized the genre network in law. The data gained over one semester enrich legal instruction data for future pedagogical use and give us clues about the factors that may affect students’ legal reading and writing performance.
A major strength of the book is that it analyses the performance of individuals with different professional experience and linguistic proficiency, from countries with different cultures and legal systems. Hartig identifies factors that promote or impede their development in legal reading and writing, which will enlighten the legal education community about what aspects to focus on in instruction. In addition, the methods used can be applied to a wider range of ESP pedagogical design and help learners make better sense of genre conventions when the connections between language, culture and disciplinary knowledge are concerned.
The abundant terms and jargon in the analytical procedure might be overwhelming for readers who are new to the field. Although Hartig does provide a typical organization of legal genre in Chapter 2 and basic structure of rule explanation in Chapter 4, it would be preferable to introduce the genre and structure combined with a specific case so that readers can vividly compare the differences between the standard version and the work of the participants.
This book can be recommended to legal linguists and legal practitioners as well as those who are interested in studying the connection between language and disciplinary knowledge in ESP.