It sounds a bit counter-intuitive, but is it possible that a number of grammar issues we see in LLM student writing could be addressed by listening practice?
Missing articles. Incorrect prepositions. Dropping an “s” at the end of a plural noun or third-person verb.
What do all of these have in common? They’re all soft, unstressed sounds that are often reduced and connected with sounds from other nearby words. Say the previous two sentences aloud and notice which sounds are stressed clearly and which ones are soft, reduced, or connected.
Why does this matter? Because being a native speaker of a language essentially boils down to knowing what sounds right. Articles and prepositions in particular are notoriously challenging to teach in accordance with clear rules. They are very arbitrary and capricious, and if you look at article and preposition usage in other languages, you quickly see that. Did we learn how to use all these small words by studying rules? No, of course not. We just had a lot of exposure to what sounds right and it’s jarring to our ears when it sounds wrong.
So how can listening practice help? If LLM students hear these sounds, then it’s more likely that the voice inside their head will absorb them and start to incorporate them. The problem, however, is that because these are often soft sounds, students do not absorb them and incorporate them. When they are listening to professors or classmates or a tv show, they’re focused on the main content. Their ears are not attuned to the soft sounds if they aren’t already on the students’ radars. Continue reading →
This past week for the frist time I did a full unit of syllogism and analogy activities with my legal writing students to prepare them for the concepts and language of IRAC-style writing. And it not only went very well–it also taught me something new.
Previously, I had taught the concept of IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis/Application, Conclusion) first and then had the students work on it through the Jogger/Banana Peel question. This question is the vehicle through which I have been teaching students IRAC-style discourse as well as the written language of that discourse. It involves a jogger who throws a banana peel on the beach after passing a sign that indicates a fine for “littering.” A police officer sees this and has to decide whether to issue a ticket, remembering that her supervisor did give a ticket to someone who threw a candy bar wrapper on the ground but did not give a ticket to someone who poured coffee on the ground.
In my approach, the students come to understand the IRAC concepts and signal words, but they still struggled in many ways with the underlying style of argument expected. For example, they would see the exercise as a simple application of a rule. The jogger littered; there’s a rule against littering; hence, the jogger should get a ticket. To not give a ticket would be to undermine rule of law and all that is good in our society, etc. Or, if they focus on the coffee and the candy bar wrapper, they make conclusory statements without really explaining or showing how those ideas connect. (Or rather, they don’t do it in a way that meets expectations for our writer-responsible writing culture.) Continue reading →
I have been working with my new international LL.M. students on summarizing and paraphrasing skills, to get them ready for a first research memorandum assignment. I decided to spend some time on this because I have noticed that even when writing a single case brief exercise, some students do not feel free to depart from the court’s words. As a result, students can spend hours wrestling 6 pages of case law into a 3-page summary that really only needs to be a few ordered dots of thought the size of an index card. So we have been working to condense information into different styles of case briefs, using the same legal text until they feel comfortable putting the case aside and writing main points from memory.
Stephen spied one of my latest worksheets, and we started an email discussion about how to distinguish the two concepts in a meaningful way, to make students aware of how we expect them to manipulate source material in writing assignments. Finally, I arrived at this, which I think will work. I am interested in learning how other instructors introduce and practice these ideas with the class. Continue reading →
In other words, it is an entire book that thinks deeply and conceptually–far more deeply and conceptually than I would be able to–about how to teach law with language support to non-native English speaking law students (e.g., international LLM students). If I can read and absorb even 10% of what’s in this book, I feel like I will ascend to a higher legal English plain. Which suggests that if I absorb the entire book I will attain some sort of legal English nirvana. (Side note: Wondering whether this is the first instance of “legal English” collocating with “nirvana.”) Continue reading →
I’m very excited that in the past year the American Law: Discourse & Analysis (ALDA) Program (semester-long law courses taught with language support) has welcomed three new legal English professors to our teaching team, all having a unique combination of both large law firm practice experience and ESL teaching experience.
Prof. Daniel Edelson; former associate at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and Baker McKenzie (Business Litigation & Securities Fraud)
Prof. Anne Himes; former partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (Corporate Transactions)
Prof. Kayalyn Marafioti; former partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Corporate Restructuring)
Below are bios for each:
Professor Edelson is an Adjunct Professor of Law at St. John’s Law School and an attorney admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey. For several years he was associated with two international law firms in New York City where he specialized in business litigation and securities fraud. In 2012 Daniel moved to Seoul, South Korea to teach U.S. law. In addition to having his own law practice, he also tutors first year law students (1Ls), LLM students, and bar candidates. He is also the creator of numerous short, animated video explanations of legal topics on his website USLawEssentials.com. Prior to becoming an attorney Daniel lived in Japan where, among other things, he taught English as a Second Language.
Professor Himes holds a certificate in English language teaching from The New School in New York. She has a J.D. from Columbia Law School and an M.A. and B.A. in German from the University of North Carolina; as an undergraduate, she studied at Heidelberg University in Germany for one year. Professor Himes is a former partner at the Wall Street law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy; a member of the corporate department, she specialized in private corporate debt financings. She has also worked as in-house legal counsel to a New York single family office.
Professor Marafioti earned a J.D. from New York University School of Law, where she served as Note and Comment editor of the NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, and an A.B. cum laude from Harvard University, where she studied history and literature. After graduating from NYU she practiced law in New York City for more than three decades. For most of that time she was a partner in the corporate restructuring department of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, a global law firm, where she regularly worked on cross-border transactions with lawyers from all over the world. Following her retirement from Skadden, she earned a certificate in teaching English language from The New School in New York. She is a Fellow in the American College of Bankruptcy.
On Tuesday, August 1 at 10:15 a.m. I will have the honor of being part of a panel discussion at the Southeastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS) Conference. The panel, organized by Kirsten Schaetzel of Emory Law school, is titled “International Learners and Legal Writers: Pitfalls and Promising Practices” and also includes Marta Baffy of the Georgetown University Law Center and Catherine Schenker of American University, Washington College of Law.
I will be speaking specifically about ideas and approaches for teaching IRAC (Issue Rule Application Conclusion) discourse to non-native English speaking LLM students in ways that incorporate ESL concepts and pedagogy.
This is my first time attending SEALS and needless to say I am very excited amd looking forward to it as well as the chance to interact with and learn from colleagues at other law schools.
Here is a full description of the panel:
At many law schools today, the number of international students is increasing. These students come from different legal and educational systems and may have trouble understanding and learning the conventions of American legal discourse. This panel, composed of legal writing and English as a Second Language specialists from various law schools, examines areas in legal writing that may be troublesome for non-native English students. Beginning with an overview of cultural differences in writing conventions and expectations, panelists present how they teach different aspects of American legal writing. Panelists cover teaching summaries of legal rules and their various sources of law; IRAC discourse organization and answering essay exam questions; and understanding fact-pattern exercises and responding to them.
If you happen to be attending, then hopefully we will see each other. Stay tuned for a post conference report.
In the article, Elizabeth–one of the founders of the ETLEP legal English Google Group together with Alissa Hartig, Lindsey Kurtz and me following the 2015 Global Legal Skills Conference in Chicago–distinguishes between coherence (top down: does it make sense?) and cohesion (bottom up: does it feel connected and logical?) A text can be coherent, i.e., you understand what the writer is saying, yet lack cohesion, i.e., the ideas feel disjointed and unnatural in some way you can’t quite put your finger on.
The article explains how cohesion can be lexical (e.g., use of repetition and synonyms) as well as grammatical (e.g., use of conjunctive words and phrases to connect information between sentences; use of a subordinated clause to front information so that it feels connected to information in the previous sentence).
However, the article really grabbed my attention at one point when it described a particular cohesive device that involves use of the pattern: [determiner + abstract noun]. (Determiners include a, an, the, this, these, my, your, which, other, and a bunch of other words you know but just didn’t realize were determiners.) An example might be a sentence along the lines of: Continue reading →