A presentation given at IPra 2019 - the biennial meeting of the International Pragmatics Association - held at the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong.

1. ‘Powerful’ and ‘powerless’ language in oral advocacy at
law school
Christoph A. Hafner
Department of English, City University of Hong Kong
16th International Pragmatics Conference
Polytechnic University of Hong Kong, June 9-14, 2019

2. Overview
• Theoretical framework
– Socialization and genre learning
– From ‘powerful’ and ‘powerless’ speech to
stance and engagement
• Background to the study
– Observation of preparation for a moot
• Self-mention in the interactions

3. Socialization and genre learning

4. Socialization
• Socialization is ‘the process by which one
becomes a competent member of society’
(Ochs, 1998, p. 5)
• Language socialization is ‘the processes by
which novices or newcomers in a community or
culture gain communicative competence,
membership, and legitimacy in the group’ (Duff,
2007, p. 310)

5. From ‘powerful’ and ‘powerless’ speech to
stance and engagement

6. ‘Powerful’ and ‘powerless’ speech
Powerless speech is a style ‘characterized by the frequent
use of words and expressions that convey a lack of
forcefulness in speaking’ (Conley et al, 1978, p.1380)
Hedges
Hesitation
forms
Polite forms
Question
intonation
Use of
intensifiers

7. Stance and engagement
(Hyland, 2005)

8. On metadiscourse
‘...a heterogenous display of cohesive and
interpersonal features, which help relate a
text to its context by assisting readers to
connect, organize, and interpret material in a
way preferred by the writer and with regard
to the understandings and values of a
particular discourse community’ (Hyland,
2005, p. 157)

9. Research questions
• Does the use of features related to stance
vary between mooters, so that distinct
styles are apparent?
• Is there any change in the use of these
features over time, as mooters become
more aware of disciplinary conventions
and expectations?

10. The study: Background

11. The focal practice: Mooting
• Mock trials in the academy
– A simulated fact situation/dispute
• Students work in teams
• Role play advocates for parties
– Develop persuasive legal arguments
• Written arguments: Legal memorandum
• Spoken arguments: Oral hearing

12. The Vis moot competitions
• The ‘Willem C. Vis International
Commercial Arbitration Moot’
• The ‘Vis East’

13. Participants

14. Data sources
• Drafts of writing (legal memorandum)
• Feedback and comments on drafts
• Observations of team meetings and
practice hearings
– Video and audio records
– Field notes
• Interviews
• WhatsApp group records

15. Summary of observations
Phase Date Details
1. Writing for claimant and
respondent
October to December
December to January
12 team meetings
2 ‘out-of-class’ meetings
2. Advocacy training February to March 15 team meetings including
13 simulated moots (10
recorded)
3. Competition April 1 to 4 4 competition moots

16. Phase 2 data sources
• Observations of 10 simulated moots
– Video and audio records
– Student performance and teacher feedback
– Field notes

17. Arbitration moot genre
1. Introductions
2. Procedural arguments
a) Respondent
b) Claimant
c) Rebuttals and surrebuttals
3. Substantive arguments
a) Claimant
b) Respondent
c) Rebuttals and surrebuttals

18. Analysis
Focus on self-mention

19. <J> Mr President we argue that, the ch= the change in the choice of
law clause, amounts to a substantial difference, and it also [relates
to]
<H> [Yes.] Do you have any, do you have any authority for that? To say
that changing, a choice of law clause is substantial difference.
<J> Mr President we do not have er this authority. However we, it is
our position that if we apply the national law of Mediterraneo, it
allows us to make full compensation, in case of any er defects in
the so= er er proton treatment facility.
<H> Mm. Ok.
<J> Moving on to the third issue, the Claimant argues that
assuming that the standard terms are incorporated, the law of
Mediterraneo does not exclude the C I S G.
(PH 10)

20. Arbitration panel: President and arbitrators
Argument Client
Claimant/RespondentCounsel
Animator and
co-author
Principal and
co-author
We argue that...
The Claimant argues that...

21. Does the use of stance features vary between
mooters?

23. Self mention functions observed
Introducing self and team
Organizing the discourse
Presenting position
Applying law to facts
Referring to documents
Agreeing/disagreeing
Requesting time
B: I am [name]. Together with my colleague [name], we
appear on behalf of Hope Hospital, the Respondent.
N: I will start with these two factors.
N: We argue that these two claims
cannot be heard by this Tribunal
N: In our case, there's no express agreement,
there's no implied agreement.
B: If I may refer this Tribunal to Article twenty-
three of the … Agreement,
N: Madam Arbitrator I see my time has run out if I
may request for two minutes' extension…
B: Erm I I most respectfully disagree
N/B
>N
>N
N
N/B
B
N/B

24. Presenting position using ‘we’ (1)
• N: ‘we argue that’
– “the matters are so different and so disconnected that
we argue that they must be separate arbitration
hearings”
B: [The contracts] are different therefore
the parties must not have agreed to hear
both claims together

25. Presenting position using ‘we’ (2)
• B: inclusive we
– In relation to Article ten-one, we need two different
sets of arbitration agreements, however according to
Procedural Order Number one, erm it says that we
have to assume that there are valid arbitration
agreements in both contracts. Therefore we assume
that there are valid arbitration agreements and if that's
correct we still need to have both claims erm heard
separately.

26. Is there any change in the use of stance features
over time?

27. Future directions

28. Conclusions
• This study successfully piloted a corpus-based
method to get at questions of linguistic variation
between speakers
• More analysis is needed to see whether
variation over time can be detected
• Member checking with respect to different
strategies could help to identify those strategies
that professionals see as effective and
ineffective

29. Thank you!