Georgetown Law on AI in the TESOL Applied Linguistics Newsletter (Sept 2023 issue)

The September 2023 issue of AL Forum (the applied linguistics newsletter for TESOL) is out, thanks in part to contributions from several members of the Georgetown Law faculty. And the theme is language, teaching, and generative AI.

Co-edited by Georgetown Legal English Professor Heather Weger  and George Washington Teaching Associate Professor Natalia Dolgova, it leads with a letter from the editors and includes two articles by Georgetown Law colleagues.

AL Forum: The Newsletter of the Applied Linguists Interest Section

1. Letter from the Editors, by Prof. Natalia Dolgova and Prof. Heather Weger

“In this issue, you will find leadership updates summarizing past and future ALIS activities, and this issue provides a closer look at how educators are grappling with the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology, such as ChatGPT, on our field.”

2. Generation GPT: Nurturing Responsible AI Usage in College Curricula, by D. Ellery Boatwright, Instructional Technologist

“This article offers some resources and advice to consider as you make informed decisions about integrating AI into your workflows and prepare students to inhabit an AI-rich world.”

3. ChatGPT Experiment: Creating an Online Vocabulary Course for Legal English, by Prof. Stephen Horowitz

“A detailed case study of his experimental use of ChatGPT to design teaching materials for a vocabulary course, [including] examples of how to prompt ChatGPT to generate materials (e.g., quizzes and practice activities.)”

For more articles and issues of the AL Forum, click here.

Mistakes and Oral Communication in Legal English

Prof. Paula Klammer
  • The below was initially posted by Prof. Paula Klammer on LinkedIn. Re-posted here by Prof. Stephen Horowitz with permission.
  • Prof. Klammer is a Legal English Lecturer & Research Fellow at Georgetown Law. Currently earning her Ph.D. in Law from Universidad de Palermo in Argentina, Paula is an experienced lawyer and translator and is bilingual in Spanish and English.

In legal English (and in life), mistakes are good.   

Educators often talk about what and how we teach our students. But in my last semester as a Legal English Fellow at Georgetown, I want to share what I’m learning from the two colleagues who have taken me under their wings.  

The number one pain point of many legal English learners is their lack of confidence in their oral communication skills….. They’re afraid that communication mistakes will be interpreted as if they don’t know what they are talking about (law-wise) or that people will think they are not good lawyers.

This week’s most valuable lesson can be summed up like this: it’s good to make mistakes.    Here’s a little context:    In Prof. Julie Lake’s Oral Communication in the Law class which is part of Georgetown’s Two-Year LLM Program, students were given prompts to practice their oral communication skills. The class is designed to start students off within their comfort zones and help build up their confidence as legal English speakers.   

Prof. Julie Lake

The number one pain point of many legal English learners is their lack of confidence in their oral communication skills. Like their English-speaking colleagues, non-native English speakers are highly intelligent and well-versed in their legal systems. They want nothing more than to display their exceptional lawyering skills in English, but they often doubt their ability to communicate effectively. They’re afraid that communication mistakes will be interpreted as if they don’t know what they are talking about (law-wise) or that people will think they are not good lawyers.

This is a legitimate fear. Nobody wants to be embarrassed, especially not when practicing law.     That’s why oral communication training is not just about getting students to speak English, but to do so in a way that builds up their confidence. Students know a lot more than they realize and they are often much better at communicating in English than they think.   

So Prof. Lake gives students prompts that are personalized to each individual and serve as both a diving board for them to start speaking, and also as an ice-breaker for them to get to know each other and to build a sense of community. Ultimately, the underlying feeling at the end of each of Prof. Lake’s classes is that we are all in this together, and this is a safe space for students to speak English, make mistakes, and learn.   

Mistakes are welcome and should be embraced. Mistakes are learning opportunities. And making mistakes in English doesn’t reflect poorly on learners as lawyers. Mistakes are, according to Prof. Lake, when learning happens.    So my favorite takeaway this week is to welcome mistakes. 

❤️

 #legalenglish #englishlearning #englishcommunication

Click here to see previous Georgetown Legal English Blog posts about Prof. Paula Klammer.

The (mis-)use of “Besides,…..”

Post by Stephen Horowitz, Professor of Legal English

I have nothing personal against the conjunctive adverbBesides,….”

However, I’ve frequently noticed that “Besides,…..” is used by some foreign-trained LLM students in lieu of connecting phrases such as “Additionally,….” or “Furthermore,…..” And the students don’t realize that “Besides” has a different feeling and nuance, and is not an equal substitute for other connecting words used to signal that the sentence is adding information related to the previous sentence.

For example:

(Ex. 1) “The US Constitution granted the federal government with certain enumerated powers, while the state governments were granted residual powers. Besides, the federal government and the state governments share some common powers as well.”

(Ex. 2) “In this case, Jason was in his home with two officers sitting across from him at the kitchen table, and the officers’ car’s police lights were flashing for all to see. Besides, Jason’s mother was marking making breakfast in kitchen, which means his mother leave left Jason alone to talk with the officers.”

As a result, I find myself frequently providing corrective written feedback along the following lines:

“Besides,….” is not the connecting word you should use here. A better word would be “Additionally,…” or “Furthermore,…..”

Although we do use “besides” to communicate to the reader that we are adding more information, “besides” also feels less neutral and more informal than a word like “additionally.” It feels kind of pushy, like trying to persuade the other person by appealing to the their sense of personal connection to you.

For example, “Come on, let’s go see the movie tonight. It’s Friday night and you’re assignment isn’t due for a week. Besides, all of our friends are going to be there.”

In the above sentence, “Besides” works well in communicating the intent to persuade. It’s appropriate between friends when one friend is trying to push the other friend into changing their mind. But this informal, pushy feeling undermines your credibility in legal writing when your intention is just to add more information, e.g., one more reason or example, and let the example itself help with the persuading.

In other words, “besides” is saying more to your reader than you probably intend to say. For these reasons, I suggest using “Additionally” or “Furthermore” (among other options) as a connecting phrase in your legal writing rather than using “Besides,….”

I find myself writing this kind of comment so frequently, in fact, that I finally decided it would be more time effective to just write a blog post about it so that I can always share with my students in the future. Besides Additionally, now other legal English and legal writing instructors can use this as well, if it helps make their work a little easier.

In the meantime, if anyone ever figures out what English language textbook or publisher keeps teaching “besides” as an exact synonym for “additionally,” please let me know so I can lead an effort to try and address the problem at the source.

***********************

Bonus: This language (mis-)use example reminds me of when I taught English in a middle school in Japan years ago. From my well-meaning supervisors I would occasionally hear statements like, “You had better sit down now.” Or, “You had better eat the food now.” Each time I wondered why they were threatening me, even though a threat seemed unnecessary in the situation. But then I realized their English classes must have taught them that the phrase “(you) had better” is a synonym for “should.” And it is. Sometimes. But sometimes it can also sound like an organized crime family member making a veiled threat. Thereafter, I told myself, “You had better get to the source of that misinformation before leaving Japan.” But alas, I never did.

Oh well, in both instances it could be a lot worse. Besides, at least it gives me something fun to write about!

Dissents, LLM students and learning to read cases

Post by Stephen Horowitz, Professor of Legal English

One of the challenges for many foreign-trained LLM students studying at a US law school, especially if they come from a civil law legal culture rather than a common law legal culture, is getting their brains to buy into the notion that the words and language and arguments that they read in a court opinion have weight. That statutes and statutory language is not the final say in a legal argument, but actually just a first step followed by a search for and review of case law that interprets various parts of a statute.

Click to see the full article.

A subsequent and related challenge for many foreign-trained LLM students (as well as for US-trained JD students) is then training their brains to also understand that, even though what a judge writes in a court opinion may constitute law (at the time and in the jurisdiction of that particular case), it is not infallible and may have major flaws in its arguments. And this is even more so in law school in the US where the goal of study is often not just about determining what the law is, but thinking about what it could or should be. And training one’s brain to analyze arguments in order to be able to construct effective arguments in the future.

In that vein, I recently came across an article about the role of dissenting opinions that may be helpful for foreign-trained LLM students trying to wrap their brain around the US common law legal system. (Or legal English professors trying to help them get there.) Because from the perspective of one trained in a civil law legal system, a dissenting opinion may seem rather extraneous.

Prof. Sherri Lee Keene, Georgetown Law

The article, “Teaching Dissents” (Minnesota Law Review, July 7, 2023) by Prof. Sherri Lee Keene of Georgetown Law, is intended to help law students better understand the significance of dissenting opinions.

The abstract of Prof. Keene’s article notes that, “Court opinions are often written to sound authoritative and sure, making legal decisions seem purely logical and channeling a tone of inevitability…… In contrast to the voice of the majority, which often seeks to draw attention away from conflicts, dissents can show where choices were made in the decision-making process, and where others could have been made.”

Prof. Keene highlights the notion that teaching and studying dissenting opinions is a great way for students to learn to be critical readers and “identify spaces where they can challenge existing precedent and advocate for positive change.”

And from a legal English perspective, I appreciate that Prof. Keene has provided those of us who work with foreign-trained LLM students a very useful tool for helping our students to more deeply understand and get comfortable with the concept the US common law legal system and its culture.

Below is the full abstract and a link to the article:

Continue reading “Dissents, LLM students and learning to read cases”
css.php