Imagining New Social Legal Futures: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Pre-Law Students' Experiences with Discourse Communities of Legal Practice

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Courtney Hanny
• 关键词：Discourse communities ; Communities of practice ; Counter ; stories ; Learning trajectories ; Metafunctions of language ; Resemiotization
• 刊名：International Journal for the Semiotics of Law
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：March 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：29
• 期：1
• 页码：87-120
• 全文大小：486 KB
• 参考文献：1.Bakhtin, M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. In ed. M. Holquist (trans: Holquist, M., and Emerson, C.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  2.Beverley, J. 1989. The margin at the center: On testimonio (testimonial narrative). Modern Fiction Studies 35(1): 11–28.CrossRef
  3.Bhabha, H.K. 1994. The location of culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
  4.Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
  5.Blommaert, J. 2013. Ethnography, superdiversity, and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  6.Bourdieu, P. 1987. The force of law: Toward a sociology of the juridical field (trans: Terdiman, R.). The Hastings Law Journal 38: 805–853.
  7.Bourdieu, P. 1989. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory 7(1): 14–25.CrossRef
  8.de Alba, A., E. González-Guadiano, C. Lankshear, and M. Peters. 2000. Curriculum in the postmodern condition. New York: Peter Lang.
  9.Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  10.Goodrich, P. 1987. Legal discourse: Studies in linguistics, rhetoric, and legal analysis. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRef
  11.Gutiérrez, K. 2008. Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly 43(2): 148–164.CrossRef
  12.Gutiérrez, K., B. Rymes, and J. Larson. 1995. Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review 65(3): 445–471.CrossRef
  13.Greenfield, P. 1984. Scaffolding: A theory of the teacher in the learning practices of everyday life. In Everyday cognition, eds. B. Rogoff, and J. Lave, 117–138. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  14.Grewal, I. 2005. Transnational America: Feminisms, diasporas, neoliberalisms. Durham: Duke University PressCrossRef
  15.Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
  16.Halliday, M.A.K. 2003. On language and linguistics. London: Continuum.
  17.Hornberger, N. 2007. Biliteracy, transnationalism, multimodality, and identity: Trajectories across time and space. Linguistics and Education 18(3): 325–334.CrossRef
  18.Iedema, R. 1995. Legal ideology: The role of language in common law and appellate judgments. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 8(22): 21–36.CrossRef
  19.Iedema, R. 2001. Resemiotization. Semiotica 1(4): 23–39.
  20.Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York: Routledge.
  21.Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
  22.Mertz, E. 2007. Language of law school: Learning to “think like a lawyer”. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
  23.Penuel, W.R., and K.O’Connor. (2010). Learning research as a human science: Old wine in new bottles? National Society for the Study of Education 109(1): 268–283.
  24.Rogoff, B. 1994. Developing understanding of the idea of community of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity 1(4): 209–229.
  25.Soto, L.D., C.G. Cervantes-Soon, E. Villarreal, and E.E. Campos. 2009. The Xicana sacred space: A communal circle of compromiso for educational researchers. Harvard Educational Review 79(4): 755–775CrossRef
  26.Swales, J. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27.Vygotsky, L.S. 1987. Thought and word. In The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1, eds. R.W. Reiber, and A.S. Carton, 243–285. New York: Plenum.
  28.Wenger, E. 1999. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  29.Wenger, E., N. White, and J. Smith. 2010. Learning in communities. In Changing cultures in higher education: Moving ahead to future learning, eds. U.D. Elhers, and D. Schneckenberg. Heidelberg: Springer.
  30.Wertsch, J.V. 1991. Voices of the mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  31.Wood, D., J. Bruner, and G. Ross. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17: 89–100.CrossRef
  32.Wortham, S. 2004. The interdependence of social identification and learning. American Educational Research Journal 41(3): 715–750.CrossRef
  33.Yúdice, G. (1989). Marginality and the ethics of survival. In Universal Abandon? The politics of postmodernism, ed. A. Ross, 214–236. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  34.Yúdice, G. 1991. Testimonio and postmodernism. Special issue on voices of the voiceless in testimonial literature, Pt 1. Latin American Perspectives 18(3): 15–31.CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Courtney Hanny (1)
  
  1. University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
  
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Law
  Law Theory and Philosophy
  Applied Linguistics
  Sociolinguistics
  Philosophy of Law
  Logic
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1572-8722

文摘

This paper considers the ways that concepts such as social justice and law were used as semiotic objects-in-tension by a group of five US undergraduates considering law school to make sense of their ideas about entering the discourse communities and communities of practice associated with being a lawyer. This group was made up of undergraduate women who had completed a summer residency program sponsored by the Law School Admissions Council to increase enrollment of students from under-represented groups. Of the five participants, two were US-born; the others immigrated to the US as teenagers; each was aware of her position as multiply marginalized, by gender as well as other factors, including refugee or immigrant status, religious affiliation, sexual identity, and/or association with “at risk” labeling. Data analyzed reflect a 3-year study of their changing perceptions of their relationships to law school discourse communities, using text, interviews, individual video narratives, and informal, face-to-face group meetings. A sociolinguistic approach to multimodal discourse analysis is used to examine the ways that the women, each in a unique way, articulated an increased investment in direct and embodied engagement, lived experience, and personal testimony—not as supplements to doing/being a lawyer, but as necessary and expected practices therein. Over time and through various modalities, they used their vantage point from outside the dominant discourse communities of law to stage social critique and to contest the binary logic and normative criteria that forge the boundaries of exclusion from and inclusion in these communities. Specifically, they resemiotized notions of being a lawyer from the margins in ways that demanded a more fluid and polysemous interpretation of what it means to do ethically rigorous social justice work—hence reworking the relationships between justice (as an abstract ideal) and the law (as an institutionalized regime) and widening the semiotic potential of their own future work. Particularly significant are the ways that semiotic trajectories progressed from an emphasis on what Halliday identifies as textual (fixed and highly abstract) functions of language to interpersonal (embodied, relational) and ideational (expressive, experiential) functions. Such a trajectory away from entextualization suggests that voices and perspectives from the margins may be using those imaginary margins tactically as sites from which to contest the boundaries that define whose voices count within the legal system and to contest normative limits on semiotic potentialities for lawyers working toward more just social futures.