Vol. 14 (2025)
Artificial Intelligence and the Language of Law

Research Articles

Correcting Legal Language: Tutor-led Interaction and the Reproduction of Linguistic Norms in Law School

Published 12.11.2025

  • Alma Besic

Alma Besic
Tilburg Law School

Abstract

Mastery of legal language is essential for aspiring legal professionals, and this process of linguistic socialization begins in law school. While much research has focused on lectures and doctrinal content, less attention has been paid to how law students acquire legal language norms through interactive settings. This study examines how academic tutors at a Dutch law school contribute to students’ language socialization during small-group tutorial sessions. Drawing on participant observations and semi-structured interviews, the analysis reveals how tutors correct or reinforce students’ language use, and how these correction practices reflect differing language ideologies—ranging from the valorization of traditional legal terminology to the acceptance of more accessible alternatives. These practices shape not only students' understanding of legal concepts but also their acquisition of linguistic capital and sense of professional identity. The study highlights how language norms are reproduced or challenged in early legal education and considers the implications of this for inclusion and access within the legal profession. The study contributes to broader discussions about legal language ideology, including the accessibility concerns raised by the plain language movement.

Cite as: Bešić, JLL 14 (2025), 290–312, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2025.290

Keywords

legal language, law school, legal education, legal socialisation, legal knowledge, linguistic capital, plain language movement, legalese

PDF

References

  1. Abel, Richard L. (2003). English Lawyers Between Market and State: The Politics of Professionalism. New York: Oxford University Press on Demand.
  2. Adler, Mark (2012). The plain language movement. In Tiersma & Solan (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Lan- guage and Law. Oxford: University Press.
  3. Aiken, Ray J. (1959). Let’s not oversimplify legal language. Rocky Mntn. L. Rev., 32, 358–366.
  4. Assy, Rabeea (2011). Can the law speak directly to its subjects? The limitation of plain language. Journal of Law and Society, 38(3), 376–404.
  5. Berger, Roni (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234.
  6. Bourdieu, Pierre (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard: University Press.
  7. Bruggeman, C.W.C.A. (2020). Klare taal of kleutertaal?. De Gemeentestem, 152, 7515–7516.
  8. Bruinsma, Freek (2008). Wetenschap of woordkunst: Het werkgroeponderwijs als toets. Nederlands Juristenblad, 39, 2451–2455.
  9. Bryman, Alan (2016). Social Research Methods. Oxford: University Press.
  10. De Groot-van Leeuwen, Lenie E. (2011). Staat de autonomie van juridische beroepen op de tocht?. In Hertogh & Weyers (Eds.), Recht van Onderop. Antwoorden uit de Rechtssociologie (pp. 253–268). Ars Aequi Libri.
  11. Duff, Patricia A. (2008). Language socialization, higher education, and work. In Duff & Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp.257–270), New York: Springer.
  12. Duff, Patricia A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169–192.
  13. Friedman, Debra A. (2010). Speaking correctly: Error correction as a language socialization practice in a Ukrainian classroom. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 346–367.
  14. Garrett, Paul B. & Baquedano-López, Patricia (2002). Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31(1), 339–361.
  15. Granfield, Robert & Koenig, Thomas (1992). Learning collective eminence: Harvard law school and the social production of elite lawyers. Sociological Q., 33, 503–520.
  16. Hafner, Christoph. A. & Yu, Cindy (2020). Language socialization in digitally mediated collaborative writing: Evidence from disciplinary peer and teacher feedback. ReLC Journal, 51(1), 14–32.
  17. Hager, John W. (1959). Let’s simplify legal language. Rocky Mntn. L. Rev., 32, 74–88.
  18. Holvast, Nina & Kortleven, Willem-Jan (2021). De transformatie tot jurist: Socialisatie en diversiteit in de rechtenstudie. Ars Aequi: Juridisch Studentenblad, 1, 79–85.
  19. Jacobs-Huey, Lanita (2007). Learning through the breach: Language socialization among African American cosmetologists. Ethnography, 8(2), 171–203.
  20. Jones, Natasha N. & Williams, Miriam F. (2017). The social justice impact of plain language: A critical approach to plain-language analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 412–429.
  21. Kortleven, Willem. J.; Holvast, Nina & Bešić, Alma (2024). From adaptive to reflective law school socialisation: A theoretical and empirical contribution from the Netherlands. Legal Ethics, 1–21.
  22. Larson, Magali S. (1979). The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: Univesity of California Press.
  23. Mellinkoff, David (1963). The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. DOI: 10.14762/jll.2025.290 311.
  24. Mertz, Elizabeth (2007). The Language of Law School: Learning to “think like a lawyer”. New York: Oxford University Press.
  25. Moraitis, Peter & Murphy, Helen (2013). Language, law and identity: a language and learning response to the challenges of widening participation of students in law subjects. The Law Teacher, 47(2), 159–191.
  26. Ochs, Elinor & Bambi B. Schieffelin (2011). The theory of language socialization. In Duff & May (Eds.), Language Socialization. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 1–27). New York: Springer International Publishing.
  27. Ochs, Elinor & Bambi B. Schieffelin (2017). Language socialization: An historical overview. In Duff & May (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 3–15). Cham: Springer.
  28. Philips, Susan (1982). The Language socialization of lawyers: Acquiring the ‘cant’. In Spindler (Ed.), Doing the Ethnography of Schooling: Educational Anthropology in Action (pp. 176–209). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
  29. Posner, Richard A. (1998). Professionalisms. Arizona Law Review, 40(1), 1–16.
  30. Sapir, Edward (1933). Language. Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (New York), 155–169.
  31. Schieffelin, Bambi B. & Ochs, Elinor (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15(1), 163–191.
  32. Schieffelin, Bambi B.; Woolard, Kathryn A. & Kroskrity, P. V. (1998). Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford: University Press.
  33. Schleef, Debra J. (2005). Managing Elites: Socializaton in Law and Business Schools. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  34. Tavory, Iddo & Timmermans, Stefan (2014). Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. Chicago: University Press.
  35. Turfler, Soha (2015). Language ideology and the plain-language movement: How straight-talkers sell linguistic myths. Legal Comm. & Rhetoric: JAWLD, 12, 195.
  36. Van der Bruggen, Geerke (2020). Klare taal in uitspraken: Meer dan stijl alleen. Nederlands Juristenblad, 2020(28), 1808–2036.
  37. Van der Raad, Sylvia (2015). Othering and Inclusion of Ethnic Minority Professionals: A Study on Ethnic Diversity Discourses, Practices and Narratives in the Dutch Legal Workplace (dissertation Vrije Universiteit). Amsterdam: VU University Press.
  38. Verburg, Andre (2020). Begrijpelijke taal en juridisch correcte taal samen op één kussen? De duivel zit in de details. RM Themis, 5, 208–222.