1 See, e.g., David Mellinkoff, The Lame of the Law (Boston: Little, Brown, 1963; David Crystal & Derek Davy, Investigating English Style 193–217 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969).Google Scholar

2 For a recent review of this work in the United States see O'Barr, William M. & Conley, John M., “Litigant Satisfaction versus Legal Adequacy in Small Claims Court Narratives,” 19 Law & Soc'y Rev. 661 (1185).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Donald Black, Sociological Justice 18–19 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

4 See O'Barr, & Conley, , 19 Law & Soc'y Rev. 661.Google Scholar

5 See, e.g., Howard Giles & Peter F. Powesland, Speech Style and Social Evaluation (New York: Academic Press, 1975).Google Scholar

6 For a synthesis of O'Barr's work on speech styles, see William O'Barr, Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power and Strategy in the Courtroom (New York Academic Press, 1982 “O'Barr, Linguistic Evidence”). It should also be noted that not all studies of oral communication in courtrooms originate in O'Barr or involve speech style effects. For a review of anthropological work on language in the disputing process, see David Brenneis, “Language and Disputing,” 17 Ann. Reu. Anthropology 221 (1988). For evidence that inflections given to individual words can significantly affect responses to lawyers' questions, see Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979); Brenda Danet, “Language and the Legal Process,” 14 Law & Soc'y Rev. 445 (1980). See W. Lance Bennett & Martha Feldman, Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1981), Who focus on how jurors make sense of different types of testimony “stories.” See also the critique in Susan Phillips, “Review of Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom, by Bennett and Williams,” 12 Language in Soc'y 514 (1983). For conversational analysis and ethnomethodological approaches to the study of oral communication in the courtroom, see Anita Pomerantz, “Attributions of Responsibility: Blamings” 12 Sociology 115 (1978); J. Maxwell Atkinson & Paul Drew, Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings (London: Macmillan, 1979); Anita Pomerantz & J. Maxwell Atkinson, “Ethnomethodology, Conversational Analysis, and Study of Courtroom Interaction,” in D. J. Muller, D. E. Blackmun, & A. J. Chapman, eds., Psychology and Law (Chichester, Eng.: Wiley, 1984). For a study of how narrative structures in plea bargaining embed and motivate negotiators to perform well for their clients during negotiations over charges and sentencing, see Douglas Maynard, “Narratives and Narrative Structure in Plea Bargaining,” 23 Law & Soc'y Rev. 449 (1988).Google Scholar

7 William O'Barr & Boman K. Atkins, “Women's Language or Powerless Language,” in S. McConell-Ginet, R. Borker, & N. Furman, eds., Women and Language in Literature and Society (New York: Praeger, 1980) (“O'Barr & Atkins, ‘Women's Language’”).Google Scholar

8 John M. Conley & William M. O'Barr, “Rules versus Relationships in Small Claims Narratives,” in Allen Grimshaw, ed., Conflict Talk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) (“Conley & O'Barr, ‘Rules versus Relationships’”); id., Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990) (“Conley & O'Barr, Rules versus Relationships”).Google Scholar

9 James L. Kinneavy, A Theory of Discourse (New York: Norton, 1971).Google Scholar

10 O'Barr, , Linguistic Evidence 78.Google Scholar

11 Bradac, James J. & Mulac, Anthony, “A Molecular View of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles: Attributional Consequences of Specific Language Features and Communicator Intentions,” 51 Comm. Monographs 307 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Conley & O'Barr, Rules versus Relationships 85–112.Google Scholar

13 See, e.g., the synthesis of speech style affects research in O'Barr, Linguistic Evidence 61–91. See also James, J. Bradac, , Hemphill, Michael R. & Tardy, Charles H., “Language Style on Trial: Effects of Powerful and Powerless Speech upon Judgments of Victims and Villains,” 45 W.J. Speech Comm. 327 (1981); Bradac & Mulac, 51 Comm. Monographs 307; Hosman, Lawrence A. & Wright, John W. II, “The Effects of Hedges and Hesitations on Impression Formation in a Simulated Courtroom Context,” 51 W.J. Speech Comm. 173 (1987); Hosman, Lawrence A., “The Evaluative Consequences of Hedges, Hesitations, and Intensifiers: Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles,” 15 Hum. Comm. Res. 383 (1969).Google Scholar

14 See, e.g., Conley, John M. & O'Barr, William M., “Fundamentals of Jurisprudence: An Ethnography of Judicial Decision Making in Informal Courts,” 66 N.C.L Rev. 467 (1987); Maynard, 22 Law & Soc'y Rev. 449; Conley & O'Barr, “Rules versus Relationships”; id., Rules versus Relationships.Google Scholar

15 The use of the “college sophomore” in experimental research as representative of lay populations has provoked debate in the social sciences for nearly 50 years. Although there is not a clear rule-of-thumb for using college students in experimental research, suffice to say that many scholars question the external validity of their use. See, e.g., Quinn McNemar, “Opinion-Attitude Methodology,” 43 Psychological Bul. 289 (1946); Robert Rosenthal & Ralph L. Rosnow, Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods und Data Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964); William Oakes, “External Validity and the Use of Real People as Subjects,” 27 Am. Psychlogist 959 (1972); Michael E. Gordon, L. Allen Slade & Neal Schmitt, “The Science of Sophomore Revisited: From Conjecture to Empiricism,” 11 Acd. Mgmt. Rev. 191 (1986). Alternatively, John P. Campbell, “Labs, Fields and Straw Issues,” in Edwin A. Locke, ed., Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings 276 (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1986), questions the validity of not considering that “college students really are people” and can be used with appropriate techniques to perform useful social science research. But see Jerald Greenberg, “The College Sophomore as Guinea Pig: Setting the Record Straight,” 12 Acd. Mgmt. Rev. 157 (1987).Google Scholar

16 Steven Vago, Law and Society 80–81 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981).Google Scholar

17 Bonnie Erickson, E. Allan Lind, Bruce C. Johnson & William M. O'Barr, “Speech Style and Impression Formation in a Court Setting: The Effects of Powerful and Powerless Speech,” 14 J. Experimental Soc. Psychology 266 (1978); E. Allan Lind & William M. O'Barr, “The Social Significance of Speech in the Courtroom,” in Howard Giles & Robert St. Claire, eds., Language and Social Psychology (College Park: University of Maryland Press, 1979).Google Scholar

18 Bradac, et al., 45 W.J. Speech Comm. 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Warfel, Katherine, “Gender Schemes and the Perceptions of Speech Style,” 51 Comm. Monograph 253 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Bradac, & Mulac, , 51 Comm Monographs 307; Hosman, & Wright, , 51 W.J. Speech Comm. 173; Hosman, , 15 Hum. Comm. Res. 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Donald Black, The Behavior of Law (New York: Academic Press, 1976) (“Black, Behavior of Law”).Google Scholar

22 Robin Lakoff, Language and a Woman's Place (New York: Harper & Row, 1975).Google Scholar

23 O'Barr & Atkins, “Women's Language” (cited in note 7).Google Scholar

24 Bradac, Hemphill & Tardy, , 45 W.J. Speech Comm. 327 (cited in note 13).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 For examples of between-subject designs in law and language experimentation, see Bradac, et al., 45 W.J. Speech Comm. 327; Bradac & Mulac, , 51 Comm Monographs 307; Hosman, & Wright, , 51 W.J. Speech Comm. 173; Hosman, , 15 Hum. Comm. Res. 383 (all cited in note 13). Although there are enough undergraduate students in Arizona's state university system to use a between-subjects design (as typically used for the convenience samples of undergraduates in previous experimental research in this area), there are not enough sitting judges or practicing mediators in the state to a priori choose such a design. Given the limited numbers in these subject pools and the difficulty in gaining access to them, to ensure adequate statistical power, the best research design is a repeated measures, within-subjects design. As subsequent order-by-manipulation effect analyses demonstrated, nothing was lost with this design.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Conley & O'Barr, “Rules versus Relationships” at 180–81 (cited in note 8).Google Scholar

27 Erickson, et al., 14 J. Experimental Soc. Psychology at 277 (cited in note 17); but see Vinson, Larry & Johnson, Craig, “The Use of Written Transcripts in Powerful and Powerless Language Research,” 2 Comm. Rep. 16 (1989).Google Scholar

28 See, e.g., Erickson, et al., 14 J. Experimental Soc. Psychology at 266; Bradac, et al., 45 W.J. Speech Comm 327 Bradac, & Mulac, , 51 Comm. Monographs 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Conley & O'Barr, “Rules versus Relationships” at 179–82 (cited in note 8).Google Scholar

30 To be sure, the rule- and relational-oriented messages varied in length as well as content. However, such variations are consistent with the conceptual definitions Conley and O'Barr offered:It [a rule-oriented account] does not deal with motivations, feelings, or reasons why the contact should never have existed. Nor does it beg for understanding of contract violations on the basis of greater and more pressing problems than the need to meet contractual obligations. By contrast, relational accounts are filled with background details that are presumably relevant to the litigant, but not necessarily the court, and emphasize the complex web of relationships between the litigants rather than legal rules or formal contracts.Google Scholar

O'Barr & Conley, “Rules versus Relationships” at 179.Google Scholar

31 Geoffrey Keppel, Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook 372–77 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1982).Google Scholar

32 McCroskey, James C., “Scales for the Measurement of Ethos,” 33 Speech Monograph 65 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Hembroff, Larry A., “The Seriousness of Acts and Social Contexts: A Test of Black's Theory of the Behavior of Law,” 93 Am. J. Soc 322 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Robert Rosenthal & Ralph L. Rosnow, Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984).Google Scholar

35 Interestingly, Conley & O'Barr, Ruks verslls Rehtiomhips 59–81 (cited in note 8), argue that rule-relational discourse may ultimately tell us more about witnesses' and litigants' perceptions of the legal system than about decision makers' perceptions of witnesses and litigants. Our arguments below concerning the lack of discourse effects as well as the interaction effects on mediators of style and discourse should be viewed as a complementary explanation to that offered by Conley and O'Barr.Google Scholar

36 Dell Hymes, “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life,” in Joseph J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes, eds., Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1972).Google Scholar

37 Michael Burgoon & Gerald R. Miller, “An Expectancy Interpretation of Language and Persuasion,” in Howard Giles & Robert St. Claire, eds., The Social and Psychological Contexts of Language (London: Erlbaum, 1985); but see Black, Behavior of Law at 82 (cited in note 21).Google Scholar

38 Conley & O'Barr, Rules versus Relationships.Google Scholar

39 Andrew Abbot, The System of the Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Conley & OBarr, Rules versus Relationships.Google Scholar

41 Kolb, Deborah M., “To Be a Mediator: Expressive Tactics in Mediation,” 41 J Soc. Issues 11 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Harrington, Christine & Merry, Sally Engle, “Ideological Production: The Making of Community Mediation,” 22 Law & Soc'y Rev 729 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Conlry & O'Barr, Rules versus Relationships 82–112 (cited in note 8).Google Scholar

44 See, e.g., Harrington, & Merry, , 22 Law & Soc'y Rev. 715.Google Scholar

45 Conley & O'Barr, Rules versus Relationships at 82 (cited in note 8).Google Scholar

46 Fuller, Lon, “Mediation—Its Forms and Functions,” 44 S. Cal. L Rev 305 (1971).Google Scholar

47 Silbey, Susan S. & Merry, Sally Engle, “Mediator Settlement Strategies,” 8 Law & Pol'y 7 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 See, eg., Bradac, & Mulac, , 51 Comm. Monographs 307 (cited in note 13).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 See, e.g., Hosman, , 15 Humun Comm. Res. 383 (cited in note 13).Google Scholar

50 See, e.g., Judee K. Burgoon, David B. Buller, & Wendall G. Woodall, Nonverbal Communication: The Unspoken Dialogue 424–60 (New York: Harper & Row, 1989).Google Scholar

51 See, e.g., Black, Behavior of Law; Richard L. Abel, “Introduction,” in Richard L. Abel, ed., The Politics of Informal Justice: The American Experience (New York: Academic Press, 1982); Laura Nader, “Disputing without the Force of Law,” 88 Yale L.J. 998 (1979).Google Scholar

52 William O'Barr & E. Allan Lind, “Ethnography and Experimentation: Partners in legal Research,” in Bruce D. Sales, ed., The Trial Process (New York: Plenum Press, 1981).Google Scholar