The Last Presentation: Closing My First Year at HSE
The final assessment of the first year arrived on 27 June 2025 at HSE University in Moscow. The class met for the last session of Linguistic Personology with Professor Moshnyaga Elena Viktorovna. Each student had prepared an individual or paired presentation that linked linguistic analysis with human behaviour. The atmosphere in the building was steady and quiet. In the classroom the focus was clear. Slides were opened, notes were checked, and the order of speakers was confirmed. The event was ordinary in format yet important in outcome. It closed a year of work and measured what we had learned.
My teammate, RaihanUllah Mohmand, and I had selected a topic that required close reading and careful framing. We examined the figure of the Malik as a linguacultural type within Afghan tribal life. We treated the Malik not only as a political actor but as a communicator who works through counsel, mediation, and shared norms. The aim was to show how patterns of address, formulaic phrases, and routines of turn‑taking signal respect and authority. We traced how tone, pauses, and polite hedging guide consensus and limit conflict. The question that organised the study was simple: what does leadership look like when it is built from language in daily use?
The course asked us to observe real practices before we offered claims. We therefore mapped three domains that are often visible in village and district meetings. First, greetings and opening lines that set the footing of a discussion. Second, the language of weighing proposals, where reasons are given and tested. Third, the closing stage, where decisions are stated and recorded for memory. In each domain we compared forms used by Maliks with forms used by peers. We found consistent markers of status that were plain but not theatrical. The Malik often spoke in shorter units, invited others to speak in full, and summarised with reference to shared values such as honour, hospitality, and fairness.
A short example illustrated this point. In a land dispute case the Malik called on two elders by their teknonyms and asked the parties to restate points of agreement before any new claims. The next move was not to judge the case but to ask for any missing facts that could be checked by witnesses. This sequence reduced heat and created time for recall. The language was neutral and concrete. It avoided claims about motives. Only near the end did the Malik introduce a closing line that linked the proposed settlement to recognised practice. The case then moved to action with a clear record of who would do what and when.
Preparing this material required sources that could support the analysis. We read ethnographic studies on Afghan councils, studies on politeness and address forms, and work on conversational repair. We also drew on lived experience and on direct accounts from community members. The result was not a grand theory. It was a set of tractable observations that could be taught and tested. The approach matched the spirit of the course, which joined linguistic detail with person‑centred description.
When my name was called I felt the usual task focus. I began with a brief definition of the Malik as a role that balances representation and order. I explained how titles, kinship terms, and respectful plural forms help maintain distance without closing dialogue. I then set out the three domains of speech events and presented the findings with short transcripts and paraphrases. Questions from classmates centred on transferability. Could these patterns help explain other forms of local leadership. I answered that many features are general but that the particular terms and indexical cues are culture specific.
The feedback from Professor Moshnyaga was precise and useful. She noted that the argument was clearest where we identified a repeated sequence and showed its function with concrete words. She advised us to mark the limits of our data and to show where further recording would change the strength of the claims. Her comments aligned with the aims of the course. The objective was to connect linguistic structure with the description of a person who acts within a community.
The session closed with presentations by other classmates on varied topics. The range of interests was a reminder of the international character of the programme. Students approached problems from legal studies, psychology, sociology, and computer science. The exchange remained practical and respectful. We compared methods and discussed what counts as evidence in each case. This environment shaped the way I now plan and report work.
Looking back across the first year I can trace clear changes in method and confidence. I learned to design a research question that is small enough to test. I learned to separate description from evaluation and to keep claims within the reach of the data. I also learned to speak to an audience that does not share my background. Clear wording and careful pacing make a difference. The practice of presenting in class served as a visible measure of these gains.
Studying abroad brought daily challenges that were not part of the syllabus. There were administrative forms, housing tasks, and a new language environment. Time management was a constant variable. Yet these constraints were instructive. They forced simple routines and honest estimates. Over time the city felt familiar and the campus felt like a stable base for work.
The photograph included with this article records the end of the session. It shows students from several countries and the professor standing together in the classroom. It is a plain record of a shared academic event. I include it because it shows the setting in which the work took place and the people who supported it. The image is my own and is used with the consent of those present.
As the day ended I left the building with a sense of closure that was not dramatic but steady. The final presentation had been delivered, the questions had been answered, and the year had a clear endpoint.
In practical terms this article provides a short guide for students who will present next year. First, choose a topic that you can defend with data. Second, build the talk around a small number of clear questions. Third, use concrete examples rather than large claims. Fourth, invite questions and answer within the limits of your material. Fifth, record feedback and turn it into a revision plan. These steps are simple, repeatable, and efficient.
I close with thanks to classmates for steady collaboration across the year and to Professor Moshnyaga for clear, rigorous teaching. Her recent award as Best Professor of the Year at HSE was well earned. The award reflected her consistent practice of guiding students to test ideas carefully and to write with precision. The course set a high bar and gave us tools to reach it.
Method. We used qualitative observation and textual analysis. The unit of analysis was the speaking turn within a council meeting. We coded openings, proposals, evaluations, and closings. We counted how often particular address terms occurred and how they co‑occurred with acceptance or challenge. We paid attention to timing and overlap. We looked for repair moves that redirect talk without loss of face. The record was read twice and coded independently. Differences were reconciled by discussion. Findings were then expressed in ordinary language rather than technical terms so that readers in other fields could follow the thread.
Limits. The material comes from a small set of meetings and is not intended to cover all regions or all forms of council. Seasonal factors, local custom, and the presence of external actors can shift the register and the balance of turns. Future work could include audio recording, inter‑coder reliability tests, and comparison with similar leadership roles in neighbouring regions.
Learning outcomes. The study improved transcription skills, the ability to identify functional sequences of talk, and the practice of building an argument that is strict on scope. It also strengthened presentation skills within an international classroom where assumptions must be stated, not implied.
Shared by
Mir Gul Mutaqi
