The English language has taken over the key role in international trade, legislation and policy-making. It has achieved "the enhanced status […] as the dominant world language [which] has led to an increased demand for the training of competent specialists able to mediate" (Alcaraz Varo/Hughes, 2002: 1). This goes along with a "phenomenal increase in the teaching of […] 'English for special (or specific) purposes' " (ibid.: 2). What is the reason for this development?
This piece of work might give an answer; it dedicates itself to domain specific English language: language and law. It concentrates on the characteristics of the structure of legal English in particular. An overview of the central structural features is given, without claiming completeness.
Legal professionals aim at a precise explanation of facts which should leave no doubts. This aim forces them to use a certain kind of language pattern, such as including a high amount of definitions in legal texts, along with numerous complex and ancient phrases deriving from Law French and plentiful enumerations which can all together form a single sentence covering several lines. Dependent on which party they represent, lawyers make frequent use of features that reduce the agent in his identity while emphasizing the action – a matter of strategy which has the impeding of comprehension as a consequence. Therefore, the field of law becomes completely unapproachable for laymen, who are scarcely able to follow legal discourse. Even well-educated native speakers often find it hard to understand the language used in court. However, the access to one’s rights is important.
To begin with, the reader will be provided with an overall definition of special languages and an explanation why to regard them as a variety of a language; afterwards this will be illustrated at the example of the language of the law. Subsequently, the foundations for the structural analysis of legal English will have been laid. Language has to serve as the vehicle for transporting what the law is about. But legal language does not seem to be a good packaging of legal contents. That is why experts are asked to diminish the barrier and mediate between the language of the law and common speech. Does legalese function as an obstacle rather than a vehicle then? This question will have to be considered in this piece of work.
Fußnoten: Alcaraz Varó, Enrique / Hughes, Brian (2002): Legal Translation Explained. (Manchester: St. Jerome). S.1f.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Main part
2.1 What are special languages? A definition
2.2 Legal English as a special language
2.3 Some structural features of English legal language
2.3.1 Complex sentences – full of redundancies and a remarkable word order
2.3.2 Passives and nominal style – defocusing the agent
2.3.3 Further impersonal constructions – refusing pronouns
2.3.4 Accuracy by means of negations and doublets
2.4 Preciseness versus impreciseness
3. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the linguistic and structural characteristics of legal English, investigating how the specific language patterns used by legal professionals create a barrier between expert knowledge and public understanding. The work aims to analyze whether legal English serves as an essential vehicle for precision or as an obstacle that impedes communication with laypeople.
- The status of legal English as a specific linguistic variety.
- Structural complexities, including sentence length and syntactic peculiarities.
- The use of passive voice and nominalization to achieve impersonality and defocus the agent.
- Strategies for precision through negations, doublets, and formal vocabulary.
- The tension between professional internal cohesion and accessibility for the general public.
Excerpt from the Book
2.3.1 Complex sentences – full of redundancies and a remarkable word order
Mellinkoff judges “[t]he language of the law [a]s full of long sentences, awkward constructions, and fuzzy-wuzzy words” (ibid.: 27); there he finds a significant explanation for unsuccessful and dissatisfactory communication. And he is right, the unusual sentence length is striking at a glance. Even Jeremy Bentham condemned the “longwindedness” (Tiersma, 1999: 56) of a lawyer’s style because in his view, sentences gained quality through shortness, not vice versa. As an example of legal lengthiness, the British Road Traffic Act of 1972 has been proved to have a mean sentence length of 79.25 words, with the longest sentence consisting of 740 words and the shortest one having after all seven at its disposal (cf. ibid.).
Peter Tiersma calls this trend “’single sentence’ phenomenon” (ibid.) and simultaneously explains it with the minimization of misunderstanding by the recipient. If further information were placed into an additional sentence, one would assume that it is less important than the contents mentioned before. People would therefore probably leave out the next sentence, which might eventually lead to a problematic misinterpretation. This description elucidates the question why all conditions concerning a topic are expressed within one self-contained unit.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter defines the growing importance of domain-specific English and outlines the paper's focus on the structural characteristics of legal English.
2. Main part: The main part provides a comprehensive analysis of special languages and their application to the legal domain.
2.1 What are special languages? A definition: This section discusses the definition of special languages and their role as sub-varieties of standard language shaped by expert communication.
2.2 Legal English as a special language: This chapter examines legal English as a distinct variety of the English language, influenced by history, Law French, and specific professional requirements.
2.3 Some structural features of English legal language: This section serves as an introduction to the specific linguistic markers that define the structure of legal documents.
2.3.1 Complex sentences – full of redundancies and a remarkable word order: This chapter analyzes how sentence length, redundancy, and complex syntactic patterns impact the clarity of legal texts.
2.3.2 Passives and nominal style – defocusing the agent: This section explains how passive constructions and nominalizations are used to depersonalize legal discourse and obscure the agent of an action.
2.3.3 Further impersonal constructions – refusing pronouns: This chapter covers the tendency of legal English to avoid personal pronouns, preferring nouns to maintain objectivity and prevent ambiguity.
2.3.4 Accuracy by means of negations and doublets: This section explores the strategic use of negations and binomial expressions (doublets) to achieve formal precision.
2.4 Preciseness versus impreciseness: This chapter evaluates the paradox of legal language, which aims for extreme precision while simultaneously creating ambiguity through its complex style.
3. Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings, emphasizing that while these stylistic features serve professional needs, they create significant barriers for public comprehension.
Keywords
Legal English, Special Language, Linguistics, Syntax, Nominalization, Passive Voice, Legal Discourse, Precision, Professional Communication, Structural Features, Impersonal Style, Terminology, Law French, Redundancy, Plain English Campaign.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The work explores the specific structural and linguistic features of English legal language (legalese) and analyzes how these features influence both professional communication and public understanding.
What are the central themes discussed in the paper?
The central themes include the classification of legal English as a specialized variety, the impact of syntactic complexity, the function of impersonal constructions, and the strategic pursuit of precision.
What is the core research objective?
The objective is to understand why legal language is structured in a way that often hinders laypeople's comprehension and to determine if this complexity is a necessary tool for accuracy or merely an obstacle.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses a linguistic and structural analysis approach, referencing key experts such as David Mellinkoff and Peter Tiersma to categorize and interpret the features of legal discourse.
What does the main part cover?
The main part details specific linguistic devices, including long sentences, passive constructions, nominalization, the avoidance of pronouns, and the usage of binomial doublets.
What keywords characterize the research?
Keywords include Legal English, special language, nominalization, precision, legal discourse, and syntactic complexity.
How do passive constructions function in legal English?
Passive constructions are used to "defocus the agent," which helps to depersonalize the text and shield the lawyer's client from direct involvement in a wrongful action.
Why does legal English often avoid personal pronouns?
Pronouns are avoided to prevent ambiguity and ensure that the legal subject remains clearly identified, thereby maintaining a higher degree of formal objectivity.
What is the significance of the "doublet" phenomenon?
Doublets, such as "give and devise," serve to reinforce legal formality and provide a level of overspecificity intended to ensure that all potential aspects of an action are covered by the law.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Gaby Schneidereit (Autor:in), 2004, Legal Language as a Special Language: Structural Features of English Legal Language, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/38559
