This paper deals with a specific English language – the legal language. I will focus on a particular aspect of this field - the characteristics of the structure of legal English. Therefore I will give an overview of the central structural features which are typical for legal language. Legal professionals strive for a precise explanation of facts.
This aim forces them to use a certain kind of language patterns; including a high amount of definitions in legal texts, as well as numerous complex and ancient phrases deriving from Law French and plentiful enumerations which can all together form a single sentence covering several lines. Considering these special language patterns, the field of law, especially the legal language, becomes completely unapproachable for laymen, as it is almost impossible for them to follow legal discourse or understand legal contracts as well as laws and provisions. Even well-educated native speakers often find it hard to understand the language used in court. But the access to one’s rights and duties is important in a community, so I decided to emphasize the differences between legal language and colloquial language and to show which structural features are characteristic for legal language.
At first I will provide the reader with an overall definition of English as a special language, before I will have a closer look at legal English as a special language – the main topic of this essay. To show the structural features of legal language I will concentrate on three main characteristics in the structure of legal language – in my opinion the three most important ones, even though there are other important attributes as well. In a last step I will point out how these legal structures are used in real life. Therefore I will analyze a contract as well as a legislative text and think about ways to simplify the legal language used there to make it easier to follow such texts.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. English as a special language
a. Definition
b. Legal English as a special language
3. Structural features of English legal language
a. Complex sentences
b. Passive style
c. Impersonal constructions
4. Analysis of legal documents
a. Contract
b. Legislative text
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the distinct structural characteristics of English legal language, investigating how these specific linguistic patterns contribute to the complexity of legal discourse and hinder understanding for laypeople. The analysis aims to identify the barriers to clarity in legal texts and explores the tension between the pursuit of precision and the need for public accessibility.
- Characteristics of legal English as a specialized language
- Syntactic complexity and the "single sentence" phenomenon
- The function and effect of passive constructions in legal settings
- Impersonality and the usage of third-person structures
- Practical analysis of contractual and legislative texts
Excerpt from the Book
3. Structural features of English legal language
Murray Edelman argues that the language of the law acts as “a tool of social control and as a means of preserving the interests of the privileged, wealthy and educated” (O’Barr 397). Lawyers use legalese to “set themselves apart from the mass of the population and to create group cohesion” (Tiersma 51). So to speak, it functions as a “bond of union” (ibid.).
One has to realize though, that topics at court primarily concern the average citizen in the role of the lawyer’s client, not the lawyer himself. As a consequence a large gap between legal standard and public understanding need to be filled. To deal with this problem one needs to ask a lawyer for his interpretation of the language, which is for the average speaker out of reach. After William O’Barr, the attorney is “the channel of access to the law” (O’Barr 401).
This chapter continues with an outline of the structural characteristics of English legal language, which are most likely to impede understanding and which one needs to know for the analysis and simplification of legal texts. Some of these features may also appear in everyday English, but with less frequency and co-occurrences.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: The author outlines the scope of the paper, focusing on the structural peculiarities of legal English that often make it inaccessible to the general public.
2. English as a special language: This section defines the concept of specialized languages (languages for special purposes) and situates legal English as a distinct subsystem within the broader English language.
3. Structural features of English legal language: The chapter identifies three primary structural characteristics—complex sentence structures, passive voice, and impersonal constructions—that define legal discourse.
4. Analysis of legal documents: The author applies the previously discussed theoretical framework to a specific hire-purchase contract and a paragraph from the Uniform Commercial Code.
5. Conclusion: The paper summarizes that the structural features of legal English are deeply embedded in the profession's need for consistency, even at the cost of broader public comprehension.
Keywords
Legal English, Legalese, Specialized Language, Structural Features, Complex Sentences, Passive Style, Impersonal Constructions, Contract Law, Legislative Text, Linguistic Analysis, Syntax, Third Person Singular, Legal Accuracy, Terminology, Communication Barriers
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper primarily explores the structural features of English legal language and how these specific characteristics create a distinct, often complex, communication style used by legal professionals.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The study focuses on linguistics, specifically the analysis of "legalese," and examines how factors like sentence length, passive voice, and impersonal pronouns shape the accessibility of legal documents.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to highlight the differences between legal and colloquial language, showing how structural choices in law contribute to the gap between professional usage and public understanding.
Which methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a qualitative analysis approach, identifying linguistic patterns in legal theory and applying these findings to the practical examination of a contract and a legislative statute.
What does the main body of the work address?
The main body details specific structural challenges, such as the "single sentence" phenomenon and the prevalence of third-person constructions, and tests the limits of simplifying such texts.
How are the key concepts of the work characterized?
The work is characterized by terms like "legal accuracy," "impersonality," and "specialized language," emphasizing the balance between maintaining professional precision and the potential for simplification.
Why does the author argue that legal language is often "incomprehensible"?
The author notes that the use of ancient phrasing, long-winded sentences, and a high volume of technical terms creates a linguistic barrier that prevents non-experts from effectively understanding their own rights and duties.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the simplification of legal texts?
The author concludes that while breaking down long sentences can increase readability, it is extremely difficult to simplify legal texts without losing the original meaning or potentially compromising legal accuracy.
- Quote paper
- Marit Blömer (Author), 2012, Structural Features of Legal Language, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/303240
