Distinctive Features of Legal English: Beatriz Pérez Cabello de Alba
Distinctive Features of Legal English: Beatriz Pérez Cabello de Alba
Distinctive Features of Legal English: Beatriz Pérez Cabello de Alba
legal English
Beatriz Pérez Cabello de Alba
UNED
0
Index
1. Introduction
2. Specialised languages
• ESP
• Plain English
3. Legal English
• Peculiarities
• Lexical features (vocabulary)
• Syntactic features (grammar)
• Other features (e.g. punctuation)
4. Debate
1
1. Introduction
English for Special Purposes (ESP) as an academic discipline:
– English for Law (also English for Science and Technology, English for
Business, etc.)
2
2. Specialised languages: Common features
• Mainly found in written form.
• Some inherent features of LSP:
- Specialised topic.
- Rare /archaic grammatical rules (subjunctive).
- High frequency of certain constructions (passive structures, nominalisation,
noun compounds, etc.)
- Lexical restrictions (vocabulary):
• Specialised or “technical” terms:
adjournment (aplazamiento), litigation (litigio), jurisdiction
(jurisdicción), eviction (lanzamiento), etc.
• Semi-technical terms: words from the common language that have
acquired one or more new meanings within a certain field of knowledge
by meaning extension.
action for “proceso/demanda”; hand for “firma”; service for
“notificación”, etc.
3
2. Specialised languages: Plain English
• Uses the active voice as opposed to the passive voice.
• Avoids the use of indefinite pronouns:
❌ After the Administrator appoints an Assistant, he or she shall
supervise the…
– he or she: the Administrator or the Assistant?
After the Administrator appoints an Assistant, the Administrator
shall supervise the…
• Avoids the use of “shall”:
– “Must” for legal obligations
– “Will” to refer to the future
• Uses the imperative instead of the passive voice.
❌ All copies must be signed
4
2. Specialised languages: Plain English
• Tends to use simple words:
❌ Construct, fabricate √ make
Peculiarities
• Type of vocabulary (Anglo-Saxon vs. Greco-Latin).
– spare / superfluous
– blame / culpability
– put off / postpone
• Length and complexity of sentences.
• Archaisms and fixed expressions (e.g. Latin expressions “ne bis in
idem”; “witnesseth”).
• Specific collocations, i.e. words that generally go together with
other words:
• √ The fast train vs.❌ the quick train
• √ Fast food vs. ❌ quick food
• √ A quick shower vs. ❌ a fast shower
• √ A quick meal vs. ❌ a fast meal
6
3. Legal English: Lexical features
A. Shortage of synonyms
- Legal terminology is characterised by one-to-one correspondences among
words and definitions:
• Theft ≠ robbery ≠ burglary
7
3. Legal English: Lexical features
C. Lexical repetition:
“The SEC has reinforced the insider trading restrictions with promulgation
of Rule 14e-3 of the SEC, an independent provision prohibiting insider
trading in connection with tender offers. Congress has further reinforced
these trading restrictions by providing the SEC with the power to seek a
treble penalty under the Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984 (ITSA). This
legislation empowers the SEC to base enforcement actions on any
recognized theory of insider trading restriction.”
D. Terms of French origin: on parole, femme sole, etc.
– Suffix –ge: damages, demurrage, etc.
– Suffix –or/-er: debtor, employer, etc.
– Suffix –ee: employee, appellee, etc.
8
3. Legal English: Lexical features
E. Latinisms:
– He represented himself as a bona fide purchaser.
– Some crimes require proof of both actus reus and mens rea.
F. Formal register and archaic forms: e.g. “Whereas the party of
the first part witnesseth that…”
– Compound adverbs: Wherefore (en consecuencia), hereinafter (en lo
sucesivo), thereby (por lo tanto) , thereunder (en función del mismo) ,
whereby (por lo cual), thereunto (a ello), etc.
– Expressions: Pursuant to (de conformidad con), without prejudice to
(sin perjuicio de), in accordance with (de acuerdo con),
notwithstanding (no obstante), having regard to (considerando), in
witness whereof (en testimonio/fe de), etc.
9
3. Legal English: Lexical features
10
3. Legal English: Lexical features
11
3. Legal English: Lexical features
12
3. Legal English: Lexical features
J. Euphemisms:
UK:
• A litigation friend (next friend): disability, underage (minors) or overage.
• A McKenzie friend: a person who assists a litigant in court (layman).
13
3. Legal English: syntactic features
“No person has been authorised to give any information or make any
representation other than those contained or incorporated by reference
in this joint proxy statement/prospectus and, if given or made, such
information or representation must not be relied upon as having been
authorised.”
14
3. Legal English: syntactic features
B. Syntactic complexity
- Long and complex sentences.
- Several levels of subordination.
“The Chief Land Registrar shall, where the dwelling-house with respect to
which the right to buy is a registered land, supply him, if so requested by
the Secretary of State, with an office copy of any document required by
the State Secretary on payment of the appropriate fee.”
15
3. Legal English: syntactic features
16
3. Legal English: syntactic features
• Member States shall adopt all necessary measures for the automatic
granting of authorisations required for the pursuit of any employment
referred to in Articles 2 and 3. Conditions for granting such authorisations
shall in no instance be less liberal than the conditions in respect of offers
to named persons as laid down by the measures taken in pursuance of
Articles 48 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic
Community.
17
3. Legal English: syntactic features
E. Prepositional-adverbial compounds
• The member States of the Council of Europe and the other Signatories
hereto.
19
3. Legal English: syntactic features
21
3. Legal English: syntactic features
22
3. Legal English: syntactic features
23
3. Legal English: syntactic features
I. Subjunctive
The subjunctive has practically disappeared from colloquial English.
It has been substituted by:
– The verb in present or past tense:
• It’s essential that you are here on time.
• I demanded that he apologised.
– “Should”:
• What do you suggest we should do?
24
3. Legal English: syntactic features
I. Subjunctive
The subjunctive is used:
– After verbs like “ask”, “advise”, “command”, “demand”, “insist”,
“order”, “propose”, “recommend”, “request”, “require”,
“suggest”, “urge”:
• Even though someone may be eligible for an informal
hearing, we will recommend that he attend a formal
hearing.
• Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as
may be necessary to empower its courts or other competent
authorities to order that bank, financial or commercial
records be made available or be seized in order to carry out
the actions referred to in Articles 3, 4, and 5.
25
3. Legal English: syntactic features
I. Subjunctive
26
3. Legal English: syntactic features
I. Subjunctive
The use of the subjunctive can be even more complex when the
sentence is in the passive voice, when there is a negative
structure or when there is a continuous tense:
Subject-operator inversion:
– With negative or restrictive elements at the beginning of the
sentence:
• Rarely have I seen such a thing.
– With expressions with “so” y “such”, “neither” or “nor”:
• So badly was he affected that he had to be taught to speak
again.
• I saw him. So did I.
• I don’t like milk. Nor do I.
28
3. Legal English: syntactic features
J. Inversion:
- Fixed expressions:
• God save the Queen!
• So be it!
– Conditionals without “if” (they are usually formed with have “had”,
“should” o “were”):
• Had she known about it, she wouldn’t have gone.
• Were I in your place, I wouldn´t do it.
• Should you need more details, do not hesitate to contact us.
29
3. Legal English: syntactic features
31
3. Legal English: other features
Punctuation:
- In legal texts, style is not generally a priority. This means that clarity of
the contents is more important than the form in which those contents
are expressed.
32
4. Debate
33
4. Debate: Plain English
:
High Court judge uses emojis to help children understand
family law judgment
A High Court judge has embraced the modern world and used
emojis to help children involved in a family dispute understand
https://www.legal
his judgment more easily.
cheek.com/2016/
09/high-court-
judge-uses-emojis- In what is thought to be an English legal first, Mr Justice Peter
to-help-children- Jackson has used the popular smiley face symbols to explain a
understand- complex point of evidence. Opting to use them on several
family-law- occasions, the emojis (unfortunately) don’t appear in the
judgment/ online version of the judgment.
As well as using simple language throughout, Jackson, who
became a High Court judge back in 2010, reveals that he has
kept things as “short as possible so that the mother and the
older children can follow it”.
34
4. Debate
35
4. Debate
2. The case is about a white British family. There are four children – H [a boy
aged 12], A [a girl aged 10], N [a boy aged 3] and R [a girl aged 10 months]. Since
July they have been living with foster carers. The younger children see their
mother four times a week. The older children are at school and they come twice a
week. The meetings have gone well. The mother and the children are very close
and want to live together again. The mother now lives with her own mother, who
I will call the grandmother.
3. When H and A were born, the mother was living with their father, Mr B. They
were together for about 8 years. After that, Mr B moved out, but he and the
children still see each other and the children also see his parents. At times Mr B
has been sent to prison for violence. He has also used drugs but says that he has
not done that since the last time he went to prison in 2013. H and A see their
father and grandparents at the weekends and everyone enjoys that. 37
JUDGMENT: Lancashire County Council v M and others
6. Children can’t be taken away from their parents unless social services
prove to a judge that it would be harmful for them to live at home. If children
are taken away, judges will always try to return them if that is safe.
38
Thank you for your attention!
39