Chapter published in:
Legal Pragmatics
Edited by Dennis Kurzon and Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 288] 2018
► pp. 101–116

Chapter 5
Making legal language clear to legal laypersons

| University of Haifa
It is widely accepted that the legal sub-language – the language of the written law, court discussions, and legal documents – needs rephrasing in order to make it understandable to legal laypersons. Adler (2012) holds that this is possible: legal texts can be rephrased in plain language (rather than in “legalese”). The features that need rephrasing in order to make the legal language understandable to legal laypersons concern both the rich technical vocabulary of the legal sub-language and its syntactic complexity. There is, moreover, a third feature that makes the legal sub-language impenetrable for laypersons – implicit intertextual and interdiscursive links. It is the combination of these three features – the rich technical vocabulary, the syntactic complexity, and implicit intertextuality (intertextual links presented without lucid reference to their explanations) – that makes the legal sub-language impenetrable.The legal sub-language is, naturally, the language used by legal experts in order to communicate with one another. Obviously, legal experts are supposed to know the relevant legal background knowledge of legal texts they work with; therefore, like other human communicators, authors of legal texts imply legal background knowledge, including the background knowledge relevant to their messages, rather than present it explicitly. The point of this analysis is that it is this implied professional knowledge which makes it hard for legal laypersons to understand legal texts.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: The legal sub-language
  • 2. Thought experiment
    • 2.1 Revising the text faults
    • 2.2Downloading intertextual links
    • 2.3Deriving authoritative answers
    • 3. Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Law and verdicts
Published online: 26 April 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.288.05azu
References
Adler, Mark
2012 “The Plain Language Movement”. In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law, ed. by L. M. Solan and P. M. Tiersma, 67–83. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Assy, Rabeea
2011 “Can the Law Speak Directly to its Subjects? The Limitation of Plain Language”. Journal of Law and Society 38(3): 376–404. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Azuelos-Atias, Sol
2007 A Pragmatic Analysis of Legal Proofs of Criminal Intent. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Semantically Cued Unspoken Assumptions in the Legal Text”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 728–743. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “On the Incoherence of the Legal Language to the General Public.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 24: 41–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Legal Hebrew”. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics II, ed. By Khan, G, 492–497. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
., and Ning Ye 2017 “On Drafting, Interpreting, and Translating Legal Texts across Languages and Cultures”. International Journal of Legal Discourse 2(1): 1–12.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dror, Judith. In press. “The Modes of Action of Jews in the Muslim Public Sphere in Morocco: Linguistic and Pragmatic Analysis of Legal Texts”. Peamim 148–149: 9–31 [in Hebrew].
Bain Butler, Donna
2013 “Strategies for Clarity in Legal Writing”. Clarity 70: 31–39.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay. K.
1993 Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay, K.
1998 “Generic Conflicts in Academic Discourse”. In Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes I, eds. By Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer, and J. F. Coll, 15–28. Castellon, Spain: Universitat Jaume I-Publicacions.Google Scholar
Busse, Dietrich
2008 “Interpreting Law: Text Understanding – Text Application – Working with Texts”. In Law and Language. Theory and Society, eds. by Dieter Stein, Alexander Lorz, Frances Olsen, 239–266. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Butt, Peter
2002 “The Assumptions behind Plain Legal Language.” Hong Kong LJ, 32 (1): 173–186.Google Scholar
2013 Modern Legal Drafting: A Guide to Using Clearer Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Charrow, Robert. P. and Charrow, Veda R.
1979 “Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions”. Columbia Law Review, 79(7): 1306–1374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1998 “Threatening Revisited”. Forensic Linguistics 5: 159–173.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, Marita
1975 Some Syntactic Properties of English Law Language. Publication No. 4, Department of English, Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto
2012 “The Grammar and Structure of Legal Texts”. In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law, eds. by Lawrence M. Solan and Peter M. Tiersma. 39–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Lynette and Sager, Naomi
1982 “Automatic Information Formatting of a Medical Sublanguage”. In Sublanguage: Studies of Language in Restricted Semantic Domains, eds. by Richard Kittredge and John Lehrberger, 27–79. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kremnitzer, Mordechai
1994 “On Negligence in Criminal Law”. Mishpatim 24: 90–93 [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis
1986 It Is Hereby Performed…Explorations in Legal Speech Acts. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989 “Language of the Law and Legal Language”. In Special Language: from Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines, eds. by Christer Laurén and Marianne Nordman, 283–290. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lauridsen, Karen. M.
1992 “The Meaning and Use of the Modals CAN and MAY in English Contract Law Texts”. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business 5(9): 43–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. and Wheeldon, Linda
1994 “Do Speakers Have Access to a Mental Syllabary?” Cognition, 50: 239–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2000 Presumptive Meanings; the Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst
1972 [1896–7] “On Thought Experiments”. Translated and adapted by W. O. Price and Sheldon Krimsky. http://​web​.mit​.edu​/redingtn​/www​/netadv​/PHmach​.html, accessed on November 16, 2017
Maley, Y.
1985 “Judicial Discourse: The Case of Legal Judgment”. In The Cultivated Australian, eds. by J. E. Clark. 159–175. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence
2010 The Language of Statutes: Laws and Their Interpretation. University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M., and Bhatia Vijay K.
(1983) “An Approach to the Linguistic Study of Legal Documents”. Fachsprache, 5(3): 98–108.Google Scholar
Tiersma Peter M.
1999 Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Peter. M.
2001 “Textualizing the Law”. Forensic Linguistics. 8(2): 73–92.Google Scholar
2006 “Some Myths about Legal Language”. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 2: 29–50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trosborg, Anna
1992 “The Performance of Legal Discourse”. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business 5(9): 9–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Anne
2002 “Introduction: The (Ab)Use of Language in Legal Discourse”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 15: 323–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Christopher
2004 “Legal English and Plain Language: An Introduction”. ESP across Cultures 1(1): 111–124.Google Scholar
2011 “Legal English and Plain Language: an Update”. ESP across Cultures 8: 139–151.Google Scholar

Law and verdicts

Amendment 39 to the Israeli penal law
(2098, 6.1.1992)Google Scholar
Criminal Appeal 196/64
The Legal Adviser to the Government vs. Bash
Criminal Appeal, 322/87
Dror vs. the State of Israel, Verdicts 723(3)
Criminal Appeal, 402/87
State of Israel vs. Jondi, Verdicts 393(3)
Criminal Appeal 103/88
Moshe Lichtman vs. the State of Israel [6.9.1989] Verdicts 373 (3).
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Engberg, Jan
2022.  In Specialized Knowledge Mediation, ► pp. 61 ff. Crossref logo
Martínez, Eric, Francis Mollica & Edward Gibson
2022. Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language. Cognition 224 ► pp. 105070 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.