Why English Legal Discourse is Difficult to Understand
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33806/ijaes.v25i1.675Keywords:
legal discourse, language complexity, complexity markers, interaction model frameworkAbstract
To date, language complexity has come to the fore of modern linguistic research, which is related to scientific discussion of similarity / difference in the degree of complexity between various languages. There is general agreement among various linguists that it rests on a great number of parameters, which is the result of the lack of uniform knowledge about this relatively novel linguistic phenomenon.
Under any circumstances, though the dichotomy principle underlies several approaches to the definition of complexity, i.e. it can be absolute (objective) and relational (subjective); systemic (paradigmatic) and structural (syntagmatic); the universal three-dimensional nature of language can serve as the guiding principle for the analysis of complexity parameters in any type of discourse. Thus, the paper highlights the lexical, syntactic and pragmatic parameters of English legal discourse (LD) language complexity based on the generally accepted semiotic triad.
These elaborations are also complemented by the deployment of the research framework consisting of three models “language-communicator”, “language-language” and “language-discourse” which, though initially designed for different purposes, can as well be successfully applied to the study of language parameters as factors stipulating the language complexity of LD. The given models are illustrated by the relevant examples of legal and juridical nature.
References
Berdichevsky, Alexandr. (2012). ‘Language Complexity’. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 5: 101-124. https://10.22363/2687-0088-31326 (In Russian).
Blinova Olga and Nikita Tarasov. (2022). ‘A hybrid model of complexity estimation: evidence from Russian legal texts’. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.1008530
Charrow, Veda R., Crandall Jo Ann and Robert P. Charrow. (1982). ‘Characteristics and functions of legal language’. In Richard Kitteredge & John Lehrberger (eds.), Sublanguage. Studies of Language in Restricted Domains: 175-190. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co.
Conley, John M. and Willeam M. O'Barr. (1990). Rules versus relationships: the ethnography of legal discourse. University of Chicago Press.
Cotterill, Janet. (2002). ‘Language in the legal process’. Palgrave Macmillan.
Coulthard, Malcolm, Johnson Albert and David Wright. (2016). An introduction to forensic linguistics: language in evidence. Routledge.
Dahl, Östen. (2004) The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Danet, Brenda. (1985). Legal discourse. In Teun. A. Dijk (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Academic Press. Massachusetts, Oxford: Balckwell Publishers Ltd.: 134-152.
Daum, Ulrich. (1981). Rechtssprache – eine genormte Sprache? Der öffentliche Sprachgebrauch. Band 2: Die Sprache des Rechts und der Verwaltung. Stuttgart: 83-99.
Dean, Morris. (1981). Using experimental psychology in technical writing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Technical Communication Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, May 20-23.
Eckardt, Birgit. (2000). Fachsprache als Kommunikationsbarrire? Verständigungsprobleme zwischen Juristen und Laien. Wiesbaden: Dt. Universitats Verlag.
Golev, Nikolay D. (2000). ‘Juridification of natural language as a legal-linguistic problem’. Juridical Linguistics-2. Russian in Its Natural and Legal Being: 9-45.
Golev, Nikolay D. (2006). ‘Legal communication in the mirror of natural language’. Juridical Linguistics-7. Russian as the Phenomenon of Legal Communication: 8-38.
Golev, Nikolay D. and Olga V. Golovacheva. (2005). ‘Legal linguistic dictionary of invective vocabulary of the Russian language’. Juridical Linguistics-6. Invective and Manipulative Functioning of the Language: 123-130.
Golovanova, Elena I. 2013. ‘Professional discourse, sub-discourse, genre of professional communication: the correlation of notions’. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, 1(292): 32-35. (In Russian).
Hiltunen, Risto. (2012). The grammar and structure of legal texts. In Lawrence M. Solan & Peter M. Tiersma (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford University Press: 39-51.
Iavarone, Benedetta, Dominique Brunato, D. and Felice Dell’Orletta. (2021). Sentence complexity in context. Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics: 186-199. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.cmcl-1.23
Joseph, John E. (2021). Why does language complexity resist measurement? Frontiers in Communication, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.624855
Karasik, Vladimir I. (1998). On discourse categories. Volgograd: Peremena: 185-197.
Kortmann, Bernd and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. (2012). Linguistic complexity: second language acquisition, indigenization, contact. Linguistic Complexity. Walter de Gruyter & Co. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229226.6
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Bernd Kortmann. (2012). ‘Introduction: Linguistic complexity: Second Language Acquisition, indigenization, contact’. In Bernd Kortmann and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.) Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter: 6-34. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229226.6
Krois-Lindner, Amy and Matt Firth. (2008). Introduction to international legal English. Cambridge University Press.
Kuznetsov, Anatoliy M., Leonid S. Burdin and Nina V. Solntseva (2006). Legal linguistics: language and law: scientific-analytical review. INION (In Russian).
Lehrberger, John. (1986). ‘Sublanguage analysis’. In Ralph Grishman & Richard Kittredge (eds.). Analyzing Language in Restricted Domains: Sublanguage Description and Processing: 19-38. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Li, Ming and Paul Vitányi. (2008). "Preliminaries". An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications. Texts in Computer Science: 1–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-49820-1
Litvishko, Olga M., Tatyana A. Shiryaeva, Elena V. Tikhonova & Marina A. Kosycheva. (2022). ‘Professional discourse: the verbal and visual semiosis interplay’, Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 8 (1): 19-40. DOI: 10.18413/2313-8912-2022-8-1-0-2
Litvishko, Olga M. (2018). ‘To the problem of syntactical peculiarities of the language of international legal documents (on the material of international conventions)’. In: Linguistic Personality and Effective Communication in Modern Multicultural World. Proceedings of the IV International Conference, Minsk, 25-26 October, 2018: 22-26 (In Russian).
Litvishko, Olga M. (2019). ‘Structural peculiarities of bigram-collocations in legal English’. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics, 2(18): 37-48.
Litvishko, Olga M. (2020). ‘Syntactic patterns in English-language legal discourse as means of actualization of normative-regulative function of law’. Professional Communication: Top Issues of Linguistics and Teaching Methods, 13: 124-132 (In Russian).
Mattila, Heikki. (2016). Comparative legal linguistics: language of law, Latin and modern lingua francas. Routledge.
Miestamo, Matti. (2008). Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.). Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change: 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.94
Mosesova, Milana E. (2019). The main means of verbalization of category of performativity in the language of international law (based on the English language). Professional Communication: Top Issues of Linguistics and Teaching Methods, 12: 90-95. https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2020.5.10
Nichols, Johanna. (2009). Linguistic complexity: a comprehensive definition and survey. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil and Peter Trudgill (Eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable:110-125. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nichols, Johanna. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. University of Chicago Press.
Nussbaumer, Markus. (1997). Sprache und Recht. Heidelberg: Groos.
Palashevskaya, Irina V. (2010). ‘Functions of legal discourse and the actions of its participants’. Bulletin of Samara Science Centre of Russian Academy of Science, 5(2): 535-540.
Palashevskaya, Irina V. 2012. ‘Genre organization of legal discourse: sociolinguistic approach’. Bulletin of Udmurt University, 2: 146-151.
Poteryakhina, Inna N. (2015). Linguoecological features of English virtual corporate communication. Pyatigorsk.
Šarčevic, Susan. 2000. New approach to legal translation. Kluwer Law International.
Solnyshkina, Marina I. and Alexander S. Kiselnikov. (2015). ‘Text complexity: study phases in Russian linguistics’. Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, 6(38): 86-99. https://doi.org
17223/19986645/38/7
Solnyshkina, Marina I., Danielle S. McNamara & Radif R. Zamaletdinov. (2022). ‘Natural language processing and discourse complexity studies’. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 26(2): 317-341. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30171
Solovyev, Valery D., Marina I. Solnyshkina and Danielle S. McNamara. (2022). ‘Computational linguistics and discourse complexology: paradigms and research methods’. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 26(2): 275-316. https://doi.org:1010.22363/2687-0088-31326
Stygal, Gail. (2007). ‘Review of the lynching of language: gender, politics, and power in the hill-thomas hearings by Sandra L. Ragan et al.’ International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 7: 128-130. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v7i1.128
Tiersma, Peter M. (1999). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.
Tiersma, Peter M. (2000). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.
Trosborg, Anna. (2015). ‘The performance of legal discourse’. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 5(9): 9-18. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v5i9.21503
Vass, Holly. (2017). ‘Lexical verb hedging in legal discourse: The case of law journal articles and Supreme Court majority and dissenting opinions’. English for Specific Purposes, 48: 17-31. https://doi.org:10.1016/j.esp.2017.07.001.
Litvishko, Olga M. and Ekaterina V. Miletova. (2018). Database of the terminological system of international law. Registration Certificate RU 2018621405, 30.08.2018.
Corpus Materials
Alleged violations of sovereign rights and maritime spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia). 21 April 2022 Judgment, available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/155/155-20220421-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). 8 November 2019 Judgment, available at: https://www.icj=cij.org/files/case=related/166/166=20191108=JUD=01=00=EN.pdf. (Accessed 20 December 2022).
C105 – Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957, International Labour Organization, available at: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312250:NO (Accessed 20 December 2022).
C155 – Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981, International Labour Organization, available at: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:::NO:12100:P12100_ILO_CODE:C155:NO (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Centre for Identity Management and Information Protection, available at: https://utica.edu/academic/institutes/cimip/index.cfm (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Contractbook, available at: https://contractbook.com/templates (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Gov.UK, available at: https://www.gov.uk (Accessed 20 December 2022).
H.R.133 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/133 (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Identity Theft Glossary, available at: https://noidentitytheft.com/glossary/ (Accessed 20 December 2022).
International Organizations Act 1968, available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/48/data.pdf (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan). 17 July 2019 Judgement, available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/168/168-20190717-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Kaplan J., Weisberg R., Binder G. Criminal law: cases and materials. Frederick, MD: Aspen Publishing, 2021, available at: https://books.google.ru/books?id=fRYcEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Las Vegas Small Claims Forms, available at: https://www.civillawselfhelpcenter.org/forms/small-claims-forms/284-las-vegas-small-claims-forms (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Memorandum to the Business and Innovation and Skills Committee. Post Legislative Assessment of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371319/bis-14-1199-44042-Cm-8948-memorandum-to-the-business-innovation-and-skills-committee-post-legislative-assessment-of-the-legislative-and-regulatory-reform-act-2006-print-ready.pdf (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Nationality and Borders Act 2022, available at: https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/36/contents (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Parliament act 1911. The Parliament Acts, available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/13/contents (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Patent Assertion Entity Study. Federal Trade Commission, available at: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/patent-assertion-entities-pae-study/pae_study_information_request_b.pdf (Accessed 20 December 2022).
S. 1153 (116th): Stop Student Debt Relief Scams Act of 2019, available at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s1153/text (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Statute of the International Court of Justice, available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/statute (Accessed 20 December 2022).
The Convention on Biological Diversity, available at: http://www.un-documents.net/cbd.htm (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, available at: https://mfa.tj/uploads/main/2020/11/4-Vienna-Convention-on-the-Law-of-Treaties.pdf (Accessed 20 December 2022).
Downloads
Date of Publication
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Accepted 2024-10-16
Published 2024-10-17
