Cover not available

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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 5
Making legal language clear to legal laypersons

 | University of Haifa
Published online: 26 April 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.288.05azu
Abstract
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
References (41)
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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Azuelos-Atias, Sol. 2007. A Pragmatic Analysis of Legal Proofs of Criminal Intent. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Semantically Cued Unspoken Assumptions in the Legal Text”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 728–743. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “On the Incoherence of the Legal Language to the General Public.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 24: 41–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Legal Hebrew”. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics II, ed. By Khan, G, 492–497. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
., and 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay. K. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Butt, Peter. 2002. “The Assumptions behind Plain Legal Language.” Hong Kong LJ, 32 (1): 173–186.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Modern Legal Drafting: A Guide to Using Clearer Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1998. “Threatening Revisited”. Forensic Linguistics 5: 159–173.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gustafsson, Marita. 1975. Some Syntactic Properties of English Law Language. Publication No. 4, Department of English, Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Kremnitzer, Mordechai. 1994. “On Negligence in Criminal Law”. Mishpatim 24: 90–93 [in Hebrew].Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. and Wheeldon, Linda. 1994. “Do Speakers Have Access to a Mental Syllabary?” Cognition, 50: 239–269. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings; the Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst. 1972 [1896–7]. “On Thought Experiments”. Translated and adapted by W. O. Price and Sheldon Krimsky. [URL], 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence. 2010. The Language of Statutes: Laws and Their Interpretation. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiersma Peter M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter. M. 2001. “Textualizing the Law”. Forensic Linguistics. 8(2): 73–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. “Some Myths about Legal Language”. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 2: 29–50.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1992. “The Performance of Legal Discourse”. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business 5(9): 9–18.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagner, Anne. 2002. “Introduction: The (Ab)Use of Language in Legal Discourse”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 15: 323–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2004. “Legal English and Plain Language: An Introduction”. ESP across Cultures 1(1): 111–124.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Legal English and Plain Language: an Update”. ESP across Cultures 8: 139–151.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Law and verdicts
Amendment 39 to the Israeli penal law (2098, 6.1.1992)Google Scholar logo with link to 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 (4)

Cited by four other publications

Nagel, Marie-Theres, Olga Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, Lisa Martin de los Santos Kleinz, Dominik Braunheim, Jennifer Fischer, Andreas Maur, Kevin Shenavai & Anika Kohmer
2024. Critical Online Reasoning Among Young Professionals: Overview of Demands and Skills in the Domains of Law, Medicine, and Teaching. In Students’, Graduates’ and Young Professionals’ Critical Use of Online Information, ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Engberg, Jan
2022. LSP and Transdiscursive Knowledge Communication. In Specialized Knowledge Mediation, ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Martínez, Eric, Francis Mollica & Edward Gibson
2022. Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language. Cognition 224 ► pp. 105070 ff. DOI logo
Martínez, Eric, Francis Mollica & Edward Gibson
2022. Poor Writing, not Specialized Concepts, Drives Processing Difficulty in Legal Language. SSRN Electronic Journal DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue