The nature of legal language

Abstract

One of the great paradoxes about the legal profession is that lawyers are, on the one hand, among the most eloquent users of the English language while, on the other, they are perhaps its most notorious abusers. Why is it that lawyers, who may excel in communicating with a jury, seem incapable of writing an ordinary, comprehensible English sentence in a contract, deed, or will? And what can we do about it? Consider, first, the eloquence of the legal profession. Daniel Webster was famed for his oratory skills. Called upon to assist the prosecution in a murder case, Webster addressed any hesitations the jurors might have harbored about their power to punish the guilty. In doing so, he provided a memorable defense of the theory of deterrence: The criminal law is not founded in a principle of vengeance. It does not punish that it may inflict suffering. The humanity of the law feels and regrets every pain that it causes, every hour of restraint it imposes, and more deeply still, every life it forfeits. But it uses evil, as the means of preventing greater evil. It seeks to deter from crime, by the example of punishment. This is its true, and only true main object. It restrains the liberty of the few offenders, that the many who do not offend, may enjoy their own liberty. It forfeits the life of the murderer, that other murders may not be committed. A very different picture of the deterrent effect of punishment was painted by Clarence Darrow, another great legal orator. Darrow sought to persuade a judge to spare the lives of his two young clients, who had pled guilty to a sensational murder: What about this matter of crime and punishment, anyhow? ... Mr. Savage tells this court that if these boys are hanged, there will be no more murder. Mr. Savage is an optimist. He says that if the defendants are hanged there will be no more boys like these. I could give him a sketch of punishment, punishment beginning with the brute which killed something because something hurt it; the punishment of the savage; if a person is injured in the tribe, they must injure someone in the other tribe; it makes no difference who it is, but somebody. If one is killed his friends or family must kill in return. You can trace it all down through the history of man. You can trace the burnings, the boilings, the drawings and quarterings, the hanging of people in England at the crossroads, carving them up and hanging them as examples for all to see. At the end of his long argument, Darrow had the judge in tears. Despite angry mobs lusting after a hanging, the judge sentenced the young men to life in prison. Yet as mentioned, lawyers are also among the worst abusers of language. Contemplate the convoluted and redundant nature of the typical modern will, a document so important that it is effective only if signed in the presence of witnesses. The first problem is the title: Last Will and Testament. There is no difference between a will and a testament, so either term would suffice. And to label this the last will is absolutely ludicrous. Virtually every...

On the Incoherence of Legal Language to the General Public

“…However, Tiersma remarks that the assumption, that lawyers actually created legal language to keep the public in the dark and protect their monopoly on legal services, is exaggerated [22]. 4 It should be noted, indeed, that the contention that the purpose of legal language is to conceal the public's understanding of a legal system is a very strong claim.…”

“…Tiersma [22] presents Bentham and Mellinkoff as proponents of the conspiracy theory as an explanation of the apparent incoherence of legal language. Mellinkoff [13], for one example, explains it as a "conspiracy of gobbledygook": "What better way of preserving a professional monopoly than by locking up your trade secrets in the safe of an unknown tongue?"…”

Doublets in Legal Discourse: Data-Driven Insights for Enhancing the Phraseological Competence of EFL Law Students

“…That is, a word in a legal document may have different senses and legal con-sequences [23]. As stated in [24], legalese could be "innovative, casual and purposefully vague" (p. 24). It has its own lexicon, some of which is mainly borrowed from Latin and French and is manipulated to perform specific textual functions.…”

Deontic meanings in Philippine contracts

“…Various authors (Butt and Castle 2006;Coulthard and Johnson 2007;De Groot 1998;Garner 1986Garner , 2002Garner , 2011Haigh 2004;Hiltunen 1990;Solan 1993;Tiersma 1999Tiersma , 2008Williams 2004;Schane 2006;Stanojević 2011) have explored about the relationship between language and law. The general features of the legal language and the development and changes it underwent over time; discourse and pragmatic analyses; comprehensibility and simplification are just some of the studies conducted about the interconnection between language and the law.…”