Title: A Discussion on Controversial Features in Legal Language
Abstract: Language issues, such as genre analysis, syntax, and lexicon have been topics in the areas of ESP 1 , LSP 2 , and Linguistics. This article aims to discuss some controversial features in legal language from an angle of practicality to look at the legal language’s nature, semantic interpretations, and perceptional difference over the statutes applied to real cases. Hu (2008) points out that vagueness is the primary problem in legal language, which contradicts the goal of precision. However, in this paper we hold a rather reserved attitude and instead suggest that vagueness is a necessary feature in legal language. In support of our ideas, we cite real-case examples from Anglo-American court judgments. Besides, we also propose several new perspectives, such as the elements of legal wisdom and reasoning behind legal language that have long been neglected. Swales and Bhatia (1982) point out that English for Legal Purposes (ELP) is an important but relatively uncultivated corner of the ESP fi eld. One of the reasons could be the involvement in two areas of specialty, English legal language and the law, leading to more challenges than GE (General English) teachers expect. According to Richards/Rodgers (2001), there are three major factors needed to be taken into consideration prior to construct language teaching method, among which approach stresses the language’s nature, familiarization, structure, and learning process. Thus, getting familiarity with English legal language and the law becomes a necessary condition for the ELP teachers on ELP teaching. According to Gibbons (1994), the research on the language and law usually falls within three major categories: (1) the study of language as a subject of the law, (2) the study of spoken language in legal setting, and (3) the study of written language of the law. The fi rst category discusses the sources of the law, the origination of legal process, including statutory drafting for legislative purposes, and frame semantics in linguistic application. The second category involves forensic linguistics 3 , from pre-trial to trial processes including police interview, language evidence in crime investigation, courtroom discourse, witness credibility, cross-exams, and plea bargaining. The third category covers legal language issues, its nature, and linguistic features in legal texts, which are a lot different from those of General English. In this thesis, we try to explore the third category with a focus on the controversial features in legal language. In addition, we also attempt to propose new fi ndings which include legal logic, legal lexicon’s fl exibility reserving a certain degree of freedom for reasoning, semantic interpretations, and perceptional differences in legal language which have long been overlooked.
Publication Year: 2010
Publication Date: 2010-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot