|
As noted above, legal English differs from standard English in a number of ways. The most important of these differences are as follows:
Use of terms of art. Legal English, in common with many other professional languages variations, employs a great deal of terminology that has a technical meaning and is not generally familiar to the layman (e.g.
waiver, restraint of trade, restrictive covenant, promissory
estoppel).
Extensive use of words and phrases derived from French and Latin.
Use of ordinary words in apparently peculiar contexts. For example, the familiar term
consideration refers, in legal English, to contracts, and means,
an act, forbearance or promise by one party to a contract that constitutes the price for which the promise of the other party is bought (Oxford Dictionary of Law). Other words often used in peculiar contexts in legal English include
construction, prefer, redemption, furnish, hold, and find.
Lack of punctuation. One of the most unusual aspects of old-fashioned legal drafting – particularly in conveyances and deeds – is the almost complete lack of punctuation. This arose from a widespread belief among lawyers and judges that punctuation was unimportant and potentially confusing, and that the meaning of legal documents should be gathered solely from the words used and the context in which they were used. In modern legal drafting, punctuation is (or should be) used for the same reason as it is used in ordinary writing – to give clarification about meaning.
Use of doublets and triplets. There is a curious historical tendency in legal English to string together two or three words to convey what is usually a single legal concept. Examples of this include
null and void, fit and proper, perform and discharge, dispute, controversy or
claim, and promise, agree and covenant. Such constructions must be treated with caution, since sometimes the words used mean, for practical purposes, exactly the same thing
(null and void); and sometimes they do not quite do so (dispute, controversy or
claim).
Unusual word order. At times, the word order used in legal documents appears distinctly strange. For example,
the provisions for termination hereinafter appearing or will at the cost of the borrower forthwith comply with the
same. There is no single clear reason explaining this phenomenon, although the influence of French grammatical structures is certainly a contributing factor.
Use of unfamiliar pro-forms. For example,
the same, the said, the aforementioned etc. The use of such terms in legal texts is interesting since very frequently they do not replace the noun – which is the whole purpose of pro-forms – but are used as adjectives to modify the noun. For example,
the said John Smith.
Use of pronominal adverbs. Words like
hereof, thereof, and whereof (and further derivatives, including
-at, -in, -after, -before, -with, -by, -above, -on, -upon etc) are not often used in ordinary English. They are used in legal English primarily as a way of avoiding the repetition of names of things in the document – very often, the document itself. For example,
the parties hereto instead of the parties to this
contract.
-er, -or, and
-ee name endings. Legal English contains a large number of names and titles, such as employer and employee, or lessor and lessee, in which the reciprocal and opposite nature of the relationship is indicated by the use of alternative endings. This practice derives from Latin.
Use of phrasal verbs. Phrasal verbs play a large role in legal English, and are often used in a quasi-technical sense. For example,
parties enter into contracts, put down deposits,
serve [documents] upon other parties, write off
debts, and so on.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
