Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:01:39.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The language of legislation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Yon Maley
Yon Maley
Affiliation:
School of English and Linguistics, Macquarie University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The characteristics of the language of legislation are derived from its role in the institution of law. An analysis of the institutional context reveals links among history, social function, participant roles, accepted goals of legislation, and language use. The nature of an Act of Parliament as a perpetual speech act creates a frozen authoritative text so that the language itself becomes a component of the law. If legislation is to be both stable and flexible, institutional communicative strategies are required to organise linguistic means to these sociolinguistic ends. (Law, legislation, register, speech acts, communicative competence, communicative strategies)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 25 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1970). A plea for excuses. In Philosophical papers. London: Oxford University Press. 175–204.Google Scholar
Barfield, O. (1962). Poetic diction and legal fiction. In Black, M. (ed.), The importance of language. Ithaca-Cornell University Press. 51–71.Google Scholar
Bennion, F. (1983). Statute law. 2nd ed.London: Oyez Longman.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (1843). The works of Jeremy Bentham. Bowring, John, ed. Edinburgh: William Tait.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1982). Easification of legislative texts. English for Specific Purposes 68. Cornvallis: English Language Institute, Oregon State University, 8–9.Google Scholar
Coode, G. (1852). Legislative expression, or the language of the written law. Reprinted in Robinson, S., Drafting. Sydney: Butterworth, 1973. 335–398.Google Scholar
Crystal, D., & Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English style. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dale, W. (1977). Legislative drafting: A new approach. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review 14 (3): 445–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, R., & Brierley, J. (1978). Major legal systems in the world today. London: Stevens and Sons.Google Scholar
Derham, D., Maher, F., & Waller, P. (1971). Cases and materials on the legal process. Sydney: Law Book Company.Google Scholar
Dickerson, R. (1965). The fundamentals of legal drafting. Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Enright, C. (1983). Studying law. Sydney: Branxton.Google Scholar
Finegan, E. (1982). Form and function in Testament language. In DiPietro, R. J. (ed.). Linguistics and the professions. (Advances in Discourse Processes, 8.). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 113–131.Google Scholar
Frank, J. (1930). Law and the modern mind. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Friedman, L. M. (1975). The legal system. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Fuller, L. (1931). Legal fictions. Northwestern University Law Review 363–99, 513–46, 877–910.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, M. (1975). Some syntactic properties of English law language. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 3: 37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1977). Grammar, society and the Noun. In Aims and perspectives in linguistics. Sydney: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. 1–18.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1953). Definition and theory in jurisprudence. The Law Quarterly Review 70: 37–60.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hurford, J., & Heasley, B. (1983). Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurst, J. W. (1982). Dealing with statutes. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. D. & Holmes, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1982). Postcript. In “Towards linguistic competence,” manuscript written for a translation into French by Fran Mugler.Google Scholar
Kevelson, R. (1982). Language and legal speech acts: Decisions. In DiPietro, R. J. (ed.), Linguistics and the professions. (Advances in Discourse Processes, VIII.) Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 121–131.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, K. N. (1951). The bramble bush. New York: Oceana.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1981). Language, meaning and context. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N. (1978). Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maitland, F. (1908). The constitutional history of England. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maley, Y. (1977). Speech acts in law. Talanya. 4. 2–9.Google Scholar
Maley, Y. (1985). The semantic field of homicide. In Benson, J. & Greaves, W. (eds.) Selected applied papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 152–168.Google Scholar
Mellinkoff, D. (1963). The language of the law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Mellinkoff, D. (1982). Legal writing: Sense and nonsense. New York: Charles Scribner's and Sons.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. (1979). Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Payne, P. G. (1956). The intention of the legislature in the interpretation of statutes. Current Legal Problems 9: 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, D. C. (1974). Statutory interpretation in Australia. Sydney: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Pitcher, G. (1973). Austin: A personal memoir. In Berlin, I. (ed.), Essays on J. L. Austin. Oxford: Clarendon. 17–30.Google Scholar
Plucknett, T. F. T. (1940). A concise history of the common law. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Renton, D. (1975). The preparation of legislation; Report of a committee appointed by the Lord President of the Council. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. (eds.). Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. 222–272.Google Scholar
Ross, J. F. (1981). Portraying analogy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, J. (1968). Legal system and lawyers' reasonings. Sydney: Maitland.Google Scholar
Turner, G. W. (1973). Stylistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Twining, W., & Miers, D. (1976). How to do things with rules. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wade, H. W. R. (1940). The concept of legal certainty. Modern Law Review 4: 183–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, R. (1966). Nominal and verbal Style. In Cunningham, J. V. (ed.). The problem of style. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett. 253–259.Google Scholar