Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:22:15.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language of the law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2008

V. K. Bhatia
V. K. Bhatia
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
State-of-the-Art Article
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 227 - 234
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

Aiken, R.J. (1960). Let's not oversimplify legal language. Rocky Mountain Law Review, 32.Google Scholar
Allen, L. E. (1957). Symbolic logic: a razor-edged tool for drafting and interpreting legal documents. Yale Law Journal, 66, 833–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arena, Louis A. (1982). The language of corporate attorneys. In Robert, J. Di Pietro, (ed.), Linguistics and the professions, 143–54. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Anshen, R. N. (1957). Language: an enquiry into its meaning and frnction. New York: Kennikat Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. (1979). Sequencing and shared attentiveness to Court proceedings. In George, Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: studies in ethnomethodology, 257–86. New York: lrvingtonValley.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. & Drew, Paul (1979). Order in court: the organization of verbal behaviour in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Beardsley, C. A. (1941). Beware of, eschew and avoid pompous prolixity and platitudinous epistles. The State Bar Journal of the State Bar of California, 16, 3, 65–9.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1977). Designing a special purpose course in English for the students of law in Rajasthan: problems and perspectives. MLitt thesis, Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1979). Simplification v. easification: the case of cases. MA thesis, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, U.K.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1982 a). Defining legal scope in statutory writing. English Language Research Journal, 3, 26–39.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1982 b). An investigation into formal and functional characteristics of qualifications in legislative writing and its application to English for Academic Legal Purposes. PhD thesis, University of Aston in Birmingham.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1982 c). Legal English – a brief review of relevant literature. English for Specfic Purposes, special issue, 67.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1983 a). Simplification v. easification: the case of legal texts. Applied Linguistics, 4, 1, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1983 b). Applied discourse analysis of English legislative writing. A Research monograph, Language Studies Unit, University of Aston in Birmingham.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1984). Syntactic discontinuity in legislative writing and its implications for academic legal purposes. In Pugh, A. K. and Ulijn, J. M. (eds.), Reading for professional purposes, 90–6. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1986). Specialist discipline and the ESP curriculum. In Tickoo, M. L. (ed.), Language across the curriculum, Selected papers from the RELC Seminar on ‘Language Across the Curriculum’, 1985. Singapore: RELC.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. 1987). Textual-mapping in British legislative writing. World Englishes, 6, 1, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. & Swales, J. M. (eds.) (1982). English for Specific Purposes, special issues 67 and 68 on Legal English.Google Scholar
Bogoch, , Bryna, & Danet, , Brenda, (1984). Challenge and control in lawyer–client interaction: a case study in an Israeli Legal Aid office. Text, 4, 1/3, 249–75.Google Scholar
Bowers, , Fred, . (1980). Victorian reforms in legislative drafting. The Legal History Review, 48, 4, 329–48.Google Scholar
Bringham, , John, (1978). Constitutional language: an interpretation of judicial decisions. London: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Caesar-Wolf, , Beatrice, (1984). The construction of ‘adjudicable’ evidence in a West German civil hearing. Text, 4, 1/3, 193–223.Google Scholar
Calderbank, M. (1982). Case study in law. English for Specflc Purposes, 68.Google Scholar
Carlen, P. (1975). Magistrates' courts: a game theoretic analysis. Sociological Review, 23, 347–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charrow, R. P. & Charrow, V. (1979). Making legal language understandable: a psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 7, 1306–74.Google Scholar
Charrow, , Veda, R. & Charrow, R. P. (1984). Characteristics and functions of legal language. In Kittredge, R. & Lehrberger, J., (eds.), Sublanguage: studies of language in restricted semantic domains. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Christie, G. C. (1964). Vagueness and legal language. Minnesota Law Review, 48, 885–911.Google Scholar
Conley, J. M., O'Barr, W. M., & Lind, E. A. (1978). The power of language: presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal, 6, 1375–99.Google Scholar
Crocker, A. (1982). LSP and methodology: some implications for course design and implementation in EALP. English for Specfic Purposes, 6.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. & Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English style. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Danet, , Brenda, (1980). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review, 14, 3, 445–564.Google Scholar
Danet, , Brenda, (1984 a). The magic flute: a prosodic analysis of binomial expressions in legal Hebrew. Text, 4, 1/3, 143–72.Google Scholar
Danet, , Brenda, (ed.) (1984 b). Text, special issue on Studies of legal discourse, 4, 1/3.Google Scholar
Danet, , Brenda, , Hoffman, N. C., Rafn, H.J. & Stayman, D. G. (1976). Language and the construction of reality in the courtroom II: toward an ethnography of questioning. Working paper No. 5 of The role of language in the legal process. Boston: Boston University.Google Scholar
Danet, , Brenda, , Kermish, N. C., & Hoffman, K. B. (1980). Accountability in verbal offences. Political Communication and Persuasion, Summer.Google Scholar
Davie, H. C. M. (1982). Legal cases –Why non-native students are baffled. English for Specfic Purposes, 68.Google Scholar
Davis, , Jaffrey, (1977). Protecting consumers from overdisclosure and gobbledygook: an empirical look at the simplification of consumer–credit contracts. Virginia Law Review, 63/6, 841–920.Google Scholar
Davison, A. (1980). Linguistic analysis and law. In Shuy and Shnukal(eds.)Google Scholar
Dean, M. (1982). The English for Law course at Colchester English Study Centre, England. English for Specific Purposes, 68.Google Scholar
Dickerson, , Reed, (1978). Legal drafting: writing as thinking, or talk-back from your draft and how to exploit it. Journal of Legal Education, 29, 4, 373–9.Google Scholar
Di, Pletro, Robert, J. (ed.) (1982). Linguistics and the profrssions. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Dunstan, , Robert, (1980). Contexts for coercion: analyzing properties of courtroom ‘questions’. British Journal of Law and Society, 7, 61–77.Google Scholar
Epstein, , Judith, H. (1982). The grammar of a lie: its legal implications. In Robert, J. Di Pietro (ed.), 133–42.Google Scholar
Felker, , Daniel, (1980). Document design: a review of the relevant research. Washington D.C.: Document Design Center.Google Scholar
Finegan, , Edward, (1982). Form and function in testament language. In Robert, J. Di Pietro (ed.), 113–20.Google Scholar
Gumperz, , John, J. (1982). Fact and inference in courtroom testimony. In John, J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and social identity, 163–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gunnarsson, , Britt-Louise, (1984). Functional comprehensibility of legislative texts: experiments with a Swedish act of parliament. Text, 4, 1/3, 71–105.Google Scholar
Gustaffsson, M. (1975 a). Some syntactic properties of English law language. Turku: University of Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
Gustaffsson, M. (1984). The syntactic features of binomial expressions in legal English. Text, 4, 1/3, 123–41.Google Scholar
Hager, J. W. (1959). Let's simplify legal language. Rocky Mountain Law Review (University of Colorado Law Review), 32, 74–86.Google Scholar
Hancher, M. (1980). Speech acts and the law. In Shuy, & Shnukal, (eds.), 245–56.Google Scholar
Harris, , Richard, J. (1973). Answering questions containing marked and unmarked adjectives and adverbs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97, 339–401.Google Scholar
Hastie, R., Landsman, R. & Loftus, E. F. (1978). Eyewitness testimony: the dangers of guessing. Jurimatrics Journal, 19, 1–8.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, , Risto, (1984). The type and structure of clausal embedding in legal English. Text, 4, 1/3, 107–21.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (1984). The statute as discourse and the lawyer as linguist. In Hall, R. (ed.), The Eleventh LACUS Forum.Google Scholar
Holland, V. Melissa & Redish, J. C. (1981). Strategies for understanding forms – and other public documents In Tannen, D. (ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Georgetown University Roundtable, 205–18. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hosticka, C. J. (1979). We don't care about what happened, we care only about what is going to happen: lawyer– client negotiations of reality. Social Problems, 26, 5, 599–610.Google Scholar
Johnson, , Bruce, C. (1976). Communicative competence in American trial courtrooms. Centrum: Working Papers of the Minnesota Center for Advanced Studies in Language, Style and Literary Theory, 4, 2, 139–50.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1985). ESP and non-native varieties of English: towards a shift in paradigm. A paper presented at the International Conference on English for Specific Purposes in Colombo, Sri Lanka, April 1–5.Google Scholar
Kevelson, R. (1982). Language and legal speech acts decisions. In Robert, J. Di Pietro (ed.), Linguistics and the professions, 121–31. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Kurzon, , Dennis, (1984). Themes, hyperthemes and the discourse structure of British legal texts. Text, 4, 1/3, 31–55.Google Scholar
Labov, , William, (1982). Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science: the case of Black English trial in Ann Arbor. Language in Society, II, 165–201.Google Scholar
Liebbs-Blesner, , Tamar, (1984). Rhetoric in the service of justice: the sociolinguistic construction of stereotypes in an Israeli rape trial. Text, 4, 1/3, 173–92.Google Scholar
Levi, , Judith, N. (1982). Linguistics, language and law: a topical bibliography. (Mimeo.)Google Scholar
Levi, , Judith, N. (1983). Applications of linguistics to the language of legal interactions. To appear in Peter, C. Bjarkman and Victor, Raskin (eds.), Linguistic applications in the 1980's.Google Scholar
Lewis, O. C. (1972). Introduction to Symposium on Law, Language and Communication. Case Westem Reserve Law Review, 23, 307–17.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., & O'Barr, W. M. (1979). The social significance of speech in the courtroom. In Howard, Giles & Robert, St Clair (eds.), Language and social psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Littler, R. (1950). Reader rights in legal writing. California State Bar Journal, 25, 51–4 & 59.Google Scholar
Locker, , Diane, Jonas (1979). Analysis of a mock trial. Papers in Linguistics, 3, 1, 103–18.Google Scholar
Loftus, , Elizabeth, (1978). Reconstructive memory processes in eyewitness testimony. In Sales, B. D. (ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Loftus, , Elizabeth, (1981). Language and memories in the judicial system. In Shuy, R. & Shnukal, A. (eds.), Language use and the uses of language, 257–68. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Loftus, , Elizabeth, & Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony: the influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 86–8.Google Scholar
Maynard, , Douglas, (1980). A conversational system for bargaining: the case of plea negotiation, Part 1. A paper read at Law and Society Association Meeting, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Mead, R. (1984). Courtroom discourse. Discourse Analysis Monograph 9. University of Birmingham: English Language Research.Google Scholar
Mehler, I. M. (1960–1961). Language mastery and legal training. Villanova Law Review, 6, 201–17.Google Scholar
Mellinkoff, D. (1963). The language of the law. Boston: Little Brown Co.Google Scholar
Moerman, M. (1973). The use of precedent in natural conversation: a study in practical legal reasoning. Semiotica, 9, 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, M. (1977). Some aspects of discourse structure and cohesion in selected science lectures. MA thesis, University of Birmingham, U.K.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. F. (1982). Multilingual legal drafting in the EEC and the work of jurist/linguist. Multilingua, 1–2, 109–17.Google Scholar
Morton, R. A. (1941). Challenge made to Beardsley's plea for plain and simple syntax. Journal of State Bar of California, 16, 65–9, 103–7.Google Scholar
Murphy, D. F. & Candlin, C. N. (1979). Engineering lecture discourse and listening comprehension. Practical Papers in English Language Education, 2.Google Scholar
Naylor, P. B. (1979). Linguistic and cultural interference in legal testimony. A paper from the International Conference on Language and Psychology, University of Bristol, 07 16–20.Google Scholar
O'Barr, W. M. (1981). The language of the law. In Charles, A. Ferguson & Heath, S. B. (eds.), Language in the U.S.A., 386–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O'Barr, W. M., & Conley, M. (1976). Language in the courtroom: vehicle or obstacle? Barrister, 3 8–11 and 33.Google Scholar
Philips, S. U. (1984). The social organization of questions and answers in courtroom discourse: a study of changes of plea in an Arizona court. Text,4, 1/3, 225–48.Google Scholar
Philips, S. U. (1985). Strategies of clarification in judges' use of language: from the written to the spoken. Discourse Processes,8,421–36.Google Scholar
Platt, , Martha, (1978). Language and speakers in the courtroom. In Jeri, J. Jaegeret al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 617–27. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Pousada, , Alicia, (1979). Interpreting for language minorities in the courts. In Alatis, J. E. & Tucker, R. (eds.), Language in public life, 186–208. Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Probert, W. (1966). Courtroom semantics. American Jurisprudence: Trials, 5,695–805.Google Scholar
Probert, W. (1968). Law through the looking-glass of language. Journal of Legal Education, 20, 253.Google Scholar
Redish, , Janice, C. (1979). How to draft more understandable legal documents. In MacDonald, D. A. (ed). Drafting documents in plain language. New York: Practising Law Institute.Google Scholar
Redish, , Janice, C. (1980). Readability. In Felker, D. B. (ed.), Document design: a review of relevant research. Washington D.C.: American Institute of Research.Google Scholar
Redish, , Janice, C. (1981). How to write regulations (and other legal documents) in clear English. In Givens, R. A. (ed), Drafting documents in Plain Language. New York: Practising Law Institute.Google Scholar
Renton, D. (1975). The preparation of legislation: report of a committee appointed by the Lord President of the Council. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Robinson, S. (1973). Drafting – its substance and teaching. Journal of Legal Education, 25, 514–37.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, D. E. (1974). Lawyer and client: who's in charge, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Sales, B., Elwork, A. & Alfini, J. (1977). Improving comprehension of jury instructions. In Sales, B. D. (ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology, Volume 1: The criminal justice system. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Sherr, A. & Sherr, L. (1980). Lawyer-client interviewing. A paper presented at the S.S.R.C. Law and Psychology Group Meeting, 25–6 March, Oxford.Google Scholar
Shuy, , Roger, W. (1981). Can linguistic evidence build a defense theory in a criminal case. Studia Linguistica, 35, 1, 33–49.Google Scholar
Shuy, , Roger, W. (1982). Topic as the unit of analysis in a criminal law case. In Tannon, D. (ed), Analyzing discourse: text and talk, 113–26. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Shuy, , Roger, W. & Larkin, D. A. (1978). Linguistic considerations in the simplification/clarification of insurance policy language. Discourse Processes, I, 305–21.Google Scholar
Shuy, , Roger, W. & Shnukal, A. (eds.) (1980). Language use and uses of language. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (1980). Noun-verb expressions in legal English. Language Studies Unit, University of Aston in Birmingham.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1978). The case of cases and other aspects of English for Academic Legal Purposes. (Mimeo.)Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1981). Definitions in Science and Law – evidence for subject–specific course component. Fachsprache, 3/4, 106–11.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1982). The case of cases in English for Academic Legal Purposes. IRAL, 20, 2.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. & Bhatia, V. K. (1983). An approach to the linguistic study of legal documents. Fachsprache, 5/3, 98–109.Google Scholar
Vargas, D. M. (1984). Two types of legal discourse: transitivity in American appellate opinions and casebooks. Text, 4, 1/3, 9–30.Google Scholar
Wainman, H. & Wilkinson, M. (1981). Legal English: a functional approach. Recherches et Echanges, 6, 2, 67–79.Google Scholar
Walker, , Anne, G. (1982). Patterns and implications of cospeech in a legal setting. In Robert, J. Di Pietro (ed.), Linguistics and the professions – Proceedings of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Wasan, P. C. (1968). The drafting of rules. The New Law Journal, 6, 548–9.Google Scholar
Web, , Janet, (1984). Interaction analysis of industrial arbitration and the relationship between arbitration, negotiation and the problem-solving process. University of Aston in Birmingham. (Mimeo.)Google Scholar
Westman, M. (1984). On strategy in Swedish legal texts. Text, 4, 1/3, 57–70.Google Scholar
White, , Gill, (1979). The subject specialist and the ESP teacher. Lexden Papers 1. Colchester.Google Scholar
White, , James, Boyd (1973). The legal imagination: studies in the nature of legal thought and expression. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
White, , James, boyd (1982). The invisible discourse of the law: reflections on legal literacy and general education. Michigan Quarterly Review, 420–38.Google Scholar
Wickrama, D. U. W. (1982). Linguistic features of commercial law texts and their pedagogical implications. MSc thesis, LSU, University of Aston in Birmingham.Google Scholar
Wijasuria, B. (1971). The occurrence of discourse markers and inter-sentence connectives in university lectures and their place in the testing and teaching of listening comprehension in English as a Foreign Language. MEd thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Williams, , Glanville, (1973). Learning the law. London: Stevens and Sons. First published in 1945.Google Scholar
Wodak, , Ruth, (1980). Discourse analysis and courtroom interaction. Discourse Processes, 3, 369–80.Google Scholar
Woodbine, G. E. (1943). The language of English law. Speculum, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, P. (1979). Helping lawyers to communicate. Legal Action Group Bulletin, 07.Google Scholar
Wright, P. (1980). Is legal jargon a restrictive practice? In Lloyd-Bostock, S. (ed.), Psychology in legal contexts: applications and limitations. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wright, P. & Reid, F. (1973). Written information: some alternatives to prose for expressing the outcomes of complex contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 160–6.Google Scholar