Why Is Legal Language Important in Law

Second, and somewhat more difficult, some recognizable words take on different or new meanings when used in the law. Malicence, for example, when used in the law of slander, does not mean hatred or malice; It means « with reckless disregard for the truth. » Similarly, « consideration » in contract law has nothing to do with reflection; It means something of value given by a party to an agreement. If a party is « biased » in the law, it usually means that the party has been disadvantaged, not that the party is sectarian. « Furnishing » in real estate law is much more than bathroom and kitchen equipment. There are many words like this in the law, and students must shed their ordinary understanding of a word to absorb its legal meaning. Words that have different meanings or specialized in law are sometimes called « artistic terms. » It is also important for legal writing skills. A well-written document is synonymous with a solid argument and can decide or break a case. A legal document, whether a contract, affidavit or written statement, serves to inform and bind the client and the court on the legal issue. The language used in these documents is legal language, which is syntactically more complex and lexically dense than language. Thus, it becomes essential for lawyers to draft all legal documents accurately, clearly present all essential facts and inspire even a layman for their content, which is only possible if one is familiar with legal language.

It is the ability of the law to regulate its own distribution of power fairly and effectively that explains why it is appropriate for the law to give a court the legal power to impose a fine by its act (i.e., by what the judge says in the exercise of the power). There are insurmountable objections to Bentham`s idea that a law is a set of signs. Law (in the relevant sense) is the systematic regulation of the life of a community through norms considered binding on the members of the community and its institutions. A law is a norm that is part of such a systematic form of regulation. Many of these norms do not have canonical linguistic formulation (that is, any form of words that, according to the law, determines the content of the norm). Lawyers in common law systems are familiar with these norms: murder can be a criminal offense (or defamation can be a misdemeanor, or some agreements can be enforceable as contracts…), not because a person or institution expresses a rule that it should be so, but because the institutions of the legal system generally treat murder as a criminal offense (or defamation as a crime…). Moreover, common law systems cannot be distinguished from legal systems consisting solely of linguistic acts, since no legal system consists solely of linguistic acts. A civil justice system with a civil code and a penal code can make murder a criminal offense (and defamation a crime…) by a written act, and it can be a written constitution that gives the force of law to the civil code and the penal code. But the validity of the written constitution will depend on a norm that is not created by the use of signs: the rule that the action of the authors of the constitution to use this text to determine the constitution must be treated as authoritative.

[2] The « epistemic » arguments that the only way to resolve the paradox is to deny the truth of step 2 (so that inaccuracy is a problem of ignorance about where the sharp line passes between tires that are bare and those that are not) imply that there is always only one correct answer to the application of a law formulated in vague language. Arguments that the application of a vague term in borderline (or in some borderline cases) is indefinite imply that the application of a law that can be expressed in vague language is in some cases indefinite. However, it is even controversial whether such theories are important for the philosophy of law (Schiffer 2001 and 2021, Greenawalt 2001). In 1066, William (Duke of Normandy) defeated Prince Harold of the Anglo-Saxons at the Battle of Hastings and became ruler of England. The breed was known as Normans and they spoke French. They ruled England for three hundred years, from 1066 to 1366. They left a lasting influence on the language of England. So many legal terms and phrases from the French language have been borrowed from the English language. Over time, more and more Normans held positions of power in the courts, administration and civil service. In 1275, a law was promulgated in France.

According to this law, all court hearings must be conducted in English, but they must be recorded in French. All important documents in English have been translated into French. Around 1360, the power of the Normans began to decline. In 1362, another law was passed, stipulating that all court proceedings should be in English and that their recording should also be in English. In 1483, the first Act of Parliament came in English. In 1650, a law was passed that all trials, law books and judgments must be in English. Previous documents would also be translated into English. But the mix of French English and English has left a lasting impact on modern legal English. The dependence of the effect of legal language on context is an example of a general feature of communication that some philosophers of language have approached by distinguishing semantics from pragmatics. The distinction is roughly between the meaning of a word, phrase or other linguistic expression and the effect attributable to the use of the expression in a particular way by a particular user of the language in a particular context.

Cet article a été publié dans Non classé. Enregistrer le permalien.