discipline. First, all disciplines, including law, have a special vocabulary so it is
necessary to know the special vocabulary for the discipline in which you are
writing. Second, while any writing needs a good overall structure, the nature of
this structure varies from discipline to discipline. Thus the structure of a report
of an experiment in psychology would differ from the structure of a well
written judgment. Of these two points of difference between writing in law and
writing in other disciplines, the major difference
by a long way is overall
structure, so later discussion will emphasise this.
Since the 1970s many of the attempts to improve legal writing have taken place
under the rubric of plain language.
79
The spirit of this trend is well captured in
St Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians when he said: “Except you utter by
the tongue words easy to understand, how shall it be known what is
spoken?”
80
Emphasising the need for plain language has certainly improved
legal writing and heightened
the awareness of both lawyers and laity for legal
texts to be clearly written. By and large, however, the plain language movement
has focused on the area covered by Level 1 and Level 2 of the model. It has
scarcely touched Level 6, overall structure, which is the principal location of
problems with legal writing.
81
Level 1: Words
Level 1 Words
Choose the right words. Use words in their correct sense.
You can't find words for every thought They come a single time,
Like signal esoteric sips Of sacramental wine.
82
Introduction
Level 1 incorporates the premise that part of good writing is to choose the
right words and, by way of double indemnity, to use words in their correct
sense.
Here then is some general advice as well as discussion of three special
questions –
use of obscurantist words, use of foreign words and use of non
sexist language.
___________________
79
See Eagleson (1986A), Eagleson (1986B), Edmund (1992)
80
St Paul Corinthians
14:9, cited by Mahoney in Sheard 2003 p 111. On plain
language see Asprey (1996), Ball (1954), Butt and Castle (2001), Duckworth (2003),
Eagleson (1990), Duckworth (1996), Eagleson (1986A) and (1986B). For criticism of
plain English see Murray (1997). For discussion of legal language see Butt and
Castle (2001), Chaim (1983), Danet (1980), Duckworth (2003), Fairclough (1989),
Mellinkoff (1963), Radcliff (1965), Shuy (1986), Turnbull (1997).
81
Duckworth in Sheard (2003) p 93, when advocating plain language certainly
acknowledges the need for a clear overall structure when
saying that plain
language also is about “organising ideas so that they make more sense to the
reader”. The problem is that the plain language movement has not come up with
any solutions to the problems that legal writing has through lack of an overall
structure.
82
Emily Dickinson
 |
 |
 |