Linguistic and Stylistic Features of Legal English in Translation
Abstract
With the quickening process of globalization of the world economy and after China‟s WTO accession, legal English, as a kind of professional English, is progressing rapidly in our country which is surely having more links with other countries in the world. Undoubtedly, there will be more and more legal documents that need to be translated. Legal English is a particular expressing mode and criterion formed gradually developed through a long process of judicial practice. To do well in the translation of English in law, it is crucial to understand its features. It has vivid features in words diction and sentence structure, and embodies the specialty, sobriety, preciseness and veracity of the legal language .
This paper, from the point of linguistics and stylistics, analyses the present situation of legal English, elaborates the features of English in translation of legal documents and summarizes its major stylistic features: accuracy, vagueness and speciality. It reiterates the idea that translation of legal documents requires the grasp of its linguistic features so it also explores those linguistic features in a systematic way .
Key words: linguistic features
stylistic features
legal English
translation
.
1. Introduction
“Legislative writing has acquired a certain degree of Notoriety rarely equaled by any other variety of English. It has long been criticized for its obscure expressions and circumlocutions，long-winded involved construction and tortuous syntax，meaningless repetitions and archaisms. To the specialist community these are indispensable linguistic devices which bring in precision，
clarity，unambiguity and all- inclusiveness and so on. However，to the non-specialist this is a mere ploy to promote solidarity between the members of the specialist community and to keep
non-specialists at a respectable distance and is hence regarded by them as nothing more than pure linguistic nonsense bringing into professional discourse pomposity, verbosity, flabbiness and circumlocution.”(Bhatia，1994:136)
This is a judgement given by Vijay Bhatia about the linguistic features of legislative writings in the first paragraph of his works Cognitive Structuring in Legislative Provisions. It talks about both the specific and unique lexical and syntactic features of the legislative text and also how these linguistic features count from the specialists and non-specialists perspectives. In recent years，there has been a continual process of simplification of the legislative language in the English-speaking countries.
However, despite these efforts at simplification and clarification, the gap between legislative text and everyday text is still very wide. Present day legislative text retains its identity as a highly specialized and distinctive text type or genre of English. The legislative texts of the legal systems
of England, Canada, the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand, which are derived from the English common law system, are manifestly similar. (Maley，1994:13) And now, deliberate discussion on the lexical as well as syntactic features of the legislative language will be given in the following part with an aim to guide the translation of this type of legal texts.
2. Lexical Features of Legal English
Archaic relics，including archaism，French and Latin expressions，are retained in English legislative texts to achieve precision. Also，it is there out of the convention left by the long history of English law. The institution of English law dated from the Norman Conquest. The Normans brought with them legal concepts and procedures，and thus the institution was established. The written language of the law after the Conquest was at first Latin and English. Later，Latin gained ground steadily and became the predominant language in law. And the Latin then in the institution，was not classical or Medieval Latin，but a variety of Latin which included many Latinizied English and Old French words. By the fourteenth century，French became the language of law. And it is not until 1650，by An Act for Turning the Books of the Law，and all processes and proceedings in Courts of Justice into English(455(1650) 11 Acts and Ordinances or the Interregnum) that English became the official language of the law. By that time，Old English(archaism)，Latin，Nomran-French and Middle English terms got fixed in the vocabulary of law. Over the cenutries，there has been a continual process Anglicisation，
but in vocabulary，particularly in the specialized，technical lexicon，the law，the effect of its varied origins is still apparent. (Maley，1994:11-13) And now，let‟s see some of the archaisms, words with Latin and French origins, technical terms and official words retained in the legislative texts.
Archaism
Frequent use of archaic words is one of the most remarkable featuers of legal language. Archaisms are the set of words used in the period 450-1100 AD，and the period 1100-1500 AD (Li，2003:17) and seldom appear in modern English，especially in the modern oral English. But they do remain in the legislative texts in light of the correctness and conservation of legislative language. Mellinkoff gave some archaisms that he considered to be the“daily bread” for the lawyers and“exposed to most non-lawyers on infrequent occasions”(1963:13):
aforesaid and forthwith
here words: hereafter，herein，hereof，heretofore，herewith
let，as in the law tautology，without let or hindrance
said and such as adjectives
there words: thereabout, thereafter, thereat, thereby, therefore, therein, thereon, thereto, theretofore, thereupon, therewith
wherewords, especially whereas used in recitals, and whereby witness, in the sense of testimony by signature, oath, etc., as in “ In witness whereof, I have set my hand, etc.”
witnesseth, meaning to furnish formal evidence of something, the Old English present indicative, third person singular verb form.
These words help ensure the accuracy and formalness of the legal texts.
Loan words
With the expansion of international exchanges and the accelerated trends of globalization，a
country will more or less be influenced by the outside world, so wll the language of the nation. The borrowing of“loan words” is a process in which both form and meaning are borrowed with only a slight adaptation to the phonological system of the new language in some cases. Legal English has used some words that have been borrowed from Latin，French，etc.
Words with Latin origin
Latin first permeated into English in 597 AD，and intermingled by large amount with English in the field of law，in the archaism period of the 14 and 15 AD (Li，2003:17). And since then，lots of English words with Latin sources remain in legal English，some of which are listed in the following table:
affirm(断言) veto(否决)
appeal(上诉) immune(免除的)
offence(犯罪) verdiet(裁决)
injury(伤害) litigant(诉讼人)
legal(合法的) register(注册)
custody(拘留) orbiter(仲裁人)
suppress(镇压) testimony(证词)
detention(拘留) negotiate(谈判)
homicide(杀人) Convict(宣告)
declaration(宣言) prosecute(对„起诉)
compensate(补偿) appellate(受理上诉的)
There are also Latin words retained in the legislative texts. Here is a list of Latin words basic to legislative texts:
jus retentiouis(留置权) per stirpes(代位继承)
obligatio solidaria(连带债务) confide jussio(共同保证)
words with French origin
Since 1154，Britain had been reined by France in the House of Plantagenet and French became the official language，widely used in palace, courts and schools. Lots of English words with French origins are reserved in the legislative texts today，such as:
bill(法案) petition(请愿)
suit(诉讼) summon(传票)
plea(抗辩) eyre(巡回法庭)
inquest(审讯) defendant(被告)
assize(巡回审判) attorney(律师)
complaint(控告) advocate(辩护者)
plaintiff(原告) judge(审判员，法官)
bar(法庭，审判台) hue and cry(通缉令)
indictment(告发，控告)
Technical terms
Lots of legal technical terms are used in legislative texts out of the requirement for the correctness and clearness of the legal concept. And there are usually two kinds of technical terms in legislative language: the first type is technical terms employed to express the concept of thth
common-core language in daily life; the second type is common-core vocabulary in daily life borrowed to define specific legal meanings in legal language. The former includes words like: tort(侵权) subrogation(代位权)
certiorari(上级法院向下级法院或准司法机构调取案卷的令状)，
while the latter contains the words like:
average(海损) minor(未成年人)
omission(不作为) review(复审)
limitation(诉讼实效) precedent(判例，先例)
affirmance(上级法院维持对下级法院的判决)
official words
Colloquial language is seldom used in legislative texts，and aggregation of big words and written language is one of the characteristics of legislative texts.There are many examples to demonstrate this point:
Terminated-end purchase-buy
Render-make proceed-go
request-task prior-earlier
desist-stop employ-use
amiable-friendly present-give
demonstrate-show commence-begin
The words on the left side of these groups are official words used in legislative texts，while the words on the right side of these groups having exact meanings with the words on the left，but being more colloquial and informal words used more in daily language.
Use of synonyms
As the function of legislation is conferring rights and imposing obligations, the use of synonyms helps make the denotation clearer and more precise. Generally speaking，synonyms cannot be replaced by each other in legal English. The difference between“misstatement” and “misrepresentation” is a good illustration of this point. For example，the directors of a company invited a loan from the public and stated that the money would be used to improve the company‟s buildings and to extend the business. The real intention of the directors was to use the money to pay off the company‟s debts.
In this case，is the statement of the directors to the public called “misstatement” or“misrepresentation”? It depends on the fact whether or not the public has made a contract with the company. If so，“mispresentation” should be used. If not，“misstatement” should be used instead.
3. Syntactic Features of Legal English
Besides lexicon，the syntactic structure of the legislative language is also unique. Unlike syntactic structures in other texts, complex-prepositions, binomial and multinomial expressions, nominalization，a large number and variety of qualifications are used in legislative texts. “The reason for this complexity appears to be that legislative is often trying to cover all possible combinations of conditions and contingencies. Language complexity increases greatly when an attempt is made to unify all these within the confines of a single sentence.”(John，1994:7) These Complicated syntactic features create barriers to effective understanding of legislative texts，yet
greatly to the clear，unambiguous and all-inclusive features of legislative texts. The following are syntactic features of legislative texts.
3.1 Use of long complicated sentences
In order to avoid misunderstandings and disputes，legal drafts sometimes have to arrange a lot of relevant information in different respects into the same sentence，thereby producing a prevalent phenomenon of long complicated sentences in legal texts. It is common to see a passage or an article that contains only one sentence，which asks for the legal translators‟ logical and clear understanding of all constituents of the sentence. Sometimes it is up to legal translators to put the long complicated sentences into compound sentences with objective clauses, adverbial clauses or attributive clauses for a well-ogranized and clear statement. Look at the follownig examples:
1) Chinese Original Version:
第二十四条 国家基于下列原因之一，可以限制国际服务贸易:
(一) 为维护国家安全或者社会公共利益;
（二）为保护生态环境;
（三）为建立或者加快建立国内特定的服务行业;
（四）为保障国家外汇收支平衡;
（五）法律、行政法规规定的其他限制。(《中华人民共和国对外贸易法》)
EnglishVersion:
Article24 The state may restrict international service trade on the basis of any of the following considerations:
(1) for safeguarding national security or public interests;
(2) for protecting ecological environment
(3) for establishing or speeding up the establishment of a particular domestic service
industry;
(4) for ensuring the state‟s balance of international receipts and payments; or
(5) other circumstances calling for such restrictions as provided by laws or administrative
rules and regulations.
We can see that the above article is made up of only one long sentence with several parallel subordinate clauses. This type of long sentence is comparatively easier for legal translators because the structure of the sentence is quite clear and well organized. In other words，legal translators have to pay more attention to the sentence structure and relations between the principal clause and the subordinate clause when the original sentence is rather long and complicated without a clear arrangement like the following example.
2) Chinese Original Version:
第十八条 国务院对外经济贸易主管部门应当会同国务院有关部门，依照本法第十六条、第十七条的规定，制定、调整并公布限制或者禁止进出口的货物、技术目录。
国务院对外经济主管部门或者由其会同国务院有关部门，经国务院批准，可以在本法第十六条、第十七条规定的范围内，临时决定限制或者禁止前款规定目录以外的特定货物、技术的进口或者出口。(ibid.)
English Version:
Article18 The competent department in charge of foreign economic relations and trade under the State Council shall，in collaboration with other relevant departments under the State Council, formulate，readjust and publicize the catalogue of goods and technologies whose import
or export is prohibited or restricted according to the provisions in Articles 16 and 17 of this Law. The competent department in charge of foreign economic relations and trade under the State Council may，independently or jointly with relevant departments under the StateCouncil，subject to the approval of the State Council and within the scope stipulated in Articles 16 and 17 of this Law，specially decide to restrict or prohibit the import or export of specific goods or technologies which are not included in the catalogue specified in the preceding paragraph.
This article consists of two sentences，including about 140 words，much longer than an ordinary sentence. Seemingly the sentence embodies lots of information that may be hard to be wholly included in the target sentence，but its main idea is clear: it‟s designed to vest the competent department in charge of foreign economic relations and trade and relevant departments within certain rights.
The over length of legal sentence mainly results from the use of the following items: conditional claused and relative claused. Besides, the use of other attributive and adverbial claused, prepositional phrases and non-finite form of verb is similarly for the sake of clarity and precision also contributes to the over length of legal sentence.
Conditional clauses are often used to express the fact-situation element of a legal rule, so they appear at a high frequency in legal English. For the sake of the rigor and logic of legal documents, it is often the case that more than one conditional clause is used in one sentence to include all the possible situations, which, therefore, results in the over length of sentences.
3.2 Use of nominalization
Use of nominalization is another syntactic feature of legal English. One of the salient features of difference between Chinese and English is their different preference for verbs and nouns respectively. English preference for nominalization is also embodied in legal texts. By using it, the subject of the sentence can be omitted and the sentence is given a formal style. For example:
1) 发生严重亏损，一方不履行合同和章程规定的义务、不可抗力等，„„可提前终止合同。
or the articles of association，or force majeure，the contract may be terminated„
2) 李明在中国居住期间没有受过刑事制裁。
Li Ming has committing offences against the criminal law during his residence in China.
3) 国家提倡劳动者参加社会义务劳动，开展劳动竞赛和合理化建议活动。
The state shall advocate the participation of laborers in social voluntary labor and the In the above three examples, “development” are key words of the noun phrases they are in. These words are used in place of verbs equivalent to the Chinese versions: “occur，lose，do not，be done，reside，participate， develop” with the success of expressing both the meaning of action and state.
3.3 Use of non-finites
Non-finites in English include present and past participles，most of which are used as post-modifiers in legal English. These non-finites can easily be replaced by attributive clauses or adverbial clauses of condition，time，place and manner in ordinary English. For example:
Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be liable for loss or damage or from seaworthy...
----Hague Rules，Article IV
Where the arbitrator is named or designated in the arbitration agreement, arbitral proceedings are commenced in respect of a matter when one party serves on the other party or parties a notice -----1996 Arbitration Act，Article14
3.4 Use of passive voice
Passive voice is another distinctive syntactic feature of legal English due to the objective and impersonal style of legal documents.
For example:
Athe case of a requiring the subscription of a corporation to be under seal.
--------English Marine Insurance Act 1996，24
3.5 Use of negative sentences
It is sometimes claimed that legal language has an unusual amount of negation. The profession‟s favoring of the negative may be related to the age-old notion that whatever is not explicitly forbidden is permissible. It is easier to tell people what they cannot do, rather than what they can. The law is primarily about what people cannot do. Consequently, it is logically phrased mainly in the negative.
The basic negative sentence pattern in legal English is indicated by “shall not” or“may not”. And the negative sentence pattern“nothing (no„)+shall/may” appears otfen in legal documents，which can be considered as a kind of strong negation. Negatives include not just words like “not” or“never” but any elements with negative meaning，like the prefix“mis-” in “misunderstand” or even semantic negatives like“deny”.
For example:
An application may not be made by a person before taking the appropriate procedural step (if any) to acknowledge the legal proceedings against him or after he has taken any step in those proceedings to answer the substantive claim.
3.6 Use of modal verbs
Modal verbs are frequently used in legal English to indicate rights and obligations. Modals like“may”，“shall”，and“must”，which carry the meanings of “permission, ordering and prohibition” (Kurzon，1986:20; Maley，1994:21) are employed to confer rights and impose obligations. Among the modals listed above，“shall”is mostly used. As an evidence，Sarcevic said in her works New approaches to Legal Translation “the English practice of imposing legal duties by the legal imperative shall is a longstanding practice dating back to English translations of Roman Law texts.”(Sarcevie，1997:138) A typical example will be the following:
If the total amount of the decrease under the foreign trade agreement does not exceed 15 per centum of the rate existing on January 1, 1955, the amount of decrease becoming initially -----Tarrif Code of 1930, Subtitle II，Part III, 1351
4. Sytlistic Features of Legal English
Language can be classified under five ranks，which are called styles. According to the changes in form caused by the difference in tenor，which is the reflection of the communicative relationship the participants want to build，the five styles are frozen，formal，consultative，casual and intimate. In accordance with such classification, Legal English belongs to the frozen style (Ji yiguang，1998). And in the linguistic circle the style of legal English is regarded to be solemn and rigid(SunWanbiao，2002:1). Legal English has its unique stylistic features，namely，precision，formalness，impassiveness，conciseness and vagueness.
Precision
Precision should be the primary requirement of the legislative writing, which allows of no ambiguity in interpreting the documents. The importance and seriousness attached to legal documents make it essential to avoid inaccurate words or unclear definitions in legal language. The precision of legal English is realized by the use of correct words, technical terms and sentence patterns free from loopholes and ambiguities.
Precision is the symbol of legal language‟s spirit and vitality and has been playing the dominant and foremost role in legal style.
In his On Legal Language, David Millinkoff (1963) says, “ Opposing themselves to „ the inherent ambiguity of language,‟ lawyers make many attempts at precision of expression”. Henry Weihofen (1961) has also made a similar statement: “ The lawyer must be more precise in his writing than almost anyone else. Most writers can expect their work to be read in good faith, that is, with an honest desire to understand what was meant. But the lawyer must write in constant fear of what we might call the reader in bad faith, the man looking for loopholes in the contract so as to avoid liability for his failure to perform, the disappointed heir who wants the will read in a way that would defeat the testator‟s intention, the criminal defendant who wants the statute interpreted so as not to cover his act, and all the others who will want to twist the meaning of words for their own ends”. In order to achieve exactness of reference, legal drafters spare no effort to explain everything clearly so that nothing disputable concerning the stipulation of rights or obligations should arise.
Formalness
Formalness is another stylistic feature of legal English. Laws or regulations, formulated by State organs to regulate people‟s behavior, are authoritative. In order to show their authority, the language used should be formal and free from colloquial words or expressions. The employment of Old or Middle English words or words of Latin or French origins and long and complex sentences contributes to the formalness of legal English.
Impassiveness
Unlike the language of the advertisement which employs its craftsmanship to arouse the potential consumers‟ strong desire to buy a certain product or service, the language of the law focuses on asserting a deterrent force. In order to creat an atmosphere of solemnity, the draftsman of laws tends to use many narrative sentences and imperative sentences, and avoids using descriptive modifiers to indicate the objectivity and the binding force of rules and regulations.
Conciseness
Shakespeare says, “ Brevity is the soul of wit”. It is especially true of legal language. Apart from precision, conciseness is another distinguishing feature of legal language, which means giving as much information as possible in as fewer words as possible. Henry Weihofen talked about conciseness in his book West Law:
“ Conciseness is particular important for lawyer. Lawyers, more than most writers, must say exactly they mean, no more and no less. Every additional word is one more potential source of ambiguity.”
“ We like a writer who can communicate his thoughts in a straight-forward way, without circumlocutions or redundancies.”
John Ray says like this: “ He that useth many words for the explaining of any subject doth, like the cuttlefish, hide himself for the most part in his own ink.” ( Chen Zhongcheng, 1998: 19)
Vagueness
Vagueness is an inescapable attibute of language. It is often an aid to precise communication and a functioning legal system depends on the existence of vagueness in language. Vagueness is not a deterrent but, rather, an indispensable element in the regulation of human conduct through legal rules. It is precisely this vagueness in language that often permits the law to perform so many of its social functions.
Impersonal writing
To achieve impartiality, which is one of the most important features of law, the language used should be impersonal and objective. Words with an emotional impact are to be avoided in legal language and the extensive use of passive voice also indicates the impassive feature of legal English. Moreover, in order to create an atmosphere of solemnity, the draftsman of laws tends to use many narrative sentences and imperative sentences, and avoids using descriptive modifiers to indicate the objectivity and the binding force of rules and regulations.
Bibliography
1. Black, Henry Compell. M.A. Balck’s Law Dictionary，West Publishing Corporation, 1979
2. Bhatia, V. K.“Cognitive structuring in legislative provisions”，in John Gibbons(ed), Language
and the Law, PP.136—155, Longman, 1994
3. Catford，John C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation，London:Oxford University Press，1965
4. Crystal，David and Davy，Derek，Investigating English Style，Longman，1969
5. Dubois，Carl D. Discourse Analysis，Philippines，1973
6. Frederick Schauer，Law and Language，New York University Press，1990
7. Hartmann，R.R.K.，and F.C. Stork. Dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Applied
Science，1972
8. Gibbons，John(ed)，Language and the Law，Longman，1994
9. Martha Faulk and Ivring M. Mether，the Elemens of Legal Writing，Macmillan Publishing
Company，1994
10. Maley，Yon，“The language of law” in John Gibbsons(ed)，Language and the law. New York:
Longman，PP.11--15，1994
11. Mellinkoff, David，The Language of the Law, Boston:Little, Brown and Company，1963
12. Newmark Peter, Approaches to Translation, Oxford: Pergamon，1982
13. Olivia Mok, Accessibility of Specialized Lexicon As Criterion for Quality Assessment of Legal
Translation, from Babel, Vol.41:4, pp.193-208, 1995
14. Peter M. Tiersma，Legal Language，The university of Chicago Press 1999
15. Trosbog, Anna, Rhetorical Strategies in Legal Language, Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen, 1997
16. 陈忠诚:《法窗译话》，中国对外翻译出版公司，1992
17. 陈忠诚:《法律用于正误辨析》，法律出版社，1998
18. 季益广:“法律英语的文体特点及英译技巧”，《中国翻译》，1998/5
19. 柯平:《对比语言学》，南京师范大学出版社，1999
20. 刘亦庆:《汉英对比与翻译》，江西教育出版社，1992
21. 连淑能:《英汉对比研究》，上海外语教育出版社，1993
22. 李华驹(主编):《大英汉词典》，外语教学与研究出版社，1998
23. 李剑波: 论法律英语的词汇特征《中国科技翻译》，2003第2期，16一21页
24. 毛浚纯:《案例分析和法规选读》，浙江大学出版社，2002
25. 孙万彪:《汉英法律翻译教程》，上海外语教育出版社，2004
26. 孙煞华，周广然:《法律语言学》，中国政法大学出版社，1997
27. 文旭:“语义模糊语翻译”，《中国翻译》，1996/2
28. 许余龙:《对比语言学》，上海外语教育出版社，2003
29. 朱义坤:《法律专业英语》，暨南大学出版社，1996
30. 《中华人民共和国对外贸易法》，北京:中国法制出版社，2003
Linguistic and Stylistic Features of Legal English in Translation
Abstract
With the quickening process of globalization of the world economy and after China‟s WTO accession, legal English, as a kind of professional English, is progressing rapidly in our country which is surely having more links with other countries in the world. Undoubtedly, there will be more and more legal documents that need to be translated. Legal English is a particular expressing mode and criterion formed gradually developed through a long process of judicial practice. To do well in the translation of English in law, it is crucial to understand its features. It has vivid features in words diction and sentence structure, and embodies the specialty, sobriety, preciseness and veracity of the legal language .
This paper, from the point of linguistics and stylistics, analyses the present situation of legal English, elaborates the features of English in translation of legal documents and summarizes its major stylistic features: accuracy, vagueness and speciality. It reiterates the idea that translation of legal documents requires the grasp of its linguistic features so it also explores those linguistic features in a systematic way .
Key words: linguistic features
stylistic features
legal English
translation
.
1. Introduction
“Legislative writing has acquired a certain degree of Notoriety rarely equaled by any other variety of English. It has long been criticized for its obscure expressions and circumlocutions，long-winded involved construction and tortuous syntax，meaningless repetitions and archaisms. To the specialist community these are indispensable linguistic devices which bring in precision，
clarity，unambiguity and all- inclusiveness and so on. However，to the non-specialist this is a mere ploy to promote solidarity between the members of the specialist community and to keep
non-specialists at a respectable distance and is hence regarded by them as nothing more than pure linguistic nonsense bringing into professional discourse pomposity, verbosity, flabbiness and circumlocution.”(Bhatia，1994:136)
This is a judgement given by Vijay Bhatia about the linguistic features of legislative writings in the first paragraph of his works Cognitive Structuring in Legislative Provisions. It talks about both the specific and unique lexical and syntactic features of the legislative text and also how these linguistic features count from the specialists and non-specialists perspectives. In recent years，there has been a continual process of simplification of the legislative language in the English-speaking countries.
However, despite these efforts at simplification and clarification, the gap between legislative text and everyday text is still very wide. Present day legislative text retains its identity as a highly specialized and distinctive text type or genre of English. The legislative texts of the legal systems
of England, Canada, the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand, which are derived from the English common law system, are manifestly similar. (Maley，1994:13) And now, deliberate discussion on the lexical as well as syntactic features of the legislative language will be given in the following part with an aim to guide the translation of this type of legal texts.
2. Lexical Features of Legal English
Archaic relics，including archaism，French and Latin expressions，are retained in English legislative texts to achieve precision. Also，it is there out of the convention left by the long history of English law. The institution of English law dated from the Norman Conquest. The Normans brought with them legal concepts and procedures，and thus the institution was established. The written language of the law after the Conquest was at first Latin and English. Later，Latin gained ground steadily and became the predominant language in law. And the Latin then in the institution，was not classical or Medieval Latin，but a variety of Latin which included many Latinizied English and Old French words. By the fourteenth century，French became the language of law. And it is not until 1650，by An Act for Turning the Books of the Law，and all processes and proceedings in Courts of Justice into English(455(1650) 11 Acts and Ordinances or the Interregnum) that English became the official language of the law. By that time，Old English(archaism)，Latin，Nomran-French and Middle English terms got fixed in the vocabulary of law. Over the cenutries，there has been a continual process Anglicisation，
but in vocabulary，particularly in the specialized，technical lexicon，the law，the effect of its varied origins is still apparent. (Maley，1994:11-13) And now，let‟s see some of the archaisms, words with Latin and French origins, technical terms and official words retained in the legislative texts.
Archaism
Frequent use of archaic words is one of the most remarkable featuers of legal language. Archaisms are the set of words used in the period 450-1100 AD，and the period 1100-1500 AD (Li，2003:17) and seldom appear in modern English，especially in the modern oral English. But they do remain in the legislative texts in light of the correctness and conservation of legislative language. Mellinkoff gave some archaisms that he considered to be the“daily bread” for the lawyers and“exposed to most non-lawyers on infrequent occasions”(1963:13):
aforesaid and forthwith
here words: hereafter，herein，hereof，heretofore，herewith
let，as in the law tautology，without let or hindrance
said and such as adjectives
there words: thereabout, thereafter, thereat, thereby, therefore, therein, thereon, thereto, theretofore, thereupon, therewith
wherewords, especially whereas used in recitals, and whereby witness, in the sense of testimony by signature, oath, etc., as in “ In witness whereof, I have set my hand, etc.”
witnesseth, meaning to furnish formal evidence of something, the Old English present indicative, third person singular verb form.
These words help ensure the accuracy and formalness of the legal texts.
Loan words
With the expansion of international exchanges and the accelerated trends of globalization，a
country will more or less be influenced by the outside world, so wll the language of the nation. The borrowing of“loan words” is a process in which both form and meaning are borrowed with only a slight adaptation to the phonological system of the new language in some cases. Legal English has used some words that have been borrowed from Latin，French，etc.
Words with Latin origin
Latin first permeated into English in 597 AD，and intermingled by large amount with English in the field of law，in the archaism period of the 14 and 15 AD (Li，2003:17). And since then，lots of English words with Latin sources remain in legal English，some of which are listed in the following table:
affirm(断言) veto(否决)
appeal(上诉) immune(免除的)
offence(犯罪) verdiet(裁决)
injury(伤害) litigant(诉讼人)
legal(合法的) register(注册)
custody(拘留) orbiter(仲裁人)
suppress(镇压) testimony(证词)
detention(拘留) negotiate(谈判)
homicide(杀人) Convict(宣告)
declaration(宣言) prosecute(对„起诉)
compensate(补偿) appellate(受理上诉的)
There are also Latin words retained in the legislative texts. Here is a list of Latin words basic to legislative texts:
jus retentiouis(留置权) per stirpes(代位继承)
obligatio solidaria(连带债务) confide jussio(共同保证)
words with French origin
Since 1154，Britain had been reined by France in the House of Plantagenet and French became the official language，widely used in palace, courts and schools. Lots of English words with French origins are reserved in the legislative texts today，such as:
bill(法案) petition(请愿)
suit(诉讼) summon(传票)
plea(抗辩) eyre(巡回法庭)
inquest(审讯) defendant(被告)
assize(巡回审判) attorney(律师)
complaint(控告) advocate(辩护者)
plaintiff(原告) judge(审判员，法官)
bar(法庭，审判台) hue and cry(通缉令)
indictment(告发，控告)
Technical terms
Lots of legal technical terms are used in legislative texts out of the requirement for the correctness and clearness of the legal concept. And there are usually two kinds of technical terms in legislative language: the first type is technical terms employed to express the concept of thth
common-core language in daily life; the second type is common-core vocabulary in daily life borrowed to define specific legal meanings in legal language. The former includes words like: tort(侵权) subrogation(代位权)
certiorari(上级法院向下级法院或准司法机构调取案卷的令状)，
while the latter contains the words like:
average(海损) minor(未成年人)
omission(不作为) review(复审)
limitation(诉讼实效) precedent(判例，先例)
affirmance(上级法院维持对下级法院的判决)
official words
Colloquial language is seldom used in legislative texts，and aggregation of big words and written language is one of the characteristics of legislative texts.There are many examples to demonstrate this point:
Terminated-end purchase-buy
Render-make proceed-go
request-task prior-earlier
desist-stop employ-use
amiable-friendly present-give
demonstrate-show commence-begin
The words on the left side of these groups are official words used in legislative texts，while the words on the right side of these groups having exact meanings with the words on the left，but being more colloquial and informal words used more in daily language.
Use of synonyms
As the function of legislation is conferring rights and imposing obligations, the use of synonyms helps make the denotation clearer and more precise. Generally speaking，synonyms cannot be replaced by each other in legal English. The difference between“misstatement” and “misrepresentation” is a good illustration of this point. For example，the directors of a company invited a loan from the public and stated that the money would be used to improve the company‟s buildings and to extend the business. The real intention of the directors was to use the money to pay off the company‟s debts.
In this case，is the statement of the directors to the public called “misstatement” or“misrepresentation”? It depends on the fact whether or not the public has made a contract with the company. If so，“mispresentation” should be used. If not，“misstatement” should be used instead.
3. Syntactic Features of Legal English
Besides lexicon，the syntactic structure of the legislative language is also unique. Unlike syntactic structures in other texts, complex-prepositions, binomial and multinomial expressions, nominalization，a large number and variety of qualifications are used in legislative texts. “The reason for this complexity appears to be that legislative is often trying to cover all possible combinations of conditions and contingencies. Language complexity increases greatly when an attempt is made to unify all these within the confines of a single sentence.”(John，1994:7) These Complicated syntactic features create barriers to effective understanding of legislative texts，yet
greatly to the clear，unambiguous and all-inclusive features of legislative texts. The following are syntactic features of legislative texts.
3.1 Use of long complicated sentences
In order to avoid misunderstandings and disputes，legal drafts sometimes have to arrange a lot of relevant information in different respects into the same sentence，thereby producing a prevalent phenomenon of long complicated sentences in legal texts. It is common to see a passage or an article that contains only one sentence，which asks for the legal translators‟ logical and clear understanding of all constituents of the sentence. Sometimes it is up to legal translators to put the long complicated sentences into compound sentences with objective clauses, adverbial clauses or attributive clauses for a well-ogranized and clear statement. Look at the follownig examples:
1) Chinese Original Version:
第二十四条 国家基于下列原因之一，可以限制国际服务贸易:
(一) 为维护国家安全或者社会公共利益;
（二）为保护生态环境;
（三）为建立或者加快建立国内特定的服务行业;
（四）为保障国家外汇收支平衡;
（五）法律、行政法规规定的其他限制。(《中华人民共和国对外贸易法》)
EnglishVersion:
Article24 The state may restrict international service trade on the basis of any of the following considerations:
(1) for safeguarding national security or public interests;
(2) for protecting ecological environment
(3) for establishing or speeding up the establishment of a particular domestic service
industry;
(4) for ensuring the state‟s balance of international receipts and payments; or
(5) other circumstances calling for such restrictions as provided by laws or administrative
rules and regulations.
We can see that the above article is made up of only one long sentence with several parallel subordinate clauses. This type of long sentence is comparatively easier for legal translators because the structure of the sentence is quite clear and well organized. In other words，legal translators have to pay more attention to the sentence structure and relations between the principal clause and the subordinate clause when the original sentence is rather long and complicated without a clear arrangement like the following example.
2) Chinese Original Version:
第十八条 国务院对外经济贸易主管部门应当会同国务院有关部门，依照本法第十六条、第十七条的规定，制定、调整并公布限制或者禁止进出口的货物、技术目录。
国务院对外经济主管部门或者由其会同国务院有关部门，经国务院批准，可以在本法第十六条、第十七条规定的范围内，临时决定限制或者禁止前款规定目录以外的特定货物、技术的进口或者出口。(ibid.)
English Version:
Article18 The competent department in charge of foreign economic relations and trade under the State Council shall，in collaboration with other relevant departments under the State Council, formulate，readjust and publicize the catalogue of goods and technologies whose import
or export is prohibited or restricted according to the provisions in Articles 16 and 17 of this Law. The competent department in charge of foreign economic relations and trade under the State Council may，independently or jointly with relevant departments under the StateCouncil，subject to the approval of the State Council and within the scope stipulated in Articles 16 and 17 of this Law，specially decide to restrict or prohibit the import or export of specific goods or technologies which are not included in the catalogue specified in the preceding paragraph.
This article consists of two sentences，including about 140 words，much longer than an ordinary sentence. Seemingly the sentence embodies lots of information that may be hard to be wholly included in the target sentence，but its main idea is clear: it‟s designed to vest the competent department in charge of foreign economic relations and trade and relevant departments within certain rights.
The over length of legal sentence mainly results from the use of the following items: conditional claused and relative claused. Besides, the use of other attributive and adverbial claused, prepositional phrases and non-finite form of verb is similarly for the sake of clarity and precision also contributes to the over length of legal sentence.
Conditional clauses are often used to express the fact-situation element of a legal rule, so they appear at a high frequency in legal English. For the sake of the rigor and logic of legal documents, it is often the case that more than one conditional clause is used in one sentence to include all the possible situations, which, therefore, results in the over length of sentences.
3.2 Use of nominalization
Use of nominalization is another syntactic feature of legal English. One of the salient features of difference between Chinese and English is their different preference for verbs and nouns respectively. English preference for nominalization is also embodied in legal texts. By using it, the subject of the sentence can be omitted and the sentence is given a formal style. For example:
1) 发生严重亏损，一方不履行合同和章程规定的义务、不可抗力等，„„可提前终止合同。
or the articles of association，or force majeure，the contract may be terminated„
2) 李明在中国居住期间没有受过刑事制裁。
Li Ming has committing offences against the criminal law during his residence in China.
3) 国家提倡劳动者参加社会义务劳动，开展劳动竞赛和合理化建议活动。
The state shall advocate the participation of laborers in social voluntary labor and the In the above three examples, “development” are key words of the noun phrases they are in. These words are used in place of verbs equivalent to the Chinese versions: “occur，lose，do not，be done，reside，participate， develop” with the success of expressing both the meaning of action and state.
3.3 Use of non-finites
Non-finites in English include present and past participles，most of which are used as post-modifiers in legal English. These non-finites can easily be replaced by attributive clauses or adverbial clauses of condition，time，place and manner in ordinary English. For example:
Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be liable for loss or damage or from seaworthy...
----Hague Rules，Article IV
Where the arbitrator is named or designated in the arbitration agreement, arbitral proceedings are commenced in respect of a matter when one party serves on the other party or parties a notice -----1996 Arbitration Act，Article14
3.4 Use of passive voice
Passive voice is another distinctive syntactic feature of legal English due to the objective and impersonal style of legal documents.
For example:
Athe case of a requiring the subscription of a corporation to be under seal.
--------English Marine Insurance Act 1996，24
3.5 Use of negative sentences
It is sometimes claimed that legal language has an unusual amount of negation. The profession‟s favoring of the negative may be related to the age-old notion that whatever is not explicitly forbidden is permissible. It is easier to tell people what they cannot do, rather than what they can. The law is primarily about what people cannot do. Consequently, it is logically phrased mainly in the negative.
The basic negative sentence pattern in legal English is indicated by “shall not” or“may not”. And the negative sentence pattern“nothing (no„)+shall/may” appears otfen in legal documents，which can be considered as a kind of strong negation. Negatives include not just words like “not” or“never” but any elements with negative meaning，like the prefix“mis-” in “misunderstand” or even semantic negatives like“deny”.
For example:
An application may not be made by a person before taking the appropriate procedural step (if any) to acknowledge the legal proceedings against him or after he has taken any step in those proceedings to answer the substantive claim.
3.6 Use of modal verbs
Modal verbs are frequently used in legal English to indicate rights and obligations. Modals like“may”，“shall”，and“must”，which carry the meanings of “permission, ordering and prohibition” (Kurzon，1986:20; Maley，1994:21) are employed to confer rights and impose obligations. Among the modals listed above，“shall”is mostly used. As an evidence，Sarcevic said in her works New approaches to Legal Translation “the English practice of imposing legal duties by the legal imperative shall is a longstanding practice dating back to English translations of Roman Law texts.”(Sarcevie，1997:138) A typical example will be the following:
If the total amount of the decrease under the foreign trade agreement does not exceed 15 per centum of the rate existing on January 1, 1955, the amount of decrease becoming initially -----Tarrif Code of 1930, Subtitle II，Part III, 1351
4. Sytlistic Features of Legal English
Language can be classified under five ranks，which are called styles. According to the changes in form caused by the difference in tenor，which is the reflection of the communicative relationship the participants want to build，the five styles are frozen，formal，consultative，casual and intimate. In accordance with such classification, Legal English belongs to the frozen style (Ji yiguang，1998). And in the linguistic circle the style of legal English is regarded to be solemn and rigid(SunWanbiao，2002:1). Legal English has its unique stylistic features，namely，precision，formalness，impassiveness，conciseness and vagueness.
Precision
Precision should be the primary requirement of the legislative writing, which allows of no ambiguity in interpreting the documents. The importance and seriousness attached to legal documents make it essential to avoid inaccurate words or unclear definitions in legal language. The precision of legal English is realized by the use of correct words, technical terms and sentence patterns free from loopholes and ambiguities.
Precision is the symbol of legal language‟s spirit and vitality and has been playing the dominant and foremost role in legal style.
In his On Legal Language, David Millinkoff (1963) says, “ Opposing themselves to „ the inherent ambiguity of language,‟ lawyers make many attempts at precision of expression”. Henry Weihofen (1961) has also made a similar statement: “ The lawyer must be more precise in his writing than almost anyone else. Most writers can expect their work to be read in good faith, that is, with an honest desire to understand what was meant. But the lawyer must write in constant fear of what we might call the reader in bad faith, the man looking for loopholes in the contract so as to avoid liability for his failure to perform, the disappointed heir who wants the will read in a way that would defeat the testator‟s intention, the criminal defendant who wants the statute interpreted so as not to cover his act, and all the others who will want to twist the meaning of words for their own ends”. In order to achieve exactness of reference, legal drafters spare no effort to explain everything clearly so that nothing disputable concerning the stipulation of rights or obligations should arise.
Formalness
Formalness is another stylistic feature of legal English. Laws or regulations, formulated by State organs to regulate people‟s behavior, are authoritative. In order to show their authority, the language used should be formal and free from colloquial words or expressions. The employment of Old or Middle English words or words of Latin or French origins and long and complex sentences contributes to the formalness of legal English.
Impassiveness
Unlike the language of the advertisement which employs its craftsmanship to arouse the potential consumers‟ strong desire to buy a certain product or service, the language of the law focuses on asserting a deterrent force. In order to creat an atmosphere of solemnity, the draftsman of laws tends to use many narrative sentences and imperative sentences, and avoids using descriptive modifiers to indicate the objectivity and the binding force of rules and regulations.
Conciseness
Shakespeare says, “ Brevity is the soul of wit”. It is especially true of legal language. Apart from precision, conciseness is another distinguishing feature of legal language, which means giving as much information as possible in as fewer words as possible. Henry Weihofen talked about conciseness in his book West Law:
“ Conciseness is particular important for lawyer. Lawyers, more than most writers, must say exactly they mean, no more and no less. Every additional word is one more potential source of ambiguity.”
“ We like a writer who can communicate his thoughts in a straight-forward way, without circumlocutions or redundancies.”
John Ray says like this: “ He that useth many words for the explaining of any subject doth, like the cuttlefish, hide himself for the most part in his own ink.” ( Chen Zhongcheng, 1998: 19)
Vagueness
Vagueness is an inescapable attibute of language. It is often an aid to precise communication and a functioning legal system depends on the existence of vagueness in language. Vagueness is not a deterrent but, rather, an indispensable element in the regulation of human conduct through legal rules. It is precisely this vagueness in language that often permits the law to perform so many of its social functions.
Impersonal writing
To achieve impartiality, which is one of the most important features of law, the language used should be impersonal and objective. Words with an emotional impact are to be avoided in legal language and the extensive use of passive voice also indicates the impassive feature of legal English. Moreover, in order to create an atmosphere of solemnity, the draftsman of laws tends to use many narrative sentences and imperative sentences, and avoids using descriptive modifiers to indicate the objectivity and the binding force of rules and regulations.
Bibliography
1. Black, Henry Compell. M.A. Balck’s Law Dictionary，West Publishing Corporation, 1979
2. Bhatia, V. K.“Cognitive structuring in legislative provisions”，in John Gibbons(ed), Language
and the Law, PP.136—155, Longman, 1994
3. Catford，John C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation，London:Oxford University Press，1965
4. Crystal，David and Davy，Derek，Investigating English Style，Longman，1969
5. Dubois，Carl D. Discourse Analysis，Philippines，1973
6. Frederick Schauer，Law and Language，New York University Press，1990
7. Hartmann，R.R.K.，and F.C. Stork. Dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Applied
Science，1972
8. Gibbons，John(ed)，Language and the Law，Longman，1994
9. Martha Faulk and Ivring M. Mether，the Elemens of Legal Writing，Macmillan Publishing
Company，1994
10. Maley，Yon，“The language of law” in John Gibbsons(ed)，Language and the law. New York:
Longman，PP.11--15，1994
11. Mellinkoff, David，The Language of the Law, Boston:Little, Brown and Company，1963
12. Newmark Peter, Approaches to Translation, Oxford: Pergamon，1982
13. Olivia Mok, Accessibility of Specialized Lexicon As Criterion for Quality Assessment of Legal
Translation, from Babel, Vol.41:4, pp.193-208, 1995
14. Peter M. Tiersma，Legal Language，The university of Chicago Press 1999
15. Trosbog, Anna, Rhetorical Strategies in Legal Language, Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen, 1997
16. 陈忠诚:《法窗译话》，中国对外翻译出版公司，1992
17. 陈忠诚:《法律用于正误辨析》，法律出版社，1998
18. 季益广:“法律英语的文体特点及英译技巧”，《中国翻译》，1998/5
19. 柯平:《对比语言学》，南京师范大学出版社，1999
20. 刘亦庆:《汉英对比与翻译》，江西教育出版社，1992
21. 连淑能:《英汉对比研究》，上海外语教育出版社，1993
22. 李华驹(主编):《大英汉词典》，外语教学与研究出版社，1998
23. 李剑波: 论法律英语的词汇特征《中国科技翻译》，2003第2期，16一21页
24. 毛浚纯:《案例分析和法规选读》，浙江大学出版社，2002
25. 孙万彪:《汉英法律翻译教程》，上海外语教育出版社，2004
26. 孙煞华，周广然:《法律语言学》，中国政法大学出版社，1997
27. 文旭:“语义模糊语翻译”，《中国翻译》，1996/2
28. 许余龙:《对比语言学》，上海外语教育出版社，2003
29. 朱义坤:《法律专业英语》，暨南大学出版社，1996
30. 《中华人民共和国对外贸易法》，北京:中国法制出版社，2003