Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T07:13:34.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is legal English “going European”? The case of the simple present

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Christopher Williams
Christopher Williams*
Affiliation:
Foggia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many countries in continental Europe the simple present is extensively used in main clauses in legislative texts to express obligation. Several English-speaking legal systems have witnessed an increased usage of the simple present in legal English over the last few decades, largely at the expense of shall. I examine the continuing debate among law scholars and writers of legal drafting manuals over the adoption of the simple present in prescriptive texts in English. I conclude by observing that the decision in some countries to do away with shall would appear to be linked principally to socio-pragmatic factors relating to the way this modal auxiliary is perceived in many parts of the English-speaking world today, that is, as being outdated and smacking of “legalese”, a style of legal writing that plain language exponents have been trying to eliminate.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans bien des pays de l’Europe continentale le présent simple est abondamment utilisé dans les propositions principales de textes législatifs pour exprimer l’obligation. Depuis quelques décennies, on remarque dans plusieurs systèmes juridiques anglophones un emploi accru du présent simple, en bonne partie aux dépens de shall. J’examine le débat en cours parmi les spécialistes en droit et les auteurs de manuels de rédaction juridique à l’égard de l’adoption du présent simple dans des textes normatifs anglais. Je note que la décision dans certains pays d’éliminer shall semble relever de facteurs socio-pragmatiques quant à la manière dont cet auxiliaire modal est perçu dans bien des parties du monde anglophone d’aujourd’hui; c’est-à-dire, shall est perçu comme étant périmé et faisant partie du jargon juridique, un style de rédaction que les partisans du langage clair et simple (plain language), essaient d’éliminer.

Keywords

legal Englishsimple presentshallplain languagedraftinganglais juridiqueprésent simpleshallplain languagerédaction
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 58 , Issue 1: Temporal and modal dimensions of legal discourses , March 2013 , pp. 105 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2013

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

Adams, Kenneth A. 2004. A manual of style for contract drafting. 1st ed. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Adams, Kenneth A. 2013. A manual of style for contract drafting. 3rd ed. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Asprey, Michele. 2010. Plain language for lawyers. 4th ed. Annandale, NSW: Federation Press.Google Scholar
von Bar, Christian, Eric Clive, and Hans Schulte-Nolke, eds. 2009. Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law: Draft common frame of reference. Munich: Sellier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cooper, Paul Kendall. 2011. Is there a case for the abolition of “shall” from EU legislation? RGSL Research Papers 1. Available at: www.rgsl.edu.lv/images/stories/publications/1_cooper_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Day, Lena. 2007. Plain English in Quebec legislation. Canadian Parliamentary Review 30(1). Available at: www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?art=1232\&param=180.Google Scholar
Department of Justice (Canada). 2009. Available at: canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/Iegis/n47.html.Google Scholar
Elliott, David. 1992. Legislating plain language. Paper presented at the Just Language Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, 23 October. Available at: www.davidelliott.ca/plainlanguage.htm.Google Scholar
Erasmus, Janet E. 1997. Cleaning up our acts: B.C. statute revision makes room for plain language changes. Clarity 38: 3–5.Google Scholar
European Commission Directorate-General for Translation. 2012. English style guide: A handbook for authors and translators of the European Commission. 7th ed. Available at: ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Foley, Richard. 2001. Going out of style? Shall in EU legal English. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference, ed. Rayson, Paul, Wilson, Andrew, McEnery, Tony, Hardy, Andrew, and Khoja, Shereen, 185–195. University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
Goldfarb, Neal. 2013. “Always speaking?” Interpreting the present tense in statutes. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. This volume.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HM Revenue and Customs. 2010. Tax Law Rewrite Project. Available at: www.hmrc.gov.uk/rewrite/.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2006. On Swedish future constructions. Proceedings of the 6th High Desert Linguistics Society meeting, 100–124. Albuquerque: High Desert Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. 2002. The verb. In The Cambridge grammar of the English language, ed. Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 71–212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimble, Joseph. 1992. The many misuses of shall. The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing 3: 61–77.Google Scholar
Kimble, Joseph. 2010. Two drafting examples from the proposed new Federal Rules of Evidence. Clarity 63:34–39. Available at: www.clarity.shuttlepod.org/Resources/Documents/No_63_plus_attach.pdf.Google Scholar
Knight, Phil. 1996. Clarity in South Africa. Clarity 34:20–22.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian, and Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maley, Yon. 1987. The language of legislation. Language and Society 16: 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowat, Christine. 2002. Plain language — The international pilgrimage. Fourth Biennial Conference Proceedings of Plain Language Association International. Available at: www. nald.ca/library/research/plain2/pilgrimg/pilgrimg.pdf.Google Scholar
Office of Parliamentary Counsel (Australian Government). 2003. Plain English manual. Available at: www.opc.gov.au/about/docs/pem.pdf.Google Scholar
Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (UK Government). 2011. Drafting guidance. Available at: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/opc-drafting-guidance.pdf.Google Scholar
Office of the Scottish Parliamentary Counsel. 2006. Plain language and legislation. Available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/93488/0022476.pdf.Google Scholar
Parliamentary Counsel Office (New Zealand Government). 2009. Principles of clear drafting. Available at: www.pco.parliament.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/pdf/clear-drafting.pdf.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Lee 2012. The story of “shall”: A parable of plain language. Clarity 68:7–12.Google Scholar
Šarčević, Susan. 2000. New approach to legal translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Stephens, Cheryl. 1999. A crash course in plain language legal drafting. Available at: cherylstephens.com/professional/communication/Crashcourse\%20in\%20pld.pdf.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Ruth. 2001. The promise of plain language drafting. McGill Law Journal 47:97–128.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Ruth. 2008. Sullivan on the construction of statutes. 5th ed. Markham: LexisNexis Canada.Google Scholar
Uniform Law Conference of Canada. 2010. Report of the committee appointed to prepare bilingual legislative drafting conventions for the Uniform Law Conference of Canada (Majority Report). Available at: www.ulcc.ca/en/uniform-acts-en-gb-1/546-drafting-conventions.Google Scholar
Uniform Law Conference of Canada. 2012. Welcome. Available at: ulcc.ca/en/poam2/8StudyPaperconflictsoflaws\%Succession\%20matters.pdf.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2005. Tradition and change in legal English: Verbal constructions in prescriptive texts. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2006. Fuzziness in legal English: What shall we do with “shall”? In Legal language and the search for clarity, ed. Wagner, Anne and Cacciaguidi, Sophie, 237–263. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2007. Crossovers in legal cultures in Westminster and Edinburgh: Some recent changes in the language of the law. ESP Across Cultures 4:101–118.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2009. Legal English and the “modal revolution”. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Modality in English, ed. Busuttil, Pierre, Salkie, Raphael, and Auwera, Johan van der, 199–210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2010. Functional or dysfunctional? The language of business contracts in English. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 3:217–227.Google ScholarPubMed
Williams, Christopher. 2013. Changes in the verb phrase in legislative language in English. In The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora, ed. Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey, and Wallis, Sean, 353–371. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar