Chapter 1

C AN LEGAL LANGUAGE BE DEFINED A SCIENTIFIC

LANGUAGE ?

It is known that the principal work of a translator is to translate a message from one language into another, without changing the meaning. What is not so obvious, is how the translator may give concreteness to this semantic need. If translating means interpreting and rewriting, this would mean that a translator is completely free in lexicon and syntax choices so as to express perfectly the concepts to be translated. In reality, this theory does not nd conrmation in practical application, except for some specialized sectors. The main difculty in a translation or in a transposition (Didier 1980) is based on the lexicon choice. The translator nds himself in a dynamic process where he has the function of a cultural mediator between two languages. That is why, a good translator not only has to deeply know the target language but also needs to have a relevant ensemble of knowledge that could support new terminologies which could be translated in an appropriated way. This is quite easy for a literary translation, but clearly is more difcult in a specic or technical translation. As a matter of fact, in literary translation, the translator is quite free to decide about lexical, syntactical and cultural aspects from L1 to L2, adapting, thus, the text to the target culture. Even if there is always some sort of respect for the author, the 1

translator can decide whether it is the source text that has to approach the reader or vice versa. This is not possible in specic translation, most of all in legal translation. For ages, scholars have been debating on the scientic nature of the legal language and on the possibility to translate it as a medical, engineering or physics language. Several were the considerations and, nowadays, the debate is still open. If legal language is a scientic language there will not be many problems in making a transposition from one term to another. A translator, who translate a legal text, not only has to know law, but he need to know and compare both legal orders: it is the legal order that gives meaning the words. So, can law language or legal language be dened a scientic language? Danet (1985) claims that modern legal language has become so highly differentiated variety that one can debate whether it should be called a separate dialect, sub-language or register.

1.1

S OCIOLINGUISTIC ASPECTS AND L EXICAL FEATURES

It is important, at this point, to clarify some sociolinguistic aspects. The register denes the variety of language linked to the formal degree of the speech and the situational contest, characterized by different uses of phonetics, morpho - syntax and semantic elements of common language. To understand the eld of sub-language it is necessary to refer to Sobrero analysis. Sobrero has stated a taxonomy between special language, specialist language, sectorial language and micro-language. 1 It is difcult deciding which description we may adapt, because there are some problems of classication about the use: sectorial language may appear unclear; specialist language only refers to the use of this variety between specialists and it may appear exclusive, and micro language involves limitations or simplications with reference to common language. For this reason, in this terminological choice, we have to start from some considerations: each variety becomes more specic thanks to verbal language. The use of non-verbal language
1 Introduzione

allitaliano contemporaneo 1993

belongs to some sub varieties, which will be analyzed later. Special languages include differentiated varieties. The most important character of a sub-language or special language is to have a specialized lexicon, which amounts to a nomenclature, i.e. a collection of terms in which there is an explicit conceptual denition in a hierarchical taxonomy. With special languages (LSPs) or sub-languages (according to Berruto), Sobrero means a situational, functional contextual variety of language which is used to communicate particular subjects linked to a particular professional and employment activities as math, biology, linguistic, sports. Moreover, Sobrero makes another distinction. He argues that SL cover specialist language (LSP) of advanced specialization subjects (as medicine, linguistic, law, sciences), and sectorial language (LST) of sectorial or professional elds direct to a more different and wide public (as the media language, bureaucratic language and fashion language). As I have already said, the most important difference between LSP and LST concerns lexicon: LSPs have a specic lexicon and conventional drawn up and accepted rules; LSTs, instead, have a more reduced specic lexicon which is often integrated with some expressions and words from LSP and common language. This peculiarity belongs to the ways and the purposes of their use. LST messages reach public through media: the low specialized lexicon and the close contact with common language are due to the necessity to reach a wide and undifferentiated public. On the contrary, LSPs can maintain a high specialized lexicon, because the message divulgation is more limited and targeted. After these considerations, it is necessary to introduce Gottis research concerning specialized discourse (SD), thus introducing, some clarications. Gotti argues that special language and special discourse should be kept separate because the latter, is distinguished from general language not for its use of special linguistic rules absent from general language, but for its quantitatively greater and pragmatically more specic use of such conversations (Gotti 2005). For this reason, specialized discourse reects more clearly the specialist use of language

contexts which are peculiar of a specialized community2 extending across the academic, the professional, the technical areas of knowledge and practice and stressing the type of user and the domain of use, as well as the special application of the language in that setting. These factors have been presented by Gregory/Carroll (1978) who classify all registers according to the mode, the eld, and the tenor: the mode mainly concerns the channel and the medium of communication; the tenor concerns the relationship between participants; the eld regards the object of communication. It is clear that the use of specialized terminology depends on the speakers profession and his presumed knowledge of lexicon. Therefor, it is supercial to make a distinction based only on special lexicon among several specialized languages. A part from special lexicon, disciplinary variations, also highlights semantic and functional prerogatives of a specialized discourse. As In general language, common rules and features of a specialized discourse coexist making, thus, a distinction in the eld of specialized languages. So, it is clear that the presence of a specialist is not enough to assure a specialized use of a language, but there are some situations in which a specialist can address a topic relating to his profession. Widdowson (1979) dened these different uses of language: the rst case, named as scientic exposition, is when a specialist address other specialists to debate issues regarding his disciplinary eld. In this case the author can use frequently specialized terminology whose semantic value is not seen as so special, as for example report results, a description of a research project . In spite of semantic opacity, specialized discourse has an essential communicative function, which is referred to any type of text. The second case, named scientic instruction, is when a specialist address non-specialists to explain notions which belong to his discipline , as academic books or instruction manuals. The third case, named scientic journalism, is when a specialist gives informations of technical nature using everyday lexicon. In this case, the intention of the specialist is to reach a wider audience, mainly through newspaper or magazine articles to argue
2 the features and forms of specialized texts recognized and shared by the members of a specic

professional groups

scientic or technical informations. However, some scholars have added a fourth level, the formalisation or condensation into formulae clearly different from the ones mentioned before, because is preferable to use of non-verbal elements to verbal language. This is possible in some scientic textbooks as botanical, chemical or physical ones. In this case, the constant presence of non-verbal elements makes the deep structure of such texts, forming the basis of a specialized discourse, universal and independent from any single language. According to Sager Dungworth McDonald (1980) the three fundamental characters of a LSP and of a SD are: pertinence, economy, precision. They point out that these three criteria belong to the general language and, most of all, to the specialized communicative process, underlining that if economy and precision conict, the criterion of pertinence (appropriateness) becomes decisive.3 Hoffmann (1984) makes a more detailed list, which delineate eleven characteristics: 1. Fidelity, simplicity and clarity; 2. Objectivity; 3. Abstract; 4. Generalisation; 5. Information density; 6. Brevity; 7. Lack of ambiguity; 8. Neutral effective; 9. Impersonality;
3 appropriateness is the measure of the effectiveness of the intention as it is expressed and understood in a message and, at the same time, it arbitrates between precision and economy . It decides the amount and type of cognitive effort involved in a speech act therefore inuences the presupponitions that can be made about prior knowledge (Sager Dungworth McDonald 1980)

10. Logic coherence; 11. Use of technical terms, symbols and gure.

This list gives an overview of the characteristics studied by various scholars. It is important to underline that not all the criteria mentioned can be assign to all specialized languages. Indeed, some of these characteristics can overlap (as, for example, objectivity/neutral effective/impersonality or objectivity/ lack of ambiguity), so it is necessary to make, not only a taxonomy but also a hierarchy of the linguistic peculiarity of a LSP. Certainly, precision and neutral effective are the most important distinctive elements of this hierarchy. The main problem of a LSP is lexicon i.e. to name in an unmistakable way, concepts, objects, activities belonging to everyday language. In this context, monoreferentiality gains considerable importance: every term must have a single referent, therefore, a single meaning. To save any type of ambiguity, both synonimy and polysemy are removed. With regard to this, a LSP writer or speaker can use a single specialized term to express a concept whenever he wants in the same text, without being troubled about repetitions. Monoreferentiality is clearly limited to the disciplinary eld in which a term is employed. Each specialized eld adopts specic languages that contain lexical items occurring in other disciplinary contexts. Linked to monoreferentiality, there is the lack of emotion. By denition, every terms of LSPs must refer, directly, to the specic meaning without any intermediation and must also avoid any effective connotations.4 The tone of LSP is usually neutral, because the informative purpose of LSP prevails over all the typical characteristics of general language . As a matter of fact, the lack of emotion stands out whenever a text is mainly informative. Another important characteristic of LSPs is transparency. Therefore, every LSPs result as a systematic and standardize process. As a systematic and standardize process, conciseness is another important criterion
the term HIV, the medical specialist refers only to the virus name without making any emotive reference which, inevitably, a general speaker can make.
4 With

of LSP. Conciseness means expressing concepts in the shorter possible form. Four are the procedures adapting to improve the LSP transparency and conciseness:

1. making use of non - integrated borrower (i.e. foreign words in their original form) or loan translation. English, Latin and Greek are the most frequent languages; 2. creation of neologisms. Using several possible combinations, it is possible to create a large number of neologisms useful to the language economy: neologism requires the use of few lexical units, moreover, it creates perfect transparent terms; 3. making use common language terms giving them a different meaning, usually more specialized so as to make them objective; 4. the creation of acronyms and abbreviations, which are used as full word and have a completely autonomous meaning (for example LASER Light Amplication by Stimulated Emission of Radiation).

In spite of the features analyzed before, many texts show frequent violations of these criteria. As regard to the monoreferentiality, many texts present cases of ambiguity and polysemy. Sometimes this ambiguity is not organized, but in other cases it is the authors choice. Also imprecision is an aspect that is often present. The most relevant characteristic of LSP or SD is redundancy due to a repetitive use of specialist lexicon. It is obvious that it is a violation of conciseness.

1.2

S YNTACTIC FEATURES

Another important aspect that is important to analyse is the syntactic features of SD and LSP. The most distinctive feature of LSP and SD is their syntax, which

is extremely compact, a clear conrmation of the principle of conciseness. A common way to make a sentences so compact is to omit one of its constituents. The value of any omitted elements can be reconstructed with reference to the readers knowledge. In a LSP sentence several elements can be omitted as articles, propositions, auxiliaries, others can be replaced. In specialized texts, it is common the substitution of relative clauses with adjectives which give additional meaning or relative clauses, contain a passive form, the subject and the auxiliary can be omitted. This is frequent when the relative clause refers to a previous concept. Prexes and sufxes adopted have precise semantic values which can interpret the communicative function. Another way to simplify relatives clauses is to change the verb of the clause in a present participle. This strategy is often used also in Italian specialized texts because the present participle can assume several syntactical functions as adjectival, nominal and synthetic one. In LSP this synthetic function is greatly appreciated both because reects the conciseness criterion and offers the possibility to create compound names. The extreme simplication of the relative clauses in a specialized text shows the premodication phenomenon. Premodication is more easily to understand analysing the English syntactic rules because this language allow several adjectival phrasal elements. As a matter of facts a distinctive aspect of English is the use of nominal adjectivation i.e. the use of a noun to specify another with an adjectival function. Although specialists prefer nominal adjectivation, this phenomenon caused, at times, ambiguity and loss of conceptual clarity. A polysemous premodier can refers to several meaning. For example, the compound building supervisor can be interpreted in two different ways because of the double nature of the term building: a construction but also the action of erecting it. The ambiguity created is often apparent rather then real because specialists knowledge address them to their meaning choices. The new sentence including this noun compound becomes conceptually richer and syntactically shorter and more compact; the combination of the two terms produces not only a simple union of concepts already existed but premodication process often gives the birth to a

new concept adding new meaning and semantic value. In addition to nominal adjectivation, there is the nominalization. This phenomenon involves the use of a noun instead of a verb to communicate concepts relating to actions. Specialists tend to simplify the structure of which are minimized into simple patterns. Nominalization is used frequently both in specialized discourse and in general language giving the possibility to emphasize verbal action through thematisation. The consequence of the frequent nominalization increases lexical density i.e. a high number of words within a text. Lexical density occurs especially in written texts; discourse has a more neutral style, concepts are made more explicit and required more noun phrases, thus, text is made less compact. Nominalization point out some problems. First of all, the extremely simplication of syntactic structure caused problems of interpretation, secondly the several noun phrases create very long sentence. This is a typical aspect of legal texts. Sentence length of legal texts is due to the high number of elements required to reduce, almost at all, the ambiguity and misunderstanding. Finally, scholars have deeply investigated on the considerable use of passive verbs in English SD and LSP. The passive form emphasizes the depersonalisation of specialized text and helps making a previous information more effective and neutral. Depersonalisation conrms not only the empirical approach but also some common feature of a specialized text. The author, for example, refers to himself through third-person pronoun or noun phrases (as the author, the research team) or expresses his personal views personifying the type of texts (the book investigates, this article demonstrates). This trend is observed not only in the omission of the subject - speaker but also in the reduction of any direct reference to the interlocutor.

1.3

T EXTUAL G ENRES AND F EATURES

There is usually a close link between the type of specialized texts and its structure, which implies a number of correlations between conceptual, rhetorical and linguistic features, that characterize the text itself. During the 16th - 17th - cen-

turies there was a considerable growth of scientic articles and newspaper and academic texts, which explain the success and the necessity of shorter and more easily divulgated texts, unlike other less manageable genres (as treaties, dissertation, textbook). Though the high number of text genres in use, new text genre are added to the list every year.5 Such of this conditions analyzed before, are followed up close in specialized text, especially in English legal document. In the next chapter legal LSP characteristics will be analyzed following the elements previously presented. At this point it is necessary make an explication of the development of the English LSP. During the 17th, several scholars have supposed that English was inadequated for the needs of men of science, both from a quantitative and a qualitative point of view. Contrary to what they said, British scientists made a great effort to increase the specialized lexicon and to improve the accuracy of their meaning. Two main principles were followed in the creation of new terms: rstly making use of native tongue to give a specialized meaning to an existing word, secondly borrowing a similar term form a foreign language, in particulary from Latin. Adopting the loan, the translator usually adapted the word to the morphological features of the receiving language. For example Latin words ending in -atio were adapted with the sufx -ation and other Latinate terminations commonly used in English language (as -ence, -ity, -ment, -ous). This process of borrowing did not only involved the adaptation of single words, but also of prexes and sufxes, which were used frequently to create new words. Although this advantages, Latinate form were often criticized because of their excessive and unjustied use. Many scholars and scientist were reproached for the limited or non
One of this new type of text is the executive summary, written for managers. In the business world, there is the need to economize in time means that executives avoid reading long papers or reports asking, thus, a summary of the main point for make decisions. Another new type of specialized texts is the abstract i.e. the summary of an article published in scholary journal or of papers presented at a conference. The abstract addresses readers in their choices with a short summary that shows whether a topic is relevant.
5

- existent knowledge of Latin. As we have already seen, another criterion to create new terminology were based on the principle of the transparency, which is fundamental for LSP. The transparency of new terms was due to the brevity of English words. In fact the monosyllables could be easily linked to form compounds creating, thus, originally words. This phenomenon were useful to avoid the use of metaphors which created opacity and crossed the criterion of conciseness. In conclusion, the analysis carried out during 17th - century, has underlined the great increase of English language in specialized texts thanks to the suitability of this language to express any kind of subjects. The addition of meanings to terms already in use, the derivation from existing lexical items has guaranteed the increase of the English as a LSP.