In connection with the conference\u2019s topics of linguistic injustice and language usage, this presentation explores the effects some complex traits of legal discourse may have on how lay citizens find legal texts easier or more difficult to understand. Our study is underpinned by two relevant factors: first, the law affects people\u2019s lives in a wide range of ways and, second, any interaction with legal professionals or officials usually involves some degree of power asymmetry. In combination, both factors would mean that the use of abstruse, and sometimes unintelligible, language in the context of the law (as described by CMLJ 2011 or Montol\u00edo 2012 for Spanish, and by Mellinkoff 1963 or Wydick 2005 for English) could be considered an act of verbal aggression against the reader or listener. This supposition would also apply to many exchanges between governmental agencies and citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In particular, in this presentation we will focus on two of the linguistic properties which have usually been linked to intricate discourse in legal Spanish: long, convoluted sentences and passive-voice verbs (as found by CMLJ 2011). In order to find out how each of these characteristics, respectively, affects the way in or the extent to which a person understands a legal text, we will carry out an experiment involving a usability testing method (e.g. Schriver 1989, Dumas & Redish 1999, Jarrett & Redish 2020). In it, a sample of adults with no legal training will assess (by way of a comprehension test) two rewrites of an excerpt from a real Spanish legal text featuring long, elaborate sentences and passive-voice structures. Each of the rewrites will give prominence to only one of the two traits mentioned while neutralising the other one. The findings will allow us to advance hypotheses about which linguistic habits should be avoided to achieve a more effective and less imbalanced communication in the legal field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
REFERENCES<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– CMLJ (Comisi\u00f3n de Modernizaci\u00f3n del Lenguaje Jur\u00eddico). 2011. Informe de la Comisi\u00f3n de Modernizaci\u00f3n del Lenguaje Jur\u00eddico. Madrid: Ministerio de Justicia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Dumas, Joseph; Redish, Janice. 1999. A practical guide to usability testing. Exeter: Intellect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Jarrett, Caroline; Redish, Janice. 2020. \u201cHow to test the usability of documents.\u201d <https:\/\/www.uxmatters.com\/mt\/archives\/2020\/05\/how-to-test-the-usability-of-documents.php>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The language of the law. Boston\/toronto: Little, Brown and Company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Montol\u00edo, Estrella. 2012. \u201cLa situaci\u00f3n del discurso jur\u00eddico escrito espa\u00f1ol. Estado de la cuesti\u00f3n y algunas propuestas de mejora.\u201d Hacia la modernizaci\u00f3n del discurso jur\u00eddico: contribuciones a la I Jornada sobre la modernizaci\u00f3n del discurso jur\u00eddico espa\u00f1ol, edited by Estrella Montol\u00edo. Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicions Universitat de Barcelona. 65-91.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Schriver, Karen. 1989. \u201cEvaluating text quality: the continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods.\u201d IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 32(4). 238-255.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Wydick, Richard C. 2005. Plain English for lawyers. 5th. ed. Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keywords: <\/strong>legal language, legal Spanish, clarity, usability testing, legal communication.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Heather Adams y V\u00edctor Gonz\u00e1lez Ruiz In connection with the conference\u2019s topics of linguistic injustice and language usage, this presentation explores the effects some complex traits of legal discourse may have on how lay citizens find legal texts easier or … Continue reading