Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Power and Complexity in Legal Genres: Unveiling Insurance Policies and Arbitration Rules

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the present paper is to unveil whether the power distance/textual complexity duality attributed ordinarily to legal language applies to two different documents which are widely deployed, interpreted and applied in the global scope of commercial trade and communications, namely Lloyd’s Institute Cargo Clauses and the London International Court of Arbitration Rules. In choosing two texts which are the direct product of the law-making machinery of the Common law system, but which are used internationally, we ultimately undertake to research whether opacity is really inherent to legal texts in English with an international scope of implementation. To scrutinise, illustrate and argue on the degree of difficulty and power distance (and the relationship between these two) in such legal instruments, the perspective of genre has been chosen as the most effective of instruments provided by current Applied Linguistics. Genre analysis permits to identify the genre or genres of a specialised professional community connected to the communicative group it comes from, the audience that receives it, the historical and cultural background and the extra-textual reality it aims to represent. The goal of our study, carried out through different levels: formal, discursive and, mainly, pragmatic, is to discern whether there exists any possible equation between power and textual complexity, and the consequences this entails for the understanding of the nature of these major international texts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As Turner and Mostashami state at the time of their writing [49: 30], 70 % of the cases at the LCIA are governed by English law and <1 % are conducted in a language other than English.

References

  1. Alcaraz, Enrique, and Brian Hughes. 2002. Legal Translation Explained. New York: Routledge.

  2. Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. New York: Oxford University Press.

  3. Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.

  4. Bhatia, Vijay K. 2002. Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Ibérica 4: 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bhatia, Vijay K. 2004. Worlds of Written Discourse. London: Continuum.

  6. Bhatia, V.K., N.Christopher Candlin, and Maurizio Gotti (eds.). 2003. Arbitration in Europe: Legal Discourse in a Multilingual and Multicultural Context. Bern: Peter Lang.

  7. Biber, Donald. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  8. Borja, Anabel. 2000. El texto jurídico y su traducción al español. Barcelona: Ariel.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Borja, Anabel. 2007. Estrategias, materiales y recursos para la Traducción Jurídica. Castellón: Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad Jaume I.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Blom, Bjarne, and Anna Trosborg. 1992. An analysis of regulative speech acts in English contracts-Qualitative and quantitative methods. Hermes (Arhus) 8: 83–110.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  12. Cao, Deborah. 2007. Translating Law. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

  13. Crystal, David, and Derek Davy. 1969. Investigating English Style. London: Longman.

  14. Chromá, Martha. 2008. Semantic and legal interpretation: Two approaches to legal translation. In Language, Culture and the Law. The Formulation of Legal Concepts across Languages and Cultures. Linguistic Insights Series, vol. 64, ed. Vijay K. Bhatia, Christopher Candlin, and Paola Evangelisti Allori, 23–45. Bern: Peter Lang.

  15. Danet, Brenda. 1984. Studies in legal discourse. Special Edition of Text 4: 440–500.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Evangelisti Allori, Paola. 2004. International arbitration in different settings: Same or different practice? In Intercultural Aspects of Specialised Communication, ed. Christopher N. Candling, and Maurizio Gotti, 223–240. Bern: Peter Lang.

  17. Evangelisti Allori, Paola. 2008. The linguistic formulation of power. In Language, Culture and the Law. The Formulation of Legal Concepts across Languages and Cultures. Linguistic Insights Series, vol. 64, ed. Vijay K. Bhatia, Christopher Candlin, and Paola Evangelisti Allori, 75–97. Bern: Peter Lang.

  18. Fajans, Elizabeth, Mary R. Falk, and Helene S. Shapo. 2004. Writing for Law Practice. New York: Foundation Press.

  19. Focarelli, Carlo. 2012. International Law as Social Construct: The Struggle for Global Justice. Oxford: OUP.

  20. Garner, Bryan A. 2001. Legal Writing in Plain English. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  21. Garzone, Giuliana. 2000. Legal translation and functionalist approaches: A contradiction in terms? In La traduction juridique: Histoire, theorie(s) et pratique/Legal Translation: History, Theory/ies, Practice, 395–414. Bern/Geneva: ASTTI/ETI.

  22. Garzone, Giuliana. 2003. Arbitration rules across legal cultures: An intercultural approach. In Legal Language in Multilingual and Multicultural Contexts, ed. Vijay K. Bhatia, Christopher Candlin, and Maurizio Gotti, 177–220. Bern: Peter Lang.

  23. Garzone, Giuliana. 2008. International commercial arbitration rules as translated/rewritten texts: An intercultural perspective. In Language, Culture and the Law. The Formulation of Legal Concepts across Languages and Cultures. Linguistic Insights Series, vol. 64, ed. Vijay K. Bhatia, Christopher Candlin, Paola Evangelisti Allori, and Nagarajan Hemalatha, 47–75. Bern: Peter Lang.

  24. Gibbons, John. 2004. Taking legal language seriously. In Language and the Law, ed. John Gibbons, V. Prakasam, K.V. Tirumalesh, and Nagarajan Hemalatha, 2–20. New Delhi: Orient Longman.

  25. Gotti, Maurizio. 2005. Investigating Specialized Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.

  26. Gotti, Maurizio. 2008. The formulation of legal concepts in arbitration normative texts in a multilingual, multicultural context. In Language, Culture and the Law. The Formulation of Legal Concepts across Languages and Cultures. Linguistic Insights Series, vol. 64, ed. Vijay K. Bhatia, Christopher Candlin, and Paola Evangelisti Allori, 23–45. Bern: Peter Lang.

  27. Gotti, Maurizio. 2014. Interpersonality in mediation discourse. In Interpersonality in Legal Genres. Linguistic Insights Series, vol. 191, ed. Ruth Breeze, Maurizio Gotti, and Carmen Sancho Guinda, 303–328. Bern: Peter Lang.

  28. Gustafsson, Marita. 1975. Some Syntactic Properties of English Law Language. Turku, Finland: University of Turku, Department of English. (Publication No. 4).

  29. Harris, Sandra. 1995. Pragmatics and power. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 117–135.

  30. Hiltunen, Risto. 1984. The type and structure of clausal embedding in legal English. Text 4(1–3): 107–123.

  31. Jackson, Bernard. 1985. Semiotics and Legal Theory. London: Routledge.

  32. Klabbers Jan and Mortimer Sellers. 2008. The Internationalization of Law and Legal Education. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media.

  33. Lakoff, Roger T. 1990. Talking power: The Politics of Language. New York: Basic Books.

  34. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

  35. Lukács, Georg. 1971. Reification and the consciousness of the proletariat. In History and Class Consciousness, (trans: Rodney Livingstone), 83–222. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  36. Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law. Boston: Little Brown Co.

  37. Orts, María Ángeles. 2006. Aproximación al discurso jurídico en inglés. Madrid: Edisofer.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rodríguez, Carrión and L. José. 1992. Estudios de seguro marítimo. Barcelona: Bosch.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Salmi-Tolonen, Tarja. 2014. Interpersonality and Fundamental Rights. In Interpersonality in Legal Genres. Linguistic Insights Series, vol. 191, ed. Ruth Breeze, Maurizio Gotti, and Carmen Sancho Guinda, 303–328. Bern: Peter Lang.

  40. Searle, John R. 1976. The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1–24.

  41. Swales, John M. 1981. Definitions in science and law-evidence for subject-specific course component. Fachsprache 3(4): 106–111.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Swales, John M. 1985. Citation analysis and discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics 7(1): 40–56.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.

  44. Tessuto, Girolamo. 2008. Drafting laws in UK settings: Implementing plain language and discourse? 1–30. Federalismi.it. Rivista di Diritto pubblico italiano y comparato. Retrieved from http://www.federalismi.it/federalismi/document/08012008030941.pdf.

  45. Tetley, William. 2000. Mixed jurisdictions: Common law vs civil law (codified and uncodified). Retrieved from http://www.unidroit.org/english/publications/review/articles/1999-3htm.

  46. Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  47. Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Statutes and contracts: An analysis of legal speech acts in the English language of the law. Journal of Pragmatics 23: 31–53.

  48. Trosborg, Anna. 1997. Translating hybrid political texts. In Text Typology and Translation, vol. 26, ed. Trosborg, Anna, 145–345. London: John Benjamins.

  49. Turner, Peter, and Reza Mohtashami. 2009. A Guide to the LCIA Arbitration Rules. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  50. Vogt, Neimer P. 2004. Anglo-internationalisation of law and language: English as the language of the law? International Legal Practitioner 29: 1–17.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Traducción e Interpretación, Facultad de Letras., Universidad de Murcia, Plaza Sto Cristo s/n, 30071, Murcia, Spain

    María Ángeles Orts

Authors
  1. María Ángeles Orts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Ángeles Orts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Orts, M.Á. Power and Complexity in Legal Genres: Unveiling Insurance Policies and Arbitration Rules. Int J Semiot Law 28, 485–505 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9429-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9429-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation