Advertisement

Controlling Ambiguities in Legislative Language

  • Alexandra Bünzli
  • Stefan Höfler
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7175)

Abstract

Legislative language exhibits some characteristics typical of languages of administration that are particularly prone to eliciting ambiguities. However, ambiguity is generally undesirable in legislative texts and can pose problems for the interpretation and application of codified law. In this paper, we demonstrate how methods of controlled natural languages can be applied to prevent ambiguities in legislative texts. We investigate what types of ambiguities are frequent in legislative language and therefore important to control, and we examine which ambiguities are already controlled by existing drafting guidelines. For those not covered by the guidelines, we propose additional control mechanisms. Wherever possible, the devised mechanisms reflect existing conventions and frequency distributions and exploit domain-specific means to make ambiguities explicit.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Prepositional Phrase Lexical Ambiguity Semantic Ambiguity Explicit Version 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, K.A., Kaye, A.S.: Revisiting the ambiguity of “And” and “Or” in legal drafting. St. John’s Law Review 80(4) (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASD: ASD Simplified Technical English: Specifications ASD-STE100. AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe, Simplified Technical English Maintenance Group (ASD STEMG) (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernth, A.: EasyEnglish: A tool for improving document quality. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, pp. 159–165. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morriston (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bratschi, R.: “und” vs. “sowie”. Redaktionsbeispiel vom 19 (August 2010) (unpublished)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caussignac, G., Eberhard, C., Häusler, P., Kettiger, D., Pulitano, D., Schneider, R.: Rechtsetzungsrichtlinien des Kantons Bern, Modul 3: Rechtsetzungstechnische Richtlinien (RTR). Justiz-, Gemeinde- und Kirchendirektion und Staatskanzlei des Kantons Bern, Bern (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caussignac, G., Eberhard, C., Häusler, P., Kettiger, D., Pulitano, D., Schneider, R.: Rechtsetzungsrichtlinien des Kantons Bern, Modul 4: Sprache. Justiz-, Gemeinde- und Kirchendirektion und Staatskanzlei des Kantons Bern, Bern (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark, P., Harrison, P., Jenkins, T., Thompson, J., Wojcik, R.: Acquiring and using world knowledge using a restricted subset of English. In: FLAIRS 2005, pp. 506–511 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Europäische Kommission, Luxemburg, Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaften: Gemeinsamer Leitfaden des Europäischen Parlaments, des Rates und der Kommission für Personen, die in den Gemeinschaftsorganen an der Abfassung von Rechtstexten mitwirken (2003), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/de/techleg/index.htm
  9. 9.
    Fuchs, N.E., Kaljurand, K., Kuhn, T.: Attempto Controlled English for Knowledge Representation. In: Baroglio, C., Bonatti, P.A., Małuszyński, J., Marchiori, M., Polleres, A., Schaffert, S. (eds.) Reasoning Web. LNCS, vol. 5224, pp. 104–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoefler, S., Bünzli, A.: Controlling the language of statutes and regulations for semantic processing. In: Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on Semantic Processing of Legal Texts (SPLeT 2010), Valletta, Malta, pp. 8–15 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iluk, J.: Die Verständlichkeit der deutschen, österreichischen, schweizerischen und polnischen Verfassung, Versuch einer komparatistischen Analyse. In: Eichhoff-Cyrus, K.M., Antos, G. (eds.) Verständlichkeit als Bürgerrecht? Die Rechts- und Verwaltungssprache in der öffentlichen Diskussion, pp. 136–154. Dudenverlag, Mannheim (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaljurand, K.: Paraphrasing controlled English texts. In: Fuchs, N.E. (ed.) Pre-Proceedings of the Workshop on Controlled Natural Language (CNL 2009). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 448, CEUR-WS (April 2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lehrndorfer, A.: Kontrolliertes Deutsch. Linguistische und sprachpsychologische Leitlinien für eine (maschinell) kontrollierte Sprache in der Technischen Dokumentation. No. 415 in Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lehrndorfer, A., Schachtl, S.: Controlled Siemens Documentary German and TopTrans. Technical Communicators Forum 3 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lötscher, A.: Multilingual law drafting in Switzerland. In: Grewendorf, G., Rathert, M. (eds.) Formal Linguistics and Law. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, pp. 371–400. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nussbaumer, M.: Zwischen Rechtsgrundsätzen und Formularsammlung: Gesetze brauchen (gute) Vagheit zum Atmen. In: Bhatia, V.K., Engberg, J., Gotti, M., Helier, D. (eds.) Vagueness in Normative Texts, Linguistic Insights. Studies in Language and Communication, vol. 23, pp. 49–71. Peter Lang, Bern (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nussbaumer, M.: Rhetorisch-stilistische Eigenschaften der Sprache des Rechtswesens. In: Fix, U., Gardt, A., Knape, J. (eds.) Rhetorik und Stilistik / Rhetoric and Stylistics. Ein Internationales Handbuch Historischer und Systematischer Forschung / An International Handbook of Historical and Systematic Research, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science / [HSK] 31/2, ch. 128, vol. 2 (Halbband), pp. 2132–2150. Mouton de Gruyter (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Brien, S.: Controlling controlled English: An analysis of several controlled language rule sets. In: EAMT-CLAW-2003, pp. 105–114, Controlled language translation (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pace, G.J., Rosner, M.: A Controlled Language for the Specification of Contracts. In: Fuchs, N.E. (ed.) CNL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5972, pp. 226–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pool, J.: Can controlled languages scale to the web? In: CLAW 2006 at AMTA 2006: 5th International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Regierungsrat des Kantons Zürich: Richtlinien der Rechtsetzung (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reuther, U.: Two in one - can it work? Readability and translatability by means of controlled language. In: Proceedings of EAMT-CLAW (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schane, S.: Ambiguity and misunderstanding in the law. T. Jefferson L. Rev. 25, 167–649 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schane, S.A.: Language and the law. Continuum International Publishing Group (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei, in Zusammenarbeit mit der Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften: Geschlechtergerechte Sprache. Leitfaden zum geschlechtergerechten Formulieren im Deutschen, 2 edn. (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schweizerisches Bundesamt für Justiz, Bern: Gesetzgebungsleitfaden: Leitfaden für die Ausarbeitung von Erlassen des Bundes, 3 edn. (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schwertel, U.: Controlling plural ambiguities in Attempto Controlled English. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications, Seattle, Washington (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schwitter, R., Tilbrook, M.: Let’s talk in description logic via controlled natural language. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics, Tokyo, pp. 193–207 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schwitter, R., Ljungberg, A., Hood, D.: ECOLE — a look-ahead editor for a controlled language. In: Proceedings of EAMT-CLAW 2003, pp. 141–150 (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schwitter, R., Tilbrook, M.: Annotating websites with machine-processable information in controlled natural language. In: Proceedings of the Second Australasian Workshop on Advances in Ontologies, AOW 2006, vol. 72, pp. 75–84. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Solan, L.M.: Linguistic principles as the rule of law. In: Pupier, P., Woehrling, J. (eds.) Language and Law: Proceedings of the First Conference of the International Institute of Comparative Linguistic Law. Wilson & Lafleur, Montreal (1989)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Solan, L.M.: Vagueness and ambiguity in legal interpretation. In: Bhatia, V.K., Engberg, J., Gotti, M., Helier, D. (eds.) Vagueness in Normative Texts, Linguistic Insights. Studies in language and Communication, vol. 23, pp. 73–96. Peter Lang, Bern (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sowa, J.F.: Common logic controlled English, draft, March 15 (2007), http://www.jfsowa.com/clce/clce07.htm
  34. 34.
    Venturi, G.: Parsing legal texts. A contrastive study with a view to knowledge management applications. In: LREC 2008 – W9 Workshop on Semantic Processing of Legal Texts (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Verbeke, C.: Caterpillar Fundamental English. A basic approach for multination technical communication in an industry basic approach for multination technical communication in an industry. Training and Development Journal 27(2), 36–40 (1973)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vogel, C.: Law matters, syntax matters and semantics matters. In: Grewendorf, G., Rathert, M. (eds.) Formal Linguistics and Law, Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, vol. 212, pp. 25–54. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandra Bünzli
    • 1
  • Stefan Höfler
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computational LinguisticsUniversity of ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations