Advertisement

Legislative Drafting Guidelines: How Different Are They from Controlled Language Rules for Technical Writing?

  • Stefan Höfler
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7427)

Abstract

While human-oriented controlled languages developed and applied in the domain of technical documentation have received considerable attention, language control exerted in the process of legislative drafting has, until recently, gone relatively unnoticed by the controlled language community. This paper considers existing legislative drafting guidelines from the perspective of controlled language. It presents the results of a qualitative comparison of the rule sets of four German-language legislative drafting guidelines from Austria, Germany and Switzerland with a representative collection of controlled language rules published by the German Professional Association for Technical Communication. The analysis determines the extent to which the respective rule sets control the same or similar aspects of language use and identifies the main differences between legislative drafting guidelines and controlled language rules for technical writing.

Keywords

human-oriented controlled natural language legislative drafting technical writing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bellem, B., Dreikorn, J., Drewer, P., Fleury, I., Haldimann, R., Jung, M., Keul, U.P., Klemm, V., Lobach, S., Prusseit, I.: Regelbasiertes Schreiben: Deutsch für die Technische Kommunikation. Gesellschaft für Technische Kommunication e.V. – tekom, Stuttgart (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bratschi, R.: Frau im Sinne dieser Badeordnung ist auch der Bademeister. Legaldefinitionen aus redaktioneller Sicht. LeGes 20(2), 191–213 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bundesamt für Justiz (ed.): Gesetzgebungsleitfaden: Leitfaden für die Ausarbeitung von Erlassen des Bundes, Bern, 3rd edn. (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bundeskanzleramt (ed.): Handbuch der Rechtsetzungstechnik, Teil 1: Legistische Leitlinien. Wien (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Justiz, B.f. (ed.): Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit: Empfehlungen zur Gestaltung von Gesetzen und Rechtsverordnungen. Bundesanzeiger Verlag, Köln (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bünzli, A., Höfler, S.: Controlling Ambiguities in Legislative Language. In: Rosner, M., Fuchs, N.E. (eds.) CNL 2010. LNCS, vol. 7175, pp. 21–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eichhoff-Cyrus, K.M., Antos, G. (eds.): Verständlichkeit als Bürgerrecht? Die Rechts- und Verwaltungssprache in der öffentlichen Diskussion. Duden, Mannheim (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Communities (ed.): Joint Practical Guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for persons involved in the drafting of legislation within the Community institutions. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg (2003)Google Scholar
  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 2004. LNCS, vol. 5224, pp. 104–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geldbach, S.: Neue Werkzeuge zur Autorenunterstützung. MDÜ 4, 10–19 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Göpferich, S.: Sprachstandard oder Kontrollmechanismus? Textqualität steuern mit kontrollierter Sprache. Technische Kommunikation 29(4) (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Höfler, S.: “Ein Satz – eine Aussage.” Multipropositionale Rechtssätze an der Sprache erkennen. LeGes: Gesetzgebung und Evaluation 22(2), 275–295 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Höfler, S., Sugisaki, K.: From drafting guideline to error detection: Automating style checking for legislative texts. In: Proceedings of the EACL 2012 Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Writing, Avignon, pp. 9–18 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huijsen, W.O.: Controlled language: An introduction. In: Mitamura, T., Nyberg, E., Adriaens, G., Schmandt, L., Wojcik, R., Zajac, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications (CLAW 1998), Pennsylvania, pp. 1–15 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lehmann, S.: Kontrollierte Sprachen und Sprachtechnologie in der Industrie: das Autorenwerkzeug acrolinx. Universität Zürich, Seminar Computerlinguistik: Making Word Processors Process Words, Sprachtechnologie für Autorenwerkzeuge (2009), https://cast.switch.ch/vod/clips/2pjsz3usia/link_box
  16. 16.
    Lerch, K.D. (ed.): Recht verstehen. Verständlichkeit, Missverständlichkeit und Unverständlichkeit von Recht. de Gruyter, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muegge, U.: Controlled language: The next big thing in translation? ClientSide News Magazine 7(7), 21–24 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muthig, J.: Technical documentation needs standardization. tcworld: Magazine for International Information Management (May 2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muthig, J., Schäflein-Armbruster, R.: Funktionsdesign: Methodische Entwicklung von Standards. In: Muthig, J. (ed.) Standardisierungsmethoden für die Technische Dokumentation, tekom-Hochschulschriften, vol. 16. Schmidt-Römhild, Lübeck (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Brien, S.: Controlling controlled English: An analysis of several controlled language rule sets. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference combining the Eighth International Workshop of the European Association of Machine Translation and the Fourth Controlled Language Applications Workshop (EAMT-CLAW 2003), Dublin, pp. 105–114 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pool, J.: Can controlled languages scale to the web? In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications, CLAW 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Regierungsrat des Kantons Bern (ed.): Rechtsetzungsrichtlinien des Kantons Bern. Bern (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Regierungsrat des Kantons Zürich (ed.): Richtlinien der Rechtsetzung. Zürich (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reuther, U.: Two in one – can it work? Readability and translatability by means of controlled language. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference combining the Eighth International Workshop of the European Association of Machine Translation and the Fourth Controlled Language Applications Workshop (EAMT-CLAW 2003), Dublin (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schane, S.: Ambiguity and misunderstanding in the law. T. Jefferson L. Rev. 25, 167–649 (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Schwitter, R., Tilbrook, M.: Annnotating websites with machine-processable information in controlled natural language. In: Orgun, M.A., Meyer, T. (eds.) Advances in Ontologies 2006: Proceedings of the Second Australasian Ontology Workshop (AOW 2006), pp. 75–84. Australian Computer Society, Hobart (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Solan, L.: Vagueness and ambiguity in legal interpretation. In: Bhatia, V., Engberg, J., Gotti, M., Helier, D. (eds.) Vagueness in Normative Texts: Linguistic Insights, pp. 73–96. Peter Lang, Bern (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wyner, A., Angelov, K., Barzdins, G., Damljanovic, D., Davis, B., Fuchs, N., Hoefler, S., Jones, K., Kaljurand, K., Kuhn, T., Luts, M., Pool, J., Rosner, M., Schwitter, R., Sowa, J.: On Controlled Natural Languages: Properties and Prospects. In: Fuchs, N.E. (ed.) CNL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5972, pp. 281–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Höfler
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computational LinguisticsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations