|
English Language
|
The Times of June 7th 2006 (full article here) reported that Harriet Harman, Constitutional Affairs Minister, had demanded that new laws be published with a parallel plain English translation allongside the formal and arcane legalese.
The
first Bill to achieve this is the Coroner Reform Draft Bill. The translation
has been written by parliamentary draughtsmen who were sid tto be initially
reluctant to decipher their own work but are said to be "thrilled"
by their first attempt.
Ms Harman predicted that soon every Bill would carry its own plain English translation.
"The English system of common and case law is blamed for the complexity of legislation. Meanings of words are carefully prescribed in law with particular vocabulary used to convey specific meanings.
The arcane language survives because the courts are responsible for interpreting legislation, nd it is the language they understand. But, experts say, ligislation is increasingly baffling...
Several Victorian laws were shining examples of plain English. The 1861 Offences Against the Persons Act states: 'It is an offence to cause a riot.' "
In contrast here is Clause 49 of The Equality Bill:
| WHAT IT SAYS: It is unlawful for the responsible body of an educational establishment
listed in the Table to discriminate against a person: |
WHAT IT MEANS: It is illegal for a school or college to discriminate against any
prospective pupil on the grounds of their religion, either through
the terms offered for admission or by refusing to admit them as
a pupil altogether. |
While most people would agree that clear or plain English must help citizens going about their daily lives, a different point of view was expressed by Times reader:
| Costly clarity Sir, While the idea of legislation written in plain English (report, June 7) may be enticing to those without legal training, those “in the know” will have spotted the danger. In your clarification of Clause 49 of the Equality Bill, you have used the words “unlawful” and “illegal” interchangeably. The former appears in the legislation, and the latter in your “plain English” explanation. Unfortunately, as any law students worth their salt know, they have very different meanings. Doing an “illegal” act is a breach of the criminal law, whereas an “unlawful” act is not. D. JOHNSON Southampton |
Write a response to either this letter or to Ms Harman on her attempt to simplify the language of English law.
Contrast "What it Says" and "What it Means" and analyse the two examples in linguistic terms, looking at syntax as well as vocabulary.
|
|