BINOMIALS IN LEGAL TEXTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/philspu/2023.3.5Keywords:
binomial, legal English, legal text, purpose, ambiguity, emphasis, interpretationAbstract
One of the typical elements of English texts is binomial expressions. They have been among the most marked and durable features of the legal English language. The article deals with the study of the nature of binomials, their definitions and classifications. It is in particular focused on the analysis of binomials in legal texts, their role and importance. A range of existing terms denoting the concept, as well as definitions of the phenomenon are discussed. Given the existing definitions the typical features of binomials are characterized. In particular, any binomial is a combination of two or more words which typically belong to the same category and are joined by a syntactic device (usually “and” or “or”). It is revealed that in legal texts binomials serve several purposes: they are a style marker in the legal language; add accuracy, contribute to precision and unambiguity, promote clarity and facilitate understanding in multicultural society; add weight and stress on the phrase; ensure comprehensiveness that suits the needs of lawyers who want to foresee all possible situations; play a role which neither of its elements does alone. At the same time, it is noticed that quite often binomials overload the text, being a tribute to tradition and serving no specific purpose. From a legal standpoint, every word in a legal text has its meaning. Word strings often have no fixed meaning, sometimes they are not only vague but quite frequently indeterminate. This paper proves that vague wording of a legal text, whether a law, a contract or an international agreement, may cause misunderstanding, require further interpretation, or even result in a dispute. The task of a lawyer is to deliberately select words in drawing up legal texts.
References
Adams C.M., Cramer P.C. Drafting Contracts in Legal English. Wolters Kluwer, 2014. 350 p.
Alexander R.J., Plein U. Pairing Up: Didactic and Contrastive Considerations Irreversible Binomials in German and English. Die Neueren Sprachen. 1991. Vol. 90. Issue 5. P. 467–481.
Asensio R.M. Translating Official Documents. Taylor & Francis, 2014. 168 p.
Barleben D. Legal Language, Early Modern English and their Relationship. 2003. URL: https://cpercy.artsci.utoronto.ca/courses/6362Barleben1.htm.
Benor S., Levy R. The Chicken or the Egg? A Probabilistic Analysis of English Binomials. Language. Volume 82. Number 2. June 2006. P. 233–278.
Brdar M. How to do a Couple of Things with Metonymy. Current Trends in Pragmatics / ed. by P. Cap J., Nijakowska. Cambridge Scholars Pub., 2007. 430 p.
Cao D. Translating Law. Bristol : Multilingual matters, 2007. 240 p.
Fajans E., Falk M.R. Linguistics and the Composition of Legal Documents: Border Crossings. Legal Studies Forum, 1998. Vol. 22. P. 697–747.
Fajans E., Falk M.R. Hendiadys in the language of the law. What part of «and» don’t you understand? Legal Communication and Rhetoric: JALWD, 2020. Vol. 17. P. 39–60.
Goldstein T., Lieberman J.K. The Lawyer’s Guide to Writing Well. University of California Press, 2003. 287 p.
Gustafsson M. Binomial Expressions in Present-day English: A Syntactic and Semantic Study. Turun Yliopisto, 1975. 173 p.
Gustafsson M. The syntactic features of binomial expressions in legal English. Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. 1984. Text 4 (1–3). P. 123–141.
Kopaczyk J. Terms and conditions: a comparative study of noun binomials in UK and Scottish legislation. Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary Perspective / ed. by G. Pontrandolfo, S. Goźdź-Roszkowski. Taylor & Francis, 2017. 296 p.
Koskenniemi I. Repetitive Word Pairs in Old and Early Middle English Prose. Turun Yliopisto, 1968. 170 p.
Landsberg M.E. Semantic Constraints on Phonologically Independent Freezes. Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes: The Human Dimension / ed. by M. Landsberg, Berlin : De Gruyter, 1995. P. 65–78.
Makkai A. Idiom Structure in English. Paris : Mouton, 1972. 371 p.
Malkiel Y. Studies in Irreversible Binomials. Liungua. 1959. No. 8. P. 113–160.
Mellinkoff D. The Language of the Law. Little, Brown and Co., 1963. 454 p.
Mollin S. The (Ir)reversibility of English Binomials. Corpus, Constraints, Developments. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2014. 254 p.
Moon R. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1998. 338 p.
Nevalainen T. Early Modern English lexis and semantics. The Cambridge History of the English Language: Early Modern English 1476–1776. Cambridge University Press, 1999. 126 p.
Norrick N. Binomial Meaning in Texts. Journal of English Linguistics. 1998. Volume 21. Issue 1. P. 72–87.
Olsen S. Constraints on Copulative Compounds. Language: Context and Cognition. Papers in Honour of Wolf-Dietrich Bald’s 60th Birthday. München : Langenscheidt-Longman, 2002. P. 247–258.
Pellicer-Sánchez A., Siyanova-Chanturia A. Understanding Formulaic Language. A Second Language Acquisition Perspective. Taylor & Francis, 2018. 290 p.
Robbins I.P. “And/Or” and the Proper Use of Legal Language. Maryland Law Review, 2018. Vol. 77. Issue 2. P. 311–337.
Sauer H., Kopaczyk J. Defining and Exploring Binomials. Binomials in the History of English. Fixed and Flexible / ed. by H. Sauer, J. Kopaczyk. Cambridge University Press, 2017. 378 p.
Scotto di Carlo G. Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Legal English. Past, Present, and Possible Future of Legal English. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. 160 p.
Thornton G.C. Legislative Drafting. London : Butterworths, 1987. 376 p.
