Abstract Seven years have passed since ‘Legal English and Plain Language: an introduction’ (Williams 2004) was published. Since then several changes have occurred in the field of legal drafting in English-speaking countries and institutions which move in the direction of the proposals endorsed by the Plain language movement. In this paper I attempt to outline and contextualize some of the major changes that have taken place since 2004. Probably the most striking transformation over the last few years in the English-speaking world has come about in the United Kingdom, particularly in Edinburgh and Westminster. In 2004 the newly-established Scottish Parliament had not yet broached the question of modernizing the drafting style of its laws. But that was shortly to come. Likewise in Westminster in 2004, with the exception of the Tax Law Rewrite Project (Williams 2007), there was little to indicate that the drafting of legislation was to undergo the major changes that have taken place recently. A number of areas of legal language have also been modernized in the United States in the past few years, though the impact of Plain language on legislative drafting has been less incisive when compared to the UK. My main conclusion is that, if we observe the question of legal drafting and Plain language in the English-speaking world as a whole, there has been a shift of focus since 2004. Not long ago I spoke of a “North-South divide” (Williams 2006: 239), with innovation coming largely from the southern hemisphere (especially Australia and New Zealand) whilst the northern hemisphere – particularly the US and the UK – appeared to be more resistant to change. Today my perception is rather different: I would be more inclined to distinguish between national drafting bodies as ‘innovators’ and international drafting bodies as ‘conservatives’. The changes in drafting style that have occurred recently in the UK and, to some extent, in the US would not appear to have been matched in those international bodies where English is one of the official languages, notably the United Nations and the European Union. I briefly analyse why international bodies may be less inclined than national bodies to change their drafting styles.

Legal English and Plain language: an update

WILLIAMS, CHRISTOPHER
2011-01-01

Abstract

Abstract Seven years have passed since ‘Legal English and Plain Language: an introduction’ (Williams 2004) was published. Since then several changes have occurred in the field of legal drafting in English-speaking countries and institutions which move in the direction of the proposals endorsed by the Plain language movement. In this paper I attempt to outline and contextualize some of the major changes that have taken place since 2004. Probably the most striking transformation over the last few years in the English-speaking world has come about in the United Kingdom, particularly in Edinburgh and Westminster. In 2004 the newly-established Scottish Parliament had not yet broached the question of modernizing the drafting style of its laws. But that was shortly to come. Likewise in Westminster in 2004, with the exception of the Tax Law Rewrite Project (Williams 2007), there was little to indicate that the drafting of legislation was to undergo the major changes that have taken place recently. A number of areas of legal language have also been modernized in the United States in the past few years, though the impact of Plain language on legislative drafting has been less incisive when compared to the UK. My main conclusion is that, if we observe the question of legal drafting and Plain language in the English-speaking world as a whole, there has been a shift of focus since 2004. Not long ago I spoke of a “North-South divide” (Williams 2006: 239), with innovation coming largely from the southern hemisphere (especially Australia and New Zealand) whilst the northern hemisphere – particularly the US and the UK – appeared to be more resistant to change. Today my perception is rather different: I would be more inclined to distinguish between national drafting bodies as ‘innovators’ and international drafting bodies as ‘conservatives’. The changes in drafting style that have occurred recently in the UK and, to some extent, in the US would not appear to have been matched in those international bodies where English is one of the official languages, notably the United Nations and the European Union. I briefly analyse why international bodies may be less inclined than national bodies to change their drafting styles.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11369/123145
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact