PARAPHRASES OF LEGAL TERMINOLOGY BASED ON LAY PERCEPTIONS

Main Article Content

Mami Hiraike OKAWARA

Abstract

This paper discusses the issue of plain legal language in Japan. First, several legal language battles between legal and lay people are shown, followed by a paraphrase work on civil legal terms based on a research titled ‘A Study on Paraphrase of Civil Legal Terms based on Lay Perception’, which was funded by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science from April of 2012 to March of 2013. The research was conducted, using corpus analysis of civil legal terms appeared in ordinary writings and questionnaire of legal experts. The finding of the research is that ‘misunderstood’ legal words which appear more than 50% in non-legal writings is an obstacle to lay understanding. One ‘misunderstood’ legal term ‘intent’ (故意) is selected for paraphrase analysis from the point of views of antonym, synonym, derivative of legal term.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
OKAWARA, M. H. (2015). PARAPHRASES OF LEGAL TERMINOLOGY BASED ON LAY PERCEPTIONS. Comparative Legilinguistics, 24, 7-17. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2015.24.01
Section
Articles

References

  1. Azuelos-Atias, Sol. 2011. On the incoherence of legal language to the general public. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 24: 41-59.
  2. Crystal, David and Derek Davey. 1969. Investing English Style. London: Longman.
  3. Gibbons, John. 2002. Forensic Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  4. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1985. Languge, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semantic Perspective, 2nd Ed. [1989 & 1990]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Hayashi, Shuzo. 1959. ‘Houbun zukuri no tachiba kara – Okubo shi no ‘shindan’ wo yonde’ (From a position of legal legislature – Reading Mr Okubo’s ‘diagnosis’ article). Hougaku Seminar (Seminar on Legal Studies) 36: 68-70.
  6. Kurata, Takuji. 1990. Zoku Saibankan no Shosai (A Sequel to ‘A Judge’s Study Room’). Keisou Shobo.
  7. Matsumoto, Tsuneo, Reiko Saegusa, Masahiro Hashimoto & Hitoshi Aoki. 2006. Nihon-hou heno Shoutai (Law Students in Wonderland: An Invitation to Japanese Law), 2nd Ed., Yuhikaku.
  8. Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law. Boston: Little Brown.
  9. Okawara, Mami Hiraike. 2009. Saiban Omoshiro Kotoba-Gaku (Peculiar Legal Language Studies), Taishukan.
  10. Okawara, Mami Hiraike. 2012. ‘Japan’s project to simplify courtroom language’. Clarity 65: 17-19.
  11. Okubo, Tadatoshi. 1959. ‘Hourei yougo wo shindan sureba – Koubun jou kara mita houritu bunsho no wakaranikusa bunseki’ (A diagnose on legal language – An syntactic analysis on incomprehensible nature of legal language). Hougaku Seminar (Seminar on Legal Studies) 35: 54-57.
  12. Okubo, Tadatoshi. 1959. ‘Hanketsubun no tsuzurikata kyoushitsu – Hanketsubun wa wakariyasuku kaku hituyou wa naimono ka’ (A writing guide for court judgment – Isn’t is possible to write a judgment more readable?). Hougaku Seminar (Seminar on Legal Studies) 38: 72-75.
  13. Shizume, Yasuo. 1986. ‘Saibankan no kokugoryoku wa chuugakusei name dana’ (I wonder if judges’ verbal attitude is on the same level of that of junior high school students). Jurist 853: 87.
  14. Tiermsa, Peter. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago University Press.
  15. Tanaka, Mari and Yumi Miyazaki. 2013. ‘Houritsu yougo to nichijougo no gogi no chigai to renzokusei’ (The difference and continuity of legal-term meanings and ordinary-term meanings). Paper read at Dai 32 kai Shakai Gengo Gakkai kenkyuu taikai (The 32nd Meeting of Japanese Association of Sociolinguistic Sciences).
  16. Wilson, Deirdre and Robyn Carston. 2007. A unitary approach to the lexical pragmatics: relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. Pragmatics, Ed. N. Burton-Roberts, 230-259. London: Palgrave.