PLAIN OR ARCHAIC: THE NEW CZECH CIVIL CODE GOING AGAINST THE FLOW

Main Article Content

Michal KUBÁNEK
Ondřej KLABAL

Abstract

The article presents the discussion on the wording of the new Civil Code of the Czech Republic which becomes effective on January 1, 2014. Some critics claim that the Code contains many newly coined or re-introduced terms which are unknown to the general public and may even feel archaic. Inspired by this debate, a survey was carried out in which a group of students was asked to assess the perceived familiarity with ten terms selected from the new Code and also mark the terms with respect to their perceived stylistic features. All the terms had been analysed with respect to their relative frequency in various text types using the Czech National Corpus. Only one term was assessed as known by more than 40% of the subjects. The same portion of the subjects marked six terms as archaic and five terms as strangely formed. The results show that the debate on the wording was justified. Nevertheless, the requirement for accessibility of legal documents to the general public should be seen with due consideration to various functions, situations and contexts in which individual genres and text types are used.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
KUBÁNEK, M., & KLABAL, O. (2012). PLAIN OR ARCHAIC: THE NEW CZECH CIVIL CODE GOING AGAINST THE FLOW. Comparative Legilinguistics, 12, 7-17. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2012.12.01
Section
Articles

References

  1. Asprey, Michéle, M. 2003. Plain Language for Lawyers. 3rd edition. Leichhardt: The Federation Press.
  2. Chovanec, Jan, and Barbora Budíková. 2008. “Reforma anglického právního jazyka a hnutí ‘plain English’”. In XVII. kolokvium mladých jazykovedcov, Prešov-Sigord.
  3. Chromá, Marta. 2010. Česko-anglický právnický slovník. Voznice: Leda.
  4. Filipec, Josef, ed. 2009. Slovník spisovné češtiny pro školu a veřejnost. Prague: Academia.
  5. Hyland, Richard. 1986. A Defense of Legal Writing. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 134 (3), 599–626. Accessed June 4, 2012. JSTORE http://www.jstor.org/stable/3312113.
  6. Mattila, Heiki, E. S. 2006. Comparative Legal Linguistics. Translated by Christopher Goddard. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
  7. Petelin, Roslyn. 2010. Considering Plain Language: Issues and Initiatives. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 15 (2), 205–16.
  8. Poštolková, Běla, Miroslav Roudný, and Antonín Tejnor. 1983. O české terminologii. Prague: Academia.
  9. Sager, Juan C. 1997. “Concept Representation: Term Formation.” In Handbook of Terminology Management, edited by Budin, Gerhard and Sue Ellen Wright, 25–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  10. Wagner, Emma. 2010. Why Does the Commission need a Clear Writing campaign? Languages and Translation 1 (Clear Writing), 4–5.
  11. Corpus:
  12. Český národní korpus – SYN. Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK, Prague. Accessed August 20, 2012. www.korpus.cz.