Abstract
The present study explores the linguistic complexity (LC) of public legal information (PLI) texts for young persons by deploying the Hallidayan model of lexical density and grammatical intricacy. It examines how the Australian legal statutes’ grammatical intricacy and lexical density are reformulated into PLI texts to make them more accessible for a specific vulnerable group. The findings reveal that although the PLI texts were claimed to be written in plain language, they trade some types of complexity for others. The paper extends Halliday’s model of complexity by adding lower rank complexes and embedded clause complexes as realisations of intricacy and density. It proposes “embedded intricacy” as a feature of a hybrid of spoken and written language. Furthermore, the study suggests reconsidering how law can be recontextualised for young persons in a more accessible way.
About the author
Monaliza Hernandez Mamac received her Master’s degree in Cross-cultural and Applied Linguistics at the University of Sydney and is currently a lecturer at Prince of Songkla University Thailand. She is a recipient of the MAK Halliday Award in 2020 for the most outstanding academic achievements. Her research interests are language and the law, Systemic Functional Linguistics, and educational linguistics.
Acknowledgments
I sincerely appreciate Professor James Robert Martin and Dr David Rose of the University of Sydney for their valuable guidance in the development of my manuscript. I would like to thank Director Matthew Keeley of Youth Law Australia who provided me with a deep insight into the organisation.
-
Conflicting interests: There is no conflict of interest to declare.
Notational conventions
lexicogrammar constituencies (Halliday and Matthiessen 2013: 10)
| ||| | clause complex | [[[ ]]] | downranked clause complex | <<< >>> | enclosed clause complex |
| || | clause | [[ ]] | downranked clause | << >> | enclosed clause |
| | | phrase/group | [ ] | downranked phrase/group | < > | enclosed phrase/group |
| space | word |
taxis
| 1, 2, 3, … | parataxis |
| α, β, γ, … | hypotaxis |
logicosemantics
| + extending |
| = elaborating |
| X enhancing |
| “ locution |
| ‘ idea |
References
Assy, Rabeea. 2011. Can law speak directly to its subjects? The limitation of plain language. Journal of Law and Society 38(3). 376–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2011.00549.x.Search in Google Scholar
Australian Government Style Manual. n.d. The standard for Australian Government writing and editing. https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/ (accessed 12 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2020. Health and welfare overview. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-data/health-welfare-overview (accessed 10 December 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 2014. Cognitive structuring in legislative provisions. In John Gibbons (ed.), Language and the law, 136–155. Oxon & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1984. Syntactic discontinuity in legislative writing and its implications for academic legal purposes. In Anthony K. Pugh & Jan M. Ulijn (eds.), Reading for professional purposes, 90–96. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Search in Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1983. Simplification v. easification – the case of legal texts. Applied Linguistics 4(1). 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.1.42.Search in Google Scholar
Bilson, Beth, Bea Lowenberger & Graham Sharp. 2017. Reducing the “justice gap” through access to legal information: Establishing access to justice entry points at public libraries. The Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice/Recueil Annuel de Windsor d’accès à la Justice 34(2). 99–128. https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v34i2.5020.Search in Google Scholar
Charrow, Robert P. & Veda R. Charrow. 1979. Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review 79(7). 1306–1374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1121842.Search in Google Scholar
Crimes Act (1900) 40 (Austl.). https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1900/40/part3/div10/subDiv2/sec61i (accessed 12 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act (2007) 80 (Austl.). https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2007/80 (accessed 12 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Cutts, Martin. 2015. Making leaflets clearer for patients. Medical Writing 24(1). 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480614z.000000000271.Search in Google Scholar
Green, Julie B., Rony E. Duncan, Graeme L. Barnes & Frank Oberklaid. 2003. Putting the ‘informed’ into ‘consent’: A matter of plain language. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 39(9). 700–703. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1754.2003.00273.x.Search in Google Scholar
European Commission. 2009. A guideline on the readability of the label and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use, revision 1, 12 January 2009. European Commission.Search in Google Scholar
Garner, Bryan A. 2001. Legal writing in plain English: A text with exercises. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226284200.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 2008. Spoken and written modes of meaning. In Jonathan Webster (ed.), On grammar (Collected Works of MAK Halliday 1), 323–351. London & New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 2006. Working with meaning: Towards an appliable linguistics. In Inaugural lecture to mark the launch of the Halliday Centre for intelligent applications of language studies at the. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 2004. Language and knowledge: The “unpacking” of text. In Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), The language of science (Collected Works of Michael Halliday 5), 24–48. New York: Continuum.10.1142/9789812815781_0010Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1989. Spoken and written language, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1979. Differences between spoken and written language: Some implications for literacy teaching. In Jonathan Webster (ed.), Language and education (Collected Works of MAK Halliday 9), 63–80. London and New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2013. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203431269Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & James Robert Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London & Bristol: Taylor & Francis.Search in Google Scholar
Hämeen-Anttila, Katri, Kati Kemppainen, Hannes Enlund, J. Bush Patricia & Airaksinen Marja. 2010. Do pictograms improve children’s understanding of medicine leaflet information? Patient Education and Counseling 55(3). 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2003.04.006.Search in Google Scholar
Johansson, Victoria. 2008. Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Working papers/Lund University, Department of Linguistics and Phonetics 53. 61–79.Search in Google Scholar
Just for Kids Law. n.d. https://www.justforkidslaw.org/ (accessed 26 November 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Justice for Children and Youth. n.d. https://jfcy.org/en/ (accessed 26 November 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Keeley, Matthew. 2019, 20 March. Personal interview.Search in Google Scholar
Maat, Henk Pander & Leo Lentz. 2010. Improving the usability of patient information leaflets. Patient Education and Counseling 80(1). 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.030.Search in Google Scholar
Maley, Yon. 2014. The language of the law. In John Gibbons (ed.), Language and the law, 11–50. Oxon & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Mamac, Monaliza H. 2019. Re-Instantiating legal statute into public legal information texts for young persons: Are the texts accessible enough? Sydney: The University of Sydney MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James Robert. 2006. Genre, ideology, and intertextuality: A systemic functional perspective. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 2(2). 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v2i2.275–298.10.1558/lhs.v2i2.275298Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James Robert. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/z.59Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James Robert, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Clare Painter. 2010a. Deploying functional grammar. Beijing: Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James Robert, Michele Zappavigna & Paul Dwyer. 2010b. Negotiating evaluation: Story structure and appraisal in Youth Justice Conferencing. In Ahmar Mahboob & Naomi K. Knight (eds.), Appliable linguistics, 44–75. London & New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James Robert & David Rose. 2008. Genre relations: Mapping culture. London & Oakville: Equinox Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James Robert & David Rose. 2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause, 2nd edn. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James Robert & Michele Zappavigna. 2013. Youth Justice Conferencing: Ceremonial redress. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse 3(2). 103–142.Search in Google Scholar
Pease, John. 2012. Plain English: A solution for effective communication. In Paper presented at the ACLA National Conference, Sunshine Coast, Queensland, 7–9 November.Search in Google Scholar
Rose, David & James Robert Martin. 2012. Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Rothery, Joan. 1996. Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In Ruquiaya Hasan & Geoffrey Williams (eds.), Literacy in society, 86–123. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Stygall, Gail. 2007. Complex documents/average and not-so average readers. In Malcolm Coulthard & Alison Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, 51–64. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Tanner, Edwin. 2000. The comprehensibility of legal language: Is plain English the solution? Griffith Law Review 9. 52–73.Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2014. Introducing functional grammar. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203785270Search in Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
To, Vinh, Si Fan & Damon Thomas. 2013. Lexical density and readability: A case study of English textbooks. Internet Journal of Language, Culture and Society (37). 61–71.Search in Google Scholar
Ure, Jean. 1971. Lexical density and register differentiation. In George Ernest Perren & John Leslie Melville Trim (eds.), Applications of linguistics, 443–452. London: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wydick, Richard C. 2005. Plain English for lawyers, 5th edn. North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Youth Law Australia. n.d. About us. https://yla.org.au/nsw/topics/health-love-and-sex/sexual-assault/ (accessed 12 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Youth Law Australia. n.d. Sexual assault. https://yla.org.au/nsw/topics/health-love-and-sex/sexual-assault/ (accessed 12 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Youth Law Australia. n.d. Domestic violence. https://yla.org.au/nsw/topics/violence-and-harm/domestic-violence/ (accessed 12 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Youth Law Australia Role Description. 2021. https://yla.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/YLA-role-description-5-1.pdf (accessed 26 November 2021).Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
