| Popis: |
1 IntroductionThe present paper discusses the results of an assessment questionnaire carried out on group of lawyers at the end of a course of legal English. It focuses on the language of contracts as perceived and formulated by Italian lawyers and legal executives working with English. It is the result of an intensive course of legal English taught at an important company close to Udine, a leader in its sector, interested in developing a better understanding of how to write 'correct' English contracts in their international business activities. The study shows how Italian learners' perceptions, not only of language, but also of English as a lingua franca (and, as such, continually modified by non-English speaking businesspeople around the world) may change our view of what is 'correct' or 'acceptable' in writing contracts.The paper sets out to present the course at the basis of the research. It then moves on to describe the methodology, the Plain Language Movement and the problems Italian lawyers face when dealing with legal English and contracts written in English. A brief analysis of the major problems encountered follows, together with examples of original and corrected parts of contracts. The paper then presents the answers of the assessment questionnaire filled in by the participants at the end of the course.During the course, two examples of contracts (contract A and contract B) created in-company were used. The course was meant to show how these contacts can be modified and improved, hence changes to be made to them were suggested during the course, in terms of content and style of 'contract English'.The course was structured following the request from the company, on the one hand, to help their lawyers to understand legal English in contracts and, on the other, to teach them how to write contracts following up-to-date conventions, and avoiding the influence of the Italian language and its legal terminology. To that aim, some hours were devoted to improving the general layout of a contract, and others to the language of the contracts, particularly focusing on modal verbs and eliminating outdated expressions. The two contracts created in-house were deconstructed in view of the principles of modern contract writing, following K.A. Adams' guidelines (Adams 2008) and re-written together with the lawyers. Time was limited so the course had to focus on one 'textbook' alone - hence the various references that will be made to Adams' book.The meeting of a language teacher, on the one side, and the representatives of the profession, on the other, offered a unique opportunity to study both points of view - correct language, correct use as opposed to 'it works this way too' and 'this is how we've done it so far' attitudes. Concepts such as 'correct', 'clear', etc. will be used throughout this paper. They are both controversial and difficult concepts to define and here their meaning will relate only to their commonly accepted definitions in linguistics (Spolsky 1998).The research methodology draws from the theoretical framework offered by sociolinguistics (Spolsky 1998) and applied linguistics. The sociolinguistic framework in this article follows the patterns and behaviours of a professional category - lawyers - who are trying to learn how their English-speaking colleagues apply the English language in writing legal contracts. Language communicates meaning but it also communicates social and geographical backgrounds. Moreover, "the social prestige or stigma associated with these variations makes language a source of social and political power" (Spolsky 1998:5), a fact of which lawyers are well aware.This research has some limitations that must be taken into account. First, this research into users' perceptions could not be replicated, since it is very difficult to find a similar group of people who want to improve such a specific field - contract English for non-native speakers of English - in such a specialised field as legal language. … |
