Abstrakt

The objective of this paper is to discuss the theoretical background behind the simplification of legal English, and to present current tendencies based on the conducted survey. Section 2 provides a brief overview of the plain English movement in general, including the analysis of the views of prominent English writers and linguists, such as G. Orwell and E. Gowers. Then, Section 3 offers a more specialist approach to the movement within the field of professional legal writing. A special focus is placed on the limitations of plain English when it is applied within communication involving L2 speakers of English. Finally, Section 4 discusses the results of the survey conducted on persons with a legal background and laypersons. The work ends with conclusions on the use of simplified legal English in professional contexts (including, in particular, specialised translation). Plain English may be a valid alternative for formalised jargon wherever it is possible to apply it without a loss of precision. In many cases, the use of formal legal English is caused rather by aesthetical or historical reasons, not by a real necessity. Therefore, it would be feasible to replace it in  communication with clients and citizens for the sake of clarity. However, several reservations have to be made. Firstly,  certain elements of “plain” English are not, in fact, plain for those who are not native speakers. A good example of that are phrasal verbs, which constitute a difficult part of the language for foreigners (as shown in the survey results). Secondly,  certain elements of legal English are already so widely recognised, that it may be not particularly reasonable to replace them. Therefore, the plain English movement should incorporate a broader linguistic context and look for solutions that  are useful not only to L1 speakers of English but also to L2 speakers.