Legal Language: Meaning

Legal language means a language used by the persons connected to the legal profession.
The language used by the lawyer, jurist, and the legislative drafts man in their professional
capacities. Law being a technical subject speaks through its own register. Legal language
has varies like local legal language and English.
As defined by webstar in its lexicon, this term is derived from the Latin word 'Lingua'
meaning a system of communication between humans through written of vocal symbols. It
is a speech peculiar to an ethnic, national or a group. It is the articulate or inarticulate
expression of thoughts and feelings by living creatures it is the system of sounds and
words used by human being to express themselves.

Legal Register
There are different "Registers'’ for different sections of people or technical experts like
'Scientific Register' for the language old Scientists, Technological Register" for the
language of technologists, 'Journalist Register for the language of the Journalist Literary
Register' for the language of Literary persons and 'Legal Register for the language of law
persons, Lawyers, Judges, Draftsmen and Jurists etc.
There are four factors which establish 'Legal Register'

i. The Field Dimension or subject-matter dimension of legal register provides

for its separate terminology
ii. Mode dimension of legal register requires highly formalized expressions in
the form of enactments, application, forms and judgments.
iii. Under Role dimension of the legal register deals with machine translation
and official use are included.
iv. The Formality dimension of the legal register deals with legislators, judges
and Lawyers, Lawyers and Litigants, Judges and Litigants, teachers and
students of law.

Problems of Legal Language

1. Uncertainty and ambiguity:

There are many words used in legal language which have no definite meaning and they
produce problems. The reader should guess the meaning referring to the context in which a
particular word or phrase is used. E.g. The word 'right means 'Claim' as well as 'exactness',
or 'just'.
2. Inherent incompleteness of Human Language:
Human language is incomplete and imperfect. Except in mathematics, it is difficult to
frame exhaustive definitions of words, they must be constructed with reference to the
subject-matter to which they are applied. Even in mathematics, words do not have
exactitude beyond doubt; they are sharply defined; but this does not mean that they are
easily applied to the world of experience or that they are immune from the general
necessity of being constructed with reference to the subject-matter.

3. Change in meaning of the word:

Many words change their meaning in the course of time,
a. Some become restricted
b. Some widened
c. Some transferred by metaphor, the original meaning either remaining or
disappearing.
4. Emotive elements in words:
Some words carry an emotive element. It lends illegitimate weight to a statement. An
emotive word can either be an expression or an excitant of felling or desire.

Sometimes, an emotive statement is disguised as a referential one. E.g.‘justice requires all

moral wrongdoing to be punished' It shows mysterious natural nexes between anti-social
action and suffering.

5. Fringe meaning of certain words:

Some words are not equivocal as to have two or more meaning but they are still vague in
their meaning. E.g. 'about', 'near', 'more or less'. When such expressions are used in legal
document, they cause considerable trouble.
6. Playing humpty-dumpty with words:
Lawyers may play humpty-dumpty with words. They can give meaning to a word quite
form its common sense. The significance of all words is perfectly arbitrary and that every
man has inviolable liberty to make words stand for what ideas he pleases.

Since, an important function of language is to communicate thought, it can serve this

function well if there is a general measure of agreement upon the meaning of words.

7. Rhetoric:
It is synonymous with legal language. The expression rhetoric has both positive and
derogatory connotation. As a noun, it is the art of speaking and writing well elegantly and
effectively, especially in order to persuade or influence other, it relates to the theory and
practice of using language effectively. In derogatory sense, rhetoric indicates the language
which is full of unnecessarily long, formal or literary words and phrases, and which is
often insincere and meaningless rhetorical style communicates the idea of over-elaboration
or insincerity in style.
8. Jargons:
Dictionary meaning of the term 'Jargon' is the specialised vocabulary or particular trade,
profession, group or activity. Some would say that to be a good lawyer is necessarily to be
Jargon monger that word shuffling is the nature of business. But it is also been used in a
derogatory sense. In derogatory sense, it connotes the language which uses specialised
type of vocabulary in a pretentiousor meaningless way. It communicates confusing or
meaningless talk.

9. Verbosity:
Sometimes, two or more words are used from different angle to communicate a single
idea. Adjective verbose indicates using too many words; boring or irritatingly long
winded. Noun verbiage, means the use of language that is wordy or needlessly
complicated and often meaningless. Sometimes, many irritating words are used in some
documents needlessly. Sometimes, obsolete words are used which are no more in common
use. e.g. Said, the aforesaid, whereas, hereinbefore, hereinafter etc.

10. Legalism or Lawyerism:

Legalism is something different from legality. Legality indicates strict adherence to law,
prescription, or doctrine; the quality of being legal Legalism on the other hand means:

a. Formalism carried almost to the point of meaninglessness; a disposition to

exalt the importance of law or for mutated rule in any department of
action.
b. A mode of expression characteristic of Lawyer, it is nearer to legalistic
i.e. formalistic. It is hoped and advised that lawyers and legislators should
avoid legalism and legalistic expressions.
Latinism means use of difficult Latin words and phrases not easily comprehensible.

11. Formalism
Formalism means excessive adherence to prescribed forms; use of forms without
significance. It differs from the expression 'formality' which means conformity to rules;
propriety; precision of manner. Use of formal words is a defect in legal language. Formal
words constitute an elevated level of diction, and even synonyms that exist on different
levels. The language of the law is perhaps too heavy with formal words
expressing resort to unnatural pomposities.
Fallacy: Types of Fallacies

There are two major types of fallacies.

a) Formal Fallacies
b) Informal Fallacies

Formal Fallacies

A formal fallacy arises when there is a fault in the form of a given argument. When a syllogism
fails to adhere to any of the rules required for it to be a valid categorical syllogism then
the fallacy occurred is formal. Some types of formal fallacies are as follows: Fallacy of
Undistributed Middle, Fallacy of Illicit Major, Fallacy of Illicit Minor, Existential Fallacy,
etc. As Formal fallacies have been discussed in detail with categorical syllogisms, let us go
on to look at informal fallacies.

Informal Fallacies
There are various informal fallacies. They can be grouped under four major categories, viz.,
Fallacies of Ambiguity, Fallacies of Relevance, Fallacies of Defective Induction and Fallacies
of Presumption. The following is the categorization within the four kinds of informal
fallacies.

1) Fallacies of Ambiguity
i) Fallacy of Equivocation
ii) Fallacy of Amphiboly
iii) Fallacy of Accent
iv) Fallacy of Composition

v) Fallacy of Division
2) Fallacies of Relevance
i) The Appeal to Emotion (Argument ad populum)
ii) The Red Herring
iii) The Straw Man
iv) The Argument Against the Person (Argument ad hominem)

(a) Abusive
 (b) Circumstantial
v) The Appeal to Force (Argument ad baculum)
vi) Missing the Point or Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi)
3) Fallacies of Defective Induction
i) The Argument From Ignorance (Argument ad ignorantiam)
ii) The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argument ad verecundium)

iii) False Cause (Argument non causa pro causa)

iv) Hasty Generalization (Fallacy of Converse Accident)
4) Fallacies of Presumption
i) Fallacy of Accident
ii) Begging the Question (petitio principii)
iii) Complex Question

KINDS OF INFORMAL FALLACIES

1. Fallacies of Ambiguity

The erroneous reasoning in this kind of informal fallacy occurs due to the equivocal use of
words or phrases. In such cases, some term or phrase has a different meaning in one part
of the argument than the same term or phrase in another part of the argument. When language
is used in an inattentive and loose manner, such errors arise. It may be due to incorrect use of
words or due to incorrect construction of statements. The five sub-types within Fallacies of
Ambiguity are as follows:

a. Fallacy of Equivocation

The Fallacy of Equivocation arises when the same term or a phrase is used in a manner such
that it has two different meanings in the same argument.

Example:
“I will abide by Gopal’s suggestion because he gives sound suggestions’. Another person says.
“Yes, his sound is audible even from a far distance”. Thus, I can hear his suggestion even from
a far distance. In this case, the term ‘sound’ has two different meanings. Firstly it means that
which is based on valid reason or good judgment; reliable: he gives reliable suggestions.
Secondly, the word ‘sound’ means the noise or vibrations produced while talking.

b. Fallacy of Amphiboly

The Fallacy of Amphiboly arises when the construction of the statement is such that it has
more than one possible meaning.

As also pointed out in the examples above, in the cases of Fallacy of Equivocation the
ambiguity lies in the meaning of a word or a phrase. Fallacy of Amphiboly refers to the
ambiguity of a statement due to its grammatical structure.

Examples:

“Mary ran to meet her 6 year old son, cheerful and happy.”
One meaning of the above statement can be that Mary is cheerful and happy. The other
meaning of the statement can be that her son is cheerful and happy.
“Save water and waste paper.”
The above statement can have two meanings. First, that one should save water but one can
waste paper. Second, it can mean that one should save both ‘water’ as well as ‘waste papers’.

c. Fallacy of Accent

The Fallacy of accent arises when the meaning of a statement is changed or distorted by
wrongfully stressing on or emphasizing some particular part (words) of it.

Example: “Wife without her husband is nothing.”

The above statement would convey different meanings to husband and wife depending upon the
emphasis on the term ‘wife’ or the term ‘husband’. If the emphasis is on ‘wife’ then the
meaning of the statement will be: For a wife, husband is important as she will be nothing
without him. If the emphasis is on the term ‘husband’ then the meaning will be that for
husband, wife is important as without her he will be nothing.

d. Fallacy of Composition

The Fallacy of Composition arises when the conclusion is drawn from the properties of the
parts of a whole to the properties of whole itself. In this case, it is assumed that what is
applicable to the parts is applicable to the whole as well. The fallacy occurs because the
 whole, the comprehensive set is regarded as the collection of its subsets.

Example:
Each and every player of the Indian Hockey team is an excellent player. Thus, the Indian
Hockey team is an excellent team.

The given argument is fallacious because for a team to be excellent it is not just sufficient that it
has players who are talented and skilled. What is also required for the proper and smooth
functioning of a team are the key values of unity and team spirit.

e. Fallacy of Division

The Fallacy of Division arises when the properties of its parts are drawn from the properties of
whole. The Fallacies of Division and Composition are reciprocal fallacies. In case of Fallacy
of Division, what is applicable only to the whole is erroneously predicated to its parts. So, it
becomes incorrect to reason that since a particular football team is a good one, so each of its
players must be good. Similarly, one may reason wrongly when one says what is good for the
nation is also necessarily beneficial for each of its citizens.

Example: Indians are fond of the game of Cricket. Ram is an Indian.

Therefore, he is fond of the game of Cricket.

2. Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of Relevance arise when the premises of an argument are irrelevant to the
conclusion for some reason. The premises may appear to be relevant to the conclusion
initially, but on close analysis and examination, they are found to be inadequate. In this case,
the premises of the argument may appear to be psychologically relevant but for a sound
argument, the premises must be logically relevant rather than psychologically. There are
mainly six sub-categories within this fallacy. They are as follows:

a. The Appeal to Emotion (Argument ad populum)

This fallacy arises when an argument is supported with the help of an appeal to emotions and
not by reasoning. For example, a political speech may appeal to emotions in order to stir up
love or hatred among the masses. Emotionally charged language is often used in order to
manipulate the beliefs of the public and gather their approval or disapproval on some issue.
Example:
 60 percent of people buy Motorola phones rather than any other brand. All these
 people cannot be wrong. Thus, Motorola is the best phone brand in the market.

In this example, the conclusion is drawn and taken to be true on the basis of what many
people popularly believe. However, the argument becomes fallacious as the soundness
of reasoning should be judged not on the basis of popularity but on the relevance of the
premises involved in the argument to the conclusion.

b. The Red Herring

This fallacy arises when a deliberate attempt is made to distract or divert the attention of
listener(s) from the original topic, with the intention to do away with the original issue under
discussion. According to the ancient story, red herring was used to confuse or divert dogs. So,
anything that can mislead and can keep the listener off the track can act as a ‘red herring’.

Example:

 Mother (At 8.30 pm): It is time for you to go to bed.

Boy: Mummy, I feel hungry … I also have a stomach ache … I need to go to the
bathroom …

In this case, the mother of a young boy tells him to go to bed as it is his bed-time. He in
turn begins to talk about other issues such as, he is hungry, or he needs to go to the
bathroom. Such statements are made to avoid the central topic of going to bed and to
distract the mother. The fallacy committed here is The Red Herring.

c. The Straw Man

The Straw Man Fallacy occurs when one argues against an opponent’s view by presenting the
opponents position in a manner which can be easily refuted. The opponent’s actual view is put
forth in a distorted and misinterpreted manner and then refuted. The misconstrued and
exaggerated version of the opponent’s position which the arguer himself presents and
then refutes is in fact like a ‘straw man’

 Jinsi is the teacher assistant. She suggests in the class meeting that the class should
participate in more social service projects and programs. To this, Ram says that he
cannot believe that Jinsi does not support the annual school sports gala.

The above case involves erroneous reasoning. What Ram is refuting here is a
misinterpreted version of Jinsi’s viewpoint. Jinsi’s view of encouraging and facilitating
social service projects is misconstrued as a necessary disapproval of all the other
 events and activities of the school. This distorted version of Jinsi’s view is
attacked by the arguer. It is similar to attacking a straw man.

d. The Argument Against the Person (Argument ad hominem)

This fallacy arises in the following way. Person X makes an argument. Person Y evaluates
the argument. Person Y shows that the argument made by X is wrong because either:
a) Person X carries a bad reputation and so his argument cannot be sound.
(Abusive)

Or
b) Person X’s circumstances are questionable hence his argument cannot be
sound. (Circumstantial)

In this type of fallacy, the argument is examined not on the basis of its premises but
on the basis of the person making the argument, his circumstances etc. Personal
emotions, interests, attitudes, prejudices etc., lead to this fallacy.
 Since he is a leftist, he will not favour the policy even if it beneficial for the
people. (Abusive)
 Since he works for Amazon, he will naturally give arguments in favour of
e- commerce. We cannot believe him. (Circumstantial)

e. The Appeal to Force (Argument ad baculum)

This fallacy arises when an arguer threatens his opponent with some undesirable or unpleasant
consequences if his viewpoint is not accepted. This appeal to force doesn’t necessarily involve
physical force or threat but can also use subtle threats to persuade the other person. In logic,
accepting a conclusion merely based on threat is not sound.

For example:

 The auto drivers often threaten the authorities that if their demands are not met,
they will go on strike.
 “Give me your wallet or else look at the knife in my hand.”

f. Missing the Point or Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi)

This fallacy is committed when instead of proving what is intended, we prove something
different. That is to say, the premises imply something other than the conclusion which they
 are supposed to imply. Ignoratio elenchi means “ignoring the conclusion to be proved” and
instead “proving the wrong conclusion.”

This can be further understood by looking at the example given below.

 The object of war is peace therefore army soldiers are the best peacemakers.

This argument commits the Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion as even if it is assumed

that the object of war is peace, still it does not imply that army soldiers are the best
peacemakers. Since the premise misses the point, this fallacy is also called “Missing the
Point”.

3. Fallacies of Defective Induction

In the Fallacies of Defective Induction, the premises of the argument may be relevant to the
conclusion but they are too weak to support the conclusion. This will be further clarified
when we look at the four sub-types under this fallacy along with an example of each.

a. The Argument From Ignorance (Argument ad ignorantiam)

This fallacy arise when it is argued that a proposition is true on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or when it is argued that a proposition is false because it has not been proved to be
true.

For example:

There is no evidence that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Thus, cigarette smoking does
not cause lung cancer.

Here, the appeal is made to ignorance rather than to knowledge. The fact that it has not been
definitely proven yet that smoking leads to cancer, it does not imply conversely that smoking
does not cause cancer.

b. The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argument ad verecundium)

This fallacy arises when the authority who is cited, does not have enough credibility to judge
the issue at hand.
 Example:

When some famous Bollywood actor says that a particular brand of tea is good and it is
accepted as good; it is fallacious. The actor is not authority to judge the quality of tea. He is an
authority in the field of acting and entertainment. Had he recommended a particular acting
school, his words would have been reliable. But in the domain of tea, he does not have
credibility as he is not an expert.

c. False Cause (Argument non causa pro causa)

This fallacy is committed when a non-causal event is assumed to be either a cause or part of a
cause of an effect. That is to say, in such cases, a causal relationship is assumed to exist when
actually there is none.

For example:

 Harry drinks ‘Rasna’ with water every day. That is the cause of his good performance
in studies.

 When the building got burnt, the sun was shining bright. Thus, the bright shining sun
is the cause of the building burning.

The above example shows another form of the Fallacy of False Cause called Post hoc
ergo propter hoc. It means, ‘after the thing, therefore, because of the thing’. Although
temporally, a cause is always prior (antecedent) to the effect, yet to say that every
antecedent event is necessarily the cause of the following event is fallacious.

d. Hasty Generalization (Fallacy of Converse Accident)

The Fallacy of Hasty Generalization arises when it is argued in a careless and quick manner
from one or very few instances to a very broad or universal claim. In this fallacy, a general
rule is formed on the basis of very few instances.

For example:

To give charity to healthy beggars is wrong. Thus, charity of all kinds is wrong.

In this example, even though few cases/instances of fit and healthy beggars stop us from giving
them charity. It is erroneous to form a universal claim that all kinds of charity are wrong. There
can be people who are poor and needy and genuinely require support.

4. Fallacies of Presumption

Fallacies of Presumptions are committed when unnecessary presumptions are made prior to
making an argument. The premises already presume to be true (without evidence) what they
aim to prove. There are three major sub-categories under this:

a. Fallacy of Accident

This fallacy occurs when general or universal claim is erroneously applied to an individual
case which is not properly governed by that general claim.

For example:

In the moral domain, when we look at the universal moral dictum, it is true that lying is a sin
but if in order to save lives, one lies, it would not be wrong. So, to presumably say that all
acts of lying are wrong, without taking into consideration some special circumstances is
fallacious.

b. Begging the Question (petitio principii)

This fallacy arises when the conclusion or some part of the conclusion is already stated in the
premises either explicitly or in some slightly different form. This fallacy of Petitio Principii is
also called ‘reasoning in a circle’ because the conclusion is already present in the evidence,
out

of one’s eagerness to prove it. The reasoning involved becomes superfluous as the conclusion
is already assumed.

For example:
Ram is a good student because he spends more time studying. He spends more time
studying because he is a good student. This argument involves ‘reasoning in circle’.

c. Complex Question

This fallacy arises when a question is asked in such a way that it assumes or presupposes
the truth of some facts hidden in it (question). In this fallacy, often a single question is asked
but two or three questions are wrapped up in it. Thus, it is also called ‘Fallacy of Many
Questions’.
 Example: “Have you stopped being careless with your work?”
In this case, there are two question involved. First, ‘Did you ever have a tendency of being
careless towards your work?” and second, “Have you given up that attitude now?”. Further,
an affirmative answer to the question asked in the example presumes that earlier the person had
a careless attitude towards his work.