Maket 2014_Layout 1.qxd


The Multifaceted Nature of Legal English

Lilit Sahakyan
Yerevan Gladzor University

Abstract 

It is beyond suspicion that legal English stands as a sublanguage of paramount inter-
national importance. The extralinguistic basis of legal English has nowadays been
extended embracing conflict of overall international-social, political (both foreign and
home) interests. As seen from the title of the work, the primary goal of the present arti-
cle is to investigate the nature of law English. The article covers a detailed analysis of
some pivotal, challenging and highly significant linguistic issues that deal with the mul-
tifaceted nature of legal English based on the comprehensive historic review of legal
English. Thus, the vital importance of the subject is accounted for by the substantial and
decisive role legal English plays in our social life.

Key words: legal English, law English, sublanguage, key features, precision, vague-
ness, multifaceted nature.

Introduction

Legal English is a language of long traditions. It is the story of Anglo-Saxon merce-
naries, Latin-speaking missionaries, Scandinavian raiders, and Norman invaders, all of
whom left their mark not only on England, but on the language of its law as well. Legal
English developed naturally, under the influence of diverse languages and cultures, as
well as the growing complexity of the legal system and the shift from predominantly oral
to mainly written. 

Legal English is significantly different from standard general English as it uses spe-
cialized legal English vocabulary and structure. Law English is a system and culture-
bound language: its special style, lexis and syntactic structure depend on the society in
question and its legal reasoning. It has traditionally been the preserve of lawyers from
English-speaking countries which have shared common law traditions. However, due to
the spread of English as the predominant language of international business, as well as
its role as a legal language within the European Union, legal English is now a global phe-
nomenon.

Historical Development

How did legal language get to be the way that it is? To answer this questions one needs
to look at the phases of the history of the language of lawyers, mainly the origins: Celts,
Anglo-Saxons and Danes, as well as the impact of the adoption of Christianity, Christian
missionaries and Latin, the Norman Conquest, the introduction of French, French-speaking
Normans and Anglo-French, as well Law French, the demise of Latin and Law French on
the law and legal English.1 And how does the language of the law differ from ordinary
speech and writing? The hot issue to be considered in this article is the great difference

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

22



between legal English and ordinary English. Modern legal English is based on Standard
English. Nevertheless, law English differs from standard English in a number of ways. It
contains a number of unusual key features largely relating to terminology, linguistic struc-
ture, linguistic conventions, and punctuation, etc., all of them having their roots in the his-
tory of the development of English as a legal language (Butt, Castle  2006;  Elwell, Smith
1996;  Haigh 2006, 2009; Klinck 1992; Mellinkoff 1982; Murray, Muldoon 2004; Putman
2003; Tiersma 2000). One thing to be emphasised is that the mastery of ordinary English
does not imply the mastery of legal English. Those differences are based on certain cate-
gories, and their basic elements, standing as specific markers of legal English. The points
given below portray the multifaceted nature of legal English based on its basic elements,
mainly lexical, grammatical and syntactic specific features and significant key features.
Those key features are studied with the aim of providing a comprehensive description of
some pivotal and challenging issues that expose the multifaceted nature of legal English.

Key Features of Legal English

Key Feature N1. Terms of art. One of the ways in which the language of the law is
claimed to promote clear and concise communication is mainly through a specific legal
vocabulary. Legal English, in common with many other professional languages varia-
tions, employs a great deal of  specialized words and phrases unique to law that have rel-
atively exact meanings2, are used by legal professions, promote brevity of expression,
and fulfill an important communicative function. These distinctive units of vocabulary –
terms of art – have technical meanings, and such technical terms as waiver, restraint of
trade, restrictive covenant, promissory estoppel, as well, tort, fee simple, and novation,
etc., are not generally familiar to the layman.

Key Feature N2. Obscure words or phrases. There is a tendency in legal writing
to use unnecessary obscure words or phrases rather than their ordinary equivalents, per-
haps out of a feeling that the obscure words are somehow more impressive. Here are the
most commonly used obscure words or phrases implemented in legal English parallel to
their single word equivalent: annex – attach, append – attach, cease – stop, conceal
– hide, demise – death, desist – stop, leave off, detain – hold, delay, determine / ter-
minate – 1. end, 2. decide, donate – give, effectuate – carry out, endeavour – try,
evince – show, expedite – hasten, expend – spend, expiration / expiry – end, extend
– give, extinguish – end, forthwith – immediately / soon, forward – send, furnish –
give / provide, implement – carry out / fulfill, inaugurate – begin, indicate – state /
show / say, initiate – begin, necessitate – require, occasion (v.) – cause, peruse –
read, possess – have, present – give, prior – earlier, prior to – before, proceed –
go (ahead), quantum – amount, retain – keep, suborn – bribe (e.g., a juror or wit-
ness), subsequent to – after, subsequently – then / after / later, utilise – use, until
such time – until, etc..

Key Feature N3. Quotidian words. Ordinary words both in general English and
legal English exhibit certain systematic lexical relationships, e.g., words can be related

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

23



as homonyms, or via polysemy. But this can cause communication problems when legal
terms have both an ordinary meaning and a divergent legal meaning. For example,  there
are quotidian words used in apparently peculiar contexts in legal English as compared
to their ordinary meanings in general English, e.g., distress - 1) n. the self-help taking of
another’s possessions in order to force payment of a claim, which is generally illegal
without a court order, 2) adj. at lowest price due to negative circumstances, entertain v.
- to consider (e.g., a lawsuit), execute - to sign to effect, find v. - to resolve, to make a
legal decision in a law court, furnish v. - to give, provide, to present (associated concepts
may include furnish proof, labor furnished, material furnished, work furnished), hold -
to resolve, to decide legally, to conclude, etc.. These words are particularly problematic
because laymen are very likely to misinterpret them, and even courts are sometimes
unsure whether the ordinary or technical meaning was intended. 

Key Feature N4. Wordiness and redundancy. Lawyers are very prone to wordiness
and redundancy, using wordy and redundant phraseology. For example, lawyers tend to
use ponderous phrases (such as subsequent to) where a single word would suffice
(after). Other examples of frequently used ponderous phrase parallel to their single word
equivalent include be a significant factor in – affect / influence, be inclined to the view
that –  think that, be in a position to –  can / may, by dint of – because, during the time
that - during, give rise to / have the effect of –  cause, have a detrimental effect upon –
harm, have an affect upon / impact upon –  affect, in spite of the fact / notwithstanding
the fact that –  despite / although, having regard to –  concerning, in the event that –
if, in view of –  because, it is arguable that – perhaps, etc.. 

On the one hand, lawyers avoid synonyms or elegant variation as using a different
word is assumed to invoke a different meaning. On the other hand, lawyers have a great
love for long lists of synonyms, especially in legal doublets, triplets and quadruplets
(dublicate / triplicate / quadruplicate words / alliteration and conjoined phrases). In
Anglo-Saxon legal culture, the complexity of Anglo-Saxon law led to more linguistical-
ly complicated legal language, for instance, there was a curious historical tendency in
stringing together two or three words to convey what was usually a single legal concept.
The practice of the usage of alliteration and conjoined phrases dating back to Anglo-
Saxon times has survived to the present. These conjoined phrases consisting of words
like and and or, are extremely common in legal English. Examples of this include such
legal doublets like fit and proper, fraud and deceit, null and void, perform and dis-
charge, sole all and sundry, successors and assigns, and such legal triplets as give,
devise and bequeath, the rest, residue and remainder, dispute, controversy or claim,
promise, agree and covenant, possession, custody and control, and also legal quadru-
plets as in lieu, in place, instead and in substitution of, etc.. Such constructions need to
be treated with caution, since sometimes the words used mean, for practical purposes,
exactly the same thing (as in case of null and void); and sometimes they do not quite do
so (as in case of dispute, controversy or claim, possession, custody and control). One
reason for such lists of words is to be as comprehensive as possible. They also can add
emphasis. But the lists of synonyms can thus create interpretative problems leading to

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

24



ambiguity. Consequently, careful communication requires that lawyers use such con-
joined phrases with care.

Key Feature N5. Archaic language vs. novel terminology. The language of the law
is neither utterly conservative nor exceptionally innovative, and as a mere outcome, legal
English is an odd mixture of archaic alongside very innovative features. Legal writing
employs many archaic vocabulary / legal archaisms that were formerly quotidian lan-
guage, but today exist only in law, dating from the 1500s. Use of pronominal adverbs
or here-, there- and where- words like hereof, thereof, and whereof (and other derivatives,
including --above, -after, at, -before, -by, -in, -inafter, -of, -on, -to, -tofore, -under, -upon,
-with, etc.) are not often used in ordinary English. Nevertheless, they are used in legal
English primarily as a way of avoiding the repetition of names of things in the document
or the document itself. For example, the parties hereto instead of the parties to this con-
tract, or the provisions contained hereinafter instead of the provisions referred to later
on in this contract. However, archaic pronominal adverbs used in Legal English persist
in modern legal usage largely as a consequence of legal tradition rather than usefulness.

Moreover, legal vocabulary is full of antiquated features including a. archaic mor-
phology (further affiant sayeth not), b. the legal use of same, said, aforesaid, such and to
wit, or said and such as adjectives, and c. use of the subjunctive, especially in the passive
(e.g., be it known). Although these legal archaisms and antiquated features often had a
legitimate function in the past, and often there were reasons, conflicting motivations and
goals for using antiquated vocabulary (such as the reluctance of religious language adher-
ents to change or even to translate sacred or authoritative texts for not affecting their
meaning, or to justify lawyers‘ high fees), the claim that these antique features should be
preserved nowadays because they are somehow more precise than ordinary language is
simply not defensible. 

Even though some legal language is quite archaic, and many other old legal terms
have died off as the concepts to which they refer became obsolescent, in fact, when deal-
ing with new legal concepts for which there is no existing word, lawyers do not hesitate
to create novel terminology. Consequently, some areas of the legal lexicon are very
innovative, as in terms like zoning, palimony, e-contract, e-signature, e-postmark, click-
wrap agreement, shrink-wrap licences, clickwrap licences, browsewrap licences, etc..
Such terms give the law the ability to deal with novel circumstances and legal develop-
ments. 

Further, another example of linguistic creativity in legal language is the frequent for-
mation of new words ending in -ee, which contrast to those ending in -or/-er. Legal
English contains a large number of names and titles, such as employer and employee,
mortgagee and mortgagor, assignee and assignor, or lessor and lessee, in which the
reciprocal and opposite nature of the relationship is indicated by the use of alternative
endings. This practice derives from Latin. Although these pairs are confusing for the lay
public, they can enhance communication within the profession by filling lexical gaps that
exist in ordinary language.

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

25



Key Feature N6. Latinisms and French survivals. Law English is abundant with
loan words and phrases from other languages. Some Anglo-Saxon words or legal terms
have survived to today, including writ, ordeal, witness, deem, oath and moot. Also, a
large amount of loan technical vocabulary, including many of the most basic words in our
legal system, includes terms and terminological combinations derived from French
(attorney-at-law, autrefois acquit, bailiff, cestui que trust, culprit, cyprès doctrine, defen-
dant, escheat, estoppel, feme covert, feme sole, force majeure, laches, mortgage, oyez,
plaintiff, puisne, replevin, torts, trove, voir dire, etc.) and Latin (ad hoc, bona fida, cer-
tiorari, de facto donatio, ex parte, habeas corpus, inter alia, inter vivos, mens rea, mala
prohibita, mortis causa, prima facie, res judicata, sub judice, sub silentio, sua sponte,
ultra vires, etc.). As a rule, in legal instruments they are not italicised as English legal
language, as would be foreign / loan words in mainstream English writing. To make it
worse, in some cases, parallelly are used both the loan and the native terms for the same
legal phenomenon, such as, Eng. previously acquitted à Fr. autrefois acquit, Eng. pre-
viously convicted à Fr. autrefois convict, Eng. estoppel by conduct à Fr. estoppel in
pais, excess of jurisdiction à Lat. ultra vires, Eng. legally permissible à Lat. legitimate,
Eng. guilty knowledgeà Lat. mens rea, Eng. unlawful act or behaviour / misdeed / mis-
demeanor à Lat. actus reus, Eng. among others à Lat. inter alia, Eng. letter citatory /
citation à Lat. subpoena, Eng. witness summons / citation à Lat. subpoena ad testi-
ficandum, Eng. action / suit à Lat. lis, Eng. autopsy à Lat. post mortem, Eng. immuni-
ty à Lat. habeas corpus, Eng. in court à Lat. ad litem, Eng. survivorshipà Lat. jus
accresendi, Eng. so-called à Lat. soi disant, etc..

As well, legal maxims, even today, are often in Latin, which gives them a sense of
heightened dignity and authority. Also, names of writs (mandamus, certiorari) and ter-
minology for case names (versus, ex rel., etc.) are still in Latin. Furthermore, some of the
other characteristics of Law French that have left traces in today’s legal language include
addition of initial e to words like squire, creating esquire, and simplification of the
French verb system, so that all verbs eventually ended in -er, as in demurrer or waiver.
As an outcome, in legal English, it is more difficult to achieve clarity in practice than it
is in ordinary English, because much of the terminology used comes from French and
Latin.

Key Feature N7. Legal slang. Despite claims on lawyers’ very formal, even pompous
speech habits, frequent use of legal slang, enhancing group cohesion and ensuring short-
ness, is evident, as well.. Examples include rogs for interrogatories; stir, porridge for
prison or imprisonment; mug shot for photo of a criminal; tro for temporary restraining
order; slapp suit for strategic lawsuit against public participation; horse shedding for
subornation of perjury, and grant cert for grant a writ of certiorari, etc..

Key Feature N8. Avoiding pronouns. One means of gaining precision is to repeat
nouns (e.g., player), rather than using a pronoun (e.g., he) after a person or thing is intro-
duced. Pronouns can sometimes have ambiguous reference, so this technique can indeed
enhance precision. Lawyers, however, avoid pronouns almost routinely, even where no

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

26



ambiguity is possible. Avoiding pronouns does have an unintended benefit, mainly it
reduces the use of sexist language.

Key Feature N9. Unusual word order. Lawyers often adopt an unusual and distinct-
ly strange word order. There is no single clear reason explaining this phenomenon,
although the influence of French grammatical structures is certainly a contributing fac-
tor. Here are some typical examples in case of which adjectives normally follow the noun
that they modify as it is in French. Such as, accounts payable, attorney general, court
martial,  fee simple, letters testamentary, malice aforethought, solicitor general, title
absolute, treasure trove, as well before as after any judgment, the title above mentioned,
etc.. Such specificities cause little trouble for lawyers, for whom inverting word order
becomes second nature. But they trouble the non-lawyer, unfamiliar with such linguistic
eccentricities.

Key Feature N10. Unusual and complicated syntax. Syntax in legal language is
quite a bit more unusual  and complicated than in other styles. To illustrate this point let
us note that English lawyers have the tendency to make use of such obvious markers as: 

a) unusual sentence structures (e.g., separating the subject from the verb, or split-
ting the verb complex), 

b) lengthy and complex sentences with intricate patterns of coordination and subor-
dination, abundant with 

c) multiple negations / negative structures (aimed at softening the impact of what
is being said by using not un- / im- / il- / in,  etc., such as: not inconsiderable, not unjus-
tifiable, not negligible, etc.), 

d) syntactic devices, strategically creating objectivity and authoritativeness, such as
the frequent use of 

1. impersonal constructions (e.g., the avoidance of first and second person pronouns
and using the third person, or the tendency of judges to refer to themselves as the court
rather than I), and

2. passive constructions (strategically to omit reference to the actor, thus de-empha-
sizing or obscuring the identity of the actor, and being deliberately imprecise), as well 

f) nominalizations (i.e., nouns derived from verbs, e.g., cancel- cancellation, legal-
ize-legalization, mislabel-mislabeling), and the last but not the least, 

g) with an eye-catching lack of punctuation (e.g., some statutes or linguistic princi-
ple that can easily be broken down into more digestible pieces with no loss in content,
are formulated as one sentence without any punctuation except for a final full stop). 

Such commonly stressed syntactic characteristics of legal style reduce compre-
hension, make the meaning less clear and definite, as well inappropriate or ambiguous,
thus impairing precise communication.

Conclusion

As an outcome of our study, we got assured in the multifaceted nature of legal English
highlighting its flexibility, precision and vagueness, gained as a result of making use of

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

27



terms of art, wordiness and redundancy, conjoined phrases and lists of words, quotidian
words, archaic or rarely used words and expressions, Latinisms and French survivals,
unusual word order, intricate and unusual sentence structures, long and complex sen-
tences with specific syntactic devices, etc.. Indeed, each of the above listed factors,
accompanied with pertinent explanatory notes and relevant interpretations on selected
examples, came to mirror the multifaceted nature of legal English, as a language having
its own specialized grammar, lexical, syntactic and semantic specificities that are not
acceptable in the standard language. Nevertheless, it would be inaccurate to suggest that
legal English is nothing more than formal written language with some specific features.
Better to conclude by stating that legal English is an English sublanguage of long tradi-
tions, standing distinctively somewhere between a separate language and ordinary
English, with either highly precise or maddeningly vague collection of linguistic habits
and specifically complex multifaceted nature, developed over many centuries.

Notes:

1. For further detailed information on the historical development of law English See
Sahakyan, L. S. (2014) Insights into Legal English (teaching and methodology).
Yerevan, pp. 85-89; Sahakyan, L. S. (2011) Legal English Terminology as an
Outcome of Historical Developments // ‘’Gladzor-20’’: Hodvatsneri hobelyanakan
zhoghovatsu./ Ed. by Zh. Jhangiryan, A. Sargsyan, et. all. Yerevan Gladzor
University, Yerevan: Noyan Tapan, pp. 674-687; Baker, J. H. (1990) An Introduction
to English Legal History (3rd edition). London: Butterworths; Baker, J. H. (1990)
Manual of Law French (2nd edition). Aldershot, Eng.: Scolar Press; Hiltunen, R.
(1990) Chapters on Legal English: Aspects Past and Present of the Language of the
Law. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia; Williams, Ch. (2007) Tradition and
change in legal English: Verbal constructions in prescriptive texts. Germany: Peter
lang..

2. Such terms are less exact in law than in other sciences because legal terms typically
refer to concepts that change over time, or are slightly different in divergent jurisdic-
tions, and, of course, they may be modified by judicial decisions.

References:

1. Baker, J.H. (1990) An Introduction to English Legal History (3rd edition). London:
Butterworths.

2. Baker, J.H. (1990) Manual of Law French (2nd edition). Aldershot, Eng.: Scolar
Press.

3. Butt, P.; Castle, R. (2006) Modern Legal Drafting: A Guide to Using Clearer
Language. Cambridge: CUP. 

4. Elwell, C.C.; Smith, R.B. (1996) Practical Legal Writing for Legal Assistants. USA.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

28



5. (2009) Guide to Court Reform and the Role of Court Personnel: A Guide for
USAID Democracy and Governance Workers USAID, Washington, D.C..

6. Haigh, R. (2006) Oxford Handbook of Legal Correspondence. Oxford: OUP.
7. Haigh, R. (2009) Legal English (2nd edition). Routledge-Cavendish, Taylor &

Francis Gr.. 
8. Hiltunen, R. (1990) Chapters on Legal English: Aspects Past and Present of the

Language of the Law. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
9. Klinck, D.R. (1992) The Word of the Law: Approaches to Legal Discourse. Ottawa:

Carlton University Press.
10. Mellinkoff,  D. (1982) Legal Writing: Sense and Nonsense. St. Paul: West Publ..
11. Murray, G.E.; Muldoon, G. (2004) Criminal Law Language of New York. Florida:

Gould Publ..
12. Putman, W.H. (2003) Legal Analysis and Writing (3rd edition). Delman Cengage

Learning.
13. Sahakyan, L. (2014) Insights into Legal English (teaching and methodology).

Yerevan: “AGH” Press.
14. Sahakyan, L.S. (2011) Legal English Terminology as an Outcome of Historical

Developments // “Gladzor-20’’: Hodvatsneri hobelyanakan zhoghovatsu. / Ed. by Zh.
Jhangiryan, A. Sargsyan, et. all. Yerevan Gladzor University, Yerevan: Noyan Tapan.

15. Tiersma, P. (2000) Legal Language. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
16. Williams, Ch. (2007) Tradition and Change in Legal English: Verbal Constructions

in Prescriptive Texts. Germany: Peter lang..
17. Garner, B. (2003) A Dictionary of Modern legal usage (2nd edition). New York: OUP.
18. Gifis, S.H. (1993) Dictionary of Legal Terms (2nd edition). Barron’s Publ..
19. Hill, G.N.; Hill, K. (1997) Real Life Dictionary of the Law: Taking the Mystery out of

Legal Language. General Publishing Group.
20. Riley, D. (1996) Check Your Vocabulary for Law: Dictionary of Law (2nd edition).

Peter Collin Publ..

Æñ³í³μ³Ý³Ï³Ý ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ μ³½Ù³¹ÇÙáõÃÛáõÝÁ

Àëï ¿áõà ۳Ý, ѳ ïáõÏ ³ å³ óáõÛó Ý»ñ ãÇ å³ Ñ³Ý çáõÙ ³ÛÝ ÷³ë ïÁ, áñ ³Ý· É» ñ»Ý
Ç ñ³ í³ Ï³Ý É» ½áõÝ ³Û ëûñ Ñ³Ý ¹»ë ¿ ·³ ÉÇë áñ å»ë ÙÇ ç³½ ·³ ÛÇÝ Ï³ñ¨á ñáõà ÛáõÝ áõ -
Ý» óáÕ »Ý ó É» ½áõ: Ü»ñ ϳ ÛáõÙë û ñ»Ý ùÇ É»½ íÇ ³ñ ï³ É»½ í³ Ï³Ý ÑÇÙùÝ Áݹ ɳÛÝ í»É ¿`
Ý»ñ· ñ³ í» Éáí ѳ ÙÁݹ ѳ Ýáõñ, ÙÇ ç³½ ·³ ÛÇÝ Ñ³ ë³ ñ³ ϳ ϳÝ, ù³ Õ³ ù³ Ï³Ý ³ñ ï³ -
ùÇÝ ¨ Ý»ñ ùÇÝ ß³ Ñ» ñÇ μ³ ËáõÙ: ²Ûë ³ éáõ Ùáí ëáõÛÝ áõ ëáõ٠ݳ ëÇ ñáõÃ Û³Ý ³ñ ¹Ç³ ϳ -
Ýáõà Ûáõ ÝÁ å³Û Ù³ ݳ íáñ í³Í ¿ ³ÛÝ í×éá ñáß ¹» ñáí, áñ ³Û ëûñ Ç ñ³ í³ μ³ Ý³ ϳÝ
³Ý· É» ñ»ÝÝ áõ ÝÇ Ñ³ ë³ ñ³ ϳ Ï³Ý ÏÛ³Ý ùáõÙ: êáõÛÝ Ñá¹ í³ ÍáõÙ Ñëï³Ï ¨ ѳ Ù³ -
ϳñ· í³Í û ñÇ Ý³Ï Ý» ñáí Ñ³Ý ·³ Ù³ ݳ ÉÇó ùÝÝáõÃ Û³Ý ¿ »Ý óñÏ íáõÙ Ç ñ³ í³ Ï³Ý
³Ý· É» ñ» ÝÇ μ³½ Ù³ ¹Ç Ùáõà Ûáõ ÝÁ. ¹Ç ï³ñÏ íáõÙ »Ý Ç ñ³ í³ μ³ Ý³ Ï³Ý ³Ý· É» ñ» ÝÇ Ñ³ -
Ù³ñ ·áñ ͳ é³ Ï³Ý ³ éáõ Ùáí ³ é³ í»É í³é ¹ñë ̈ áñ íáÕ ¨ ï³ ñá ñá ßÇã É»½ í³ Ï³Ý
ϳñ¨á ñ³ ·áõÛÝ ³ é³ÝÓ Ý³ ѳï Ïáõà ÛáõÝ Ý»ñ` Ç ñ³ í³ μ³ Ý³ Ï³Ý ³Ý· É» ñ» ÝÇ Ûáõ ñ³ -

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

29



ïÇ åáõà ÛáõÝÝ áõ ËñÃÇÝ μÝáõÛ ÃÁ å³Û Ù³ ݳ íá ñáÕ ³ é³Ýó ù³ ÛÇÝ ·áñ ÍáÝ Ý»ñ, á ñáÝó
ÙÇ çá óáí Ç ñ³ í³ μ³ ÝÇ Ù³ë ݳ ·Ç ï³ Ï³Ý ³Ý· É» ñ» ÝÁ Ñ³Ý ¹»ë  ¿ ·³ ÉÇë áñ å»ë ¹³ ñ» -
ñÇ ÁÝ Ã³ó ùáõÙ μݳ ϳ ÝáÝ ½³ñ ·³ óáõÙ ³å ñ³Í Ûáõ ñá íÇ á ׳ íáñ í³Í ³ é³Ý ÓÇÝ É» -
½áõ, áñ å»ë μ³½ Ù³μ ÝáõÛà ɻ½ í³ μ³ Ý³ Ï³Ý ³ í³Ý ¹áõÛà ݻ ñÇ ³ñ ·³ ëÇù` ³ñ ï³ óá É» -
Éáí ³ÛÝ É» ½áõ Ý» ñÇ Ùdz ˳é Ýáõ ÙÁ, á ñáÝù Áݹ ѳ Ýáõñ ³é Ù³Ùμ ³Ý· É» ñ» ÝÇ Ó ̈ ³ íáñ -
Ù³Ý ·áñ ÍáõÙ Ù»Í ¹»ñ »Ý ˳ Õ³ ó»É:

Ìíîãîãðàííîñòü þðèäè÷åñêîãî àíãëèéñêîãî

 íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ íå òðåáóþòñÿ îñîáûå ôàêòû î òîì, ÷òî þðèäè÷åñêèé
àíãëèéñêèé  âûñòóïàåò â êà÷åñòâå ïîäúÿçûêîì ïåðâîñòåïåííîãî ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî
çíà÷åíèÿ. Ýêñòðàëèíãâèñòè÷åñêàÿ îñíîâà þðèäè÷åñêîãî àíãëèéñêîãî ðàñøèðèëàñü,
âêëþ÷àÿ â ñåáÿ ñòîëêíîâåíèÿ âñåîáùèõ, ìåæäóíàðîäíî îáùåñòâåííûõ, ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ
âíåøíèõ è âíóòðåííèõ èíòåðåñîâ. Àêòóàëüíîñòü èññëåäîâàíèÿ ñâÿçàíà ñ òîé çíà÷èìîé
ðîëüþ, êîòîðóþ èãðàåò þðèäè÷åñêèé àíãëèéñêèé â îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè. Ñòàòüÿ
ïîñâÿùåíà òùàòåëüíîìó àíàëèçó ìíîãîãðàííîé ñóùíîñòè þðèäè÷åñêîãî àíãëèéñêîãî.
Ñ ïîìîùüþ êîíêðåòíûõ ïðèìåðîâ ðàññìàòðèâàþòñÿ íàèáîëåå ÿðêèå êëþ÷åâûå
ÿçûêîâûå îñîáåííîñòè þðèäè÷åñêîãî àíãëèéñêîãî ñ ôóíêöèîíàëüíîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ,
÷òî è ïîçâîëÿåò âûÿâèòü âàæíåéøèå ôàêòîðû ñòàíîâëåíèÿ ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîãî ÿçûêà
çàêîíà â ðåçóëüòàòå õðîíîëîãè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà â öåëîì.
Ó÷èòûâàþòñÿ òàêæå ðàçëè÷íûå ÿçûêîâûå òðàäèöèè, ñûãðàâøèå êëþ÷åâóþ ðîëü â
ôîðìèðîâàíèè ìíîãîãðàííîé ñóùíîñòè þðèäè÷åñêîãî àíãëèéñêîãî.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

30