SUBJECT REVIEW: FEATURES OF LEGAL LANGUAGE AND ITS TRANSLATION

Sura Jarjis Wadeea

doi:10.61796/jheaa.v3i1.1635

Authors

Sura Jarjis Wadeea
sura.j.wadeea@aliraqia.edu.iq
Al-Iraqia University, Iraq

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): Journal of Higher Education and Academic Advancement

Articles

January 14, 2026

Downloads

VIEW ARTICLE

Abstract
How to Cite
Metrics
References
License

Objective: This article aims to explore the unique features and tools of legal language, focusing on its structure, stylistic conventions, and lexical systems. It seeks to identify key linguistic characteristics and examine how these features are translated while maintaining semantic accuracy. Method: The review employs a qualitative analysis of legal language, focusing on its specific conventions and the process of translating legal texts. It examines the relationship between legal terms, expressions, and their meanings, as well as the challenges faced by translators. Results: The study identifies the precise and formal tools used in legal language, highlighting the importance of coherence and clarity in legal texts. It also provides insights into strategies for translating legal language to ensure that the translated text retains its legal force, avoiding ambiguity. Novelty: This review contributes to the field by bridging the gap between linguistic form and legal meaning, offering a comprehensive analysis of legal translation and its impact on the legal system. It emphasizes the significance of understanding legal language in cross-linguistic legal contexts, ensuring the integrity of translated legal texts.

E. Finegan, “Review of Legal Language by Peter M. Tiersma,” The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 123–127, Jan. 2000, doi: 10.1558/ijsll.v7i1.123.

J. Kulesza, “Free speech, artistic expression and blasphemy laws within the ECHR margin of appreciation,” in Law, Language and the Courtroom, Routledge, 2021, pp. 160–172. doi: 10.4324/9781003153771-14.

A. Durant and J. H. C. Leung, “Reforming Legal Language,” in Language and Law, Routledge, 2017, pp. 113–116. doi: 10.4324/9781315436258-25.

A. Gillespie and S. Weare, “1. The English Legal System,” in The English Legal System, Oxford University Press, 2017. doi: 10.1093/he/9780198785439.003.0001.

E. K. Trent and S. E. Davis, “Emotions Conveyed Through First- and Second-Language Lyrics: (622322013-001),” 2013, American Psychological Association (APA). doi: 10.1037/e622322013-001.

F. Recanati, “Does Linguistic Communication Rest on Inference?,” Mind & Language, vol. 17, no. 1–2, pp. 105–126, Jan. 2002, doi: 10.1111/1468-0017.00191.

G. Rundblad, “We, ourselves and who else?: Differences in use of passive voice and metonymy for oneself versus other researchers in medical research articles,” English Text Construction, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 23–40, Mar. 2008, doi: 10.1075/etc.1.1.04run.

Z. Beenstock, “Gendering the General Will: Frankenstein’s Breaches of Contract,” in The Politics of Romanticism, Edinburgh University Press, 2016. doi: 10.3366/edinburgh/9781474401036.003.0007.

S. Castelli, “Murder and Murder Prohibition in Josephus,” in “You Shall Not Kill,” Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017, pp. 159–172. doi: 10.13109/9783666552687.159.

H. Im and Y. Ha, May I Have Your Permission? Antecedents of Permission-Granting Intention. 2013. doi: 10.31274/itaa_proceedings-180814-650.

B. Russell, “Shall, Must, May: The Logic of Legal Obligation and Permission,” Alta Law Rev, p. 93, May 1994, doi: 10.29173/alr1183.

Ε. Μανίκα, “The use of english modal verbs by EFL learners in greek state schools,” National Documentation Centre (EKT). doi: 10.12681/eadd/21290.

B. Henderson, “Advanced Sentence Structures: Compound and Complex Sentences and Relative Clauses,” in A Math-Based Writing System for Engineers, Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 91–106. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-10756-7_7.

N. Wheate, T. Hinton, and J. Lee, “Phenergan for under 6s is no longer recommended due to hallucination risk. Here’s what to use instead,” Nov. 2024, doi: 10.64628/aa.cxs7t3fyh.

H. Guest and B. Parr, “Words Frequently seen in Kana,” in Mastering Japanese, Macmillan Education UK, 1989, pp. 336–337. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-19825-2_35.

F. Sole-Mauri, “Cadlaws is built from Canadian legal documents. The corpus contains over 16 milions words in each language and it is composed of documents that are legally equivalent in both languages but not the result of a translation. Cadlaws is built upon enactments co-drafted by two jurists to ensure legal equality of each version, to reflect the concepts, terms and institutions of two legal traditions,” Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. doi: 10.5565/ddd.uab.cat/238990.