原文標(biāo)題：
Language and the law
Why legal writing is so awful
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by mere convenience
語(yǔ)言與法律
為什么法律文書如此糟糕
永遠(yuǎn)不要將純粹出于方便的行為歸因于惡意

[Paragraph 1]

“THE FIRST thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” is one of Shakespeare’s most memorable lines.

"我們要做的第一件事是殺掉所有的律師"，這是莎士比亞經(jīng)典名言之一。

You would struggle to find such a line in the writings of lawyers themselves—and not just because they would, presumably, disagree.

你很難在律師自己的著作中找到這種句子--不僅僅是因?yàn)樗麄兛赡懿煌狻?br>

Though some judges are sophisticated stylists, most legal language is fussy, tangled and incapable of producing anything so pithy. (This is no doubt one reason so many people want to kill all the lawyers.)

盡管一些法官是老練的文書寫手，但大多數(shù)法律語(yǔ)言都是繁瑣的、復(fù)雜的，且無(wú)法產(chǎn)生簡(jiǎn)潔有力的表達(dá)。(這無(wú)疑是許多人想殺死所有律師的原因之一。)

But do lawyers write that way to impress, to bewilder—or perhaps because they must?

但律師那樣寫是為了給人留下深刻印象，使人困惑，還是因?yàn)樗麄儽仨氝@樣寫？

[Paragraph 2]
In a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Eric Martínez and his colleagues from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Edinburgh tried to find out.
在《美國(guó)國(guó)家科學(xué)院院刊》發(fā)表的一項(xiàng)研究中，埃里克.馬丁內(nèi)斯和他的麻省理工學(xué)院和愛(ài)丁堡大學(xué)的同事試圖找出答案。

Contracts written in “l(fā)egalese”, as well as simplified versions conveying identical concepts, were shown to American lawyers and laypeople.
他們向美國(guó)律師和非專業(yè)人員展示了用 "法律語(yǔ)言 "寫成的合同，以及傳達(dá)相同概念的簡(jiǎn)化語(yǔ)言合同。

It turns out that lawyers struggle with, and dislike, legal language almost as much as their clients.
事實(shí)證明，律師幾乎和他們的客戶一樣，對(duì)法律語(yǔ)言感到困難和厭惡。

[Paragraph 3]
Legalese is heavy on “centre-embedding”, sentences in which related words are separated by a long insertion, as in “It is understood by artist and company that comprehensive liability insurance, protecting against any claim or demand up to $300,000, including attorney’s fees, related to company’s actions under this venue agreement, shall be purchased and maintained throughout the agreement by company.”
法律語(yǔ)言重在 "中心嵌入"，相關(guān)詞之間用長(zhǎng)長(zhǎng)的插入語(yǔ)分隔開，如 "據(jù)藝術(shù)家和公司了解，全責(zé)保險(xiǎn)可以覆蓋高達(dá) 30萬(wàn)美元的任何索賠或要求 ，包括公司根據(jù)場(chǎng)館協(xié)議采取行動(dòng)相關(guān)的律師費(fèi)等。全責(zé)保險(xiǎn)應(yīng)由公司購(gòu)買，且在整個(gè)協(xié)議期間有效?！?br>
This puts a heavy strain on the brain’s working memory. The word “insurance” must be held in the mind while some 20 other words go by before its attendant verb phrase “shall be purchased” arrives.
這給大腦的臨時(shí)記憶帶來(lái)了沉重的負(fù)擔(dān)。?“保險(xiǎn)”這個(gè)詞必須牢記在心，而在它的相應(yīng)動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)“應(yīng)購(gòu)買”出現(xiàn)之前，中間大約出現(xiàn)了 20 個(gè)其他詞。

[Paragraph 4]
Another baleful feature of legal writing is jargon: uncommon words like hereinbefore, mala fides and lessor. These mean little more than above, bad faith and landlord.
法律文書另一個(gè)嚇退讀者的特點(diǎn)是使用行話：像hereinbefore、mala fides和lessor這樣不常見的詞，意思其實(shí)就是上文、不誠(chéng)實(shí)和房東。

Even if most lawyers and many laypeople know the jargon, the words require more effort to recall than everyday ones.
即使大多數(shù)律師和許多非專業(yè)人士都知道這些行話，但與日常用語(yǔ)相比，人們需要花更多時(shí)間來(lái)回憶。

[Paragraph 5]
Given the almost universal disdain for legal language, the obvious question is why it persists.
如果大部人不喜歡法律語(yǔ)言，那它為什么還會(huì)持續(xù)存在呢。

Mr Martínez and his colleagues examined several hypotheses.
馬丁內(nèi)斯和他的同事們檢驗(yàn)了幾種假設(shè)。

One was “the curse of knowledge”. This is the idea that many learned people do not know how to write for those less informed than themselves.
一個(gè)是 "知識(shí)的詛咒"，即許多有學(xué)問(wèn)的人不知道如何向?qū)W問(wèn)淺的人解釋事情。

But the researchers found that the lawyers struggle with legal language too. They found the content of the legalese contracts harder to understand and remember.
但研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，律師們也認(rèn)為法律語(yǔ)言很難。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)用法律語(yǔ)言寫的合同內(nèi)容更難理解和記憶。

So did laypeople, of course, but they remembered the simple contracts as well as the lawyers did the complex ones; they understood them almost as well, too.
當(dāng)然，非專業(yè)人員也是如此，但他們對(duì)簡(jiǎn)單合同的記憶與律師對(duì)復(fù)雜合同的記憶一樣好；他們對(duì)合同的理解也幾乎一樣好。

[Paragraph 6]
A more cynical idea was the “it’s just business” hypothesis. This holds that lawyers are intentionally opaque so as to gull clients into paying more for their supposed expertise.
一個(gè)更憤世嫉俗的觀點(diǎn)是 "這一切都只是生意 "的假說(shuō)，即律師故意不透明，以便誘使客戶為其所謂的專業(yè)知識(shí)支付更多費(fèi)用。

But that did not fit the data either, for the lawyers believed their clients would be more likely to sign the simplified contracts than the standard ones.
但這也與數(shù)據(jù)不符，因?yàn)槁蓭焸冋J(rèn)為他們的客戶更有可能簽署簡(jiǎn)化合同，而不是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)合同。

[Paragraph 7]
Perhaps legalese is a form of “in-group signalling”—behaviour used to signal belonging to a group, such as religious iconography or flag-waving at sports events, and aimed at fellow lawyers rather than clients?
也許法律術(shù)語(yǔ)是一種 "群體內(nèi)信號(hào)"--用來(lái)表示屬于某個(gè)群體的行為，如宗教圖騰或體育賽事中揮舞旗幟的行為，法律術(shù)語(yǔ)針對(duì)的是律師同行而不是客戶？

But the lawyers in the test group said they would be more likely to hire the writers of the simplified contracts than the authors of the traditional gobbledygook.
但測(cè)試組中的律師說(shuō)，他們更有可能雇用簡(jiǎn)化合同寫手，而不是深?yuàn)W天書寫手。

[Paragraph 8]
The most common defence of legalese is the need for precision, says Mr Martínez (who trained as a lawyer before switching to cognitive science).
馬丁內(nèi)斯（他在轉(zhuǎn)向認(rèn)知科學(xué)之前受過(guò)律師培訓(xùn)）說(shuō)，支持法律術(shù)語(yǔ)最常見的理由是精準(zhǔn)性需求。

Legal language, in this view, is too important to leave to the imprecisions of ordinary style.
這種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為法律語(yǔ)言太重要了，不能任由普通語(yǔ)言傳遞不精準(zhǔn)意思。

But this argument was refuted too: the lawyers who read the simplified contracts rated them just as enforceable as the complex ones.
但反駁者說(shuō)：閱讀過(guò)簡(jiǎn)化合同的律師認(rèn)為，簡(jiǎn)化合同與復(fù)雜合同一樣具有可執(zhí)行性。

[Paragraph 9]
The researchers were left with a simple conclusion, which they call the “copy-and-paste hypothesis”.
研究人員得出了一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的結(jié)論，他們稱之為 "復(fù)制粘貼假說(shuō)"。

Lawyers imitate what previous lawyers have done. After all, a good deal of rote legal work (such as drawing up contracts) can be copied in large chunks from one document to another.
律師們模仿以前律師所做的事情。畢竟，大量機(jī)械重復(fù)的法律工作（例如起草合同）可以大塊地從一份文件復(fù)制到另一份文件中。

Whatever the reason, changing behaviour will be hard. Experts in legal writing have called for clearer prose for decades.
不管是什么原因，改變行為都是困難的。幾十年來(lái)，法律文書專家們一直呼吁更清晰的散文風(fēng)格。

But the plague of legalese persists. Perhaps evidence from outside the profession will help change things—especially if it is written in plain language.
但是，法律術(shù)語(yǔ)仍然普遍存在。也許行業(yè)外的證據(jù)將有助于改變現(xiàn)狀--尤其是如果它是用通俗易懂的語(yǔ)言寫成的。

（恭喜讀完，本篇英語(yǔ)詞匯量726左右）
原文出自：2023年6月3日《The Economist》Science & technology版塊

精讀筆記來(lái)源于：自由英語(yǔ)之路

本文翻譯整理: Irene本文編輯校對(duì): Irene
僅供個(gè)人英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)交流使用。

【補(bǔ)充資料】（來(lái)自于網(wǎng)絡(luò)）
場(chǎng)館協(xié)議Venue agreement是指當(dāng)組織者（通常是音樂(lè)、體育或其他娛樂(lè)活動(dòng)的主辦方）在一個(gè)場(chǎng)地（通常是演唱會(huì)場(chǎng)館、體育館或劇院）舉辦活動(dòng)時(shí)，與場(chǎng)地所有者簽訂的一份協(xié)議。該協(xié)議包括了租借場(chǎng)地的費(fèi)用、使用時(shí)間、安全規(guī)定、保險(xiǎn)要求、責(zé)任分配等方面的條款，以確?；顒?dòng)的順利進(jìn)行，并減少可能的糾紛和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。該協(xié)議對(duì)于組織者和場(chǎng)地所有者雙方都非常重要，因?yàn)樗?guī)定了各自的權(quán)利和責(zé)任。

群體內(nèi)信號(hào)in-group signalling指的是在一個(gè)團(tuán)體或社群中通過(guò)特定行為、言語(yǔ)或符號(hào)等方式表示自己屬于該團(tuán)體，并與團(tuán)體內(nèi)的其他成員建立聯(lián)系和認(rèn)同感。這種信號(hào)旨在向團(tuán)體內(nèi)部傳達(dá)一種信息，即自己是該團(tuán)體的一員，并且符合該團(tuán)體內(nèi)部的價(jià)值觀和規(guī)范。這種信號(hào)可以加強(qiáng)團(tuán)體內(nèi)部的凝聚力和認(rèn)同感，并幫助建立團(tuán)體內(nèi)部的社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)和等級(jí)制度。

【重點(diǎn)句子】（3個(gè)）
It turns out that lawyers struggle with, and dislike, legal language almost as much as their clients.
事實(shí)證明，律師幾乎和他們的客戶一樣，對(duì)法律語(yǔ)言感到困難和厭惡。

One was “the curse of knowledge”. This is the idea that many learned people do not know how to write for those less informed than themselves.
一個(gè)是 "知識(shí)的詛咒"，即許多有學(xué)問(wèn)的人不知道如何向?qū)W問(wèn)淺的人解釋事情。

A more cynical idea was the “it’s just business” hypothesis. This holds that lawyers are intentionally opaque so as to gull clients into paying more for their supposed expertise.
一個(gè)更憤世嫉俗的觀點(diǎn)是 "這一切都只是生意 "的假說(shuō)，即律師故意不透明，以便誘使客戶為其所謂的專業(yè)知識(shí)支付更多費(fèi)用。