Plain English in Legal Language: A Comparative Study of Two UK Acts of Parliament


  • Catalina Riera



Legal English, Language for specific purposes, Language for legal purposes, Plain English Movement, UK Acts of Parliament


The history of England has left its mark on legal English, a language for specific purposes well known for its complexity and conservatism throughout the world, thanks to the widespread reach of the British Empire. According to many scholars, today legal language is excessively entrenched in the past and has remained the same through years. As a consequence, criticism against traditional legal drafting started to arise in the second half of the 20th century introduced by the Plain English Movement, first in the UK and then, with more momentum, in the US. Its supporters fight for the simplification of the language used in legal documents and subsequently, all official documents and propose a series of writing techniques to achieve their purpose of making “legalese” more accessible to the lay public. The aim of this paper is to see whether the drafting of Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom (UK) has evolved towards a more modern style of writing leaving behind the conservatism that characterises legal language. In order to carry out the study, two Acts of Parliament of the UK on the same topic, but with a time span of 41 years of difference since their enactment, have been selected for comparison in order to see whether the principles upheld by the Plain English defenders have been applied in the most recent Act.


Adler, Mark (2012): “The Plain English Movement”. In P. M. Tiersma and L. M. Solan, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 67-83.

Assy, Rabeea (2011): “Can the Law Speak Directly to its Subjects? The Limitation of Plain Language”. Journal of Law and Society 38(3): 376-404.

Barleben, Dale (2003): Plain English Movement and Present-day English Registers. In: [Accessed: 10th June 2015].

Bhatia, Vijay (1994): “Cognitive structuring in legislative provisions”. In J. Gibbons, ed., Language and the Law. New York: Longman Publishing, 136-155.

Butt, Peter and Castle, Richard (2006): Modern Legal Drafting. A Guide to Using Clearer Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Garner, Bryan A. (1995): A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. New York: Oxford University Press.

Haigh, Rupert (2015): Legal English. Abingdon: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Hunt, Brian (2002a): “Plain Language in Legislative Drafting: Is it Really the Answer?” Statute Law Review 23(1): 24-46.

Hunt, Brian (2002b): “Plain Language in Legislative Drafting: An Achievable Objective or a Laudable Ideal?” Statute Law Review 24(2): 112-124.

Kimble, John (1992): “Plain English: A Charter for Clear Writing (Part 3)”. Michigan Bar Journal 71: 1307-1302.

Kimble, John (1994-1995): “Answering the Critics of Plain Language”. The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing 5: 51-85.

Kimble, John (1996-1997): “Writing for Dollars, Writing to Please”. The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing 6: 1-38. Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Plain English Campaign (1996): Language on Trial. The Plain English Guide to Legal Writing. London: Robson Books Ltd.

Tiersma, Peter M. (1999): Legal Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. UK Acts of Parliament. Available in: [Accessed: 23th June 2015].

Williams, Christopher (2007): Tradition and Change in Legal English: Verbal Constructions in Prescriptive Texts. Bern: Peter Lang.


Statistics RUA



How to Cite

Riera, Catalina. 2015. “Plain English in Legal Language: A Comparative Study of Two UK Acts of Parliament”. Alicante Journal of English Studies / Revista Alicantina De Estudios Ingleses, no. 28 (November):147-63.