Imagine yourself in a high-stakes legal setting, trying to settle a dispute between parties in favor of your client’s interests.
On one side, your Civil Law training urges you to present facts and precedents with precision and intricate detail. Your approach is thorough and intellectually honest. But you sense that people in the room are having a hard time following you. You start to lose your audience—and you think it’s your English. You begin to feel self-conscious about your grammar and vocabulary. You start to compare yourself to the “native English speakers” in the room and feel you are falling short.
Sound familiar?
When your English-speaking counterpart speaks, you notice the audience is more engaged. You think it’s their English, but it’s not. There’s a good chance your Common Law counterpart is simply using a different communication strategy—weaving intricate analogies that clarify complex concepts and engage the audience. That communication style is integral to Common Law for reasons that relate to its own structure.
Civil Law communication styles often thrive on complexity and depth, while Common Law communication styles thrive on simplicity and practicality. When the situation calls for detailed analysis, Civil Law-trained lawyers have the upper hand. When the situation calls for effective persuasion, Common Law-trained lawyers do. But if you can adapt your communication style to different settings, then you always have the upper hand, and that should be your goal as a legal English learner.
This divergence in communication styles, which we often attribute to the Common Law versus Civil Law divide in our specialized literature, actually reflects a deeper philosophical divide in legal thought—one that shapes how legal professionals articulate their ideas and strategies. In this post, we’ll explore the intriguing parallels between legal reasoning and the pendulum analogy posited by philosopher Henrik von Wright.
By understanding these dynamics, you can enhance your legal English skills and become a more effective communicator in the legal arena. Keep reading to learn about the roles of prescriptivism and descriptivism, the nuances of legal language, and actionable steps to elevate your proficiency.
The Pendulum Analogy
In 1971, Finnish philosopher Henrik von Wright posited a theory that revolutionized the field of the Philosophy of Science. In Explanation and Understanding, he argued that, historically, human thought and scientific inquiry have been conceived within the paradigms of two opposing approaches, neither of which suffices on its own to explain the complexities of the world.
According to von Wright, the pendulum of scientific inquiry swings between two extremes:
1. Causal Explanation (Galilean Model): This approach focuses on discovering the causes behind phenomena, often through empirical investigation and experimentation. It represents a mechanistic, deterministic view of the world, where events are explained in terms of prior conditions and natural laws. This is the dominant approach in many areas of modern science, particularly the physical sciences.
2. Teleological Explanation (Aristotelian Model): This approach seeks to understand events or phenomena in terms of purposes, goals, or ends. It is more common in areas like the social sciences or certain branches of biology, where human actions or the behavior of organisms are explained in terms of goals, functions, or intentions.
Von Wright suggests that scientific inquiry tends to oscillate between these two explanatory modes over time, like a pendulum swinging back and forth. Neither approach is sufficient on its own to explain the complexity of the world, and at different times in history, science has emphasized one over the other, recognizing that different types of explanations are useful for different contexts.
In certain periods or fields, causal explanations (focused on “how” things happen) may dominate. In other contexts, teleological explanations (focused on “why” things happen, in terms of goals or purposes) may come to the forefront. The swinging of the pendulum between these two approaches suggests that science does not adhere to a single, rigid explanatory framework but adjusts based on the questions at hand and the nature of the phenomena under study.
The Law Pendulum
Civil Law-trained lawyers are no strangers to this pendulum, especially in France, Germany, Spain, and modern legal systems influenced by them. We may not all have learned it under that name, but anyone who has studied the philosophical foundations of punishment in criminal law, damages in tort law, or morality in administrative or constitutional law, has encountered the pendulum, for example:
👉 Fault-based liability vs. strict (or objective) liability
👉 The preventive theory of punishment vs. the retributive theory of punishment
👉 Positivism vs. natural law theory
The pendulum exists in all fields of human inquiry, and law is no exception.
The Language Pendulum
Language is not an exception either. In linguistics, it can be argued that prescriptivism and descriptivism represent two opposing ends, much like the two extremes of teleological and causal explanations in von Wright's pendulum analogy in scientific inquiry.
Here's how they relate:
👉 Prescriptivism (Analogous to Teleological Explanation):
Prescriptivism is the view that language should adhere to established rules and norms, with a focus on how language ought to be used. It involves the imposition of specific grammatical standards and often aligns with normative goals about language, such as clarity, correctness, or preserving traditional forms.
💡 Like teleological explanation in von Wright's analogy, which is concerned with goals and purposes, prescriptivism is concerned with the ideal state of language, prescribing how people should speak or write to achieve clarity, correctness, or cultural standards.
👉 Descriptivism (Analogous to Causal Explanation):
Descriptivism, on the other hand, is the linguistic approach that seeks to describe language as it is actually used by speakers, without making judgments about correctness. It focuses on observing, documenting, and analyzing natural linguistic behavior, similar to how causal explanations aim to understand phenomena by analyzing them as they occur in the natural world.
💡 Like causal explanation in von Wright's model, descriptivism is concerned with the empirical facts of language—how language evolves, how speakers use it in various contexts, and what rules emerge from that usage.
The Analogy to von Wright
Prescriptivism and descriptivism form a dynamic contrast, much like the pendulum swings between teleological and causal explanations in von Wright’s model. Prescriptivism seeks to guide language toward specific goals or ideals, while descriptivism focuses on documenting and understanding the actual state of language use.
💡 In von Wright’s terms, one might say that the study of language sometimes shifts between a normative, goal-driven perspective (prescriptivism) and an empirical, fact-driven perspective (descriptivism), just as science alternates between goal-oriented (teleological) and cause-focused (causal) explanations.
Both prescriptivism and descriptivism play important roles in understanding language, much as both teleological and causal explanations offer valuable perspectives in scientific inquiry.
Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Legal English Learners
So, what can you do with this? How can this help you communicate more effectively in legal English? I can think of three key ways.
1️⃣ Understand the Role of Analogies in Legal Thought: Analogies, like von Wright’s pendulum, help explain complex ideas across disciplines. In legal English, recognizing and using analogies can enhance your ability to communicate legal concepts clearly and persuasively.
✅ Do this: Practice explaining legal principles (e.g., prescriptivism vs. descriptivism, strict vs. fault-based liability) by using simple analogies to make them more accessible.
Why?
Because this is one of the key differences in legal English communication vs. other languages. While Civil-Law trained lawyers tend to “report” information, their Common Law counterparts tend to analogize. So learning to use both communicational strategies can broaden your legal communication skills, making you more effective in diverse legal contexts.
2️⃣ Expand Your Legal Vocabulary: Legal discussions often hinge on specialized vocabulary. By understanding the key terms (e.g., “causal explanation,” “teleological explanation,” “preventive theory,” “retributive theory”), you’ll improve your legal English fluency.
✅ Do this: Create a glossary of legal terms you encounter in your studies or work and practice using them in sentences as you build your analogies in the form of: [legal concept] is to [your context] what [analogous concept] is to [analogous context].
3️⃣ Adapt to Different Legal Contexts: Just as scientific inquiry shifts between different explanatory models, legal English also varies based on context (e.g., administrative law vs. criminal law). Learning to adjust your language to the appropriate legal framework will enhance both your written and spoken legal communication.
✅ Do this: Write short legal summaries or briefs in different fields (e.g., criminal law, administrative law), focusing on the language and arguments specific to each area. Seek feedback on them.
By applying these strategies, you will develop a deeper understanding of legal concepts while improving your legal English communication skills. And if you need help to get you there, Klammer Academy has got your back. Book a Discovery Call today.
Comments