Masarykova univerzita

Filozofická fakulta

Katedra anglistiky a amerikanistiky

Magisterská diplomová práce

2006 Veronika Pelíšková

 Masaryk University
Faculty of Arts

Department of English
and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Veronika Pelíšková

Modal Verbs in Legal English

M.A. Major Thesis

Supervisor: PhDr. Jarmila Fictumová

2006
 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..
Author’s signature
 Acknowledgement
I would like to express my deep gratitude to the supervisor of this thesis, PhDr. Jarmila Fictumová for
her patience, valuable comments and helpful suggestions. I greatly appreciate her kindness and
wisdom that accompanied me throughout the writing process.
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1
2. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MODAL VERBS.......................................................3
2.1. MODAL VERBS, MODALITY..................................................................................................3
2.1.1. Epistemic Modality..........................................................................................................4
2.1.2. Root Modality..................................................................................................................5
2.2. THE MAIN USES OF MODAL VERBS.......................................................................................6
2.2.1. Can/May..........................................................................................................................7
2.2.2. Will/Would.......................................................................................................................8
2.2.3. Must.................................................................................................................................9
2.2.4. Shall...............................................................................................................................10
2.2.5. Should/Ought to.............................................................................................................11
2.2.6. Other Uses of Should/Would..........................................................................................11
2.3. THE PAST TENSE FORMS OF MODALS..................................................................................12
3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CORPORA.........................................................................14
3.1. CORPUS LINGUISTICS............................................................................................................14
3.1.1. Types of Corpora...........................................................................................................15
3.1.2. Corpora of First Generation..........................................................................................17
3.1.3. Corpora of Second Generation......................................................................................17
3.1.4. Corpus Analysis Tools....................................................................................................18
3.2. SPECIAL PURPOSE CORPUS...................................................................................................19
3.2.1. Language for Special Purposes.....................................................................................19
3.2.2. Using LSP Corpora as a Translation Resource.............................................................20
4. LEGAL ENGLISH....................................................................................................................22
4.1. PLAIN LEGAL ENGLISH VS. LEGALESE.................................................................................23
4.2. AN OVERVIEW OF MODAL VERBS IN LEGAL ENGLISH........................................................27
– RESEARCH METHOD.......................................................................................................................27
4.3. EUR-LEX SITE CONTENT.....................................................................................................29
4.4. RESULTS................................................................................................................................31
4.4.1. Shall...............................................................................................................................34
4.4.2. Shall vs. Will..................................................................................................................37
4.4.3. Should............................................................................................................................38
4.4.4. May................................................................................................................................39
4.4.5. May vs. Shall.................................................................................................................40
4.4.6. May vs. Reserves the right to.........................................................................................41
4.4.7. Must...............................................................................................................................41
4.4.8. Must vs. Shall.................................................................................................................42
4.4.9. Other Modal Verbs.........................................................................................................43
5. TRANSLATION OF MODAL VERBS IN LEGAL ENGLISH INTO CZECH...................45
5.1. LEGAL TRANSLATION............................................................................................................45
5.2. INDIVIDUAL MODAL VERBS AND THEIR TRANSLATION.......................................................47
5.2.1. Shall...............................................................................................................................47
5.2.2. Should............................................................................................................................53
5.2.3. May................................................................................................................................56
5.2.4. Must...............................................................................................................................59
5.2.5. Other Modal Verbs.........................................................................................................61
6. Conclusion..................................................................................................................................64
 1

1. Introduction

The subject of my dissertation is the issue of modal verbs in legal English. I have

chosen this topic because I have been studying legal English for several years now. The

second reason for choosing this very topic is that I find working with corpora very interesting

and I believe that it is useful for both learners and foreign language teachers well as it is for

translators. Being aware of the fact that many students find the work with corpora too

complicated and time-consuming, I would like to show that involving corpora within

everyday study of a foreign language might be very useful and at the same time not as

complicated as it might initially appear.

The dissertation is based on a parallel corpus. My aim is to conduct research into

legal English documents and analyze the use of modal verbs in context and look at the

frequency with which they occur. Furthermore, I will deal with their Czech equivalents and

discuss their semantics. Modal verbs are an inseparable and, one may add, an essential part of

legal language. Their knowledge and the skill of using them correctly in legal drafting are

fundamental for the final outcome of the entire document. I believe that my work will

represent a beneficial contribution not merely to other students of translation but also those

who are not familiar with using corpora as a tool for the study of foreign language.

My aim is to establish and interpret the functions of modal verbs in legal English in

comparison to Czech. I assume that modal verbs are more common in legal language in

English than in Czech, particularly the modal verb shall which is the most frequent modal in

legal documents and at the same time the one causing most problems both for drafters of

legal documents and translators. Moreover, I believe that shall is quite rarely translated by a

Czech modal verb nor should be translated using future tense.

 2

The starting point of my thesis is a theoretical description of modal verbs in English.

The first chapter deals with modality and the main uses of modals in general purpose English.

The second chapter is devoted to corpora and corpus linguistics. Firstly, corpora are discussed

in general – the corpora of first and second generation and different types of corpora. It is

followed by discussing specialised language corpora and how they can serve and assist as a

translation resource. In the next chapter I provide an insight into the language of legal English

by comparing legalese – the traditional legal language to plain legal English. This chapter

also includes a brief account of Plain English Movement and lists some of the reservations

that many lawyers and drafters of legal documents have with respect to plain English.

It is followed by a description of research method I applied when searching through

legal documents and a presentation of the results of my analysis. Since the entire research

relied on corpora, it was essential that these texts be carefully selected so as to achieve

satisfying results. The results are presented in a summary table and are shown in a graph.

Each modal verb is then discussed separately offering a view on its position amongst other

modal verbs and its meaning in legal English. The fourth chapter begins with defining legal

translation and listing some of its main catches. It is followed by a practical part based on

research into modal verbs in legal English and their equivalents in Czech.
 3

2. General Characteristics of Modal Verbs

The first chapter deals with modal verbs and modality in general. The main points to be

discussed are epistemic and root modality. It will be followed by describing the uses of

individual modal verbs in general purpose English (GPE). The knowledge of how to use them

in GPE is fundamental for further study of modal verbs in English for specific purposes

(ESP). The second chapter will be concluded with a note about past tense of modal verbs.

1.1. Modal Verbs, Modality

This chapter will initially focus on explanation of the meaning of the terms of modal

verbs and modality. Modal verbs, also called modal auxiliaries or simply modals, embrace

verbs such as can, may or must. They serve, as the term suggests, expressing modality. The

range of modal verbs is limited to a closed set: can, could, may, might, shall, should, will,

would, must and ought to. In some textbooks or grammar books, need, dare and used to are

also referred to as modals or semi-modals (R. Quirk et al. 217). Unlike other grammatical

auxiliaries they are morphologically defective. They do not have non-finite forms and do not

occur with the third-person marker in the present tense. Furthermore, a modal verb is always

placed first in the verb phrase (predicate) and is never accompanied by another modal verb in

the same verb phrase (Johansson, Lysvåg 186-187).

According to the online encyclopaedia Encarta, the term modality refers to the way that a

speaker uses language to indicate his/her evaluation of the state of affairs in a given utterance

(“Modality”). In other words, modality functions as a means of conveying non-factual

information. And here again various grammar books usually distinguish between two main

types of modality: root modality and epistemic modality.

The distinction between root and epistemic extends according to Paul Larreya far beyond

modality and language. In his lecture “Types of Modality and Types of Modalisation” he
 4

claims that these two categories belong to different domains of human activity, namely the

domain of affect and action and the domain of knowledge (1-2). Within the scope of

linguistics, root modality is connected with notions such as permission and obligation. On the

contrary, epistemic modality concerns expressing certainty and uncertainty. The former

category can be labelled influence modality, the latter one attitude modality.

1.1.1. Epistemic Modality

According to the online encyclopaedia Britannica, the term epistemic means pertaining to

the philosophical study of knowledge (“Epistemic logic”). Epistemic modality, also called

attitude modality, refers to those modal verbs that are used to signal the speaker’s conviction

or belief in the truth of the proposition. To put it differently, epistemic modality expresses the

attitude of the speaker towards the truth of what is being said. Except for the modal verb

shall, all the modal verbs can be used epistemically (Johansson, Lysvåg 188–189). The

borderline between epistemic and non-epistemic use of modal verbs seems to be unclear.

Moreover, different modal verbs express different level of certainty or uncertainty. They can

be placed on a scale, but their internal order is not fixed and is open to various interpretations.

It is believed that oppositions like can/could, will/would, may/might do not show a

difference in time reference, but a difference in modal meanings. The past form of the modal

verbs indicates hypothetic situations of hypothetical nature and tentativeness. Following such

hypotheses, a sentence like This might/would/should/could be correct seems to be a

judgement of a present state of affairs that is more tentative than a sentence like This

may/will/shall/can be correct. However, in reported speech the forms might/could/would have

a past time reference, e.g. He said it could/might/would be correct.

Another feature of epistemic modality, which is worth examining, is its relation to

negation. When negation is used in a sentence containing an epistemic modal, it can either

apply to the situation expressed in the proposition uttered or to the speaker’s judgement of the
 5

situation. Johanson and Lysvåg refer to the former case as an auxiliary negation and to the

latter one as a main verb negation (194). This difference is occasionally very difficult to

judge, however, in most cases the negation usually applies to the situation expressed in the

proposition.

Apart from modal verbs, there are also other ways of expressing a statement epistemically

such as verbs of opinion (think, believe, guess, suppose) and adjectival expressions like: it is

possible/likely/probable that…Another way in which a statement can be qualified

epistemically is by means of a modal disjunct, e.g. It is perhaps/possible/supposedly correct.

Finally, epistemic modality can be expressed by means of tags, as e.g. It is correct, isn’t it?

(Johansson, Lysvåg 191-192).

1.1.2. Root Modality

Root modality is the second category of modality, which it was referred earlier in this

chapter as “influence modality”. Root modality differs from epistemic modality in a number

of manners. The main difference can be described as the very fact that epistemic modality

refers to the degree of a speaker’s conviction or belief in the truth of the proposition whereas

root modality is a cover term for notions such as volition, permission, obligation, moral duty

etc. Johansson and Lysvåg define root modality in terms of future events that are dependable

upon an actor, for whom it is possible to bring about an action, or who permits others to

undertake or perform an action or who places others under an obligation to do something

(197-198).

With respect to a lecture given by Engelsk Institutt called “Tense, Aspect and Modality” it

can be inferred that root modality is to be divided into three main subcategories, namely:

influencing, descriptive and grammatical. The first category embraces notions such as

volition, permission, obligation, moral duty, advice and legislation. The second one

comprises possibility, necessity and habit/characteristic. It is made up of expressions, which

 6

are used to describe or characterize people, things or situations. The last category includes

modal verbs which are only used in terms of grammatical contexts, e.g. distancing and

hypothetical situations (“Tense, Aspect and Modality II, 6-7”). The following paragraph

devoted to root modality is based on the findings presented in Understanding English

Grammar by S. Johansson and P. Lysvåg.

Root modality comprises three central notions, i.e. permission and possibility expressed

by may and obligation expressed by must. The difference between root possibility and

epistemic possibility is in the way a sentence containing a modal verb can be paraphrased.

Whereas a sentence with a root modal can be paraphrased “it is possible for someone to do

something”, a sentence with an epistemic modal must be paraphrased as “it is possible

that…” Similarly, root necessity may be paraphrased as “It is necessary for someone to do

something”. On the other hand, epistemic necessity has a paraphrase “It is necessarily the

case that….” Altogether, modal verbs are semantically very flexible and can take on a variety

of meanings depending upon a particular speech situation. In the next chapter I shall discuss

the main uses of individual modal verbs in GPE.

1.2. The Main Uses of Modal Verbs

The main uses of modal verbs may be summed up into four major categories. Collins

Cobuild English Grammar refers to these uses as attitude to information, attitude to

intentions, attitude to people and the use of modals in complex sentences (218-219). The first

category referred to as “attitude to information” corresponds to the speaker’s attitude of what

he/she is saying to be true or correct. The second category “attitude to intentions” embraces

modals that assist the speaker in indicating his/her attitude towards the things he/she intends

to do or not to do. The last but one category “attitude to people” corresponds to the level of

formality or informality (therefore corresponds to the actual category defined by register) of

a statement aimed at particular person or audience. The last category includes modals used in
 7

complex sentences, namely in reported clauses, conditional structures and purpose clauses.

The next sub-chapters are devoted to the study of individual modal verbs and their uses in

GPE.

1.2.1. Can/May

There are two modal verbs that are used to express the notion of permission, i.e. can and

may. It is generally understood that can is less polite than may. In contrast with can, may

indicates personal involvement, e.g. X permits something. Thus, using may signals power

relations among people. The speaker, who uses may to give permission is in the position of an

authority. On the other hand, the speaker who asks for permission, is in a subordinate position

to the authority. On the contrary, can is impersonal and conveys the information that

something is possible or permitted. In respect of the fact that can is less polite than may, it

can be used in more impatient and aggressive utterances ranging from suggestions to orders.

The use of could and might does not have a relation to the past, but makes a request or a

question about a permission to do something even more tentative.

Can and may are apart from expressing the notion of permission used to express the

notion of possibility. One of the most encompassing meanings of can expressing root

possibility is the notion of “inherent possibility”. This term embraces a number of

subcategories such as ability – He can speak English. The “ability” sense of can may be

paraphrased by the construction be able to or be capable of or know how to (R. Quirk et al.

222). The next subcategory relates to the notion of permission, e.g. You can smoke here.

Under certain circumstances, it is possible to paraphrase the “permission” sense of can by the

construction be allowed to. The term “inherent possibility” embraces yet some other

subcategories such as willingness (I can do the dishes), possibility (From here you can see all

the way to Oslo), quality (Modal logic can make you dizzy) and occasional behaviour (Lions

can be dangerous).
 8

There is a difference in meaning between the possibility sense of may and the possibility

sense of can. Whereas the following sentence Even expert drivers can make mistakes may be

paraphrased as It is possible for even expert drivers to make mistakes, a sentence such as You

may be right has a following paraphrase – It may be that you are right. Although it is not very

common in formal English, may can also be used in the sense of root possibility, e.g. During

the autumn, many rare birds may be observed on rocky northern coasts of the island.

In conclusion can possibility is inherent in the nature of things whereas may depends on

the speaker’s knowledge about the nature of the situation. With respect to this, the first

sentence makes a perfect sense, while the second one would be considered at least strange:

The party next week can be boring.

The party next week may be boring.

There is still one other meaning of may in combinations with as well meaning “it makes no

difference” as in It’s not very far, so we may/might as well go on foot (L.G. Alexander 238).

1.2.2. Will/Would

The modal verb will has a number of various meanings and it is generally difficult to

separate it from its temporal meaning, i.e. reference to future. Apart from referring to

common future, will can be used to make predictions. According to A Student’s Grammar of

the English Language “wil”l may rarely function in the present predicative sense bearing the

meaning of logical necessity – That will be the postman (Quirk, Randolph and Greenbaum,

Sidney 228). In this sense it is very similar to must.

Another function of will is defined as expressing habitual activity and referring to properties

of non-personal subjects. The modal verb will can be used instead of simple present tense and

would instead of simple past tense to refer to person’s characteristic habits or behaviour. The

first sentence is an example of root will used to express habitual activity; the second one
 9

illustrates the use of will to refer to properties of non-personal subjects. The following

examples are taken from Longman English Grammar (L.G. Alexander 235).

In fine weather, he will often sit in the sun for hours.

Boys will be boys.

Furthermore, the habitual predicative meaning often occurs in conditional sentences – If

litmus paper is dipped in acid, it will turn red (R. Quirk et al. 228). The modal verb would is

often used in narratives in the past to describe habitual behaviour. The modal verb would is in

such situations more formal than the other possible equivalent used to and it always requires

a time reference. In familiar narratives, would can be reduced to ‘d.

When I was a boy we always spent our holidays on a farm. We’d get up at 5 and we’d

help milk the cows. Then we’d return to the farm kitchen, where we would eat a huge

breakfast (L.G. Alexander 235).

The most common meaning of will besides reference to the future is volition. R. Quirk

and S. Greenbaum distinguish three different groups of volition, i.e. intention (I’ll write as

soon as I can), willingness (Will you help me to address these letters?) and insistence (If you

will go out without your overcoat, what can you expect?). They refer to willingness as a form

of weak volition and to insistence as the one of strong volition. Finally, they define intention

in the sense of prediction (229). Furthermore, will can be interpreted in various ways such as

making a request (Will you please open the window?), creating an order (Will you stop that at

once!), making on offer (Will you have a sandwich?) and issuing an invitation (Will you come

for a walk with me?) (L.G. Alexander 235-240).

1.2.3. Must

According to A Student’s Grammar of the English Language the modal verb must can

be classified with respect to its meaning into two groups. The first group includes the modal
 10

verb must carrying the meaning of logical necessity. The second group refers to the

“obligation” or “compulsion” meaning of must (R. Quirk et al. 224-225).

The “logical necessity” meaning of must corresponds to the epistemic necessity. In the

following sentence There must be some mistake, the speaker expresses his judgement over the

situation, i.e. that something is necessarily true or that something is very likely to be true. The

speaker usually makes such conclusions on the basis of certain knowledge about the situation

or on the basis of previous observation of the situation. Must in this sense does not have any

negative form. To express the following sentence negatively, the modal verb can must be

used.

You must be joking.

You can’t be serious.

The second group comprises the uses of must bearing the meaning of obligation or

compulsion. Must in this sense can be paraphrased as be obliged to. Thus, You must be back

by ten o’clock has the paraphrase You are obliged to be back at ten o’clock. Must is also used

when something is required by a law or a rule – European Community standards must be met

(Collins 236).

1.2.4. Shall

The modal verb shall is used quite rarely in currently spoken general English. Its use

can be narrowed down to two basic meanings, i.e. prediction and volition both used only with

1st person subject. The former one is a substitute for the future use of will – According to the

opinion polls, I shall win quite easily. The latter one is again a substitution for will after the

personal pronouns I or we (R. Quirk et al. 229). Furthermore, shall is used to express the

speaker’s determination – They shall not pass! or to make a promise – You shall have a car

for you birthday, to make a threat – You shall pay for this and to issue an order – When he

comes in nobody shall say a word. Under certain circumstances, the proposition containing
 11

the modal verb shall may be interpreted as an offer or suggestion that the speaker and the

addressee do something together – Shall we go to the theatre tonight? The above mentioned

examples are adopted from Longman English Grammar (L.G. Alexander 237-238). Shall is

also used in legal texts to define rules and regulations. Shall used in legal texts will be studied

in detail at a later stage within this theses.

1.2.5. Should/Ought to

The modal verbs should and ought to can be used in a number of ways, including

expressing moral duty, conveying criticism, making complaints, expressing regrets or giving

advice. Still, their basic use is to express tentative inference and obligation. The term

“tentative inference” refers to the way that a speaker expresses their attitude towards a certain

statement. The following sentence can be interpreted that the speaker does not know if his/her

statement is true, but tentatively concludes that it is true – The mountains should/ought to be

visible from here (R. Quirk et al. 227). To compare the obligation meaning of must with

ought to, the latter one is weaker in the sense that it implies that the speaker knows what

his/her moral duty is but for some reason decides not to do it – I ought to go and see the

chairman but I simply haven’t got the time (Johansson, Lysvåg 206-207).

1.2.6. Other Uses of Should/Would

Apart from their basic meanings such as volition, permission, possibility, obligation

etc. root modal verbs are used to express hypothetical conditions in conditional clauses.

Furthermore, they function as a distancing device, particularly in sub clauses (Johansson,

Lysvåg 213-217). The main modals, which are used in hypothetical conditions are should and

would. Besides hypothetical conditions, should and would are also used in propositions

expressing personal desires – I’d love to go to the pool tomorrow, but I’ve got to finish my

essay. Should and would can also refer to situations, when a speaker gives his/her personal
 12

opinion and wishes to sound polite – I would think this is a matter for our international

division. Instead of would/should + present simple a speaker may express the same situation

using would/should + perfective infinitive as in I would have thought this is a matter for our

international division. The perfective infinitive suggests that the speaker has already thought

about the matter and wants his opinion to sound even more careful.

The other use of should is found in that-clauses which are preceded by expressions of

emotion and volition – I’m surprised that he should feel like that (L.G. Alexander 240).

Should also functions as a distancing device and in conditional clauses suggests that the

condition is unlikely to be realized – If you should see her, let me know. It also occurs in

speech situations when the speaker wants to question the addressee’s attitude or in rhetorical

questions – I can’t imagine why you should think I did it.

To sum up, root modals seem to be more speaker oriented than their periphrastic forms,

e.g. may/be allowed to, must/have to, should/be supposed to, will/be. The periphrastic forms

allow the speaker to impose obligation or issue orders without involving himself/herself as

their source. Nonetheless, root modals can not be said to be speaker oriented in their entire

uses (Johansson, Lysvåg 208). Concerning the root modals and negation, the negation can

either apply to the modality element or to the proposition. The following examples were

adopted from a lecture on “Tense, Aspect and Modality” (Engelsk Institutt, 9).

I’ll do it. I won’t do it

The negated sentence can either mean I am not willing to do it or I refuse to do it. What is

quite interesting is the fact that mustn’t corresponds to root may. Don’t have to, on the other

hand, corresponds to root must.

1.3. The Past Tense Forms of Modals

The last area to be mentioned with respect to modal verbs is their use in the past tense.

When modals are used in terms of giving permission or imposing an obligation they usually
 13

refer to the speech moment. Some modal verbs do not have their past time equivalents at all,

e.g. ought to and must. Moreover, should is not past equivalent of shall and might is not an

equivalent of may in the sense of giving permission. To express these root modalities in the

past, other expressions have to be used, i.e. the corresponding periphrastic constructions such

as be allowed to, be obliged to and have to.

 14

3. General Description of Corpora

After having discussed modal verbs and their uses in GPE, it is possible to turn the

attention to corpora. Firstly, corpora and corpus linguistics will be discussed in general.

Secondly, different types of corpora will be presented together with corpus analysis tools.

This chapter will be concluded with defining language for special purposes and offering an

insight into methods to use special purpose corpora as a translation resource.

The subject of this dissertation, as it was specified in the introduction, is modal verbs in

legal English and their equivalents in Czech. Since the analysis of modal verbs used in legal

English required working with legal corpora, it is believed that before the analysis itself

attention should be paid to corpora.

1.4. Corpus Linguistics

Corpus linguistics is a relatively new discipline that has been evolving gradually since

1950´s. The boom in this field came along with a rapid development of information

technology and computers. Corpus linguistics may be defined as an empirical approach to

the study of authentic language use (Bowker and Pearson 9). In other words, it shows

how language is used in real texts. Apart from text-based description, language

description can be based on introspection (linguist’s own intuitions about how language is

used) or on elicitation (asking other people to produce certain linguistic constructions).

Corpus linguistics is generally more concerned with patterns that can be identified in

language than it is with single examples.

Corpus linguistics, as the term suggests, requires the use of a corpus. A corpus can be

simply defined as a body of texts (both written and spoken) representing authentic

language use. Such collection of texts is usually machine-readable and has been collected

according to specific criteria. However, a corpus is not any collection of texts, but it is
 15

ideally representative of a sampled language variety. An electronic corpus may be

searched by means of corpus analysis tools that help the users to manipulate the data. In

comparison to electronic corpora, printed corpora have a number of shortcomings. One of

the main disadvantages of printed corpora is that a huge effort must be made to gather the

texts included in corpora. Furthermore, it is difficult to detect certain patterns or to find a

specific reference again. Altogether, working with printed corpora is very time consuming

and error prone (Bowker and Pearson 9).

A corpus serves as a text-based description of language. As it was mentioned earlier,

there are also other types of language description such as introspection and elicitation.

The advantages of a corpus are best recognized when a corpus is compared to an expert

speaker. Firstly, expert speakers have only partial knowledge of things while a corpus is

more comprehensive and balanced. Secondly, expert speakers think of what is possible,

while a corpus shows what is common and typical. Thirdly, expert speakers cannot

quantify their knowledge but a corpus gives quite accurate statistics. Finally, unlike a

corpus, expert speakers cannot make up natural examples (Przemyslaw Kaszbubski 1-2).

According to an article “Corpora and their use in research and teaching” corpora can be

used for the study of lexis, grammar, variation studies, discourse studies and diachronic

studies etc (Hilde Hasselgård 1). The applications of corpora include wide range of

disciplines such as lexicography, language learning, sociolinguistic studies and historical

linguistics.

1.4.1. Types of Corpora

Many different types of corpora exist which differ in a lot of aspects including size,

regional variety of language, diachronic variety or text types included. Moreover, corpora

differ from the point of view of general reference or specific reference and the degree of

annotation or mark-up. Finally, there are finite and monitor corpora. Thus, different
 16

corpora are suitable for different kinds of linguistic investigation. Lynne Bowker and

Jennifer Pearson divide corpora into six broad categories: general reference corpus vs.

special purpose corpus, written vs. spoken corpus, monolingual vs. multilingual corpus,

synchronic vs. diachronic corpus, open vs. closed corpus and finally learner corpus

(Working with Specialised Language 11-13).

The first category described by Bowker and Pearson is based on the division between

language for general purposes and language for specific purposes. A general reference

corpus contains written and spoken material and various text types representing language

used by ordinary people in everyday situations. On the other hand, special purpose corpus

includes texts representing a particular aspect of language (Working with Specialised

Language 12). A monolingual corpus contains texts in a single language, whereas

multilingual corpus contains texts in two or more languages. A multilingual corpus may

be further divided into comparable and parallel corpus. A comparable corpus consists of

texts in more languages that deal with the same topic. In contrast, a parallel corpus

comprises a text in a source language and one or more texts in other languages that are

translations of the source text. A synchronic corpus represents the use of language during

a limited period of time, whereas a diachronic corpus represents the use of language over

a long period of time. The distinction between open vs. closed corpus also referred to as

monitor vs. finite is based on the fact that an open corpus is constantly expanded while a

closed corpus cannot be changed. Finally, a learner corpus contains texts written by

students of foreign languages. Such corpus may be helpful both to learners and teachers

of foreign language, because it allows them to identify the most common types of errors

made by language learners.

 17

1.4.2. Corpora of First Generation

As has been already mentioned before, the origin of corpus linguistics dates back to

1950/60´s. Two important corpora come from this period. The first electronic corpus was

being created by Henry Kučera and Nelson Francis between 1961 and 1964. It received

its name “Brown University Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English”

after the university which enabled its existence. The corpus is generally being referred to

as Brown Corpus (BC). It contains over 1 million words of written American English

incorporated within 500 texts, each of which has 2 .000 words. Nowadays, the corpus is

considered small and slightly dated. The second corpus “Lancester-Oslo/Bergen Corpus

(LOB) was being compiled between the years 1970-1978 and it is considered to be a

British equivalent of Brown Corpus (Šulc 30–31).

During the first generation a number of other corpora have been created including

“Nijmegen Corpus”, “Survey of Spoken English“ and “London-Lund Corpus” etc.

“Corpus of Spoken American English” is an example of a corpus belonging to the

category of spoken corpora (Šulc 31-34).

1.4.3. Corpora of Second Generation

During the 80´s and 90´ there was a great development in building national but also

foreign language corpora. The new era of corpora (mega corpora) was started by the

compilation of COBUILD Corpus led by J. Sinclair. Initially, COBUILD (Collins

Birmingham University International Language Database) was created for the purposes of

a new English dictionary initiated by the publishing house Collins and the department of

English at the Birmingham University. COBUILD is a general reference corpus compiled

in the ratio of 25% of spoken language to 75% of written language. In 1990 the corpus

was extended to a new one “Bank of English” (BoE) being the first monitor corpus in the

world.
 18

Soon after the development of BoE, another project was launched. It was initiated by

a number of academic and public institutions and publishing houses such as University of

Oxford, University of Lancaster, British Library, Oxford University Press, Longman

Group Ltd etc. In 1991-1995 a corpus known today as “British National Corpus” (BNC)

was being built. The corpus contains over 100 million words of both written (90%) and

spoken (10%) English. The written part consists of extracts from regional and national

newspapers, specialist periodicals and journals, academic books and school and university

essays. The spoken part includes unscripted informal conversations and recordings of

formal business or governmental meetings (Bowker and Pearson 19). It is a closed

corpus, i.e. no texts can be added to the corpus or withdrawn from it in the future.

1.4.4. Corpus Analysis Tools

A corpus, as it was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, is a body of texts that

can be used in linguistic research. To allow the linguists to search the corpus, the texts are

coded in such a way that the results of the search can be displayed in a manner that is

useful to the linguist. The preparation of the texts used in a corpus includes coding

information on typographic features boundaries such as paragraphs or headlines. Such

coding systems are embraced in corpus analysis tools that are usually based on two main

features: a feature for generating word lists and a feature for generating concordances.

A word lister counts all the different words (types) in a selected file. Furthermore, it

allows users to discover how many times an individual word form (token) in a selected

text appears. The word lister allows users to chose the way he/she wants the words to be

sorted, e.g. in alphabetical order or in frequency order. The second feature – concordancer

allows users to retrieve all of the occurrences of a search pattern in its immediate context.

The output is then displayed in a KWIC format – keyword in context. When using the

concordancer, it is important to formulate the search query carefully. Otherwise, a couple

 19

of problems may come out. Bowker refers to these as “noise” and “silence”. The first one

relates to situations when the system retrieves information the user did not want, e.g.

homographs. The second one corresponds to situations when the system omits

occurrences that the user did want, e.g. irregular forms (29). The software market offers a

wide range of concordancing tools including KwiCFinder, Logi Term, MultiConcord,

ParaConc or WordSmith Tools etc. (Bowker and Pearson 130).

1.5. Special Purpose Corpus

Bowker and Pearson report that a special purpose corpus focuses on a particular aspect of

language. It usually relates to the language for special purposes or it may refer to a particular

language variety. In addition, it may relate to a language used by certain demographic group

or a specific text type (12). Special purpose corpora vary in size and composition according

to their purpose. So as to the variety of texts included they are purposefully unbalanced,

except within the scope of their own purpose. Thus, they are not suitable for studying certain

phenomenon that commonly occurs in general English. However, they have a number of

advantages compared with general reference corpora. The main advantage is that the texts

can be selected in a way that the phenomenon one is looking for occurs much more

frequently than in general reference corpus. LSP corpora are usually smaller than LGP

corpora, but the size depends on the purpose of the project.

1.5.1. Language for Special Purposes

Language for special purposes, referred to under an abbreviation as LSP is the language

that is used to discuss specialized fields of knowledge. The easiest way to define it might be

to compare LSP to LGP (language for general purposes). While every native speaker is quite

an expert in LGP, it is unlikely that he/she will be an expert in LSP as well. Moreover, in

every language there is just one LGP but more LSPs, which describe different areas of
 20

specialized knowledge. Each LSP is generally characterized by a number of features such as

specialized vocabulary (terms), collocations (words typically occurring together),

grammatical structure and stylistic features. Evidently, there has to be some degree of overlap

between LSP and LGP since it would be impossible to communicate in LSP not using some

words from LGP.

Bowker and Pearson recognize in their book Working with Specialized Language three

different types of users of LSP, i.e. experts, semi-experts and non-experts (27). They define

experts as people who have training or experience in particular specialized field. Semi-

experts include people who are in the process of learning a particular subject field such as

students or experts from related fields. And finally, the group of non-experts is represented by

translators or writers who must use an LSP with which they are not familiar. Translators have

to learn a given LSP in both their native language and a foreign language.

The final point to be made about LSP is that anyone who wants to be a proficient user of a

particular LSP must acquire two kinds of knowledge, i.e. linguistic knowledge and

conceptual knowledge. The first item refers to the knowledge of terms, collocations,

grammatical structures and stylistic features. The second one relates to information about the

specialized concepts. In other words, conceptual knowledge means understanding the

concepts behind the terms.

1.5.2. Using LSP Corpora as a Translation Resource

The application of LSP corpus ranges from its uses in linguistics studies, lexicography,

terminology and teaching to translation studies. Both parallel and monolingual corpora may

turn to be valuable translation tools. In addition, a corpus provides its users with both

linguistic and conceptual information. A parallel corpus, as explained earlier in this chapter,

contains texts in one language that are aligned with their translations in another language.

Such corpus may be used in the same way as a bilingual dictionary. In comparison with a
 21

bilingual dictionary, a corpus will provide the users with more collocation and stylistic

information. In addition to providing useful terminology, a parallel corpus can help its users

to identify and later adapt an appropriate style, which is part of a good translation.

In view of the fact that suitable parallel corpora are not always available, it is sometimes

easier to turn for help to monolingual corpora. The basic function of a monolingual corpus as

a translation tool is using it to confirm or disconfirm one’s hunch about how to translate a

certain word. By using the KWIC function, you can study a term in context and learn what

other terms usually collocate with the given term. Such knowledge makes the translation

sound more idiomatic and natural. A monolingual corpus may serve as a tool for searching

explanations of particular terms, i.e. it allows the users to retrieve conceptual information that

is needed for an accurate translation.

 22

4. Legal English

Having discussed corpora, particularly specialised corpora the focus may be turned to the

study of ESP, i.e. legal English and subsequently modal verbs in legal English. In this

chapter, both theoretical and practical findings will be included. Firstly, I will provide some

basic facts about legal language and outline one of the most discussed issues within legal

community – a dispute between traditionalists (supporters of legalese) and advocates of plain

English. Secondly, I will try to describe research method I applied when collecting the texts

for the sub-corpus and present the findings. In addition, a brief description of the EUR-Lex

site is included. Finally, the results of research are presented in a summary table and a graph

followed by a section devoted to the analysis of individual modal verbs and their role in legal

English.

Law is one of the most important social institutions. It sets out clear guidelines of social

behaviour in a given community. Since its functioning heavily depends on language, many

scholars have taken interest in legal language and have undertaken to study it from different

perspectives such as psychology, sociology, anthropology and linguistics. The main concern

of this thesis, however, stays with linguistics. One of the most challenging issues for

linguistics is the everlasting conflict between the functions of law and language. The

fundamental use of legal language is to impose rights and confer obligations upon individuals

or groups of people. Thus, it is possible to say that legal language is directive – it expresses

notions such as permission, order and prohibition. Unlike directives in general English, the

directives in legal language are rarely expressed by imperative. They are rather expressed by

the modal verb shall which is referred to as legal injunction (J. P. Hovelsø 6). Shall will be

discussed in greater detail later in this thesis.

One of the basic questions that students might ask is what legal language is like. Relying

on the texts collected for the sub corpus, it can be said that legal language is very formal. The
 23

markers of high level of formality include frequent use of specialist words and foreign words,

abstract nouns and passives, scarcity of personal pronouns, long sentences etc. The plausible

reason for legal language being so formal is the sender-receiver relationship as legal texts are

predominantly written by experts for other experts. However, not all legal texts are aimed just

at experts such as lawyers or judges but they are also addressed to non-experts from general

public. The main problems that linguists studying legal language face are how to achieve

specificity, exactness and clarity. Unlike other languages, the language of law is conservative

and tends to resist any changes. Consequently, an ongoing discussion between traditionalists

and advocates of Plain English style prevails within the legal community. This phenomenon

will be the main subject of the following chapter. It will initially compare plain legal English

and the traditional legal language referred to as legalese.

1.6. Plain Legal English vs. Legalese

In the introduction of this chapter the focus will be on outlining the significance of

differentiation between plain legal English and legalese in terms of translation to Czech. A

translator of any legal document should keep the formal arrangement of the source text, i.e.

the layout, the division into paragraphs, chapters or articles. The English source texts tend to

be composed of very long, sometimes even unintelligible complex sentences. In Czech

language there prevails the tendency to separate such long sentences into shorter ones for the

sake of clarity. However, in EC translations sentences cannot be separated or combined. Such

changes in sentence or paragraph structure could lead to misunderstanding or misinterpreting

the meaning. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that the register of the source text

should be maintained. Thus an unmarked legal source text should be translated using also an

unmarked language of the target text. In Britain, the unmarked language of legal documents

still remains the traditional legal language; the simplified texts are considered by the majority

of British readers unusual (Jens Peter Hovelsø 27).

 24

Before turning to legal writing in Plain English, the very meaning of the term “Plain

English” is to be clarified. Plain English refers to the way of writing that enables the readers

to understand a document at first reading. Moreover, the document should be understood in

the same sense that the writer meant it to be understood. Writers in plain English use clear,

straightforward language with only as many words as are necessary. However, this does not

mean that plain English is a simplified version of the English language. Plain English makes

use of an appropriate layout and sentence structure that help the readers to study and read a

document easily.

According to Chapter 1 of the Maine Legislative Drafting Manual, some of the golden

rules of good legal writing are consistence, coherence and clarity. However, clarity should not

be at the expense of brevity. Whenever it is possible, short words/sentences should be used

instead of long words/sentences. The reason for this is not that plain English aims to simplify

English, but that simple sentences are easier to understand than complex or compound

sentences. Mark P. Painter, a municipal court judge in Ohio, believes that legal writing should

not be different from other writing in plain English (Legal Writing 4). He argues that

although the form of legal documents might be different from other texts, the style of the

content should be the same.

The beginnings of the Plain English Movement date back to the 1970’s when the U.S.

citizens started to voice their demands to make official and legal documents more

understandable for common people. The first attempt was made by Citibank in New York in

1975 by publishing a promissory note in plain English. Two years later, in 1978 in New York

an act was passed ordering that official documents be written in clear, everyday English.

However, the reform was by no means accepted by all lawyers. The main idea of those who

opposed the Movement was that the complex issues of law cannot be transformed to simple

language (R. Hiltunen 103-111). It was not until 1990’s that the Plain English Movement
 25

started to find support and even nowadays the movement seems to be predominantly U.S.

domain.

A good way in which to define legal writing in plain English might be to compare it

with legalese. Cheryl Stephens reports in her article “What is really wrong with legal

language?” that legalese unlike other fields of language has been conservative and static

during its evolution. She describes legalese in terms of out-dated grammar, predominance of

passive voice over active voice, the usage of archaic vocabulary and non-standard

punctuation. Plain legal language is on the other hand freed from the shortcomings of

legalese and polished by appropriate lay-out, design and typography of the text. Some of the

general requirements for advocates of plain English according to Risto Hiltunen are the

following. Firstly, they should try to avoid long, archaic and leaned words, instead use

common and everyday words. When it is necessary to use a term of art, an explanation should

be given at the beginning of the text. Secondly, sentences should be kept short and active,

which enables easy processing. Thirdly, the texts should be more personal, which means

using personal pronouns instead of nouns. Finally, verbs should be in present tense and in the

indicative mood (Chapters on Legal English 103-106).

Plain legal language should be understood by clients, judges and lawyers at first

reading. Moreover, it should be clear, unambiguous, logically organized and legally binding.

It takes into account the level of reader’s knowledge of a given field, i.e. legal documents are

drafted taking into account the part of population with an average intelligence range. William

D. Lutz, the author of Doublespeak Defined gives 39 rules for writing in plain English. Some

of the fundamental ones are – knowing the audience, logical sequence of information, usage

of short sentences and active voice, good punctuation etc.

(<http://www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/Resources/lutz.htm>).
 26

Paradoxically enough, the task of transferring legalese into plain English appears to be

a very complex issue. The process of simplification requires that the form of language will be

considered not in isolation but rather in context. A further obstacle might be how to determine

the criteria for simplified language. Different states in America have adopted various

measures for determining simplified language. New York gives only a short description of the

required language and does not suggest any means how to measure it. On the contrary, other

American states such as Connecticut provide two sets of criteria: subjective and objective.

The former one refers to short sentence, simple and active verb form, clarity and coherence.

The latter one sets out clear requirements concerning the length of each sentence and the

number of syllables per one word. In conclusion it is necessary to say that the objective

criteria heavily rely on the length of words and sentences and thus should not be accepted too

strictly as a guarantee of good plain legal English.

Even though plain legal language seems to be more accessible to common people and

might reduce errors – traditional legal language is ambiguous and tends to hide

inconsistencies and errors, some lawyers object to it. The reasons for it, as named by Wayne

Schiess, the Director of legal writing at Texas Law University are the following:

plain English means “baby talk” or writing to the lowest educational level, plain English only

replaces long words/sentences with short words/sentences, it risks annoying clients who

prefer traditional legal language, lawyers need traditional legal language to intimidate clients

or cause them to need lawyers, etc. G. Winter carried out a survey with the aim to discover

what the preferred style among trainee solicitors and general public is. Both groups had

reservations about simplified documents; however they were quite supportive of the reform.

According to her, the possible reasons for refusing the reform are the following: firstly, legal

language is more powerful than simplified legal language. Secondly, she compares legal

language to religious language, the main feature of which can be defined as high rituality. The
 27

third point of her argument is very similar to that of Wayne Schiess, i.e. lawyers worry about

losing clients, because they might think that they can write the documents themselves. Lastly,

she points out that the main goal of legal language is not popular understanding, but legal

accuracy (qtd. in Characteristics of English Legal Language 28).

1.7. An Overview of Modal Verbs in Legal English

– Research Method

The aim of this thesis is to study modal verbs in legal English and their equivalents in

Czech by comparing individual translations and analysing their meanings so as to reveal

similarities, but also to point out differences. Analysing the modal verbs used in legal English

required working with legal corpora. Since corpus linguistics is a relatively new discipline,

the number of specialised corpora is quite limited. Legal texts can be found on the following

webpage <http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/index.htm>. It contains a database of legal texts

concerning the European Union. More information about this site will be provided in the next

chapter. Also the following page is devoted to legal texts:

<http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int/langtech/index.html>.

This site refers to “Acquis Communautaire” parallel corpus. The corpus is being put

together by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. The work on the corpus

started in 2004 when ten new countries entered the European Union and needed to translate

the existing collection of about ten thousand EU legal texts into their native languages. This

corpus is currently still being developed and its final version will consists of parallel texts in

20 languages. The documents included in the Acquis Communautaire corpus are indexed with

the EUROVOC thesaurus which is available in more than 20 languages. EUROVOC is used

by many national parliaments to search, store and classify all parliamentary documents.

Since the English/Czech version of “Acquis Communautaire” parallel corpus was not

available at the time of writing the thesis and the EUR-Lex database contains 1 ,400,000
 28

texts in total, it was impossible to process all of them, a small sub-corpus was built. Having in

mind that the whole research will rely on the sub-corpus, it was essential that these texts be

carefully selected so as to ensure a sufficient reliability of the results. The sub-corpus consists

of 10 texts (enclosed on CD), together amounting to 64 , 131 words, chosen from the EUR-

Lex database. When deciding which texts to include in the corpus, the following features

were considered:

Date of the publication of the texts: the corpus was being collected with the aim to comprise

recent texts, the result of which is that the oldest one is from 27 June 2005 and the most

recent one from 22 February 2006.

 Specific category: the texts belong to the category of

secondary legislation, e.g. regulations, directives, decisions and other acts. The reason why

secondary legislation was chosen amongst other categories of law, such as treaties, case-law,

parliamentary questions etc., is that the documents of secondary legislation comprise a lot of

statements expressing volition, permission, obligation or moral duty. Such notions are being

expressed by modal verbs which are the main subject of this thesis.

 Number of words in each text: the minimum number of words was set to 500,

the maximum reached 7,000 words per text, the average length of each text was

approximately 6,000 words.

 Subject field: the chosen texts are representative of the following areas:

agriculture, environmental issues, economy.

Firstly, it is essential to mention that the results and the percentages that arise from the

sub-corpus are not representative and should not serve as a basis for drawing general

conclusions as the volume of the sub-corpus is small and it does not include all kinds of legal

documents. Secondly, the topic and genre of some texts may result in the use or absence of a

particular modal verb and thus over-illustrate or under-illustrate it within the sub-corpus.
 29

When tackling the issues of the analysis of individual modal verbs, an approach to their

study had to be defined. Since the aim of this thesis is to analyse the use of modal verbs in

legal English and their equivalents in Czech, it was decided that the study would be

conducted from the grammatical point of view. Each modal verb is provided with the figure

of frequency with which it occurred in the text. Moreover, each one is studied from the point

of view of voice and each one is listed with its collocate.

The grammatical category of voice has long been a disputed issue among lawyers. As a

result of an almost exclusive usage of passive voice it has long been considered as the

unmarked voice in legal English. However, the Plain English Movement brought some

changes even to traditional legal English. Nowadays experts at legal writing recommend

using active voice rather than the passive whenever it is possible. The results of the study of

passive voice and active voice will be presented in the following chapter.

Another possible approach would be to categorise the modal verbs into epistemic and

deontic. However, such classification seemed inefficient as each category has a number of

sub-categories with only slight shadows in meaning. Moreover, the most common modal verb

in legal English shall is almost exclusively used in legal documents to express deontic

modality, i.e. what is to be the obligatory consequence of a legal decision rather than to

express pure future.

1.8. EUR-Lex Site Content

For the purposes of this thesis, aim of which is to conduct research into modal verbs in

legal English and their equivalents in Czech, the EUR-Lex database was used

<http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html>. The database consists of texts published in the

Official Journal of the European Union L (Legislation) and C (Information and notices). It

covers legislation, preparatory acts, international agreements and parliamentary questions.

The database consists of 1,400, 000 texts that have been collected since the conclusion of the
 30

establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 and the European

Economic Community and Euratom in 1957 onwards. Approximately 15 ,000 new documents

are added every year.

The majority of all the texts is available in the official languages of the founding Member

States, i.e. Dutch, German, Italian and French. The translations of the legislation and other

texts in other languages are available after the accession of the state in question. Some texts,

particularly the oldest ones are therefore not available in languages of the Member States that

have joined the European Union recently such as Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian,

Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene. The Czech translations available from the

database comply with all the requirements and terminology set out in the “OPOCE Style

Guide” and in the “ISAP Style Guide”. Every new translation has to be checked by

Coordinating and Auditing Centre (Koordinační a revizní centrum) of the Office of the Czech

Republic Government < http://isap.vlada.cz/homepage.nsf/titul>.

The whole database may be searched by means of two basic modes: a simple search and

an advanced search. The simple search offers a wide range of searching criteria accompanied

by a guide. The simple search mode was used when compiling the texts for this thesis. The

advanced search is currently not available but it offers to professional users a wider range of

search and display options. For the purposes of easier orientation within the site, the texts are

arranged in collections – treaties, international agreements, legislation in force, legislation in

preparation, case-law, parliamentary questions. The access to the site is free and no

registration is needed.

1.9. Results

After collecting the texts, the sorting – classification and comparison of translations

unfortunately had to be done manually. For the sake of easier handling the documents, all the
 31

modal verbs were given different colours (shall, should, will, would, can, could, may, might,

must, need) so as their equivalents in Czech. The table with overall results is presented at the

end of this chapter.

The first thing that can be noticed is the significantly different number of occurrences of

the modal verb shall – it occurred 428 times out of 728 modal verbs in total which accounts

almost 60% of all occurrences. Even when taking into account the small size of the sub-

corpus, it seems possible to say that the modal verb shall is the most common used modal

verb in legal English. The second ranks the modal verb should accounting for almost 15% of

all occurrences (108 out of 728). The third one – may numbers 95 occurrences out of 728

modal verbs (13%). It is obvious that shall, should and may predominate within the sub-

corpus together reaching 88% of all occurrences while the other modal verbs score negligible

percentages between 0 to 3 %. The ones that are worth mentioning are shall not being the

fourth most common modal verb within the sub-corpus, must, may not and will.

As it was said before, drafters of legal documents prefer to use active voice over passive

voice. However, it does not mean that the passive voice is forbidden. Sometimes, it might be

even better to use the passive voice, e.g. when there is no need to name the agent or when it is

desired to hide the agent. Another example when the passive is the preferred voice is in

gender-specific language. It helps to avoid using gender-specific pronouns “he” or “she”. The

passive voice emphasizes the thing acted upon and de-emphasizes the agent. The use of

passive voice in rules and laws can sometimes lead to vague statements, because it is not

obvious to whom duties are assigned, e.g.

Improvements to the licensed design made after the effective date of this section must be

disclosed within 10 days of an improvement. Failure to do so is a material breach of the

license agreement (Maine Legislative Drafting Manual, 11).

 32

The sentence does not mention who must disclose improvements to whom and thus may

become ambiguous for the reader.

Now, when the role of active/passive voice in legal language was described in theory,

it is possible to turn to the study of active/passive voice in practice. The active voice

outnumbered the passive voice by 9% the active voice was used in 54 .5% of all instances,

the passive voice in 45.5%. The most common modal verb shall occurred 245 times in the

active voice and 183 times in the passive voice. It is however striking to notice that the

second most common modal verb should deviates from the line with 31 instances of active

voice and 77 instances of passive voice. On the other hand, the third most common modal

verb may occurred 66 times in active voice and 29 times in passive voice. Although the

difference between the active voice and passive voice is not very significant, it seems

possible to arrive at the conclusion that the active voice is the preferred voice in legal

English. The next chapter will be devoted to a more detailed study of the uses of each modal

verb. The table below shows the overall results of all modal verbs that occurred within the

sub-corpus. The first column indicates the frequency of each modal verb; the second one

presents the same phenomenon in percentages. The third and the fourth column represent the

frequency of active and passive voice. The pie chart below the table again shows the

frequency of all modal verbs within the sub-corpus.

modal verb frequency (%) active voice passive

voice
shall 428 58,79% 245 183
shall not 24 3,30% 15 9
should 108 14,84% 31 77
 33

should not 3 0,42% 2 1

will 8 1,09% 5 3
will not 2 0,27% 1 1
would 8 1,09% 7 1
can 10 1,37% 7 3
cannot 3 0,41% 1 2
could 7 0,97% 4 3
may 95 13,04% 66 29
may not 8 1,09% 5 3
might 4 0,55% 2 2
must 15 2,06% 7 8
must not 1 0,15% 1 0
need not 1 0,15% 0 1
need 3 0,41% 1 2
Total 728 100% 400 328
amount (54, 9%) (45, 1%)

Table 1 – Overall results

Pie chart 1 – The frequency of occurrence of individual modal verbs in the sub-corpus

1.9.1. Shall
 34

The fundamental use of shall in legal language is to express obligation or command.

However, according to various publications and online discussions, shall is the most misused

modal verb in legal language. Although it is quite uncommon in present general English

usage, it is one of the most common modals in legal English. Still, it seems that many drafters

of legal documents are incapable of using shall correctly. Wayne Schiess, a director of legal

writing at the University of Texas School of Law in one of the online discussions on “shall

vs. will” reports that lawyers misuse shall in the following ways. Firstly, they use it to impose

a duty on an inanimate object. Secondly, lawyers use shall to describe a status and thirdly to

refer to the future. These are known as “the false imperative” (International Development

Law Organization 47).

“Notice that imposing obligation is the only acceptable use of “shall” in legal drafting. It

should never be used to refer to the future – a misuse known as the “false imperative”.”

The false imperative is a relic from the past when shall was used in conditions,

declarations or to refer to future. The only possible use of shall in present-day legal language

is to confine it to the meaning “has a duty to” and to impose obligation on a capable object. It

has been suggested that shall should be replaced by will to express the future and by must to

express the imperative since must and will are less corrupted and less legalistic (Joseph

Kimble, 6). Jens Peter Hovelsø believes that the replacement of shall by must and will does

not constitute any change in meaning, apart from the loss of the “legalistic flavour” of the

text (Characteristics of English Legal Language 22).

Here I wish to enclose certain examples of the erroneous use of shall adopted from the

online article on “Shall vs. will” written by Wayne Schiess

(<http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2005/05/shall-vs-will.html>).

Each example is followed by a new sentence suggested by the author of this thesis. The first

example illustrates the incorrect use of shall to describe a status.

 35

Full capacity shall have the following meaning...

Full capacity has the following meaning...

The second example illustrates the incorrect use of shall to describe future actions.

If...then the contract price shall be increased...

If...the contract price will be increased...

The last example shows the incorrect use of shall to impose an obligation on an inanimate

object.

The remaining oil shall be sold by lessee...

Lessee shall sell the remaining oil...

As stated in the Maine Legislative Drafting Manual, in the second chapter called

“Word Choice and Usage”, shall should not be used in conditional sentences. Furthermore,

lawyers should avoid using it when the recipient is the subject of an active sentence. Thirdly,

it should not be used to say what the law is or how it applies in the future and finally it should

not be used in drafting definitions. On the basis of the above mentioned rules, particularly the

third one, it can be inferred that a sentence such as

This Regulation shall not constitute in any way derogation from the provisions of the

Agreement which, in all cases of conflict, shall prevail (Council Regulation (EC) No

1899/2005 of June 2005).

should be rewritten as follows

This Regulation does not constitute in any way a derogation from the provisions of the

Agreement which, in all cases of conflict prevails.

Similarly, in the following sentence shall should be according to Maine Legislative

Drafting Manual replaced by must since must is preferred in statements describing

what people or things must be rather than what they must do.
 36

The paper shall be white writing paper, sized, not containing mechanical pulp

and weighing not less than 25 g/m2. Each part shall have a printed guilloche-pattern

background making any falsification by mechanical or chemical means apparent to

the eye (Council Regulation (EC) No 1899/2005 of June 2005).

The fundamental problem of shall, as we have seen is that it, can take on a

number of meanings. It is generally expected that when the same word is used

repeatedly in a text, it bears the same meaning throughout the text. And this is where

many drafters of legal documents go wrong. According to Bryan Garner, shall has as

many as eight senses in legal documents (A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 939).

Bryan Garner suggests three solutions to this problem. The first one is called

“American Rule” and it suggests that shall should be restricted to only one sense –

“has a duty to.” This rule applies when the subject of the sentence is animate,

otherwise the modal verb must has to be used. The second solution is what Garner

calls the “ABC Rule”. The abbreviation comes from the capitals of nationalities of the

drafters, who in the 1980s advocated this rule – American, British, and Canadian.

They maintained that at any time shall should be substituted by another, more

appropriate modal verb. The third alternative is to keep on using shall regardless the

problems it poses.

In conclusion, it has to be mentioned that the possibility of replacing shall by

other modal verbs is open to discussion and that opinions on the use of shall vary.

Whether to use shall or not in legal documents is probably a matter of taste as well as

the sender-receiver relationship. Some people suggest that we should avoid using

shall entirely; others maintain that we should keep on using it as long as it is used

correctly. It is believed that the use of shall is what makes the legal language legalistic

and it should stay in legal documents provided that it confines to the meaning of “has
 37

a duty to” and “imposing an obligation on a person or body”. However, as the

examples show, practice often differs from theory. Generally speaking, it seems that

the majority of English speaking clients prefer the use of shall to simplified language.

Nevertheless, the above mentioned set of rules on using shall is worth keeping in

mind both for translators and drafters of legal documents since it may help them (to)

strike a balance between the two extremes of radical traditionalism and radical clarity.

1.9.2. Shall vs. Will

The basic difference between shall and will in English for general purposes is that we

use shall to express future only with the first person singular, whereas will with the second

and third person singular. On the other hand, when we wish to express volition, permission or

obligation we use will with the first person singular and shall with the second and third

person singular (E. Gowers 141). The difference between shall and will in legal language is

that will is used to create a promise or contractual obligation. Will may express one’s own

client’s obligations as in a residential lease or both parties’ obligations as in a corporate joint

venture. Shall could be used for the other party’s obligations and will for your client’s

obligations although the effect remains the same.

The following sentence illustrates the use of will to create a contractual obligation.

In order to ensure that these quantitative limits are not exceeded, it is necessary to

establish a management procedure whereby the competent authorities of the Member

States will not issue import licences before obtaining prior confirmation from the

Commission that appropriate amounts remain available within the quantitative limit

in question (Council Regulation (EC) No 1899/2005 of 27 June 2005).

The next sentence shows the use of will describing merely a future event.

The amount to be charged will not be known when the 2004/05 production levies are

calculated in September 2005, as the deadline for providing proof of elimination of

 38

surplus quantities was deferred to 31 March 2006 by Commission Regulation (EC)

No 651/2005 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1667/2005 of 13 October 2005).

Within the sub-corps will was used extremely rarely. It totals only 1 .1% among all other

modal verbs. Will in the active constructions outnumbered the passive ones in the ratio of five

to three. The most frequent infinitives in the active sentences were implement, provide,

report, opt while the passive voice was formed by the past participles of verbs such as

advertise, circulate, take and know.

1.9.3. Should

Should is rarely used in legal drafting, because it is not a legal term of art. It is most

often associated with moral rather that legal obligation. In meaning it is similar to another

modal verb – ought to. However, ought to should be reserved for expressions of necessity,

duty or obligations, should on the other hand, expresses mere appropriateness, suitability or

fittingness. Should was very frequently used in the selected texts for the sub-corpus, being the

second most common used modal verb. The number of occurrences of should reached the

level of almost 15%. It is interesting to notice that unlike other modals it was more often used

in the passive construction. With the passive it occurred 77 times, while with the active voice

only 31 times. The most common verbs which collocated with should in active voice

structures were apply, continue (each used only twice), notify, permit, reveal, have, enter,

arise, attach (each used only once), etc. Verbs such as make, allow, amend, lay down,

maintain and determine predominated in the passive construction.

1.9.4. May

May is the third most frequent modal verb within the analysed sub-corpus. It is also one

of the most common modal verbs in legal English. In the sub-corpus it occurred 95 times out

of 722 modal verbs in total. Together with may not it occurred in 14% of all instances. In the
 39

active voice it was used together with verbs such as apply, ask, lodge, exceed, request and

result each occurring twice. In the passive constructions, may was less frequent. It occurred

three times alongside past participle of the verb issue and twice alongside verb release. In

addition there were many others occurring only once: take, require, remove, help, extend,

determine, help etc.

As already reported earlier in this thesis, may is used to express possibility (root or

epistemic) and permission. It can be paraphrased as is permitted to, is authorized to, is

entitled to and has power to. The basic meaning of may in legal language confers permission.

In addition, it also limits choice, refers to future exercise of power and to uncertain future

occurrences.

The first may in the following sentence confers a power on the Commission. The second may

refers to a future exercise of power.

Pending the outcome of the consultations referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission

may ask the Russian Federation concerned to take the necessary precautionary steps

to ensure that adjustments to the quantitative limits agreed following such

consultations may be carried out for the year in which the request for consultations

was lodged or for the following year, if the quantitative limits for the current year are

exhausted, where there is clear evidence of circumvention (Council Regulation (EC)

1899/2005 of 27 June 2005).

The next sentence shows the use of may to limit choice.

The import authorisation may be issued by electronic means as long as the customs

offices involved have access to the document via a computer network (Council

Regulation (EC) 1899/2005 of 27 June 2005).

The last example illustrates the use of may to refer to uncertain future occurrences.
 40

In the event of the theft, loss or destruction of an export licence or a certificate of

origin, the exporter may apply to the competent authority which issued the document

for a duplicate to be made out on the basis of the export documents in his possession

network (Council Regulation (EC) 1899/2005 of 27 June 2005).

As it was said earlier the basic use of may is to confer a power. Besides using the modal verb

may, the same situation can be expressed by a periphrastic constructions is entitled to, has an

authority to and reserves the right to. When in doubts whether to use one of the periphrastic

constructions or the modal verb, Wayne Schiess recommends to use may provided that it

conveys identical information. According to his words, when it is possible to communicate

identical message in fewer words, the shorter variation is better.

1.9.5. May vs. Shall

In legal language there a similarity appears between may and shall in the sense that

both confer power or permission. They both authorize the recipient of the statement to do

something that he/she could not do or would not be able to do without the grant. The

difference lies in the fact that may embraces the notion of discretion while shall (or must)

embraces the notion of obligation. Jens Peter Hovelsø also reports that shall should be used

for the imperative, while the use of may is permissive (Characteristics of English Legal

Language 24).

1.9.6. May vs. Reserves the right to

The modal verb may and the phrase reserves the right to are very similar in meaning.

The question is which one is better to use in legal documents. According to plain English

when it is possible to convey the same information in fewer words, the shorter one is better.

Wayne Schiess, the author of Better Legal Writing, recommends using may for discretionary

acts in place of longer phrases such as is entitled to, is authorized to, has the discretion to or
 41

reserves the right to. In addition to the meaning of may for discretionary acts, it has another

meaning – possibly will. Thus, the following sentence: The judge may dismiss…is

ambiguous. It can either mean that the judge has the authority to dismiss or that he/she

possibly will dismiss. According to Wayne Schiess, to avoid such ambiguity in the document,

define may to mean is authorized to and avoid using may to mean possibly will

(<http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2005/05/may-vs-reserves-right-

to.html>).

1.9.7. Must

In general English the modal verb must can be interpreted as having two various

meanings. Firstly, it bears the meaning of logical necessity, also called epistemic necessity

already referred to in previous chapters (Collins 218 –219). Secondly, it carries the meaning

of obligation or compulsion. In legal language must is, according to a Canadian author

Drieger, used to assert the existence of an obligation, though it does not impose it (qtd. in

International Development Law Organization, 48).

When drafting any legal document, we should always keep in mind the intended

audience. Thus, must may take up a very patronizing meaning in some kinds of private

drafting such as a contract between two corporations that are discussing the terms of a

proposed merger. The modal verb will would be perhaps more appropriate in such case. On

the contrary, must is according to Bryan Garner the appropriate word in a consumer contract

for the party that lacks the bargaining power, e.g. in the landlord-tenant relationship, the

landlord will….but the tenant must…(A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 941).

In the sub-corpus presented, must took only an insignificant position amongst other

modals. Together with must not it occurred 16 times, which aggregates only 2.1%. In the

active constructions it collocated with the verbs: place, be, accept, appear and precede, in the
 42

passive constructions it collocated with the past participle of the verbs recognize, include,

clean, obtain, replace, effect and lay down.

1.9.8. Must vs. Shall

Contemporary legal English is marked by a discussion about the usage of modal verbs

must and shall led by drafters of legal documents, lawyers and also linguists. Two groups

maintaining opposing points of view are identified. The first group recognizes the distinction

between shall and must in the sense that shall is used to impose an obligation on an agent,

whereas must should be used when the subject of a sentence is inanimate, e.g. a thing –

A copy of the signed contract must be given to the debtor

(“Word Choice and Usage, 3”).

Special procedures must be laid down to ensure that the operations and their

monitoring are properly effected (Commission Regulation (EC) 1622/2005 of 4

October 2005).

Moreover, must is preferred to shall when we wish to express requirements, i.e. what people

or things must be rather than what they must do –

Tenders must be lodged with the Czech intervention agency (Commission

Regulation (EC) 1622/2005 of 4 October 2005).

This presentation must be effected not later than 31 March of the year

following that in which the goods covered by the export licence have been

shipped (Council Regulation (EC) 1899/2005 of 27 June 2005).

The second group is represented by advocates of plain language style. Their aim is to

simplify legal language for those, who are not accustomed to reading legal documents. They

believe that shall should be eliminated entirely and should be replaced by must since shall is

from their point of view confusing to persons of non-legal education. The plain language
 43

preference for must is only slowly gaining ground and many drafters continue to use shall

instead.

1.9.9. Other Modal Verbs

From the table that presents the overall results it is clear that shall, may and should score

the highest percentages amongst other modal verbs. When counted and added, they reach the

level of 87% of all occurrences. All the other modal verbs score only 12 .6% of all

occurrences. These are: shall not, should not, will, will not, would, can, cannot, could, may

not, might, need, need not, must and must not. Since the modal verbs shall, should, will, may

and must were already discussed above, the focus will be turned to the remaining ones.

The first one to be discussed is would. The entry in B. Garner’s dictionary says that

would is often used as a hedge-word qualifying the absoluteness of the verb following it

(A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 943). In the sub-corpus under study would was used

eight times, seven times in active construction and only once in passive construction. In

active voice it collocated with the verbs be, jeopardise, mean, run, etc. The modal verb can

expresses physical ability. As a rule, cannot should not appear as two words. Can was used

ten times (seven times in active construction), cannot was used only twice, in both instances

in passive construction. The verbs used with can/cannot in active construction were prove,

take, ensure, be etc. The following verbs accompanied can/cannot in passive sentences –

reach, resolve, identify, provide, conclude etc.

The next ones to be discussed are the modal verbs could and might. The former one was

used only three times and only in passive constructions (mislead, enlarge, be), the latter one

was used four times – twice in active sentence (need, have) and twice in passive sentence

(second, spread). The last one to be mentioned is need. Together with dare and used to it

belongs to the group of verbs that are called semi-modals (Collins Cobuild English Grammar
 44

217). Need occurred in the sub-corpus three times (twice in passive, once in active), need not

occurred only once (passive).

 45

5. Translation of Modal Verbs in Legal English into Czech

Since modal verbs have been discussed both from the point of view of GPE and ESP, the

time has come to study how they are translated into Czech. Firstly, a brief description of legal

translation will be provided by comparing legal translation to any other translation. Next, I

shall name some of the requirements that each legal translation has to comply with to be

considered satisfactory. The last section will deal with translations of individual modal verbs

providing examples from the sub-corpus.

1.10. Legal Translation

Legal translation is the translation of texts within the field of law. It includes the

translation of documents with legal content and also all documents that are somehow

connected with any legal process. Legal translation poses many problems since law is

culture-dependent and legal systems vary across individual countries. The task of legal

translators is not simple. They are expected to convey not just the meaning of words but

rather the underlying legal system as a whole. Their work embraces a comparative study of

the different systems and awareness of the difficulties that might arise due to the absence of

equivalents. A particular concept might exist in one country, but there does not have to be an

equivalent for it in another country. Moreover, the same concept might exist in two different

countries referring to completely different realities. A good legal translation is one that has

the same impact on target-language audience as the original text has at the source-language

audience. This is known as “dynamic equivalence” (Holly Mikkelson 4).

Essentially, legal translation does not differ from any other translation. A skilled

translator of any kind of text should ask the following questions: Who is the intended

audience? What is the purpose of the text? M. Hammond claims that the purpose of the text

has from the point of view of a translator’s approach to the text much greater importance than
 46

the foreign-language original itself (Qtd. Awareness of the Language of the Law and the

Preservation of Register in the Training of Legal Translators and Interpreters 4). On the other

hand, legal translation has a number of dissimilarities. As it was mentioned before, legal

translation involves both a comparative study of the different legal systems and awareness of

the problems created by the absence of equivalents. Thus, legal translation is not just the

substitution of lexical and grammatical elements. Legal texts, unlike e.g. scientific texts

cannot be translated word by word; a professional should rather look for juridical and

linguistic equivalents. It is essential to mention that translators of legal documents have

limited possibilities when choosing the appropriate Czech equivalent as opposed to

translators of fiction whose scope of possibilities is almost endless. As it was said before, any

translation of European Community legislative must comply with “OPOCE Style Guide” and

in the “ISAP Style Guide”. Some of the basic requirements include explicitness and clarity,

unity of the terminology used and readability. The following website provides guidelines for

translations done by free-lance translators for the EU Commission

<http://isap.vlada.cz/homepage.nsf/dataver>. This page also includes a terminology database

that sets the standard for EU translations.

To sum up, legal translation requires a skilled professional, trained in the field of legal

translation. Moreover, he/she has to be aware of all the constraints posed by legal language.

The translators of legal English should look for pragmatic equivalence of concepts rather than

for semantic equivalence of individual words. Furthermore, they should try to preserve the

register of the target text. It is important to keep in mind that an unmarked legal source text

should be translated using also an unmarked language of the target text. In Britain, the

unmarked language of legal documents still remains the traditional legal language; the

simplified texts are considered by the majority of British readers unusual (Jens Peter Hovelsø

27).
 47

1.11. Individual Modal Verbs and Their Translation

In this chapter individual modal verbs will be analysed in terms of their usage in ESP and

their translation to Czech. As it was stated earlier in this dissertation, the present research

relies on corpora thus examples from the sub-corpus will be provided for each modal verb.

1.11.1. Shall

The first modal verb to be studied is shall, a verb that is quite obsolete in everyday

English, but very frequent in legal language. It appeared in the sample corpus 452 times on

the whole. Table 1 in the second chapter (p.24) shows its position amongst other modal verbs.

However, now the focus is on how shall is translated in Czech legal documents. As can be

seen from the table below, in the vast majority of instances (more than 87%), shall was

completely omitted in Czech, the modality being represented by a corresponding full verb in

the present simple tense. The rest of all instances (13%) were translated using equivalent

Czech modal verbs, corresponding full verbs in future tense, modal particles, adjectives or

nouns.

Next, the translation of shall accompanied with its most frequent collocates – notify,

apply, issue and enter will be discussed. The first ones to be dealt with are shall notify and

shall be notified. Although the two phrases appeared only twelve times altogether, their

translations reveal some interesting points. Firstly, five different verbs were used to translate

the word notify – informovat (5), předávat (1), sdělit (1), oznámit (4) and potvrdit (1).

Secondly, all of them were translated using the present simple. While sdělit, informovat and

oznámit are direct equivalents of the verb notify, předávat and potvrdit are used based on the

context –

 By return, the Commission shall notify its confirmation that the requested

amount(s) of quantities are available for importation in the chronological order in

which the notifications of the Member States have been received.

 48

 Komise obratem potvrdí, zda je (jsou) požadované(á) množství pro dovoz

k dispozici, a to chronologicky ve stejném pořadí, v jakém obdržela oznámení

členských států.

 The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be notified:

(a) as regards paragraph 1(a), by the second working day of each week in respect of

applications received the previous week…

 Informace uvedené v odstavci 1 se předávají:

(a) v případě odst. 1 písm. a) druhý pracovní den každého týdne pro žádosti obdržené

v předcházejícím týdnu…

The next phrase to interpret is shall apply/shall not apply. It appeared eleven times and

was translated by two different verbs –

vztahovat se (2)

 Paragraph 1 shall also apply to subsequent verifications of declarations of origin.

 Ustanovení odstavce 1 se vztahují také na následná ověřování prohlášení o

původu.

použít (9)

 The provisions concerning "B" licences shall apply from 1 January 2006.

 Ustanovení týkající se "B" licencí se použijí ode dne 1. ledna 2006.

The last sentence poses an interesting question – why shall apply from is not translated as

vstoupit v platnost od. A computerised search revealed that vstoupit v platnost is within legal

documents almost exclusively translated as enter into force. Moreover, according to the

terminology database for translators of EC legislative, the phrase vstoupit v platnost can only

be translated as enter into force or come into force. On the other hand, the verb apply may be

translated as použít or uplatnit <http://isap.vlada.cz/Dul/zavaznet.NSF/CzAngl?OpenView>.

 49

The third phrase to be studied is shall issue/shall be issued. It occurred twelve times and was

translated using three different verbs –

vydat(vydávat) (9)

 "A" licences shall be issued by the competent authorities on the seventh working day

following notification as provided for in Article 9.

 "A" licence vydají příslušné orgány sedmý pracovní den následující po sdělení podle

článku 9.

zahájit (1)

 The Czech intervention agency shall issue a standing invitation to tender for the

export of common wheat held by it in the places listed in Annex I to this Regulation,

in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93, save as otherwise provided in this

Regulation.

 Česká intervenční agentura zahájí stálé nabídkové řízení pro vývoz pšenice obecné ze

svých zásob na místech určených v příloze I tohoto nařízení, za podmínek

stanovených nařízením (EHS) č. 2131/93, nestanoví-li toto nařízení jinak.

vystavit (2)

 Import authorisations shall be issued by the competent authorities of any Member

State irrespective of the Member State indicated on the export licence, to the extent

that the Commission has confirmed, in accordance with the procedure laid down in

Article 4, that the amount requested is available within the quantitative limit in

question.

 V rozsahu, v němž Komise podle článku 4 potvrdila dostupnost požadovaného

množství v rámci příslušného množstevního limitu, vystaví příslušné orgány

členských států dovozní povolení, a to nejdéle do deseti pracovních dnů poté, co

dovozce předloží originál příslušné vývozní licence.

 50

The last phrase shall enter occurred seven times offering three different translations –

vstoupit (5), použít (1) and zahájit (1). The verb enter collocates with into force being

translated as vstoupit v platnost and with into consultations translated as zahájit konzultace.

Besides the already discussed translation of shall using present tense, the sub corpus

offers also other possibilities of translation, e.g. modal verb, future tense, modal particle,

adjective or noun. Let me first concentrate on shall translated by modal verbs. Although not

very frequent, modal verbs do occur in place of shall in Czech legal documents, i.e.

muset/nemuset and moci/nesmět. As already discussed in previous chapters, the English

modal verb shall is similar in meaning to must in the sense that both are used to express

obligation. However, must is preferred to shall when we wish to express requirements, i.e.

what people or things must be rather than what they must do. Still, the translation of shall and

must is heavily context dependent as can be seen in the following example. Shall

conform/certify must be translated as musí odpovídat/potvrzovat and not odpovídá/potvrzuje

to keep the meaning of the English sentence, i.e. imposing what the export licence must be

like.

 The export licence for quantitative limits shall conform to the model set out in Annex

II and shall certify, inter alia, that the quantity of goods in question has been counted

against the quantitative limit established for the product group concerned.

 Vývozní licence pro množstevní limity musí odpovídat vzoru uvedenému v příloze II

a musí mimo jiné potvrzovat, že množství dotyčného zboží bylo započteno do

množstevních limitů stanovených pro danou skupinu výrobků.

The following sentence illustrates the use of the modal verb nesmět in place of shall not. Here

again the context of the sentence excludes the use of corresponding verbal form in present

tense.
 51

 A designation of origin or geographical indication shall not be registered where, in the

light of a trademark's reputation and renown and the length of time it has been used,

registration is liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product.

 Nesmí být zapsáno označení původu nebo zeměpisné označení, pokud by vzhledem k

pověsti ochranné známky, její proslulosti a době jejího používání mohl zápis uvést

spotřebitele v omyl ohledně skutečné identity produktu.

In the table representing the translations of shall/shall not future tense ranks the third

place amounting to 18 instances out of 452 instances in total. As a rule, shall should not be

used to refer to future in legal documents. This phenomenon is known as the false imperative

(Tina L. Stark 6). Moreover, shall should not occur in definitions and in statements about the

law, e.g. NOT …”eligible hectare” shall mean BUT …”eligible hectare” means (Council

Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006). Yet, the subject of this chapter remains

the translations of shall into Czech. Shall indicate is in the sentence below translated as bude

uvedeno, another possibility would be se uvádí.

 Box 20 of "A" licence applications shall indicate "traditional importer" or "new

importer" as appropriate.

 V kolonce 20 žádostí o "A" licenci bude uvedeno "tradiční dovozce" nebo "nový

dovozce" podle toho, kdo žádost předložil.

Finally, the focus will be turned to the discussion of the remaining alternatives of translation,

e.g. modal particle – je třeba, adjective – nutné and adverb – lze.

The first example illustrates the use of je třeba, the second one shows the use of je nutné and

the last one represents the use of the adverb lze.

 The layout of the forms shall be followed precisely.

 Tuto úpravu je třeba přesně dodržovat.

 52

 In addition, applications shall be accompanied by a certificate from the designated

importer stating that he is eligible under the rules in force in the United States on the

issue of import licences for the products referred to in paragraph 1.

 Kromě toho je nutné k žádosti přiložit osvědčení od určeného dovozce dokládající

skutečnost, že v souladu s platnými právními předpisy Spojených států amerických

splňuje podmínky pro vydání licence na dovoz výrobků uvedených v odstavci 1.

 Expenditure shall be eligible as from 1 March 2006.

 Hradit lze výdaje vynaložené od 1. března 2006.

To sum up this chapter, shall bearing the modal meaning of obligation and command is in

most instances translated with the corresponding verbal form in present tense. However, it is

important to pay attention to the context and only then it is possible to decide what the correct

equivalent of shall in question is. The table below shows the distribution of possible

translations of shall/shall not as they appeared in the sub corpus.

TRANSLATIONS OF SHALL/SHALL NOT

TRANSLATED AS FREQUENCY % TOTAL
Modal verb muset 19 4,2
nesmět 5 1,106
nemuset 1 0,22
moci 4 0,88 452
Verb in present
simple 396 87,61
Verb in future
tense 18 3,98
je třeba 1 0,22
Modal particle

Adjective nutné 2 0,44

Adverb (ne)lze 3 0,66
Translated by
noun or omitted 3 0,66

Table 2 – Translations of shall/shall not

 53

1.11.2. Should

Should is one of the modal verbs that was very frequently used throughout the sub

corpus. It ranks the second place amongst all other modal verbs amounting to 111

occurrences. The most common translation of the modal verb should is mít represented in the

table no. 3 by 69.37%. The second one ranks the modal particle je třeba and in seven

instances should was translated by a corresponding verb in present tense. The translations of

should seem to cause no problems since should bears only one meaning, i.e. moral obligation,

appropriateness, suitability and fittingness. As opposed to shall its use is unambiguous and

poses no difficulties neither for drafters of legal documents nor for readers. Should occurred

very often in sentences with some kind of recommendation or suggestion –

 In order to monitor all imports as closely as possible, in particular following recent

incidents involving fraud, two categories of import licences should also be introduced

for all imports of garlic.

 Za účelem co nejdůkladnějšího sledování všech dovozů, zejména po nedávných

případech podvodu, by se měly zavést dvě kategorie dovozních licencí pro všechny

dovozy česneku.

 The switchover from one system to the other should be as smooth as possible.

 Přechod z jednoho systému na druhý by měl být co nejplynulejší.

In the cases where should is translated as je třeba the usage of the modal verb should is

similar to that of shall/must, e.g. to impose obligation or to stress necessity.

 To that end, greater competition amongst importers should be encouraged and

administrative burdens on importers reduced.

 Pro tento účel je třeba povzbuzovat zvýšenou konkurenci mezi dovozci a snížit jejich

administrativní zátěž.
 54

The notions of recommendation and suggestion are embraced also in the following sentence

being translated as je vhodné.

 Given the current market situation, a standing invitation to tender should be opened

for the export of 55218 tonnes of common wheat held by the Czech intervention

agency in Germany, under the Commission Decision authorising the Czech Republic

to store outside its territory 55000 tonnes of cereals from the 2004/05 marketing year

[4].

 Za současné situace na trhu je vhodné zahájit stálé nabídkové řízení pro vývoz 55218

tun pšenice obecné ze zásob české intervenční agentury v Německu podle rozhodnutí

Komise, kterým se České republice schvaluje uskladnit mimo její území 55000 tun

obilovin z hospodářského roku 2004/2005 [4].

Should most frequently collocates with the verbs make (used only in passive voice), apply

and continue (active voice), allow, lay down, maintain, determine, amend (all used in passive

voice). Firstly, let us discuss the translations of the phrase should be made. Since the sentence

structure of legal language is quite fixed, it is no wonder that the verb make has a limited

number of possible translations, namely two – stanovit and učinit. However, the translations

of the whole phrase, i.e. modal verb + full verb vary – mělo by být učiněno, je třeba stanovit,

je vhodné stanovit, je třeba učinit, je třeba stanovit and mělo by se stanovit.

Unlike the verb make, which was used only is passive sentences, the verb apply occurred

only in active sentences. It is interesting that the phrase should apply was only once translated

by a modal verb – mělo by se použít. In the remaining sentences, the modal verb should was

completely omitted and the corresponding full verb was used in present tense. In this sense,

should is very similar to shall –

 This Regulation should apply for the first time to applications for import licenses for

the first quarter of the 2006/07 import period.

 55

 Toto nařízení se poprvé použije pro žádosti o dovozní licence na první čtvrtletí

dovozního období 2006/07.

The examples below illustrate the translations of the following phrases as they appeared in

the gathered documents: should be amended, should be laid down, should be allowed and

should be maintained.

Should be amended – mělo by být změněno, musí být změněno

 Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 should therefore be amended accordingly.

 Nařízení (ES) č. 174/1999 by proto mělo být odpovídajícím způsobem změněno.

An interesting point here is that although the two sentences are almost the same, their

translations differ. However, the meaning stays unchanged; the only difference is in the level

of persistence.

 Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 should be amended accordingly.

 Nařízení (ES) č. 60/2004 musí být odpovídajícím způsobem změněno.

Should be laid down – je třeba stanovit, je třeba provést

 A clear definition of those two categories of importers should be provided and certain

criteria relating to the status of the applicants and the use of the import licences

allocated should be laid down.

 Je třeba stanovit jasnou definici těchto dvou kategorií dovozců a určitá kritéria

týkající se postavení žadatelů a používání přidělených dovozních licencí.

Should be allowed – je třeba poskytnout, měl by umožnit

 In order to take account of the different trade patterns in the different new Member

States, the competent authorities of the new Member States should be allowed to

choose between two methods for establishing the reference quantity of their

traditional importers.
 56

 Aby se zohlednily různé skladby obchodu v různých nových členských státech, měl

by se příslušným orgánům nových členských států umožnit výběr mezi dvěma

metodami pro stanovení referenčního množství jejich tradičních dovozců.

Should be maintained – je třeba zachovat, měl by být zachován

 To that end, certain of the detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No

565/2002 should be carried over and the traditional import timetable should be

maintained.

 Pro tento účel by měla být převzata některá prováděcí pravidla k nařízení (ES) č.

565/2002 a tradiční časový rozvrh dovozu by měl být zachován.

The table below shows the overall distribution of the translations of the modal verbs

should/should not.

TRANSLATIONS OF SHOULD/SHOULD NOT

TRANSLATED AS FREQUENCY % TOTAL
Modal verb mít (mělo by…) 77 69,37
muset 2 0,82
Modal
particle je třeba 20 18,18 111

Verb in
present
simple 7 6,37
Adjective vhodné 2 0,82
Omitted 3 2,73

Table 3 – Translations of should/should not

1.11.3. May

The modal verb may simply means has discretion to or is permitted to. It ranks the third

place within the sub corpus with103 occurrences. In almost 70% of all instances may

occurred in active sentences. May was translated in a vast majority of instances (83%) by two

Czech modal verbs – moci and smět.

 57

 The EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may

deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy

as set out in Article 11 of the Treaty...

 Zvláštní zástupce EU bude vykonávat svůj mandát za situace, která se může zhoršit a

která by mohla ohrozit cíle společné zahraniční a bezpečnostní politiky stanovené v

článku 11 Smlouvy...

In the sentence above, may is used to express epistemic possibility. On the contrary, in the

following example, may not is used to negate permission, thus the Czech translation nesmí

fits best.

 Names that have become generic may not be registered.

 Názvy, které zdruhověly, nesmí být zapsány.

The attention will be turned to the translation of the following phrases: may be issued, may

ask, may apply and may be released being the most frequent ones in the sub corpus. The first

one to be mentioned is may be issued. This phrase appeared in all three instances in context

with the word licence. Twice the modal may was translated as moci, once as nelze. In all three

instances may expressed permission or a negation of permission.

 No "B" licence may be issued in response to an "A" licence application.

 Na žádost o "A" licenci se nemůže vydat žádná "B" licence.

The phrase may ask appeared in the texts translated as může požadovat/požádat. In the

following sentence may is used in the sense has discretion to.

 Should the cases mentioned in Article 7(2)(b) and 7(3) arise, the successful tenderer

may ask the intervention agency to supply an alternative lot of common wheat of the

requisite quality, at no extra cost.

 58

 Podle čl. 7 odst. 2 prvního pododstavce písm. b) a odstavce 3 může vybraný účastník

požadovat na intervenční agentuře, aby mu dodala jinou šarži pšenice obecné o

stanovené jakosti bez dodatečných nákladů.

As in the previous case, the translation of may apply seems quite straightforward. In both

instances the phrase was translated as může/mohou požádat.

 In the event of the theft, loss or destruction of an export licence or a certificate of

origin, the exporter may apply to the competent authority which issued the document

for a duplicate to be made out on the basis of the export documents in his possession.

 V případě krádeže, ztráty nebo zničení vývozní licence nebo osvědčení o původu

může vývozce požádat příslušný orgán, který dokument vydal, aby na základě

vývozních dokumentů, které vývozce vlastní, vyhotovil duplikát.

Finally, let us discuss the last phrase – may be released. In the first case, may was omitted and

it was substituted by a corresponding verb, i.e. release in present tense. In the second case,

may was translated by Czech modal verb moci.

 Garlic originating in a third country listed in Annex IV may only be released for free

circulation in the Community if the following conditions are met:….

 Česnek pocházející z třetí země uvedené v příloze IV se propustí do volného oběhu ve

Společenství pouze při splnění těchto podmínek:…

 Garlic may only be released for free circulation under the quotas referred to in Article

1(1) where box 24 of the relevant import licence shows one of the entries listed in

Annex II.

 Česnek může být propuštěn do volného oběhu v rámci kvót uvedených v čl. 1 odst. 1,

pokud kolonka 24 příslušné dovozní licence bude obsahovat jednu z poznámek

uvedených v příloze II.

 59

In conclusion, an example of may translated by a non-modal and non-verbal expression will

be provided. The following sentence illustrates the use of the phrase as the case may be to

express uncertain or possible future occurrences. Consequently, the Czech translation reads

případně since this adverb embraces the notion of uncertainty and possibility.

 …a description of the link between the product and the geographical environment or

geographical origin referred to in Article 2(1)(a) or (b), as the case may be, including,

where appropriate, the specific elements of the product description or production

method justifying the link.

 …popis souvislosti mezi produktem a zeměpisným prostředím nebo zeměpisným

původem podle čl. 2 odst. 1 písm. a) nebo b), případně včetně zvláštních údajů

týkajících se popisu produktu nebo metody produkce, které souvislost odůvodňují.

TRANSLATIONS OF MAY/MAY NOT

TRANSLATED AS FREQUENCY % TOTAL
Modal verb moci 81 78,64
smět 5 4,85
Verb in present 103
simple 5 4,85
Adverb případně 1 0,97
možno 1 0,97
lze 5 4,85
Adjective možné 1 0,97
Conjunction nebo 1 0,97
Omitted 3 2,91

Table 4 – Translations of may/may not

1.11.4. Must

The last modal verb which will be discussed in greater detail is must. As it was

described earlier in this thesis, must bears two meanings. The first one is logical necessity and

the second one is obligation/compulsion. However, must expressing logical necessity

generally does not occur in legal language. Hence, all of the occurrences of must in the sub

corpus bear the meaning of obligation or compulsion. The modal verb must was in a vast
 60

majority of occurrences translated by Czech modal expressions, e.g. modal verb muset and

modal particle je třeba.

Must translated as muset:

 If the documents referred to in paragraph 1 are completed by hand, entries must be in

ink and in block letters.

 Pokud jsou doklady uvedené v odstavci 1 vyplňovány rukou, musí být jednotlivé

záznamy zapsány inkoustem a hůlkovým písmem.

Must translated as je třeba:

 Tenders must be lodged with the Czech intervention agency:

 Nabídky je třeba předložit české intervenční agentuře, jejíž název a adresa jsou:

The computerized search enabled me to find one example of must translated as být povinen.

The meaning, however, is in Czech the same.

 The successful tenderer must accept the lot as established if the final result of the

sample analyses indicates a quality:…

 Vybraný účastník je povinen přijmout šarži v takové jakosti, jaká byla zjištěna, pokud

výsledek analýz provedených na vzorcích ukazuje, že jakost je:…

MUST/MUST NOT

TRANSLATED AS FREQUENCY % TOTAL

Modal verb muset 11 68,75
Modal
particle je třeba 3 18,75
je 16

povinen 1 6,25
Omitted 1 6,25

Table 5 – Translations of must/must not

 61

1.11.5. Other Modal Verbs

The last chapter will be devoted to a discussion of the remaining modal verbs, i.e.

can/cannot, could, might, need/need not, will/will not and would. The distribution of the

modal verbs and their translations can be studied in the table below. Firstly, let me turn the

attention to the modal verbs can/cannot. In majority of instance can/cannot was translated by

a Czech modal verb moci.

 a definition of minor amendments as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article

7(5) and in Article 9(2), bearing in mind that a minor amendment cannot relate to the

essential characteristics of the product or alter the link;

 vymezení změn malého rozsahu uvedených v čl. 7 odst. 5 druhém pododstavci a v čl.

9 odst. 2 s ohledem na skutečnost, že změna malého rozsahu se nemůže týkat hlavních

vlastností produktu nebo nesmí měnit souvislosti;

In addition, an adjective možné and the verbs umožňovat and být schopen were used. Once

can was completely omitted, e.g.

 …give details from which it can be concluded that the name for which registration is

requested is generic within the meaning of Article 3(1).

 …uvádějí skutečnosti, které svědčí o tom, že název, o jehož zápis do rejstříku se

žádá, je druhový ve smyslu čl. 3 odst. 1.

The modal verbs could and might were both translated as moci and mít. Interestingly, the

following sentence was translated using present tense, whereas past tense was used in the

original sentence.

 The Russian Federation has agreed to take the necessary measures to ensure that any

adjustments could be rapidly applied.

 Ruská federace rovněž souhlasila s přijetím nezbytných opatření, která mají zajistit

rychlé uplatnění jakékoli úpravy limitů.

 62

The modal verbs need/need not amount to only an insignificant number within the whole sub-

corpus. Their translations seem fairly straightforward including the Czech modal verb smět

and the expressions je třeba and je nezbytné. Also the translation of would does not pose any

problems. In Czech, it appears in sentences that include some kind of condition. In all eight

instances would was translated by a modal particle by.

 Where the result of applying the allocation coefficient would be to allocate

provisional licences for less than 10 tonnes per application, the corresponding

quantities available shall be awarded by the Member State concerned drawing lots by

quota.

 Pokud by použití přídělového koeficientu vedlo k přidělení prozatímních licencí na

méně než 10 tun na žádost, přidělí dotčený členský stát příslušná dostupná množství

losem.

Finally, the translations of will/will not are distributed equally between Czech future tense –

bude/nebude and present tense of a corresponding verb.

 The amount to be charged will not be known when the 2004/05 production levies are

calculated in September 2005, as the deadline for providing proof of elimination of

surplus quantities was deferred to 31 March 2006 by Commission Regulation (EC)

No 651/2005.

 Jelikož částka, která má být požadována, nebude známa při výpočtu dávek na

hospodářský rok 2004/05 v září 2005, byla lhůta pro předložení důkazů o odstranění

odložena na 31. března 2006 nařízením Komise (ES) č. 651/2005.

 All A-type posts which are not covered by secondment will be advertised as

appropriate by the General Secretariat of the Council and also notified to Member

States and institutions of the EU in order to recruit the best-qualified applicants.

 63

 Všechna pracovní místa stupně A, která nejsou obsazena vysláním, jsou náležitým

způsobem zveřejněna generálním sekretariátem Rady a jsou rovněž oznámena

členským státům a orgánům EU za účelem náboru nejlépe kvalifikovaných uchazečů.

TRANSLATED AS FREQUENCY SUBTOTAL TOTAL

možné 2
can/cannot 13
moci 8
umožňovat 1
být schopen 1
present tense 1
could mít 1 7
moci 6 46
might moci 3 4
mít 1
need/need not smět 1 4
je třeba 1
je nezbytné 2
would 8
by 8
will/will not future tense 5 10
present tense 5

Table 6 – Translations of can/cannot, could, might, need/need not, would, will/will not

To sum up, the translations of the above discussed modal verbs, i.e. can/cannot,

could, might, need/need not, would and will/will not do not pose any problems since their

meanings are quite straightforward and so are their translations. In the vast majority of

instances, the modal verbs were translated by Czech modal verbs. Altogether, it seems

possible to say that the most problematic modal verb both from the point of view of

semantics and translation is shall.

 64

6. Conclusion

This dissertation was mainly concerned with modal verbs in legal English. Such subject

involved working with parallel corpora, namely English-Czech legal texts. The initial

chapters of this dissertation were devoted to the study of modal verbs in general, since

understanding the terms such as epistemic and deontic modality and the knowledge of the

uses of modal verbs and the notions lying behind them was crucial for further, more detailed

insight into modal verbs in legal English.

The second chapter in the theoretical part of this dissertation offered an insight into

corpora and corpus linguistics. I presented some of the fundamental facts about the history of

corpora, their division and I pointed out their significance as a translation tool. I consider this

part of the thesis to be of crucial nature, since the whole research relied purely on a corpus

and it was essential that these texts be carefully selected so as to achieve satisfying results.

Such results are measured in terms of representativeness which is usually defined as the

number of texts included in the corpus and the number of words per one text. However, the

crucial point in ensuring representativeness is to select and carefully define the target

population (Sandra Halverson 3).

In the third chapter, I dealt briefly with legalese and the traditional legal language. I

named both advantages and drawbacks of the notions as well as I provided several expert

opinions on the matter. My aim was not to decide or judge as to the quality or suitability of

the concept, but to compare the ways in which both concepts are implemented in language.

Next, I tried to describe the research method I had applied when collecting the texts needed

for the sub-corpus. The gist of the second chapter consisted of focus on individual modal

verbs and their significance within legal language. I studied them from the point of view of

voice and their frequency. My aim was to prove that modal verbs are an inseparable part of
 65

legal language. Their knowledge and the skill of using them correctly in legal drafting are

fundamental for the final outcome of the entire document.

The last chapter represented a practical piece of work aimed at the translation of

modal verbs in legal English into Czech. The chapter starts with defining legal translation and

naming some of the obstacles that any translator of legal texts faces. Finally, individual modal

verbs and their Czech translations are studied in detail.

My ambition was not to present tables, graphs and figures that should be interpreted

too rigidly, nor do I suggest to draw general conclusions from my findings since the number

of the texts included in the sub-corpus was relatively low. Still, I believe that my thesis has

provided some valuable facts both in the field of theory and practice. The practical part of my

thesis has confirmed my hypothesis stated at the beginning of this dissertation, in which I

claimed that modal verbs are more common in legal language in English than in Czech,

particularly the modal verb shall which is the most frequent modal in legal documents and at

the same time the one causing most problems both for drafters of legal documents and

translators. Furthermore, I maintained that shall is rarely translated by a modal verb in Czech.

This presumption proved to be correct since only in about 5% of all instances shall was

translated by a Czech modal verb, namely muset and moci. In 88% of all instances shall was

completely omitted and was substituted by a corresponding full verb in present tense. This

fact confirms my second claim that shall should not be translated as future tense.
 66

To sum up, legal translation should be done only by skilled professionals trained in

the field of legal translation. Moreover, those who decide to translate EC legislation should

be familiar with the requirements published on the websites of the Office of the Czech

Republic Government (<http://isap.vlada.cz/homepage.nsf/dataver>). I hope that I have

provided an interesting insight into modal verbs as used in legal English and I feel that my

thesis might initiate further and a more detailed analysis and research in the field of legal

English and its translation into Czech.

 67

Works Cited

Primary sources:

Council Regulation (EC) No 1899/2005 of 27 June 2005 on administering certain

restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1513/2005 of 16 September 2005 amending

Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 laying down special detailed rules for the application of

Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 as regards export licences and export refunds in the

case of milk and milk products.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1622/2005 of 4 October 2005 opening a standing

invitation to tender for the export of common wheat held by the Czech intervention agency in

Germany.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1667/2005 of 13 October 2005 amending

Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason

of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta,

Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1870/2005 of 16 November 2005 opening and

providing for the administration of tariff quotas and introducing a system of import licences

and certificates of origin for garlic imported from third countries.

2005/884/EC: Council Decision of 2 December 2005 concerning the effects of the

accession of the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland to the European Union on the

participation of the European Community in the Convention on the International Commission

for the Protection of the Oder and the Convention on the International Commission for the

Protection of the Elbe.

 68

Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006 amending Regulation

(EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common

agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers.

Council Joint Action 2006/124/CFSP of 20 February 2006 extending the mandate of

the Special Representative of the European Union for Afghanistan.

Commission Decision of 22 February 2006 concerning certain protection measures in

relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry in the Community (notified under

document number C(2006) 597) (Text with EEA relevance) (2006/135/EC).

Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of

geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

Secondary sources:

“A Modest Wish List for Legal Writing.” Kimble, Joseph. The Plain Language Association

International. 12 April, 2003. 18 August, 2005.

<http://www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/kimble/modest.htm>.

“Awareness of the Language of the Law and the Preservation of Register in the Training of

Legal Translators and Interpreters”, Mikkelson, Holly. Acebo. 23 March, 2006.

<http://www.acebo.com/papers/leglang.htm>.

“Corpora and their use in research and teaching.” Hasselgård, Hilde. 20 April, 2001. 14

November, 2005. < http://folk.uio.no/hhasselg/UV-corpus.htm>.

“Style.” Maine Legislative Drafting Manual. 22 November, 2005.

<http://janus.state.me.us/legis/ros/manual/contents.htm>.

“The Legislative Sentence.” 2006. International Development Law Organization. 22 October

2005. <www.idlo.int/texts/IDL/mis5857.pdf>.
 69

“The Nuts and Bolts of Drafting Boilerplate Provisions”, Stark, Tina L. Law Catalog.

<http://www.law.com/pdf/sfb/BoilerplateCh02.pdf#search='the%20nuts%20and

%20bolts%20of%20drafting%20boilerplate%20provisions'>.

“The use of electronic text, or corpora, in the teaching of English.” Kaszubski, Przemyslaw.

10 December, 2002. Panstwowa Wyzsza Szkola Zawodowa w Koninie. 3 October,

2005. < http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~przemka/Konin-handout_updated.doc>.

“Translation Studies and Representative Corpora: Establishing Links between Translation

Corpora, Theoretical/Descriptive Categories and a Conception of the Object of

Study”. Halverson, Sandra. University of Bergen. 12 June, 2006.

<http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1998/v43/n4/003000ar.html>.

“Types of modality and types of modalisation.” Larreya, Paul. 2 September, 2004. Université

Paris XIII. 15 November, 2005.

<http://www.univ-pau.fr/ANGLAIS/modality/posters/larreya.pdf>.

“What is really wrong with legal language?.” Stehpens, Cheryl. The Plain Language

Association International. 27 November, 1990. 4 October, 2005.

<http://www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/Legal/wills.html>.

“Word Choice and Usage”. Maine Legislative Drafting Manual. 22 November, 2005.

<http://janus.state.me.us/legis/ros/manual/contents.htm>.

Alexander, L.G. Longman English Grammar. New York: Longman Publishing, 1988.

Biber, Douglas et.al.Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex:

Pearson Education Limited, 1999.

Bowker, Lynne, and Jennifer Pearson. Working with Specialized Language Corpora. London:

Routledge, 2002.

Bullon, Steve et.al., Collins Cobuild English Grammar, HarperCollins Publisher, 1990.
 70

Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Cambridge University Press 2006. 4 Jan. 2006

<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/>.

Dušková, Libuše et al. Mluvnice současné angličtiny na pozadí češtiny. Praha: Academia,

Nakladatelství AV ČR, 2003.

Encarta. 12 August 2005. <http://encarta.msn.com/>.

Encyclopeadia Britannica Online. 10 July 2005. <http://www.britannica.com/premium?

source=RMOVSSBranded>.

EUR-Lex. 29 Oct. 2004. Publications Office. 15 Oct. 2005 <http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/>.

Eurovoc Thesaurus. European Communities. 12 Nov. 2005.

<http://europa.eu.int/celex/eurovoc/sg/sga_doc/eurovoc_dif!SERVEUR/menu!prod!

MENU?langue=EN>.

Fronek, Josef. Anglicko-český slovník. Praha: Leda, 1998.

Fronek, Josef. Velký česko-anglický slovník. Praha: Leda, 2000.

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

1995.

Hiltunen, Risto. Chapters on Legal English. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 1990.

Hovelsø, Jens Peter. “Characteristics of English Legal Language.” 14 November 2005.

<http://www.hum.aau.dk/~hovelsoe/INTRODUCTION%20TO%20LEGAL

%20LANGUAGE%202006%20JPH.doc>.

Johannesson, Nils-Lennart. “Tense, Aspect and Modality.” 27 April, 1999. Engelsk Institutt.

17 December 2005. <

http://www.hf.ntnu.no/engelsk/staff/johannesson/111gram/lect12.htm>.

Johansson,Stig and Lysvåg, Per. Understanding English Grammar. Universtitetsforlaget AS,

1987.
 71

Online Writing Lab. Purdue University. 2000. 4 Jan. 2006

<http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_mla.html>.

Painter, Mark P. “Legal Writing 201”. Ohio First District Court of Appeals. 14 July 2005. <

http://www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/Legal/legalwriting.pdf>.

Quirk, Randolph and Greenbaum, Sidney. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language.

Longman, 1990.

Quirk, Randolph et.al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York:

Longman, 1985.

Schiess, Wayne. Legal Writing.net. 14 October, 2005

<http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/>.

Steinberg, Ralf. Language Technology Activities in the Web Technology Sector. 2 Dec. 2005.

Joint Research Centre Commission. 2 Jan. 2006

<http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int/langtech/index.html>.

Šulc, Michal. Korpusová lingvistika. Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze -nakladatelství

Karolinum, 1999.

Úřad vlády České Republiky. 10 June, 2006. <http://isap.vlada.cz/homepage.nsf/dataver>.

Viel, Jean- Claude. “An Overview of Modal Auxiliary Verbs in E.S.T.” ESP World 1. 3

(2002). Dec.2002 .

<http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_3/OVERVIEW_OF_MODALS.html>.