115
4. B own, P., & Le inson, S. C. (1987). Poli eness: Some Uni e sals in Language Usage.
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. 345 p.
5. Cockbu n, A. (2006). Agile So wa e De elopmen : The Coope a i e Game (2nd ed.).
Addison-Wesley. 504 p.
6. Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and Emo ion in Psycho he apy: Re ised and Upda ed. Ci adel P ess.
560 p.
7. Schwabe , K., & Su he land, J. (2020). The Sc um Guide: The De ini i e Guide o Sc um.
Sc um.o g. 30 p.
8. Sea le, J. R. (1969). Speech Ac s: An Essay in he Philosophy o Language. Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess. 203 p.
CZU 811.111(73):340.113
BRITISH AND AMERICAN LEGAL TERMINOLOGY: A CROSS-CULTURAL
PERSPECTIVE
Nicole a BAGHICI, Mas e o A s, Lec u e ,
Alecu Russo Bal i S a e Uni e si y
nicole a.baghici@usa b.md
Abs ac : This a icle looks a he simila i ies and di e ences be ween b i ish and
Ame ican legal e ms, ocusing on how his o y, cul u e, and language ha e shaped he way
each sys em uses legal language. Bo h sys ems come om he same English common law
oo s, bu hei legal e ms ha e changed o e ime o i hei unique needs. The a icle
compa es a eas like con ac law, o law, p ope y law, and c iminal law, wi h examples
such as "conside a ion," "du y o ca e," and " eehold." I also alks abou how ha d i can
be o ansla e legal e ms be ween he wo sys ems, especially o icky concep s like us s
and c iminal pleas. Using ideas om expe s like Ha and Gadame , he a icle explains why
unde s anding he meaning behind legal e ms is so impo an . Finally, i highligh s how
echnology and eamwo k can help make legal e ms mo e consis en a ound he wo ld,
showing how hese sys ems can connec while keeping hei own unique ea u es.
Keywo ds: legal e minology, b i ish law, ame ican law, compa a i e law, legal
ansla ion, common law sys ems, con ac law, e minological di e gence.
The e olu ion o B i ish and Ame ican legal e minology e lec s he b oade di e gence
o hese wo legal sys ems despi e hei sha ed oo s. B i ish and Ame ican legal sys ems bo h
de i e om he common law adi ion, bu hey exhibi dis inc e minological di e ences
ha a e p oduc s o his o ical, social, and cul u al ac o s. Unde s anding hese di e ences is
essen ial o compa a i e law schola s, legal ansla o s, and p ac i ione s ope a ing in global
con ex s.
The B i ish and Ame ican legal sys ems sha e a common ounda ion in English common
law, which exis ed long be o e he Uni ed S a es was es ablished. As F iedman (1964)
explains, legal language was shaped by he social sys ems o medie al England. Howe e ,
a e he Ame ican Re olu ion, he Uni ed S a es de eloped i s own legal iden i y, keeping
some elemen s o English law while adap ing o i s unique poli ical and social s uc u e (Ha ,
1961).
An ony Allo (1974) no es ha legal language de elops based on cul u al con ex s,
e lec ing he no ms o socie y. The e minology di e ences be ween B i ish and Ame ican
law began o g ow signi ican ly a e he Re olu ion, as he wo sys ems s a ed add essing
di e en legal philosophies and needs.
116
Ca ego y
B i ish
Te minology
Ame ican
Te minology
Example
Cou
Roles
Queen’s
Counsel (QC)
Senio Counsel o
Pa ne
QC ad ises he C own; Senio Counsel leads
cases in p i a e law i ms in he U.S.
Legal
Documen s
Unde akings,
S a emen s
Wa an ies,
Rep esen a ions
UK con ac s ely on "unde akings"; U.S.
con ac s ocus on "wa an ies" o liabili y.
C iminal
Law
Manslaugh e
and Mu de
Fi s -/Second-
Deg ee Mu de
UK: "Manslaugh e " when in en is absen ;
U.S.: "Second-deg ee mu de " when in en is
ambiguous.
Fig. 1
Figu e 1 compa es he wo sys ems’ e minology using eal-wo ld examples. Fo ins ance,
in c iminal law, he UK dis inguishes be ween "mu de " and "manslaugh e ," ocusing on
in en , while he U.S. uses " i s -deg ee" and "second-deg ee mu de " based on culpabili y.
Legal e minology in bo h sys ems is known o i s p ecision, o mali y, and use o La in-
de i ed wo ds. Mellinko (1963) calls legal language a specialized sublanguage. Fo exam-
ple, in B i ain, e ms like "solici o " and "ba is e " a e commonly used o desc ibe lawye s,
while in he Uni ed S a es, hese oles a e gene ally e e ed o as "a o ney" o "lawye ."
Busse (1992) highligh s how legal e minology is closely ied o he social and legal con ex
in which i is used. Fo ins ance, B i ish law ea s "equi y" as a dis inc b anch o law, while
Ame ican law in eg a es equi y in o i s cou sys em, leading o di e en in e p e a ions o he
e m (Holland, 2006). Bellow we p esen se e al examples o e minological di e ences:
a. Cou S uc u es and Roles
In B i ish cou s, "Queen’s Counsel" (QC) e e s o a senio ba is e , a posi ion ha does
no exis in he Ame ican legal sys em. In he Uni ed S a es, senio legal p o essionals
may hold i les such as "Senio Counsel" o "Pa ne " in p i a e law i ms, e lec ing he
emphasis on p i a e p ac ice a he han s a e-appoin ed oles (Wes on, 1991).
b. Legal Documen s
The language used in legal documen s also di e s. Ame ican legal con ac s o en use
e ms like "wa an ies" and " ep esen a ions," while B i ish legal documen s a e mo e
likely o include "unde akings" and "s a emen s." Tho n on (1987) iden i ies hese
di e ences as key challenges in in e p e ing con ac s ac oss bo de s, especially in
in e na ional a bi a ion.
c. C iminal Law Te minology
In c iminal law, he e ms a y as well. B i ish law dis inguishes be ween "mans-
laugh e " and "mu de ," ocusing on in en and p o oca ion. In con as , Ame ican law
uses " i s -deg ee mu de " and "second-deg ee mu de ," which in ol e di e en le els
o culpabili y (Lewison, 1987).
T ansla ing legal e ms is o en challenging because o di e ences in legal sys ems and
concep s. Ša če ić (1997) s esses ha achie ing equi alence in legal ansla ion is c ucial, as
misunde s andings can ha e se ious consequences in mul ilingual legal se ings. Baue -Be ne
(1982) highligh s his issue wi hin he Eu opean Union, whe e aligning legal concep s ac oss
languages and sys ems is c i ical o ha moniza ion. One example is he e m " us ," which
plays a signi ican ole in bo h B i ish and Ame ican law. While he concep exis s in bo h
sys ems, i s meaning and applica ion can a y, making i di icul o ansla e in o o he
languages o adap o legal sys ems ha lack an equi alen concep (Co nu, 1990).
Cul u al di e ences be ween he UK and he US also shape legal e minology. As
Ba salou (1992) explains, legal language is pa o a la ge concep ual amewo k ha e lec s
117
socie al no ms and alues. Fo ins ance, he Ame ican emphasis on indi idual igh s
in luences e ms such as "Mi anda igh s," which ha e no di ec equi alen in B i ish law.
Con e sely, B i ish legal e minology o en e lec s i s his o ical oo s, as seen in he use
o e ms like "bench wa an " o "common assaul ." Such e ms a e deeply embedded in he
B i ish legal adi ion and may equi e de ailed explana ion in Ame ican con ex s (Cha ow
e al., 1982).
In an inc easingly in e connec ed wo ld, unde s anding he dis inc ion o B i ish and
Ame ican legal e minology is i al o p ac i ione s in in e na ional law. Go i (2003)
highligh s he ole o specialized discou se in b idging e minological gaps, emphasizing he
need o in e disciplina y collabo a ion among linguis s, lawye s, and ansla o s.
Mo eo e , as Engbe g (2000) no es, global legal p ac ice equi es a ocus on ou ine
o mula ions in di e en legal sys ems, ensu ing ha e minology does no ecklessly al e he
meaning o legal concep s in c oss-bo de con ex s.
The s udy o B i ish and Ame ican legal e minology o e s a ascina ing insigh in o he
in e play be ween law, language, and cul u e. While bo h sys ems sha e a common
ounda ion, hei e minological di e ences e lec b oade socie al di e gences. As
globaliza ion con inues o d i e he need o legal ha moniza ion, he abili y o na iga e hese
di e ences will emain an essen ial skill o legal p o essionals and ansla o s.
One p ominen a ea o di e gence lies in con ac law. In B i ish law, he e m "conside a-
ion" e e s o he alue p omised in e u n o a con ac ual obliga ion, a concep cen al o bo h
legal sys ems. Howe e , he in e p e a ion o conside a ion di e s be ween hem. In B i ish
law, conside a ion mus be su icien bu need no be adequa e (McLeod, 1993). Con a ily, in
Ame ican law, cou s o en sc u inize he capaci y o compe ence o conside a ion when dis-
pu es a ise, pa icula ly unde he Uni o m Comme cial Code (UCC). Fo example: a con ac
in he UK migh be en o ceable e en i he conside a ion is nominal, such as £1 exchanged
o a subs an ial p ope y. In he US, a simila case migh ail unde ce ain s a e laws i he
nominal conside a ion is iewed as a lack o genuine in en o con ac (D iedge , 1976).
B i ish con ac s o en uphold nominal conside a ion, such as exchanging £1 o a
p ope y. Fo example, a UK con ac migh en o ce his, while in he U.S., cou s sc u inize
such con ac s unde s a e law, po en ially deeming hem in alid.
In o law, he B i ish sys em elies hea ily on e ms like "du y o ca e," i s o malized
in Donoghue . S e enson (1932), while he Ame ican sys em uses he b oade e m
"negligence." Al hough he p inciples o e lap, he e minologies lead o sub le dis inc ions.
In he US, "s ic liabili y" in p oduc liabili y cases has a mo e igid in e p e a ion compa ed
o i s B i ish coun e pa , whe e negligence o en needs o be es ablished (Co nu, 1990).
Aspec
Uni ed
Kingdom
Uni ed S a es
Example
Con ac
Example
£1 exchanged o
a house is alid
Nominal
conside a ion is
in alid
A UK p ope y deal s ands; a U.S.
con ac could ail unde he Uni o m
Comme cial Code (UCC).
To
Example
B each o du y o
ca e
Negligence
UK: Manu ac u e liabili y in
Donoghue . S e enson; U.S.: P oduc
liabili y unde s ic ules.
Fig. 2
Conside he e minology in ac ion we p o ide he ollowing examples: in he UK, a
plain i migh claim ha he de endan "b eached hei du y o ca e;" In he US, he equi a-
118
len claim would simply be amed as "negligence," wi h a ocus on p oxima e cause and
o eseeabili y (Ha , 1961).
Real p ope y law u he illus a es di e ences in e minology. B i ish law dis inguishes
be ween " eehold" and "leasehold" es a es, concep s g ounded in eudal p ope y s uc u es.
Ame ican p ope y law, while simila , uses " ee simple" ins ead o " eehold" and emphasizes
e ms like "easemen s" and "co enan s" wi h sligh ly di e en legal applica ions (Black's Law
Dic iona y, 1992).
A ea
UK
US
Example
Owne ship
Te ms
F eehold,
Leasehold
Fee Simple,
Tenancy
UK: “Leasehold la ” wi h g ound en ; U.S.:
“Fee simple house” wi h ull owne ship igh s.
Fig. 3
Fo example in a UK con eyancing documen , e ms like " eehold i le" and "g ound
en " a e ypical. In a US deed, e ms like " ee simple absolu e" o " enancy by he en i e y"
con ey owne ship in e es s (Wes on, 1991).
These e minological a ia ions o en necessi a e legal ansla o s o no only unde s and
he e ms bu also in e p e hei legal implica ions in each ju isdic ion.
Legal educa ion also e lec s he di e ences in e minology. B i ish law schools ocus
on de eloping a s ong ounda ion in "case law" analysis, a e m commonly used in bo h
sys ems bu di e en ly emphasized. In he UK, " eading o he Ba " in ol es aining as a
ba is e , whe eas in he US, legal educa ion ocuses on he "case me hod" pionee ed a
Ha a d Law School (Tie sma, 2000).
A B i ish law s uden migh analyze a case unde he p inciple o s a e decisis wi h
e e ence o a "leading case."
An Ame ican law s uden migh s udy he same p inciple unde he b oade amewo k o
"binding p eceden " as pa o he cu iculum o he ba examina ion (Holland & Webb, 2006).
The legal concep o a " us " p esen s a p ime example o ansla ion challenges. In
B i ish law, a " us ee" holds p ope y o he bene i o he "bene icia y," while Ame ican
law inco po a es simila e minology bu may ame he us ee’s esponsibili ies unde
iducia y du ies speci ic o s a e ju isdic ions (Joseph, 1995).
Fo ins ance, a B i ish legal documen may s a e, "The us ee shall ac in acco dance
wi h he se lo ’s in en ion" while a US equi alen migh ead, "The iducia y mus exe cise
due ca e and loyal y owa d he us 's bene icia ies."
The cul u al unde pinnings o he us sys em in luence i s e minology, complica ing
c oss-bo de legal p ac ice and ansla ion.
B i ish c iminal law employs e ms like "plea in mi iga ion" and "cau ion," which a e
unique o i s sys em. The Ame ican sys em uses "plea ba gaining" and "Mi anda wa ning"
o add ess simila concep s (Cha ow e al., 1982).
Fo example a B i ish lawye migh p epa e a "mi iga ing plea" o a gue o leniency
du ing sen encing. An Ame ican a o ney migh engage in "plea ba gaining" o nego ia e a
educed sen ence be o e ial. Bo h concep s a e oo ed in nego ia ion and ai ness bu ope a e
unde dis inc p ocedu al ules, c ea ing ansla ion di icul ies o in e na ional cases.
F om a heo e ical s andpoin , (Ha , 1958) dis inc ion be ween p ima y and seconda y
ules p o ides a amewo k o analyzing he impac o e minology on legal sys ems.
Simila ly, Gadame ’s (1975) he meneu ical app oach o language unde sco es he in e p e i e
challenges posed by legal e ms. These heo ies emphasize ha legal e minology is no jus
linguis ic bu also concep ual, ied o he legal and cul u al adi ions om which i eme ges.
119
Ha ’s heo y helps explain why Ame ican law o en inco po a es s a u o y codi ica ions
(seconda y ules) wi h clea e e minology, whe eas B i ish law elies on judge-made
p eceden s ha e ain a chaic language.
The s udy o B i ish and Ame ican legal e minology e eals a dynamic in e play
be ween his o y, cul u e, and language. While bo h sys ems sha e a common law he i age,
hei e minological di e ences e lec unique legal philosophies and social con ex s. These
dis inc ions, hough challenging, also en ich compa a i e legal s udies and unde sco e he
impo ance o p ecision and con ex in legal p ac ice.
By analyzing case s udies, ansla ion challenges, and heo e ical pe spec i es, his
a icle highligh s he c i ical need o ha moniza ion in in e na ional legal con ex s. Schola s
like Mellinko (1963), Holland, (2006), and Tie sma (2000) p o ide aluable insigh s in o
he na u e o legal language, o e ing pa hways o b idge he di ide be ween B i ish and
Ame ican legal e minologies. Ul ima ely, a nuanced unde s anding o hese di e ences
os e s be e communica ion, collabo a ion, and jus ice ac oss bo de s.
Re e ences:
1. A n z, R. (1993). Te minological equi alence and ansla ion. In H. B. Sonne eld & K. L.
Loening (Eds.), Te minology: Applica ions in in e disciplina y communica ion (pp. 5-19).
Ams e dam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
2. Ba salou, L. W. (1992). F ames, concep s, and concep ual ields. In A. Leh e & E. F. Ki ay
(Eds.), F ames, ields, and con as s (pp. 21-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Law ence E lbaum.
3. Baue -Be ne , H. (1982). Le mul ilinguisme du d oi de la Communau é eu opéenne. In J.-C.
Géma (Ed.), Langage du d oi e aduc ion (pp. 189-205). Mon eal: Lingua ech/Conseil
de la langue ançaise.
4. Black's Law Dic iona y. Ga ne , B. A. (Ed. in Chie ). (1992). Black’s Law Dic iona y (7 h
ed.). S . Paul, Minn.: Wes G oup.
5. Bowe s, F. (1989). Linguis ic aspec s o legisla i e exp ession. Vancou e : Uni e si y o
B i ish Columbia P ess.
6. Cha ow, V. R., C andall, J. A., & Cha ow, R. P. (1982). Cha ac e is ics and unc ions o
legal language. In R. Ki edge & J. Leh be ge (Eds.), Sublanguage: S udies o language in
es ic ed seman ic domains (pp. 175-190). Be lin/New Yo k: De G uy e .
7. Co nu, G. (1990). Linguis ique ju idique. Pa is: Mon ch es ien.
8. Donoghue S e enson (1932): Case Analysis. P o essional Negligence specialis legal
ad ice. h ps://p o essionalnegligenceclaimsolici o s.co.uk/du y-o -ca e-key- o -law-
judgmen -donoghue/ ( isi ed on 19.12.2024)
9. D iedge , E. A. (1976). The composi ion o legisla ion. O awa: Depa men o Jus ice.
10. Engbe g, J. (2000). Does ou ine o mula ion change meaning? The impac o gen e on wo d
seman ics in he legal domain. In L. Lundquis & R. J. Ja ella (Eds.), Language, ex , and
knowledge: Men al models o expe communica ion (pp. 31-48). Be lin/New Yo k: Mou on
de G uy e .
11. F iedman, L. M. (1964). Law and i s language. Geo ge Washing on Law Re iew, 33, 563-579.
12. Gadame , H.-G. (1975). Wah hei und Me hode (4 h ed.). Tübingen: J.C.B. Moh .
13. Ga ne , B. A. (2001). A dic iona y o mode n legal usage (2nd ed.). Ox o d: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess.
14. Go i, M. (2003). Specialized discou se. Be n: Pe e Lang.
15. Ha , H. L. A. (1958). Posi i ism and he sepa a ion o law and mo als. Ha a d Law Re iew,
71(4), 593-629.
16. Ha , H. L. A. (1961). The concep o law. Ox o d: Cla endon P ess.
17. Holland, J., & Webb, J. (2006). Legal ules (6 h ed.). Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
120
18. Joseph, J. E. (1995). Inde e minacy, ansla ion and he law. In M. Mo is (Ed.), T ansla ion
and he law (pp. 13-36). Ams e dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
19. Lewison, K. (1987). The in e p e a ion o con ac s. London: Swee & Maxwell.
20. McLeod, I. (1993). Legal me hod. London: MacMillan.
21. Mellinko , D. (1963). The language o he law. Bos on: Li le, B own and Company.
22. Ša če ić, S. (1988). T ansla ion o legisla ion - wi h special emphasis on languages o limi ed
di usion. In P. Nekeman (Ed.), T ansla ion, ou u u e. XI h Wo ld Cong ess o FIT (pp.
455-462). Maas ich : Eu o e m.
23. Ša če ić, S. (1989). Concep ual dic iona ies o ansla ion in he ield o law. In e na ional
Jou nal o Lexicog aphy, 2(4), 277-293.
24. Ša če ić, S. (1997). New app oach o legal ansla ion. The Hague: Kluwe Law In e na-
ional.
25. Tho n on, G. C. (1987). Legisla i e d a ing. London: Bu e wo hs.
26. Tie sma, P. M. (2000). Legal language. Chicago/London: The Uni e si y o Chicago P ess.
27. Wes on, M. (1991). An English eade 's guide o he F ench legal sys em. New Yo k/Ox o d:
Be g.
