When verbs become nouns
Lots of legal writing contains nouns that could have been verbs. These nouns wanted to be verbs--they really did. But lawyerly habits and the default patterns of legal writing made these verbs into nouns, and only you can put them back.
Nouns that wanted to be verbs go by many names: nominalizations, hidden verbs, buried verbs. I've even heard them called smothered verbs. What you call them is not important. What is important is that you learn to recognize when you've got nouns that could be verbs and train yourself to return them to their preferred state.
For example, this sentence contains two nouns that wanted to be verbs:
- My expectation was that counsel would make an objection.
- I expected counsel to object.
By using verbs instead of nouns, you save words: the example went from nine words to five. You save words because using the noun form requires you to add other words to help the noun. When you use the verb form, you can cut the helpers, and that's fine because the helpers usually add little meaning,
By using verbs instead of nouns, you invigorate the text: the verbs in the rewrite are expect and object, which are forceful and strong, where before they had been was and would make, which are bland.
By using verbs instead of nouns, you focus on actions instead of on things or on status; this moves the writing along.
Of course, not all nominalizations are bad. Sometimes they're necessary. But all legal writing would be shorter, more vigorous, and more active if we would let many of our nouns be verbs. And you don't have to take my word for it:
“Watch for and replace nouns created from stronger verbs.” Terri LeClercq, Guide to Legal Writing Style 58 (4th ed. 2007).
“Use base verbs, not nominalizations.” Richard Wydick, Plain English for Lawyers 23 (5th ed. 2006).
“Nominalizing is one of the most serious afflictions of legal prose, draining a sentence of vitality.” Tom Goldstein & Jethro K. Lieberman, The Lawyer's Guide to Writing Well 129 (2d ed. 2002).
Here are some of the most common nominalizations in legal writing. Think of the verb form you could use instead:
be dependent upon
be in violation of
bring suit against
come to a resolution
conduct an analysis
conduct an examination
enter into a settlement
give notice
make a payment
make a recommendation
make an argument
make an assumption
make an inquiry
make an objection
perform a review
place emphasis on
provide an explanation
take into consideration
Now spot the two nominalizations in this sentence:
- The defendant made a referral to Emily Graves, a financial planner, so Ms. Graves could provide the plaintiff with advice.
- The defendant referred the plaintiff to Emily Graves, a financial planner, so Ms. Graves could advise the plaintiff.
3 Comments:
Wayne, if lawyers followed this one piece of advice, they would greatly improve their writing.
In your examples, the sentences without the nominalizations seem to be more natural. But the sentences with the nominalizations are the ones that lawyers more naturally write. Where do you think they pick up the habit?
This is a terrific post; too few advocates of "plain" legal language have focused on nominalization. It's a powerful linguistic resource, and crucial to the formation of specialized discourses. (I've worked on a research project led by Joel Kuipers and Gail Viechnicki which found that 8th graders "learn the language of science" by mastering the grammatical strategy of nominalization (e.g. "lid weight" instead of “we need to see how much the lid weighs.”))
I want to add one (slightly technical) point, though: The two nominalizations in your final example are simply 'referral' and 'advice', not made a referral and provide...advice, because the heads of those two VPs are, of course, verbs. This brings attention another interesting linguistic observation: In the phrases you give as examples, it's the nominalization that selects for the verb (e.g. rules attach or suits are brought), rather than the other way around. Access to legal language depends so much on knowing the unusual pragmatics of familiar and ordinarily non-technical lexical items.
This, I think, is why the plain language movement talks too much about "technical terms" like 'estoppel' (I remember this especially at the Washburn conference), and not enough about the underlying grammatical processes that lawyers unconsciously use to create a specialized discourse.
It's heartening to read someone strike at one of the key (linguistic) issues for "plain" legal language to address.
Wayne: A couple of thoughts:
I follow Garner in referring to "buried verbs." (I think the word "nominalization" is as turgid as the feature it refers to.) But sometimes the best alternative to an abstract noun isn't a verb but an adjective. For example, is liable instead of has liability.
And an additional drawback to buried verbs is that like the passive voice, they allow the writer to omit the actor. If you say on transfer to Jones, it's not clear who's doing the transferring. That's why buried verbs are particularly problematic in contract drafting. You don't have that problem if you use a verb: if Acme transfers to Jones.
Ken
Post a Comment
<< Home