Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...
Transcript of Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...
![Page 1: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Institute of Computational Linguistics
30/8/12 Page 1
Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from controlled language rules for technical writing? Stefan Höfler
![Page 2: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Two domains with language control
Technical writing Texts: user manuals, technical documentation, …
Content: instructions (technical) Controlled by: writing rules defined by companies
Legislative drafting Texts: laws, statutes, regulations, …
Content: instructions (legal) Controlled by: writing rules defined by governments
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 2
![Page 3: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Language control in the two domains
Technical writing Goal: human understandability (secondary goal: translatability)
Approach: proscriptive (defining what is not permitted)
Enforcement: hard rules as well as mere recommendations
Legislative drafting Goal: human understandability
Approach: proscriptive (defining what is not permitted)
Enforcement: hard rules as well as mere recommendations
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 3
![Page 4: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Motivation
Can the two domains inform each other? And if so, how? – Does it make sense for one domain to borrow rules from the other?
– Can controlled language checkers for technical writing also be employed in legislative drafting?
Study – Qualitative comparison of the rule sets applied in the two domains
– Target language: German
Question Which linguistic phenomena are controlled
– only in technical writing,
– only in legislative drafting,
– in both domains?
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 4
![Page 5: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Content
1. Setup – The rule sets considered in the study
– The categorization applied
2. Comparison – Details for some key categories
3. Conclusions – How different are the rules of the two domains?
– Implications and future developments
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 5
![Page 6: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
SETUP Part I
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 6
![Page 7: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
The legislative drafting guidelines
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 7
Considered in the study The drafting guidelines* issued by the
– federal administration of Austria – federal administration of Germany – state administration of Bern – state administration of Zurich
Not specific enough for the study
The drafting guidelines issued by the
– Swiss federal administration
– European Parliament, Council & Commission
* only language-related parts
![Page 8: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The tekom standard
– Published in 2011 by tekom, the German Professional Association for Technical Communication
– Compiles the most common field-tested controlled language rules for technical writing
– Aimed at providing building blocks from which companies can pick to define their own controlled languages
– Chosen for this study because it is
– representative of the field
– recent (state of the art)
– grounded in professional experience
– backed up by linguistic research
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 8
![Page 9: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Categories
Two broad categories: – rules on sentence construction – rules on text organization
Not considered:
– rules on word formation and spelling
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 9
tekom:
39 rules
29 rules
27 rules
![Page 10: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Sub-categories
Sentence-level rules aimed at controlling: – ambiguity
– complexity
– modality and tense
– information structure
Text-level rules aimed at controlling:
– text structure
– cross references
– discourse structure
– content types
… further divided into a total of 40 linguistic phenomena
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 10
![Page 11: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
COMPARISON Part II
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 11
![Page 12: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Ambiguity
The tekom standard – contains various rules addressing
attachment, anaphoric, functional, relational, scope ambiguity.
The legislative drafting guidelines – all emphasize the avoidance of ambiguity as an important aim,
(ambiguity in laws has been known to lead to legal disputes)
– but offer only few (or no) specific rules addressing the problem.
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 12
![Page 13: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Ambiguity
The legislative drafting guides (but not the tekom standard) – contain rules controlling the use of ‘and’ and ‘or’ in lists
to disambiguate between a cumulative and alternative reading.
Knives are deemed to be weapons if they:
a. are equipped with a switchblade mechanism or any other automatic trigger that can be operated with one hand;
b. are longer than 12 cm in total when opened; c. have a blade that is longer than 5 cm.
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 13
and
![Page 14: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Ambiguity
The legislative drafting guides (but not the tekom standard) – contain rules on the use of discourse makers to prevent ambiguous
discourse relations. 1 Freedom of assembly is guaranteed. 2 Everyone has the right to organize meetings and to participate or not to participate in meetings.
Possible discourse relations: – Sentence 2 provides an exhaustive definition of sentence 1.
– Sentence 2 provides some core examples for sentence 1.
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 14
?
![Page 15: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Ambiguity
The legislative drafting guides (but not the tekom standard) – contain rules on the use of discourse makers to prevent ambiguous
discourse relations. 1 Freedom of assembly is guaranteed. 2 In particular, everyone has the right to organize meetings and to participate or not to participate in meetings.
Possible discourse relations: – Sentence 2 provides an exhaustive definition of sentence 1.
– Sentence 2 provides some core examples for sentence 1.
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 15
?
![Page 16: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Complexity
The two domains use very similar (often even identical) rules to reduce syntactic complexity.
Examples
– Introduce the main verb of a sentence as early as possible.
– Avoid split verb forms.
– Avoid multiple subordinate clauses.
– Avoid chains of noun phrases.
– Avoid complex participle phrases.
– Avoid double negation.
– Avoid light-verb constructions.
– Avoid nominalizations.
– Avoid sentences longer than 20 words.
– Break co-ordinations up into explicit lists.
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 16
![Page 17: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Complexity
Knives are deemed to be weapons if they: a. are equipped with a switchblade mechanism or any other automatic
trigger that can be operated with one hand;
b. are longer than 12 cm in total when opened; and c. have a blade that is longer than 5 cm. The two domains share rules controlling the structure of such lists. Examples – A sentence must not be continued after a list.
– All list elements must have the same syntactic structure.
– No additional sentences may be inserted in the list elements.
– The lead-in to a list must not just consist of a single pronoun.
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 17
![Page 18: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Modality
– The expression of modality is essential to both domains: It defines the pragmatic effect of the text in the real world (both domains contain instructions).
– Rules controlling modality are well developed in both domains. Key difference
– Rules on ambiguity and complexity are domain-independent. – Rules on modality are domain-specific.
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 18
Technical writing
Legislative writing
Imperative mood � � Modal verbs � �
![Page 19: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Modality
The tekom standard – Do not use modal verbs.
The legislative drafting guidelines – For obligations,
use indicative mood or the modals müssen (‘must’), haben zu (‘have to’) or sein zu (‘be to’).
– For permissions, use the modal verb können (‘can’).
– Do not use the modal verb sollen (‘should’).
– Do not use expressions of unspecified provisos and exceptions, e.g. grundsätzlich (‘principally’), in der Regel (‘as a general rule’).
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 19
![Page 20: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Information structure
Information structure control is difficult to boil down to specific rules. Example 1 – Both domains discourage the use of passive voice.
Problem – Such a rule is too general. (“Prototype” of an overly simplistic rule.)
Further rules in both domains – Under certain conditions, passive voice is to be preferred:
– If there is no specific addressee.
– If the focus should be on the action rather than the agent.
– Avoid passive sentences with the agent added as an adjunct (by …).
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 20
![Page 21: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Information structure
Example 2 Both domains discourage sentences with more than one proposition.
Problem – This rule is too abstract. (Linguistic concretization required.)
The tekom standard – One concretization: Avoid sentence coordination.
The legislative drafting guidelines – No concretizations provided.
– However, further concretizations are possible (Höfler 2011).
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 21
![Page 22: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Information structure
Avoid relative clauses introduced by the adverb wobei (‘whereby’) The occupation pension scheme shall be funded from the contributions of those insured, whereby employers must pay a minimum of one half of the contributions of their employees.
Propositions: 1. The occupation pension scheme shall be funded from the
contributions of those insured. 2. Employers must pay a minimum of one half of the contributions of
their employees.
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 22
![Page 23: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Information structure
Avoid prepositional phrases with vorbehältlich (‘subject to’).
Subject to any arrangement to the contrary, the prizes for the award-winning films shall be shared between the producer and the director.
Propositions: 1. The prizes for the award-wining films shall be shared between the
producer and the director.
2. Any arrangement to the contrary shall remain reserved.
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 23
![Page 24: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
CONCLUSIONS Part III
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 24
![Page 25: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Overall assessment
By and large, the two domains – pursue the same goals and
– try to control the same phenomena.
Differences The differences lie in
– the emphasis they put on individual phenomena,
– the rules they provide for these phenomena.
4 basic constellations
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 25
![Page 26: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Constellations
1. Same goal, same phenomena, same rules – Example: complexity
– Checkers for technical writing can be used in legislative drafting.
2. Same goal, same phenomena, rules of different specificity – Example: (sentence-level) ambiguity
– Legislative drafting can borrow rules from technical writing.
3. Same goal, same phenomena, domain-specific rules – Example: modality
– Checkers need to be adapted to the domain.
4. Same goal, same phenomena, same problems – Example: information structure
– More linguistic research needed to the benefit of both domains.
– Language control must go beyond the sentence level.
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 26
![Page 27: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Legislative drafting guidelines: Do they define controlled languages (yet)?
– Style recommendations
– Language control
– Controlled language
– A controlled language?
e.g. “St.Galler Erlasssprache” (‘St.Gallen Law Language’)
The domain of legislative drafting should be on the watch list of controlled language research.
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 27
![Page 28: Legislative Drafting Guidelines How different are they from ...](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062600/58a01c7f1a28abc24a8c4092/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
References
Höfler, Stefan (2012). Legislative drafting guidelines: How different are they from controlled language rules for technical writing? In: Kuhn, Tobias; Fuchs, Norbert E. (eds.), Controlled Natural Language – Third International Workshop, CNL 2012. Springer, Berlin, 138–151.
Höfler, Stefan; Sugisaki, Kyoko (2012). From drafting guideline to error detection: Automating style checking for legislative texts. In: Proceedings of the EACL 2012 Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Writing, Avignon, France, 9–18.
Bünzli, Alexandra; Höfler, Stefan (2012). Controlling ambiguities in legislative language. In: Rosner, Michael; Fuchs, Norbert E. (eds.), Controlled Natural Language – Second International Workshop, CNL 2010, Springer, Berlin, 21–42.
Höfler, Stefan (2011). «Ein Satz – eine Aussage». Multipropositionale Rechtssätze an der Sprache erkennen. LeGes: Legislation & Evaluation, 22(2):259–279.
30/8/12 University of Zurich, Institute of Computational Linguistics, Stefan Höfler Page 28