What exactly did the judge decide? Clear language and well-arranged structure lead to better comprehensible court judgments

Authors

  • Marieke Geerlings
  • André van Montfort

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.81.7752

Abstract

In recent years, judicial authorities in the Netherlands have started paying more and more attention to the linguistic and textual quality of their judgments. This is based on the assumption that a better linguistic and textual quality of court judgments leads to the content of these judgments being better understood by citizens and private or public organizations. However, to what extent is this plausible assumption empirically correct? To answer this question, an original administrative law judgment from a Dutch district court was rewritten on the basis of a number of linguistic and textual quality requirements from the literature. Subsequently, a digital survey was conducted among 106 respondents. Half of the respondents answered a number of substantive questions about the original version of the court judgment. The other half of the respondents answered the same substantive questions about the rewritten version. According to the answers to the substantive questions, the second group of respondents understood the content of the court judgment considerably better than those to whom the original version of the court judgment was presented. The higher linguistic and textual quality of the rewritten version ensured that the content of the court judgment was better understood.

References

De Poot, C.J., Verkuylen, M.W., & Malsch, M. (2007). Leesbaarheid maakt gebrek aan kennis zichtbaar. Over de begrijpelijkheid van schriftelijke vonnissen [Readability makes lack of knowledge visible: About the comprehensibility of written judgments]. In: M. Malsch & N. van Manen (Eds.), De begrijpelijkheid van de rechtspraak [The comprehensibility of the case law] (pp. 49-61). The Hague: Boom Juridisch.

Flesch, R. (1977). Helder schrijven, spreken, denken. Stap voor stap naar betere communicatie [Clear writing, speaking, thinking: Step by step to better communication]. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.

Geerlings, M. (2019). Herschrijven loont. Een empirisch onderzoek naar de begrijpelijkheid van rechterlijke uitspraken [Rewriting pays off: An empirical study into the comprehensibility of court judgments] (Master’s thesis). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.

Gerits, J. (1999). Betere taal: meer recht. Handboek rechtstaalbeheersing [Better language, more law: Legal language improvement handbook]. Leuven: Acco.

Jansen, C., & Steehouder, M. F. (1989). Overheidsformulieren aangepakt. Resultaten van een onderzoek naar verbeteringsmogelijkheden [Government forms addressed: Results of a study into possibilities for improvement]. Communicatief, 2(3), 152-162.

Meijer, R. (2018). Geen ‘voorts’ maar ‘verder’. Coalitie wil eenvoudiger taal in vonnissen rechters [No "voorts" but "verder": Government wants simpler language in judgments]. De Volkskrant. Accessed on January 3, 2020 via https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/geen-voorts-maar-verder-coalitie-wil-eenvoudiger-taal-invonnissen-rechters~bdc987ba/

Mellinkoff, D. (2004). The Language of the Law. Eugene, United States: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Merckelbach, H. (2018, 13 augustus). Filmpjes en Klare Taal. Een gevaarlijk duo [Movies and Clear Language. A dangerous duo]. NRC. Accessed on January 3, 2020 via https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/08/31/filmpjes-enklare-taal-een-gevaarlijk-duo-a1614845

Nolta, J. V. (1997). Taal in toga. Over toegankelijke (straf)rechtstaal [Language in gown: About accessible (criminal) legal language]. Deventer: Kluwer.

Reinsma, M., & Reinsma, R. (1976). ‘De vrouw wier lichaam zich eerstbedoeld leven ontwikkelt’, of Zestig jaar Nederlandse rechtstaal ["The woman whose body develops first-mentioned life", or Sixty years of Dutch legal language]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 51(26), 857-872.

Sanders, T., & Jansen, C. (2011). Begrijpelijke taal. Fundamenten en toepassingen van effectieve communicatie [Understandable language. Fundamentals and applications of effective communication]. Tijdschrift voor taalbeheersing, 33(3), 201-207.

Van der Bruggen, G. (2018). In de beperking toont zich de meester. Negen kenmerken van uitspraken in klare taal [The master shows himself in the limitation. Nine characteristics of judgments in clear language]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Bestuursrecht, 72(10), 463-467.

Van der Pool, E., & Van Wijk, C. (2010). Burgers over de begrijpelijkheid van rechtbankbrieven [Citizens about the comprehensibility of court letters]. Trema, tijdschrift voor de Rechterlijke Macht, 33(6), 244-248.

Verkuylen, M. W. (2002). Begrijpelijkheid van strafrechtelijke vonnissen [Comprehensibility of criminal law judgments] (Master’s thesis). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.

Downloads

Published

2020-02-05

How to Cite

Geerlings, M. ., & Montfort, . A. van . (2020). What exactly did the judge decide? Clear language and well-arranged structure lead to better comprehensible court judgments. Archives of Business Research, 8(1), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.81.7752