Bureaucratic gibberish or perfectly understandable English?

Question

Hello,While reading some official papers my attention got caught by the following sentence:"Subsection 2 (1) specifies that unless otherwise indicated, references in this Act to "this Act" include regulations made under it." The sentence is copied verbatim and the 'Act' refers to the Emigrant and Refugee Act of Canada. Frankly, I'd shed some sweat before I got what it was about. Now I'm curious if just because I'm not a native English speaker or just because any official, juridical terminology is not fully comprehensible to the man in the street. Please give your opinions, thank you. Regards, Mike

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Hello, While reading some official papers my attention got caught by the following sentence: "Subsection 2 (1) specifies that unless ... any official, juridical terminology is not fully comprehensible to the man in the street. Please give your opinions, thank you.[/nq]
This is a common problem, I think. A cynic might say that this is a form of job security. It is almost like tenure. Lawyers write laws that need lawyers to interpret them.

Redwine
Hamburg
(previously: Berlin, Northants, Derbs, Staffs, NSW, Tasmania, Melbourne, rural Victoria, in that and many other orders)

Usenet · Answer

In our last episode,
,
the lovely and talented mike morgan
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
[nq:1]Hello, While reading some official papers my attention got caught by the following sentence: "Subsection 2 (1) specifies that unless ... juridical terminology is not fully comprehensible to the man in the street. Please give your opinions, thank you. Regards, Mike[/nq]
I find it clear at a glance. It is not great literature or finest expression ever composed in English, but for officialese it is a model of clarity.

Lars Eighner ~~finger for geek code~~ (Email Removed) http://www.io.com/~eighner/ "The very essence of the creative is its novelty, and hence we have no standard by which to judge it." Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person

Usenet · Answer

I'd say it's a little bit of both reasons (not a native English speaker, and not fully comprehensible). This is not clear, pleasant English, but it's far from the worst bureaucratic gibberish I've seen!
regards
-Laura

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hello, While reading some official papers my attention got caught by the following sentence: "Subsection 2 (1) specifies that unless ... juridical terminology is not fully comprehensible to the man in the street. Please give your opinions, thank you. Regards, Mike[/nq]
Mayhap my previous life as a bureaucrat has caused some unnatural fusion of synapses but I was fine with it. It's precisely the kind of clause you find in British legislation.
FWIW I can offer you an analysis and explanation of what, precisely, it means and why it may be necessary.
An Act of Parliament (or Congress or Althing or whatever) will make certain provisions. One of them may be that it grants powers to a Minister (Secretary, Parliamentary body) to make regulations - further legal provisions.
Since they are made separately and made after the Act became law, these regulations might not be regarded as part of the Act, though they arise from the Act. Subsequent amendments or revisions of the Act may well include the regulations in the altered Act.
There may be references in the Act to 'this Act' and the legislators have to decide if those references apply only to the original Act or also to regulations subsequently made.
The phrase you quote solves the problem. It saves writing "this Act (and any regulations made under it)" every time you want to refer to the Act.
John Dean
Oxford

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]the lovely and talented mike morgan broadcast on alt.usage.english:[/nq]
[nq:2]Hello, While reading some official papers my attention got caught ... the street. Please give your opinions, thank you. Regards, Mike[/nq]
[nq:1]I find it clear at a glance. It is not great literature or finest expression ever composed in English, but for officialese it is a model of clarity.[/nq]
I also found it easy to understand with the first reading. This may be because I wrote so many similar things when putting together policy manuals. Procedure manuals and "how-to" guides were different less concerned with someone suing over a "technicality," more concerned with being plain as day to the reader. (Yes, policy should be plain as day, too, but beyond that, it must be legal and legally correct.)

Maria Conlon
How's my writing? To report abuses, call me direct. (Don't have my number? Oh... well, call someone else, then.)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]mike morgan broadcast: I find it clear at a glance. ... English, but for officialese it is a model of clarity.[/nq]
[nq:1]I also found it easy to understand with the first reading. This may be because I wrote so many similar ... the reader. (Yes, policy should be plain as day, too, but beyond that, it must be legal and legally correct.)[/nq]
I had no problems with it either, but I do have a background that makes me familiar with such writing.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Usenet · Answer

mike morgan wrote on 21 May 2004:
[nq:1]Hello, While reading some official papers my attention got caught by the following sentence: "Subsection 2 (1) specifies that unless ... just because any official, juridical terminology is not fully comprehensible to the man in the street. Please give your opinions[/nq]
Looks like perfectly resonable bureaucratese to me, and I understood it immediately, but I agree that it would be easier for everyone else if it were rephrased to read something like:
"the meaning of 'this Act' includes the original Act, future amendments to this Act, and all regulations subsequently included as part of this Act."

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hello, While reading some official papers my attention got caught by the following sentence: "Subsection 2 (1) specifies that unless ... any official, juridical terminology is not fully comprehensible to the man in the street. Please give your opinions, thank you.[/nq]
Perfectly understandable English.
Bureaucratic gibberish producers would not have allowed "in this Act" to pass without adding a "respect of" as far as the inappropriate plae is concernes.

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Usenet · Answer

Mike Morgan asks about:
[nq:1]"Subsection 2 (1) specifies that unless otherwise indicated, references in this Act to "this Act" include regulations made under it."[/nq]
Perfectly understandable bureaucratic, or rather legalistic, gibberish. Much easier than the bit in my signature.
There is one odd thing about the sentence, though. The opening words seem to be talking about s.2(1) and telling what it does, and therefore should be located in some material external to the act itself; yet in the second half of the sentence, the words "this Act" suggest that the sentence itself is part of the act. I guess a possible explanation is that this sentence is an explanatory comment or footnote included in a printed copy of the Act.
Let's see, the actual text of 2(1) is... oh, that's interesting, Canada doesn't have an act called the "Emigrant and Refugee Act". But we do have an "Immigration and Refugee Protection Act"; perhaps the title has changed. Similarly, s.2(1) consists of definitions; but 2(2) reads as follows:

(2) Unless otherwise indicated, references in this Act to "this Act" include regulations made under it.
and thus does not actually have the odd feature that I referred to.
Mark Brader > "'Settlor', (i) in relation to a testamentary trust, Toronto > means the individual referred to in paragraph (i)." (Email Removed) > Income Tax Act of Canada (1972-94), 108(1)(h)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Usenet · Answer

"mike morgan" (Email Removed) schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[nq:1]Hello, While reading some official papers my attention got caught by the following sentence: "Subsection 2 (1) specifies that unless ... because any official, juridical terminology is not fullycomprehensible to the man in the street. Please give your opinions, thank you.[/nq]
As others have said, it's actually quite clear. But whether or not it is acceptable or not depends on how it is used.
If it is (as the text itself suggests) part of the Act, it is intended to be read by bureaucrats who understand what it means not necessarily by anyone else. We all use jargon in our respective fields. I often talk about "client-side scripting" when talking to web designers, "docetism" when talking to theologians or "fricatives" when talking to linguists. It's quicker and simpler. But if I use the same terminology when speaking to people who have no idea of web design, theology or linguistics, communication is severely hampered. Jargon is a very useful shortcut, but only when used among people who understand it.
So if the sentence you quoted was in a brochure explaining to people like you and I how this lovely new Act will affect us all, it would be badly written.

Bureaucratic gibberish or perfectly understandable English?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions