Legal Linguistics as an Academic and Professional Discipline: Identifying Clients, Customers, Stakeholders

Abstract

Legal linguistics is a relatively new discipline, of growing signifi cance in the light of internationalization of legal life and the broader context of globalization, where English is the chosen form of communication. Currently, few programmes are available to prepare practitioners, if indeed it is clear who practitioners actually are, or again what the parameters of their profession may be, or where legal linguistics fi ts within the future education and training needs of law professionals. With the assistance of available literature in the fi eld of legal education, combined with research based on a focus group of professionals involved in the fi eld, this paper explores the fi eld of legal linguistics by approaching it from the aspect of the “outsider”. In particular, it asks, analyses, and discusses two problems: “Where does legal linguistics fi t in the broader context of future legal education needs?” and “Who are its potential benefi ciaries?” The pertinence of this approach lies in the logic that any course of study requires a unique selling point, from the standpoint of both professional and wider relevance. The outsiders in this case are stakeholders, in particular the target client of legal linguistics programmes, that is, those who receive the service, and the paying customer, who may not always be the client and, fi nally, others with an indirect interest in legal linguistics, from individuals through law fi rms, banks, and others in the private sector, to governments and international or supranational bodies. The aim of the paper is to provide an aide-memoire to those involved in developing and marketing legal linguistic education and training programmes and modules, to place legal linguistics within visions of future legal education, and, fi nally, to identify further areas for research.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.