11. The classification of legal vocabulary

(a) Purely technical terms

Legal English employs a great deal of terminology that has a technical meaning and is not generally familiar to the layman e.g. waiver (відмова від права), estoppel (процесуальний відвід; позбавлення права заперечення), contributory negligence (зустрічна вина (провина)), judicial notice (обізнаність суду (стосовно фактів, які вважаються відомими суду без доведення)), injunction (судова заборона) etc.

(b) Semi-technical or mixed terms

This second group consists of words and phrases from the common stock that have acquired additional meanings by a process of analogy in the specialist context of legal activity. Such terms are therefore polysemic, unlike those belonging to the first group. For the translator, terms belonging to this group are more difficult to recognize and assimilate than wholly technical terms. For a start, they are much more numerous and their number is constantly growing as the law changes to meet the developing needs of society. Moreover, they are semantically more complex, involving the translator in a wider range of choices,

So, it is recommended for translators to get accustomed to consult specialized dictionaries whenever something in the context alerts them to a usage distinct from standard or everyday usage.

Assignment	General meaning: призначення, посада, завдання	Legal meaning: передача майна (прав) (документ про це)
Maintenance	догляд, ремонт, обслуговування	брит. 1) аліменти; 2) підтримання (однієї зі сторін в судовому процесі у корисливих цілях)
Title	заголовок, назва, титульна сторінка, титул; звання	титул; правовий титул, право власності; право на позов

(c) Everyday vocabulary frequently found in legal texts

This third group, which is naturally the most numerous, consists of terms in general use that are regularly found in legal texts but, unlike the previous group, have neither lost their everyday meanings nor acquired others by contact with the specialist medium. Given the generality of this definition, it is rather difficult to provide telling examples, since virtually any non-technical term will do. However, on the basis of relative frequency of occurrence, the point may be illustrated by terms such as 'subject-matter', as in 'the subject-matter of the contract', 'paragraph', as in 'Section 2, subsection 12, paragraph (b) of the

Act', or 'summarize', as in 'The judge summarized the facts of the case'.

Some leading features of the morphology and syntax of legal English

12. Nominalization

This feature is considered by many linguists, Urbanova (1986:19) among others, as prominent. Nouns derived from verbs are often used instead of verbs, such as to give consideration instead of to consider, to be in opposition rather than to oppose, to be in contravention instead of to contravene, to be in agreement instead of to agree.

Nominalization is a morphological process that is to be avoided because it makes the text long and non-dynamic (Haigh 2004: 44). However, it is hard to eradicate nominalization, as lawyers do not say to arbitrate, but to go on arbitration, because the arbitration is a legally defined procedure and should be considered as such.