A Study in Complexity of Sentences Constituting Russian Federation Legal Acts

  • Denis A. Saveliev European University in Saint Petersburg
Keywords: lawmaking, legal information, lawmaking procedure, corpus linguistics, proofreading, lexical variability, open data, computational linguistics, text mining

Abstract

To ensure proper law enforcement, the fact of official publication of regulatory acts it is not enough. What is important is the clarity of legal texts, their accessibility for understanding. Linguistic and legal quality of the text are interconnected. Creation of a text that is good from the point of view of linguistics will contribute to a clearer formulation of ideas embodied in a legal or judicial act. Linguistic aid after the creation of the draft act is insufficient. It is necessary to take into account recommendations for the clear writing of texts at the stage of creating a legal act. The methodology and results of a study of Russian legislation texts carried out in order to improve law enforcement and mobilization, to reduce the time spent on the perception of legal norms, and to improve the quality of legal acts are presented. A corpus of texts from 199 thousand legal acts was used. Its texts were segmented into 5.5 million sentences. Using artificial intelligence technologies, morphosyntactic markup of sentences with the allocation of parts of speech and their properties was carried out. On this basis, the metrics of the lexical and syntactic complexity of each sentence were calculated: length, lexical diversity, lengths of dependencies of parts of speech (Dependency Length), word lengths in syllables, etc. Metrics were selected that quantified the complexity of sentences in a legal text, which is different from the literary text. A technique is proposed for the automated search of sentences that can be attributed to the most difficult to read without the use of manual labor. On the basis of this work, a body of poorly readable sentences of legal acts was created and published in the public domain, consisting of a wider selection — too long sentences and narrower — sentences that differ for the worse from the majority in three metrics at the same time. This corpus is analyzed statistically and the authorities that write more difficult are identified, and the subjects of documents in which there are more complex written sentences. It is shown that the number of long sentences in the legislation has significantly (5 times) increased in comparison with the first years of modern Russian statehood. Half of the sentences from acts of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation consist of more than 40 tokens. Using the NPMI method, the most frequently occurring phrases and phrases that characterize the subject of the text are selected from the body. The published corpus may become a subject for more detailed work on improving the legal technique and content of legal and judicial acts.

Author Biography

Denis A. Saveliev, European University in Saint Petersburg

Researcher, Institute for Implementing Law, European University in Saint Petersburg, Candidate of Juridical Sciences. Address: 6/1 Gagarinskaya Str., Saint Petersburg 191887, Russian Federation. E-mail: dsaveliev@eu.spb.ru

References

Assy R. (2011) Can the Law Speak Directly to Its Subjects? The Limitation of Plain Language. Journal of Law and Society, no 3, pp. 376-404.

Belov S.A. et al. (2018) Corpus of Russian local documents and acts CorRIDA: aims, contents, structure. Saint Petersburg: ITMO Press, pp. 114-123 (in Russian)

Bouma G. (2009) Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. Proceedings of the Biennial GSCL Conference, pp. 31-40 (in Russian)

Coleman B., Phung Q. (2010) The Language of Supreme Court Briefs: A Large-Scale Quantitative Investigation. J. App. Prac. & Process. Vol. 11. P. 75-103.

De Friez B. (2017) Toward a Clearer Democracy: The Readability of Idaho Supreme Court Opinions as a Measure of the Court's Democratic Legitimacy. PhD Thesis. Moscow City (Idaho), 144 p.

Dmitrieva A.V. (2017) Art of legal writing: quntitative analysis of decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court. Sravnitel'noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie, no 3, pp. 125-133 (in Russian)

Dulaney E. (1982) Changes in language behavior as a function of veracity. Human Communication Research, no. 1, pp. 75-82.

Engberg J. (2013) Legal linguistics as a mutual arena for cooperation: Recent developments in the field of applied linguistics and law. AILA Review, no 1, pp. 24-41.

Fuller L. (2007) Moral of law. Moscow: IRISEN, 308 p. (in Russian)

Giampieri P. (2016) Is the European Legal English Legalese-Free. The Italian Journal of Public Law, no 8, p. 424.

Gubaeva T.V. (2004) Language and law. Art of words in professional legal activity. Moscow: Norma, 160 p. (in Russian)

Gunnarsson B. (1989) Text comprehensibility and the writing process: The case of laws and lawmaking. Written communication, no 1, pp. 86-107.

Isakov V. B. (2000) Language of law. Yurislingvistika: Russian language in its natural and juridical being. Barnaul: University, pp. 72-89 (in Russian)

Kostenko M.A. (2005) Legal language in legislative procedure. Available at: URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/pravovaya-lingvistika-v-zakonotvorchestvom-protsesse (accessed: 22-10-2019)

Kryukova E.A., Kry'zhanovskaya L.A. (2013) Methodological recommendations on the linguistic examination of drafts. Available at: URL: http://www.gosduma.net/analytics/publication-of-legal-department/Metod_lingvo.pdf (accessed: 22-10-2019)

Lundeberg M. (1987) Metacognitive Aspects of Reading Comprehension: Studying Understanding in Legal Case Analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, no 4, pp. 407-432. Available at: www.jstor.org/stable/747700 (accessed: 22-10-2019)

Livermore, M., Rockmore D. (eds.) (2019) Law as Data: Computation, Text, and the Future of Legal Analysis. Santa Fe: Institute Press, 526 p.

Mikolov T. et al. (2013) Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 26, pp. 3111-3119.

Owens R., Wedeking J. (2011) Justices and legal clarity: Analyzing the complexity of US Supreme Court opinions. Law & Society Review, no 4, pp. 1027-1061.

Polyakov A.V. (2009) Language of legal acts and legal mechanics. A doctrinal and normative commentary to the Federal Law “On State Language of Russia”. Saint Petersburg: University, pp. 16-28 (in Russian)

Reynolds R. (2016) Russian Natural Language Processing and Computer-assisted Language Learning: Capturing the benefits of deep morphological analysis in real-life applications. PhD thesis. 172 p. Available at: https://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/9685/thesis.pdf (accessed: 22-10-2019)

Shashek V.V., Kharchenko N. A. (2016) Clarity of legislation in the interpretations of texts of laws. Molodoy ucheniy, no 7, pp. 1191-1196 (in Russian)

Smith D., Richardson G. (1999) The Readability of Australia's Taxation Laws and Supplementary Materials: An Empirical Investigation. Fiscal Studies, no 3, pp. 321-349.

Stepanov O.A. (2018) Specifying law in the conditions of public practice. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, no 3, pp. 4-23 (in Russian)

Waltl B., Matthes F. (2015) Comparison of Law Texts — An Analysis of German and Austrian Legislation regarding Linguistic and Structural Metrics. Paper presented at the IRIS: Internationales Rechtsinformatik Symposium 2015. Available at: https://wwwmatthes.in.tum.de/pages/1occngdfehma2/Comparison-of-Law-Texts-An-Analysis-of-German-and-Austrian-Legislation-regarding-Linguistic-and-Structural-Metrics (accessed: 22-10-2019)

Published
2020-03-12
How to Cite
SavelievD. A. (2020). A Study in Complexity of Sentences Constituting Russian Federation Legal Acts. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, (1), 50-74. https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2020.1.50.74
Section
Legal Thought: History and Modernity