|
|
Navigation |
Vol. 72, No. 10, October
1999 |
Legal Writing
Transitions Enable Readers
to Follow the Writer's Thinking
Legal writers need to use enough accurate signals to guide
their readers through the complex terrain of most legal reasoning.
By Mary Barnard Ray
As a Girl Scout leader, I frequently find myself in a caravan
following another vehicle down the highway toward a new, unfamiliar
destination. It reminds me of reading. When the driver in front
signals each turn or lane change appropriately, it is easy to
follow and reach the intended destination. If, however, that
driver fails to signal or signals inaccurately, I inevitably
go astray. Accurate transitions, like accurate turn signals,
enable the reader to follow the writer's thinking. Legal
writers need to use enough accurate signals in their writing
to guide their readers through the complex terrain of most legal
reasoning.
Negotiating Unfamiliar Territory
The importance of clear signals becomes most apparent when
you are in unfamiliar places. For example, when you read the
following passage from a computer journal, verbal signals provide
clues to the sequence and logical relationship of the ideas in
the text, even though it contains unfamiliar content.
Example: "Once
cells are captured, the analyzer shows a summary, detail, and
53-byte hex dump of each cell in the buffer. The summary contains
the cell-time stamp with a resolution of seven decimal places
or 100 ms., the best in our tests. The summary also includes
information from the ATM cell header including the VPI (Virtual
Path Identifier) and VCI (Virtual Circuit Identifier), and the
decode of the adaptation layer (AALJ for LANE, for example)."1
The word "once" at the beginning of the paragraph
tells you that this paragraph followed information about capturing
cells and that the upcoming paragraph will explain what happens
next. The commas between items in lists signal where each listed
item stops, which becomes particularly important in complex or
unfamiliar lists. The repetition of "summary" at the
beginning of the second and third sentence signals that "summary"
is an important point in the paragraph. The superlative "best"
tells you that this paragraph comes from an article comparing
various analyzers. The phrase "our tests" tells you
that research has been done. Finally, the parentheses in the
last sentence set off explanatory notes for the reader who needs
the explanation, while allowing other readers to skip quickly
over that supplementary information.
In total, the writer of the previous excerpt used six signals
within three sentences. Yet the signals do not appear overdone
or too obvious; they simply help the reader follow the content.
Similarly, the legal writer should not be afraid to use signals
of his or her organization. Although they may appear obvious
to the writer, accurate signals do not usually distract the reader
of complex content. (In contrast, too many obvious signals do
become annoying in more familiar content, and so fewer are usually
used in novels, newspaper articles, and the like.)
If you need more to convince you of the importance of clear
signals, read the following passage from a physician's reference
text, a passage describing qualities of a rabies vaccine. The
signals in the passage are often unclear or misleading, which
causes the reader to have to stop and reshuffle information.
Example: "High titer antibody responses of the
MIR Vaccine made in human diploid cells have been demonstrated
in trials conducted in England, Germany, France, and Belgium,
seroconversion was often obtained with only one dose.
"With two doses one month apart, 100% of the recipients
developed specific antibody and the geometric mean titer of the
group was approximately 10 international units. In the US, MIR
Vaccine resulted in geometric mean titers (GMT) of 12.9 I.U./ml
at Day 49 and 5.1 I.U./ml at Day 90 when three doses were given
intermuscularly during the course of one month."2
Mary Barnard Ray is a legal
writing lecturer and director of the Legal Writing Individualized
Instruction Services at the U.W. Law School. Her publications
include two coauthored legal writing books, Getting It Right
and Getting It Written and Beyond the Basics, published
by West Publishing Co.
If you have a writing problem that you can't
resolve, email or send
your question to Ms. Ray, c/o Wisconsin Lawyer, State Bar of
Wisconsin, P.O. Box 7158, Madison, WI 53707-7158. Your question
and Ms. Ray's response will be published in this column.
Readers who object to their names being mentioned should state
so in their letters. |
The passage moves smoothly through the list ending with "Belgium,"
but then the reader stumbles into "seroconversion,"
which is actually the subject of a new sentence. A comma has
been used where a period was needed. After negotiating through
that interruption, the reader seems to be able to follow the
logic in the beginning of the next paragraph, as the wording
signals a contrast between "only one dose" and "two
doses." Some questions can begin to emerge about the comparison,
however, for the nonmedical reader.
- Is "seroconversion" the same as "developed
specific antibody"? If so, why use a different term?
- Is antibody a modifier of some other noun, which the singular
form signals? If so, what should the noun be (it's missing)?
- Or is "antibody" meant to be the noun, which means
the writer made a grammatical error and this should read "antibodies"?
Having slowed down to ponder these questions, the reader then
hits "In the US" mid-paragraph, which triggers more
questions.
- Is this paragraph focused on more detail about the previous
trials, or is it going to move to a comparison between the US
and European trials?
- Should the previous sentence really have been in the previous
paragraph? Is this a new point or only a slight bend in the support?
Finally, the reader finishes reading the data, only to be
left wondering how the data can be fairly compared.
- How does the data expressed in "I.U./ml" compare
with the earlier data expressed in "geometric mean titer"?
- Were the other doses given "intermuscularly" too,
and that wasn't stated, or is a significant difference being
flagged?
In fairness to the authors of both texts, neither of these
documents was meant to be read by nonexperts, so these comments
are not meant to be criticisms of their work. Rather, these passages
are meant to help you as a legal writer experience the same feelings
your nonlegal reader may have when reading your technical texts.
They also are meant to help you understand how clear signals
help any reader negotiate his or her way through unfamiliar territory.
Endnotes
1 J. Scott Haugdahl, "Wandel and Goltermann's High-Speed
Protocol Analyzers Tops in Tests," 10 Network Computing,
Feb. 8, 1999, at 78.
2 Physicians Desk Reference, 53rd Edition 2329 (1999).
(See the entry for Pasteur Merieux Connaught Rabies Vaccine ImovaxTM
Rabies).
|