Comments on: Arnold is hard to interpret http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/03/hard-to-interpret/ news, views and info on self-help law and pro se litigation Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:11:37 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Usefulinfo http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/03/hard-to-interpret/comment-page-1/#comment-176 Usefulinfo Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:10:01 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/03/hard-to-interpret/#comment-176 To say, as the Legislative Digest does, that the court system is daunting for those "not proficient in English" belies the much bigger language problem: the system is daunting linguistically even for those who *are* proficient in English. A study cited by a federal district court in an interpreter case found that fourteen years of education are necessary to understand the language used in a civil trial (and even more for a civil trial). That court quoted parts of the study that said that "the language of the law was not common everyday English and that it was something unto itself," and that "words used in simple hearing never appeared or appeared three times or less in a normal million words of print." (This is found in Seltzer v. Foley, 502 F. Supp. 600, 604 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).) To say, as the Legislative Digest does, that the court system is daunting for those “not proficient in English” belies the much bigger language problem: the system is daunting linguistically even for those who *are* proficient in English.

A study cited by a federal district court in an interpreter case found that fourteen years of education are necessary to understand the language used in a civil trial (and even more for a civil trial). That court quoted parts of the study that said that “the language of the law was not common everyday English and that it was something unto itself,” and that “words used in simple hearing never appeared or appeared three times or less in a normal million words of print.”

(This is found in Seltzer v. Foley, 502 F. Supp. 600, 604 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).)

]]>