Download For Emphasis, Emphasize Verbs and more Exams Law in PDF only on Docsity!
To speak effectively, plainly, and shortly, it becometh the gravity of the profession.
- Sir Edward Coke, 1600
For Emphasis, Emphasize Verbs
By Henry Weihofen
E speciallymake the in impact presenting arguments, of his or her words a strong lawyer and will indelible. want to
But not all efforts to that end are effective. Here are three that are not: Ushering in a statement with a (^) fanfare of bugles. Examples: "Few if any of the issues in this case are of more vital importance than the question of whether ... " "Another significant point that we wish (^) to call to the court's attention is .... " Such (^) wordy introductions are little more than wind. Avoid them. Using italics, bold-face (^) type, underlining. In speaking (^) we can use certain devices to gain emphasis, such as pauses, gestures or raising the voice. These cannot be reproduced (^) in type. But some writers try, using italics, bold-face, (^) capital letters or underlining to mark the words they want to emphasize. This is artless and (^) usually inept. Using intensifiers. Trying to strengthen a word or statement by adding (^) an intensifying adjective or adverb, such (^) as "very," "perfectly," "unthinkable," (^) or "utterly," (^) is not likely (^) to prove effective. "Very" is the most overused of (^) these. It is so shop-worn that it no longer packs any punch. When you find yourself (^) using it, stop and ask yourself (^) whether anything would be lost by deleting it. The answer will almost always (^) be "no." Adjectives and adverbs (^) are indispensible parts of speech, (^) and can lend character and color. They are useful and (^) even indispensible when you want to characterize a thing - "a procedural point" - but not when (^) you merely want to intensify the degree: (^) "a very important point." Instead (^) of resorting to an intensifier if your noun does not seem strong enough, (^) look for a stronger noun. If "acci- dent" seems inadequate, don't try to strengthen (^) it by calling it a "terrible" accident. Look (^) for a stronger word: "disaster," "catastrophe," (^) "tragedy." (^) Othet (^) examples:
Instead of Great malice
Great pain Very strong Grave error Very evil
say Enmity, malevolence, malignancy, spitefulness, venom Agony, (^) anguish, torment Potent, (^) powerful, virile Blunder, bungle, fault, lapse Base, foul, ignoble, odious, vile
If the three devices discussed above are ineffective, what can a writer do to get (^) more emphasis and forcefulness? Several (^) things:
1. Rearrange the word order so that emphasis falls where it should. Bear in mind that the positions that carry the most emphasis within a sentence are (^) (1) the end, and (2) the (^) beginning. Therefore: put the word you most want to emphasize at the end.
Poor He deliberately committed this crime. This theory is unsound, we submit.
Better He committed (^) this crime deliberately. This theory, we submit, is unsound.
Consider the following sentences. (^) Which is worded more favorably for the (^) prosecution, and which for the defense?
Although a search without a warrant is generally permissible if (^) incident to a lawful arrest, if an arrest without a warrant is to support an incidental search, it must be made on probable cause.
Although to support an inci- dental search an arrest without a warrant must be made on probable cause, such a search without war- rant made incidental to lawful arrest is generally permissible.
- Prefer concrete to (^) abstract terms. Some lawyers are so addicted (^) to abstract words that they use them even for concrete things:
A variety of forms A conflict of evidence Unanimity of opinion
Various formas Conflicting evidence Unanimous opinion
- Make assertions in affirmative (^) form, not negative. Telling us that something (^) is "not" only denies the existence of some (^) thing or quality. It does not posit anything. Language
This is the ninth in a series of articles (^) coordinated by the Plain English Committee of the State Bar of Michigan. The articles are (^) written by groups and individuals interested (^) in promoting plain language in the law. Anyone interested in submitting an article for publication (^) should contact (^) Mr. George H. Hathaway, Detroit Edison Co., 2000 Second Ave., 688 WCB, Detroit, MI 48226.
is more forceful when it posits or affirms something. Even negative Ideas may be expressed in positive form (^) and so gain (^) greater forcefulness:
Did not give consideration to Did not remember Did not take care Not very often Does not have
Ignored Forgot Neglected Seldom Lacks
- Use figures of speech - similes and metaphors. These enable us to say more in fewer words, and to say it with vitality and color.
The simile describes or Illustrates one thing by saying it Is like another:
If our Bill of Rights does not mean at least this much, then it is merely a teasing illusion, like a munificent bequest in a pauper's will. Laws, like cobwebs, entangle the weak, but are broken by the strong. A metaphor is stronger than a simile. It does not merely compare one thing with another; it Identifies the two. Mr. Justice Holmes said that when he began, the law was "a (^) ragbag of details." (^) Even less complimentary was Dickens' Mr. Barkus, who complained that the law "is a ass, a idiot." in the same vein are other descriptions: Law is a bottomless pit. Law is a machine which you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage.
- Use parallel construction and antithesis. Arranging words, phrases, and sentences in groups of two or three often helps build up emotional effect. Lincoln could have said, "government of, by, and for the people," and said just as much as, "government of the people, by the people, ;nd for the people." Three parallel phrases were unnecessary for his meaning, but highly conducive to deepening emotional reaction with each repetition. The same can be said of the well-known words of Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right...." When parallel statements are opposed or in contrast, we have antithesis, the setting of one thing against another. Bring opposing ideas thus together puts them into bold relief and so makes more impact on the reader: To err is human; to forgive, divine.
- Don't overuse nouns. Prefer verbs. I want to enlarge upon this precept. One common characteristic of the stuffy, pompous style affected by many lawyers - and businessmen, educators, politicians and sociologists - is the use of a verb, a noun and a preposition when the verb alone would suffice.
Exhibits a tendency to Make provision for Comes into conflict with
Tends Provide Conflicts
Using the verb alone not only makes writing more con- cise, it also makes it more vigorous and more forceful. The verb is the power plant of the sentence; it supplies the energy and the action. Yet too often writers pass over the direct verb and reach for a ponderous noun derived from the verb. Instead of saying, "We have revised the traffic code," they say, "Revi- sions have been made in the traffic code." Instead of, "By distributing the case load better, we have markedly improved the court's operation," they say, "Better distribution of the case load has effected a marked improvement in the opera- tion of the court." The verbs, "distribute" and "improve" are made into nouns, "distribution" and "improvement." Such writers will say, "Improvement in the field of pest control was accomplished by the utilization of more effective insecticides." The only verb in that sentence is the weak "was accomplished." (^) The (^) real action (^) words have (^) been smothered and turned into polysyllabic nouns: "improve- ment" and "utilization." If we turn these words back into verbs, we get a stronger sentence: "Using more effective insecticides has improved our pest control program." When I say, "Use verbs," I don't mean the colorless little auxiliary verbs like be, give, have, hold, make, and take, which seduce you into using nouns that derive from verbs and sap their strength. Use the direct verb itself: Not "It was the court's intention," but "The court intended."
Instead of
Have knowledge of Held a meeting Is binding upon Made the decision Make a payment Took notice
SaY_
Know Met Binds Decided Pay Noticed
Using these little auxiliary verbs leads you to turn real action verbs into limp nouns by adding endings like -ment, -ation, -ence, and -ency. Thus "examine" becomes "make an examination;" "act" becomes "take action," and "ap- pear" becomes "make an appearance." Linguistic authorities call this process nominalization. It is especially bad when it leads us to use abstract nouns expressing a concept, instead of words that tell what some- body did. The general response was cynical laughter. The campus confrontations of the 60's have faded. There is a tendency to use Such sentences have an eerie quality. They have no people in them, only abstractions. They also have no working verbs, only weak little verbs like "was," "have," (^) "is." The working words (^) are all abstract, impersonal nouns: Response, laughter, confrontations, tendency. Linguistic theory tells us that such nominalizations are harder for readers to process than their equivalent verb forms, for two reasons:
- Verbs and verb phrases are more basic. Anything that makes a verb less like a verb and more like a noun creates abstraction. And abstract terms are vague.
- Readers like personal references. But nominalization gives us only impersonal ones. When we are "just talking," we might say, "When you describe a thing, make sure ......
Henry Weihofen, Ph.B., J.D., J.S.D., University of Chicago, Is Professor Emeritus at the University of New Mexico School of Law. He Is the author of (among other works) Legal Writing Style, now in its second edition.
