A comparative study of Latinisms in court opinions in the United States and Spain

Abstract

In spite of the movements demanding clarity in legal texts, Latin expressions are still used in legal language, especially in legal argumentation. Opponents of an excess of linguistic reform argue that Latinisms serve a purpose, as they avoid ambiguity, and that such clear-cut terms may help towards the development of an international lingua franca for legal professionals. Through an analysis of recent opinions from the United States Supreme Court and the Spanish Constitutional Court, we shall explore whether Latinisms have a parallel frequency and usage in the two languages. In principle, one might expect Spanish jurists to be fonder of Latin formulae, due to their native language and training, and that Latin expressions might serve as a sort of interlanguage reference. However, while this may be theoretically the case, quantitative evidence seems to show otherwise: there appear to be more Latinisms in American legal English than in Spanish, at least in some genres, and furthermore, Latinisms differ in usage between the two languages.