Cite this article as: Salih, M. J. A. (2026). A pragmatic evaluation of selected definitions in the Nigerian Criminal Code Act, 2004. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 2(1), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i01.023
By
SALIH, Muhammad Jamiu Alagolo, Ph.D.
Lagos State University,
Ojo
ORCID ID:
0009-0003-5746-8085
+2348135305389
Abstract
This study conducts a
pragmatic evaluation of selected statutory definitions in the Nigerian Criminal
Code Act. The aim of the study is to assess the clarity, adequacy, and
communicative effectiveness of the definitions. The research is motivated by
concerns about ambiguity, verbosity, outdated terminology, and lack of
inclusivity which tend to militate against the effectiveness of legal drafting.
The study adopts a qualitative, descriptive research design relying on textual
analysis of purposively selected definitions from the act. The analytical
procedure involves a systematic application of Grice’s Cooperative Principle,
using the conversational maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner as
evaluative parameters. Each definition is examined in three stages:
identification of its semantic scope, pragmatic interpretation within legal
context, and evaluation against the maxims to determine areas of compliance or
violation. The findings reveal that while most definitions maintain legal
accuracy and relevance, they frequently violate the maxim of Manner through
syntactic complexity, and redundancy that hinder comprehension. Some
definitions also exhibit limitations in scope, gender bias, and technological
obsolescence, affecting their contemporary applicability. The study concludes
that although the definitional framework of the Code remains doctrinally sound,
there is a need for pragmatic redrafting to enhance clarity, inclusivity, and
modern relevance. It recommends the adoption of plain language principles and
interdisciplinary collaboration between legal drafters and linguists to improve
accessibility, legal certainty, and effective statutory interpretation.
Keywords: Pragmatic Evaluation, Statutory Interpretation, Nigerian Criminal
Code, Gricean Maxims, Legal Drafting.
1. Introduction
Legal texts,
particularly statutes and codes, are constructed not only to prescribe and
regulate behaviour but also to communicate norms, duties, and penalties in a
manner that is both precise and accessible. However, legal language is often
characterised by complexity, formality, and rigidity, which hinder
understanding, especially by non-specialist audiences (Friedman, 1964;
Martinez, 2024). The Nigerian Criminal Code Act (henceforth, CCA) which is a
key component of the country’s criminal justice system, exemplifies these
linguistic challenges, particularly in its definitional and interpretative
provisions. Chapter One of the CCA serves as the foundation
for interpreting the substantive and procedural parts of the Code. Yet, the
clarity, relevance, and communicative effectiveness of these definitions in the
chapter remain largely under-examined.
This study approaches
the introductory part of the CCA through the convex of pragmatics, a branch of
linguistics concerned with language use in context. Specifically, it employs
Grice’s Cooperative Principle and its four maxims, Quantity, Quality, Relevance,
and Manner; to evaluate effectiveness of the Code’s definitions and how much
they fulfill their communicative function. The focus on pragmatics is motivated
by the view that legal meaning is not simply a matter of grammar or logic but
of how language is interpreted by human agents in real-world contexts. Thus,
this pragmatic approach enables a critical assessment of whether the Code's
language fosters or frustrates comprehension, legal certainty, and public
accessibility.
The significance of this
study lies in its interdisciplinary orientation. By integrating insights from
legal drafting and linguistics theory, it contributes to both legal reform and
legal linguistics. It aims to unveil communicative breakdowns in the statutory
language and to propose improvements that align legal definitions with modern
standards of clarity, inclusivity, and relevance.
Thus, the aim of this
study is to evaluate the communicative effectiveness of the definitional and
interpretative sections of the CCA, applying Grice’s pragmatic maxims, with the
goal of identifying linguistic inadequacies and proposing recommendations for
improved legal drafting and public accessibility. The specific objectives were
to:
- assess the extent to
which the definitions in the CCA comply with Grice’s pragmatic maxims
(Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner),
- identify linguistic
features (e.g., ambiguity, verbosity, outdated terminology) that hinder
effective communication in the act.
- examine the
sociocultural and historical influences present in the definitional language.
- analyse the implications
of these pragmatic shortcomings for legal understanding, access to justice, and
statutory interpretation in Nigeria.
2. Literature Review
The study of legal language has attracted sustained scholarly
attention due to the role it plays in shaping interpretation, judicial
reasoning, and access to justice. Scholars in Forensic Linguistics and Legal
Linguistics have examined how statutory texts encode meaning and reveal
tensions between legal precision and communicative clarity. Early foundational
work by Mellinkoff (2004) emphasises that legal English is typically archaic,
verbose, and resistant to reform. This position is further reinforced by Tiersma
(1999; 2023), who argues that historical continuity in legal drafting often
perpetuates complexity and obscurity. These insights are particularly relevant
to statutory definitions, which are expected to provide clarity but
paradoxically introduce interpretive challenges.
From a pragmatic
perspective, meaning in legal texts extends beyond literal interpretation to
include context, intention, and usage. The theoretical foundation for this
approach is grounded in Grice’s Cooperative Principle, developed by Grice
(1975), which asserts that effective communication is governed by the maxims of
Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner. These maxims have been widely applied
in discourse analysis to evaluate how meaning is conveyed and inferred
(Al-Qaderi, 2015; Hossain, 2021). In legal contexts, scholars such as Durant
and Leung, (2017) and Barkindo and Aliyu, (2025) argue that violations of these
maxims, particularly the maxim of Manner, can result in ambiguity,
misinterpretation, and reduced accessibility. For example, excessive verbosity,
syntactic complexity, and technical jargon are seen as pragmatic failures that
obscure intended meanings, especially for non-specialist audiences.
The issue of ambiguity
in legal drafting has also been explored. According to Nutting (1939) and
Charnock, (2006), ambiguity in statutory language can arise from lexical
vagueness, structural complexity, and contextual indeterminacy, all of which
complicate judicial interpretation. Thus, legal definitions which often attempt
to balance inclusivity and precision, in doing so, may become either overly
broad or insufficiently specific.
This runs in counter
with the recent increasing advocacy for the use of plain language in legal
drafting (Williams, 2004; 2011). The Plain Language Movement argues that legal
texts should be clear, concise, and accessible without compromising accuracy. Proponents
such as Hunt (2002; 2003) and Butt (2013) maintain that clarity enhances legal
certainty and promotes democratic ideals by making the law more understandable
to the general public. Empirical studies such as Allen and Engholm, (1979), and
Masson and Waldron (1994) have shown that simplifying legal language improves
comprehension while preserving substantive meaning, thereby addressing many of
the pragmatic violations identified in traditional legal drafting.
Within the Nigerian
context, studies on legal language have identified similar challenges. Works,
such as Dauda, (2016) and Onwuteka (2023) observe that many of the provisions
of Nigerian legal texts reflect colonial-era drafting conventions, characterised
by archaic expressions, gender bias, and outdated references. These features
not only reduce relevance in contemporary society but also create barriers to
comprehension, interpretation and application. The persistence of such
linguistic features underlines the need for systematic evaluation and reform
using modern linguistic frameworks. Scholars emphasise that legal
interpretation depends not only on explicit wording but also on implicature,
presupposition, and contextual inference (Yule, 1996; Marmor, 2008; Allan &
Leung, 2017; Slocum, 2017). Thus the study of language in use, pragmatics is
apt for examining how meaning is shaped by context, speaker intention, and
shared knowledge (Green, 2012; Kreidler, 1998).
However, despite the
growing body of literature on legal language and ambiguity, relatively few
studies have applied a strictly pragmatic framework, particularly one grounded
in Gricean maxims, to the evaluation of statutory definitions in Nigerian law. While
studies such as Kalejaiye et al. (2019) have examined ambiguity in legal texts
and advocated for linguistically informed reforms, their analyses are largely
semantic and do not fully engage with pragmatic principles. This gap underlines
the need for systematic pragmatic evaluation of statutory language.
Consequently, the present study builds on existing scholarship by applying
Gricean maxims to the definitional sections of the Nigerian Criminal Code Act.
It thereby offers a more linguistically grounded assessment of clarity,
inclusivity, and interpretability in legal drafting.
3. Theoretical Framework
The analytical procedure
of this work involves a systematic application of Grice’s Cooperative
Principle, using the conversational maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and
Manner as evaluative parameters. Each definition is examined in three stages: identification
of its semantic scope, pragmatic interpretation within legal context, and
evaluation against the maxims to determine areas of compliance or violation.
4. Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative research design. It specifically
employs a descriptive and analytical approach grounded in pragmatic textual
analysis. The raw data were gathered from the introductory sections (Sections 1
to 6) of the CCA, 2004. A purposive sampling technique was used to extract key
terms from the document. The analysis was guided by Grice’s Cooperative
Principle. Each definition was examined for potential violations or observance
of these maxims. The study is limited in scope to a linguistic-pragmatic
evaluation and does not engage in full legal interpretation or case law
analysis.
5.0 Data Presentation
and Analysis
5.1 Pragmatic Evaluation
of the Definitions and Evaluation
Definition: “any premises or room or set of rooms in any premises kept for
purposes of prostitution;”
Analysis: This definition clearly identifies the intended use, areas
dedicated to prostitution. It provides inclusivity by including single/multiple
rooms but overlooks outdoor or mobile settings.
Evaluation:
Quantity is violated due
to insufficient scope of location; Quality is observed as it is accurate and
transparent in legal context; Relevance is observed as it directly defines the
target concept and Manner is violated due to repetitive phrasing which introduces
redundancy.
Definition:
“clerk” and “servant”
include any person employed for any purpose as or in the capacity of a clerk,
or servant, or as a collector of money, although temporarily only, or although
employed also by other persons than the person alleged to be his employer, or
although employed to pay as well as receive money, and any person employed as
or in the capacity of a commission agent for the collection or disbursement of
money or in any similar capacity, although he has no authority from his
employer to receive money or other property on his account;…(Section 1, para:2)
Analysis: The definition is extremely long, covering temporary, commission
agency, and
collection or
disbursement duties. It attempts exhaustive coverage of employment
relationships. While legally thorough, the content is overloaded and
cognitively taxing.
Evaluation:
Quantity is violated as
it is highly comprehensive; Quality is observed as it is factually precise;
Relevance is observed as it relates directly to defining professional roles and
Manner is violated as it is very verbose and syntactically complex which clutters
reader comprehension.
3. “Dwelling-house”
Definition:
“Dwelling house”
includes any building or structure, or part of a building or structure, which
is for the time being kept by the owner or occupier for the residence therein
of himself, his family, or servants, or any of them: it is immaterial that it
is, from time to time, uninhabited:(Section 1, para.4)
Analysis: The definition aims to include connected outbuildings. The
extension via covered passage is a thoughtful inclusion, yet the double-layered
clause structure is cumbersome.
Evaluation:
Quantity is observed as
it is well-extended scope; Quality is observed as it is precise legal
delineation; Relevance is observed and Manner is violated due to redundant
phrasing and complex references obstruct clarity.
4. “Grievous harm”
Definition: “any harm which amounts to a maim or dangerous harm… seriously
or permanently injures health… permanent disfigurement or… injury to any
external or internal organ, member, or sense;” (Section 1, para. 7)
Analysis: The definition offers a multi-dimensional description of harm
severity. While comprehensive, it mixes medical and legal classifications,
risking cognitive overload.
Evaluation:
Quantity is observed as
it is inclusive and thorough; Quality is observed as it reflects standard legal
meaning; Relevance is observed as it is crucial for serious offenses and Manner
is violated due to dense phrasing across multiple criteria which can be
daunting to non-experts.
5. “Property”
Definition: “Includes everything, animate or inanimate, capable of being the
subject of ownership.” (Section 1f, para.11)
Analysis: This is a broad,
inclusive definition aligning with legal systems that treat tangible and
intangible items as potential property. It allows flexibility for evolving
types of ownership (e.g., digital assets). However, it lacks examples to
illustrate intangible forms, which may hinder lay understanding.
Quantity is violated
because it is broad and encompassing but lacking illustrations; Quality is
observed as it is conceptually and legally valid; Relevance is observed as it
covers the scope of criminal law; and Manner is violated as it is too abstract.
It would benefit from illustrations like “land, goods, animals, digital
assets.”
6 “Prostitution”
Definition: “Includes the offering by a female of her body commonly for acts
of lewdness for payment although there is no act or offer of an act of ordinary
sexual connection.” (Section 1f, para. 16)
Analysis: This definition is
gender-biased, restricting the term to females and ignoring male or non-binary
sex workers. It is morally and socially outdated, potentially reinforcing
stereotypes and undermining neutrality.
Quantity is violated;
Quality is violated; as it is gender-specific and it excludes realities of
modern sex work; Relevance is observed as it is Important in vice and morality
laws and Manner is violated as it is obsolete moral framing; lacks inclusive, neutral
tone.
7. “Public”
refers not only to all
persons within Nigeria, but also to the persons inhabiting or using any
particular place or any number of such persons, and also to such indeterminate
persons as may happen to be affected by the conduct with respect to which such
expression is used; (Section 1 para. 17)
Analysis: The definition expands the notion of “public” beyond geography
to include groups affected by behaviour. This serves well in offences like
public nuisance but may create interpretive vagueness.
Quantity is observed;
Quality is observed; Relevance is observed and Manner is violated.
8. “Public place”
Definition:
“Public place” includes
any public way, and any building, place, or conveyance, to which for the time
being the public are entitled or permitted to have access, either without any
conditions or upon condition of making any payment, and any building or place
which is for the time being used for any public or religious meeting or
assembly, or as an open court; (Section 1 para. 18)
Analysis: It covers physical
access and usage-based accessibility. The inclusion of both secular and
religious places is insightful. However, nested phrasing makes it less
accessible to lay readers.
Quantity is observed;
Quality is observed; Relevance is observed and Manner is violated.
9. “Telegraph”,
“Telegraph official”, “Telegraph works”
Definition: “Refers to all infrastructure and persons associated with
telegraphy, including telephone and submarine cable.”
Analysis: These definitions are
technologically outdated, referencing telegraphs and telegrams which are
largely obsolete. Inclusion of “telephone” is useful, but broader terms like
“telecommunication” would be more contemporary (Section 1b).
Quantity is observed;
Quality is violated; Relevance is violated and Manner is violated.
10. “Uncorroborated
testimony”
Definition: ““uncorroborated testimony” means testimony which is not
corroborated in some material particular by other evidence implicating the
accused person;”
Analysis: Simple, legally
crucial for understanding evidentiary rules. However, the phrase “material
particular” may be vague for non-lawyers.
Quantity is observed;
Quality is observed; Relevance is observed and Manner is violated.
11. “Utter”
Definition: ““utter” includes using or dealing with, and attempting to use
or deal with, and attempting to induce any person to use, deal with, or act
upon the thing in question;” (Section 1 para. 19)
Analysis: The definition is
pragmatically informative as it covers criminal acts of use, fraud, and
influence. It is legally precise but would benefit from a concrete example
(e.g., forged documents).
Quantity is observed;
Quality is observed; Relevance is observed and Manner is violated.
12. “Valuable security”
Definition: “valuable security” includes any document which is the property
of any person, and which is evidence of the ownership of any property or of the
right to recover or receive any property;” (Section 1 para. 20)
Analysis: the definition seems
precise, informative and pragmatically effective. However, long sentence could
be simplified as there is a potential ambiguity about the scope of “ownership”
and right to recover. Key to offences like forgery and fraud are covered but no
specific types listed (e.g., title deeds, bonds).
Evaluation:
Quantity is violated;
Quality is observed; Relevance is observed and Manner is violated.
13. “Wound”
Definition: “Wound means any incision or puncture which divides or pierces
any exterior membrane of the body; and any membrane is exterior, for the
purpose of this definition, which can be touched without dividing or piercing
any other membrane” (Section 1 para. 21)
Analysis: Medico-legal precision
is strong, but the explanation is biologically heavy for general users. No
examples of wound types are given.
Quantity is violated;
Quality is observed; Relevance is observed and
Manner is violated.
14. Definition of
Offence
Definition: “An act or omission which renders the person doing the act or
making the omission liable to punishment under this Code, or under any Act, or
law, is called an offence.” (Section 2)
Analysis: This definition
establishes the general threshold for criminal liability by emphasising that an
“offence” encompasses both acts and omissions punishable under law. It reflects
the broad legal tradition in criminal law of including both positive and negative
conduct (e.g., failing to report a crime). The phrase “under this Code, or
under any Act, or law” reflects the integration of this Code with other
statutory instruments. However, the syntactic choice of repeating “doing the
act or making the omission” is unnecessarily wordy and could be streamlined
without losing legal precision.
Quantity is observed;
Quality is observed; Relevance is observed and Manner is violated.
15. Division of Offences
Definition
Offences are of three
kinds, namely, felonies, misdemeanors, and simple offences. A felony is any
offence which is declared by law to be a felony, or is punishable, without
proof of previous conviction, with death or with imprisonment for three years
or more. A misdemeanor is any offence which is declared by law to be a
misdemeanor, or is punishable by imprisonment for not less than six months, but
less than three years. All offences, other than felonies and misdemeanors, are
simple offences (Section 3).
Analysis: The section attempts
to categorise offences based on severity and legal consequences, which is vital
for determining procedural safeguards, punishment, and arrest procedures. While
legally valid, the definitions for “felony” and “misdemeanor” employ circular
reasoning: a felony is that which is declared to be a felony (Nchi, 2010). This
shifts interpretive burden to external statutes rather than providing internal
clarity. Such a style may hinder understanding, especially when legal terms are
defined by reference to themselves.
Evaluation:
Quantity is
observed;Qualityis observed; Relevanceis observed andManner is violated.
Summary of the
Evaluation of the Definitions
|
No |
Term/Concept |
Quantity |
Quality |
Relevance |
Manner |
Comment |
|
1 |
Brothel |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Redundant phrasing |
|
2 |
Clerk/Servant |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Verbose/complex |
|
3 |
Dwelling-house |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Complex syntax |
|
4 |
Grievous harm |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Dense criteria |
|
5 |
Offence |
❌ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Dense criteria |
|
6 |
Felony/Misdemeanor |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Heavy structure |
|
7 |
Arrest without warrant |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Clause overload |
|
8 |
Carnal knowledge |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Obsolete phrasing |
|
9 |
Property |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Abstract |
|
10 |
Prostitution |
❌ |
✅ |
❌ |
❌ |
non-binary actors |
|
11 |
Public |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Wordy |
|
12 |
Public place |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Long nested clauses |
|
13 |
Railway & servant |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Too vague |
|
14 |
Telegraph/works/etc. |
❌ |
✅ |
❌ |
❌ |
Technologically outdated |
|
15 |
Uncorroborated testimony |
✅ |
✅ |
✅ |
❌ |
Legalistic term |
6. Discussion
and Findings
As shown in Table 1, the pragmatic evaluation of the definitional
and interpretative sections of the CCA reveals a significant tension between
legal precision and linguistic clarity. The application of Grice’s
Conversational Maxims, Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner, on the
definitions shows that three out fifteen violate Quantity, all of them satisfy
Quality, two out of fifteen violate relevance and none of them satisfies
Manner. Thus, while most of them successfully convey sufficient and relevant legal
content as Quantity, Quality, and Relevance maxims are predominantly observed,
there is a systematic violation of the Maxim of Manner across the majority of
the entries. Many definitions are overly verbose, syntactically dense, or
semantically archaic which may make them difficult to be interpreted by
laypersons. Ambiguity is particularly present in compound or nested
constructions. Terms such as “prostitution,” “telegraph,” “brothel,” and
“publicly” are marred by social insensitivity, gender bias, or technological
obsolescence, violating the maxims of both Manner and Quantity. Conversely,
definitions like “property,” “felony,” “grievous harm,” and “attempt” exhibit
clarity in scope but fall short in accessibility, particularly due to the
absence of examples or simplified phrasing. Moreover, several definitions
appear to reflect colonial-era assumptions that no longer align with
contemporary societal norms, inclusive language practices, or advances in
communication and governance. These issues compromise not only the
comprehensibility of the act but also the democratic ideals of transparency and
legal certainty.
7. Conclusion
Based on the above
findings, the study concludes that the CCA’s introductory and interpretative
sections should be revised. Such revision should aim at preserving legal
accuracy (Quality), ensure sufficiency without overload (Quantity), maintain
topical relevance (Relevance), and enhance linguistic clarity and inclusivity
(Manner). This pragmatic-linguistic refinement would improve public
understanding, support judicial interpretation, and underpin the constitutional
goal of accessible and fair justice for all citizens.
References
Allen, L. E.,
&Engholm, C. R. (1979). The need for clear structure in plain language
legal drafting. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 13,
455–480.
Al-Qaderi, I. A. U.
(2015). A pragmatic analysis of applying violating the maxims to the Yemeni
dialect.International Journal of Linguistics, 7(6), 78–93. Retrieved
from: https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v7i6.8762.
Barkindo, S. B., &Aliyu,
A. S. (2025). The role of implicature in legal discourse: Ambiguity and
manipulation. GVU Journal of Humanities, 8(1), 102–114.
Butt, P. (2013). Modern
legal drafting: A guide to using clearer language. Cambridge
University Press.
Charnock, R. (2006).
Clear ambiguity.In Legal language and the search for clarity (65–103).
Peter Lang.
Dauda, M. (2016). Plain
language in drafting legislation in Nigeria: The possible benefits (LL.M.
dissertation). Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, School of Advanced Study,
University of London.
Durant, A., & Leung,
J. H. C. (2017). Pragmatics in legal interpretation. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of pragmatics (535–549).Routledge.
Friedman, L. M. (1964).
Law and its language. George Washington Law Review, 33(3), 5-63.
Green, G. M. (2012).
What is pragmatics and why do I need to know, anyway? In Pragmatics and
natural language understanding, (1–16), UK: Routledge.
Grice, H. P. (1975).
Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax
and semantics: Speech acts, 41–58, Academic Press.
Hossain, M. M. (2021).
The application of Grice maxims in conversation: A pragmatic study. Journal
of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(10), 32–40.
Hunt, B. (2002). Plain
language in legislative drafting: Is it really the answer? Statute Law
Review, 23(1), 24–36.
Hunt, B. (2003). Plain
language in legislative drafting: An achievable objective or a laudable
ideal? Statute Law Review, 24(2), 112–124.
Kalejaiye, S. A.,
Oyagiri, B. I., &Idowu, A. O. (2019). Ambiguities in the language of law: A
case study of selected court cases in Nigeria. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI), 8(9), 53–59.
Marmor, A. (2008). The
pragmatics of legal language.Ratio Juris, 21(4), 423–452.
Masson, M. E. J., & Waldron,
M. A. (1994). Comprehension of legal contracts by non-experts: Effectiveness of
plain language redrafting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8(1),
67–85.
Mellinkoff, D.
(2004). The language of the law. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock
Publishers.
Nutting, C. B. (1939).
The ambiguity of unambiguous statutes. Minnesota Law Review, 24,
509–520.
Onwuteaka, A. I.
(2023). New frontiers to legislative drafting: Plain language in
perspective.National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies.
Slocum, B. G. (2017).
Pragmatics and legal texts: How best to account for the gaps between literal
meaning and communicative meaning. In D. Kurzon& B. G. Slocum (Eds.), The
pragmatic turn in law: Inference and interpretation in legal discourse,
119–144.
Solan, L. M.
(2012). The language of statutes: Laws and their interpretation.
University of Chicago Press.
Tiersma, P. M.
(1999). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.
Tiersma, P. M.
(2023). Legal language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Pre
Williams, C. (2004).
Legal English and plain language: An introduction. ESP Across Cultures,
1(1), 111–124.
Williams, C. (2011).
Legal English and plain language: An update. ESP Across Cultures, 8,
139–151.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics.Oxford
University Press.
0 Comments