5 ms·

> (b) suggest such processing difficulties result largely from working-memory limitations imposed by long-distance syntactic dependencies (i.e., poor writing) a

> (b) suggest such processing difficulties result largely from working-memory limitations imposed by long-distance syntactic dependencies (i.e., poor writing) as opposed to a mere lack of specialized legal knowledge; It seems like a misrepresentation to call “long-distance syntactic dependencies” in a legal document the same thing as poor writing when comparing to other genres of written English including those that are written for pleasure. When exploring law the question an individual usually has is “If I do X, does Y happen?”. But legal frameworks don’t cover individual situations, they paint broad strokes over the human experience.

johndhi 4y ago
I'm guessing what they mean with long distance dependencies is section 3 of the contract sets one scenario and section 46 an exception to it. This happens (normally, intentionally) when there is a section up front or at the end that sets defined terms. It also happens in a way we lawyers agree kind of sucks but whatever who cares - when after a long negotiation we're adjusting one small point and don't want to go through the effort and consternation of rewriting the whole thing. Legal negotiation culture states that the longer/more involved your edits, the more presumptively unreasonable they are. So there is low incentive to rewrite something to make it "read better."
- Jtsummers 4y ago
  No need to guess, they give an example of the kind of thing they mean: > “In the event that any payment or benefit by the Company (all such payments and benefits, including the payments and benefits under Section 3(a) hereof, being hereinafter referred to as the ‘Total Payments’), would be subject to excise tax, then the cash severance payments shall be reduced.” "center-embedding" is the term they use to describe this, note the long interruption of the primary sentence due to the embedding. A suggested alternative which removes the embedding making the primary sentence easier to understand: > “In the event that any payment or benefit by the Company would be subject to excise tax, then the cash severance payments shall be reduced. All payments and benefits by the Company shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Total Payments.’ This includes the payments and benefits under Section 3(a) hereof.”
YawningAngel 4y ago
> But legal frameworks don’t cover individual situations, they paint broad strokes over the human experience. If that doesn't cohere with the questions individuals exploring the law actually have, maybe that isn't a good way for legal frameworks to be designed?
- johndhi 4y ago
  This is a very complicated proposal you've made but I think the main answer is, it isn't scalable for policymakers or even courts to consider everyone's individual situation a priori. It would cost too much money.
  - YawningAngel 4y ago
    It seems to me that our existing legal system costs an enormous amount of money, in that it produces laws that can't be usefully engaged with by lay people without expensive expert advice. It just conveniently externalises this cost on to people who aren't policymakers.

johndhi 4y ago

I'm guessing what they mean with long distance dependencies is section 3 of the contract sets one scenario and section 46 an exception to it. This happens (normally, intentionally) when there is a section up front or at the end that sets defined terms. It also happens in a way we lawyers agree kind of sucks but whatever who cares - when after a long negotiation we're adjusting one small point and don't want to go through the effort and consternation of rewriting the whole thing. Legal negotiation culture states that the longer/more involved your edits, the more presumptively unreasonable they are. So there is low incentive to rewrite something to make it "read better."

Jtsummers 4y ago
No need to guess, they give an example of the kind of thing they mean: > “In the event that any payment or benefit by the Company (all such payments and benefits, including the payments and benefits under Section 3(a) hereof, being hereinafter referred to as the ‘Total Payments’), would be subject to excise tax, then the cash severance payments shall be reduced.” "center-embedding" is the term they use to describe this, note the long interruption of the primary sentence due to the embedding. A suggested alternative which removes the embedding making the primary sentence easier to understand: > “In the event that any payment or benefit by the Company would be subject to excise tax, then the cash severance payments shall be reduced. All payments and benefits by the Company shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Total Payments.’ This includes the payments and benefits under Section 3(a) hereof.”

YawningAngel 4y ago

> But legal frameworks don’t cover individual situations, they paint broad strokes over the human experience. If that doesn't cohere with the questions individuals exploring the law actually have, maybe that isn't a good way for legal frameworks to be designed?

johndhi 4y ago
This is a very complicated proposal you've made but I think the main answer is, it isn't scalable for policymakers or even courts to consider everyone's individual situation a priori. It would cost too much money.
- YawningAngel 4y ago
  It seems to me that our existing legal system costs an enormous amount of money, in that it produces laws that can't be usefully engaged with by lay people without expensive expert advice. It just conveniently externalises this cost on to people who aren't policymakers.