4 ms·

> That analysis revealed that legal documents frequently have long definitions inserted in the middle of sentences — a feature known as “center-embedding.” Ling

> That analysis revealed that legal documents frequently have long definitions inserted in the middle of sentences — a feature known as “center-embedding.” Linguists have previously found that this kind of structure can make text much more difficult to understand. Can anyone provide an example sentence from a legal source with center embedding? Multiple examples, ideally? It is maddening that so much of the article is about this, but they refuse to actually show it to us.

sbelskie 2y ago
> “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.” > The paper offers this as a more understandable alternative, with the definition separated out: > “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.” https://bcs.mit.edu/news/objection-no-one-can-understand-what-youre-saying https://bcs.mit.edu/news/objection-no-one-can-understand-wha...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Would note that when drafting contracts, this is extremely natural to do. You notice you’re reusing a concept and so define it at first mention. Or you write something and later notice an ambiguity. Speaking as a non-lawyer who drafts things from time to time (to be reviewed by a lawyer).
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    Indeed, I find the original to be less ambiguous. Why does the second version refer to payments and benefits in the first sentence, and then give them a name in the second sentence? In the revised version, I'm now very unclear whether Section 3a payments apply to the first sentence or not. The original makes it crystal-clear that they do; the revised version almost suggests they don't, since they were explicitly added to sentence 2 but not sentence 1.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      They're often supreme Court cases over exactly this issue. Yeah varying definitions in different parts of legislation, which refer to different overlapping scopes or contacts. The court then goes to contextual clues for which reading is better supported. This can be the structural formatting of the legislation, public discourse of the legislature, or logical arguments. Overall, it's usually a mess.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    Not just contracts, this is a variation of an "aside" and I've seen it often enough in books that it's normal to me. I do it pretty regularly in comments here, too.
gosub100 2y ago
Any person or persons who tampers, alters, misrepresents, enhances, or otherwise knowingly $VERBs the $NOUN, $NOUNs, or other representations of $NOUN, shall be in violation pursuant to regulations §175.4 ($VERBing) and subject to penalties pursuant to §96.3 (hereinafter PENALTIES).
vonunov 2y ago
From the supplementary material of their 2022 study "Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language"¹ (in this example, embedded clauses, the best example of which, in my opinion, can be found in the final sentence of the paragraph hereinunder, are indicated by italics): ⏞ It is understood by Lessees, standing liable for violating obligations inter se, hereinbefore set forth in Clause 3 of this real estate agreement, that Lessors shall be exempt from liability for any damages, to the maximum extent not prohibited by law, unless Lessors knew of the possibility of such damage and acted with scienter. Lessee's aggregate liability inter se for all claims, including those based on tort or statutory liability, is limited to $1000 by this agreement. Personal injury damages, limitations of liability of which, excepting those for emotional distress, this jurisdiction prohibits, are not affected by the foregoing provisions. ⏟ "So much for plain language: An analysis of the accessibility of United States federal laws over time"² clarifies what these researchers count as center-embedding: ⏞ Center-embedded clauses. Plain-language guidelines discourage the use of "convoluted" sentences, particularly those that are "loaded with dependent clauses" and which separate the "essential parts" of a sentence from each other (i.e. the subject, verb and object). The most notorious examples of such sentences contain center-embedded structures, in which a sentence or clause is embedded within the center of another sentence or clause ("all such payments and benefits, including the payments and benefits under Section 3(a) hereof, being hereinafter referred to as the 'Total Payments'"). Center-embedded structures cause processing difficulty for readers (Gibson, 1998) and have been shown to inhibit recall of legal content relative to clauses that have been un-embedded into separate sentences (Martinez, Mollica, & Gibson, 2021). Here we calculated the percentage of sentences in each corpus containing a center-embedded clause. We coded a sentence as containing a center-embedded clause if a predicate dependent clause as parsed by Stanza (i.e. clausal subjects, clausal complements, open clausal complements, adjectival clauses, and adverbial clauses) was followed by a word as opposed to an end-of-sentence punctuation mark. ⏟ Most examples I've found seem to focus more strictly on constructions along the lines of: The ice cream{that the boy [that the girl liked] bought} melted.³ As opposed to this one, which is not center-embedded: The girl{that likes the boy [that bought the ice cream] } sang. I'm not sure exactly how strict the definition of a center-embedded clause is meant to be. If it does mean only a phrase embedded within another phrase of the same type as described in the Wikipedia article, then aren't Martinez, et al. taking some liberties with it? Or is it really a broader concept than that? Going back to the second paragraph of this comment, "including those based on tort or statutory liability" seems especially out of place. Does a mere parenthetical phrase -- and not a particularly disorienting one at that -- really count? It isn't a recursive relative clause of the kind I see people use to illustrate center-embedding. The supporting information for "Even Laypeople Use Legalese"⁴ has what I assume are more examples of center-embedding according to these researchers (in the statutes linked): ⏞ Any person who trafficks in marihuana by knowingly or intentionally manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or cultivating or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or cultivate, or by bringing into the commonwealth a net weight of fifty pounds or more of marihuana or a net weight of fifty pounds or more of any mixture containing marihuana shall, if the net weight of marihuana or any mixture thereof is [ . . . ] [f]ifty pounds or more, but less than one hundred pounds, be punished by a term of imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half nor more than fifteen years or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not less than one nor more than two and one-half years. ⏟ 1. https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0010027722000580-mmc1.pdf https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S00100277220005... 2. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/hpxqu https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/hpxqu 3. https://www.polyu.edu.hk/cbs/sjpolit/classes/cbs516/psycholinguisticprocessing/understanding-center-embedding.html https://www.polyu.edu.hk/cbs/sjpolit/classes/cbs516/psycholi... 4. https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2405564121/suppl_file/pnas.2405564121.sapp.pdf https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2405564121/suppl...

sbelskie 2y ago

> “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.” > The paper offers this as a more understandable alternative, with the definition separated out: > “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.” https://bcs.mit.edu/news/objection-no-one-can-understand-what-youre-saying https://bcs.mit.edu/news/objection-no-one-can-understand-wha...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Would note that when drafting contracts, this is extremely natural to do. You notice you’re reusing a concept and so define it at first mention. Or you write something and later notice an ambiguity. Speaking as a non-lawyer who drafts things from time to time (to be reviewed by a lawyer).
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Indeed, I find the original to be less ambiguous. Why does the second version refer to payments and benefits in the first sentence, and then give them a name in the second sentence? In the revised version, I'm now very unclear whether Section 3a payments apply to the first sentence or not. The original makes it crystal-clear that they do; the revised version almost suggests they don't, since they were explicitly added to sentence 2 but not sentence 1.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    They're often supreme Court cases over exactly this issue. Yeah varying definitions in different parts of legislation, which refer to different overlapping scopes or contacts. The court then goes to contextual clues for which reading is better supported. This can be the structural formatting of the legislation, public discourse of the legislature, or logical arguments. Overall, it's usually a mess.
- Izkata 2y ago
  Not just contracts, this is a variation of an "aside" and I've seen it often enough in books that it's normal to me. I do it pretty regularly in comments here, too.

gosub100 2y ago

Any person or persons who tampers, alters, misrepresents, enhances, or otherwise knowingly $VERBs the $NOUN, $NOUNs, or other representations of $NOUN, shall be in violation pursuant to regulations §175.4 ($VERBing) and subject to penalties pursuant to §96.3 (hereinafter PENALTIES).

vonunov 2y ago

From the supplementary material of their 2022 study "Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language"¹ (in this example, embedded clauses, the best example of which, in my opinion, can be found in the final sentence of the paragraph hereinunder, are indicated by italics): ⏞ It is understood by Lessees, standing liable for violating obligations inter se, hereinbefore set forth in Clause 3 of this real estate agreement, that Lessors shall be exempt from liability for any damages, to the maximum extent not prohibited by law, unless Lessors knew of the possibility of such damage and acted with scienter. Lessee's aggregate liability inter se for all claims, including those based on tort or statutory liability, is limited to $1000 by this agreement. Personal injury damages, limitations of liability of which, excepting those for emotional distress, this jurisdiction prohibits, are not affected by the foregoing provisions. ⏟ "So much for plain language: An analysis of the accessibility of United States federal laws over time"² clarifies what these researchers count as center-embedding: ⏞ Center-embedded clauses. Plain-language guidelines discourage the use of "convoluted" sentences, particularly those that are "loaded with dependent clauses" and which separate the "essential parts" of a sentence from each other (i.e. the subject, verb and object). The most notorious examples of such sentences contain center-embedded structures, in which a sentence or clause is embedded within the center of another sentence or clause ("all such payments and benefits, including the payments and benefits under Section 3(a) hereof, being hereinafter referred to as the 'Total Payments'"). Center-embedded structures cause processing difficulty for readers (Gibson, 1998) and have been shown to inhibit recall of legal content relative to clauses that have been un-embedded into separate sentences (Martinez, Mollica, & Gibson, 2021). Here we calculated the percentage of sentences in each corpus containing a center-embedded clause. We coded a sentence as containing a center-embedded clause if a predicate dependent clause as parsed by Stanza (i.e. clausal subjects, clausal complements, open clausal complements, adjectival clauses, and adverbial clauses) was followed by a word as opposed to an end-of-sentence punctuation mark. ⏟ Most examples I've found seem to focus more strictly on constructions along the lines of: The ice cream{that the boy [that the girl liked] bought} melted.³ As opposed to this one, which is not center-embedded: The girl{that likes the boy [that bought the ice cream] } sang. I'm not sure exactly how strict the definition of a center-embedded clause is meant to be. If it does mean only a phrase embedded within another phrase of the same type as described in the Wikipedia article, then aren't Martinez, et al. taking some liberties with it? Or is it really a broader concept than that? Going back to the second paragraph of this comment, "including those based on tort or statutory liability" seems especially out of place. Does a mere parenthetical phrase -- and not a particularly disorienting one at that -- really count? It isn't a recursive relative clause of the kind I see people use to illustrate center-embedding. The supporting information for "Even Laypeople Use Legalese"⁴ has what I assume are more examples of center-embedding according to these researchers (in the statutes linked): ⏞ Any person who trafficks in marihuana by knowingly or intentionally manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or cultivating or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or cultivate, or by bringing into the commonwealth a net weight of fifty pounds or more of marihuana or a net weight of fifty pounds or more of any mixture containing marihuana shall, if the net weight of marihuana or any mixture thereof is [ . . . ] [f]ifty pounds or more, but less than one hundred pounds, be punished by a term of imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half nor more than fifteen years or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not less than one nor more than two and one-half years. ⏟ 1. https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0010027722000580-mmc1.pdf https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S00100277220005... 2. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/hpxqu https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/hpxqu 3. https://www.polyu.edu.hk/cbs/sjpolit/classes/cbs516/psycholinguisticprocessing/understanding-center-embedding.html https://www.polyu.edu.hk/cbs/sjpolit/classes/cbs516/psycholi... 4. https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2405564121/suppl_file/pnas.2405564121.sapp.pdf https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2405564121/suppl...