Speaking in Statutes: How to Wield the Language of Law
Why we hide behind citations, and how you can use the language of institutions to navigate disputes and command respect.
The Armor of Words: Decoding the Power of Legal Formalism
"In accordance with Section 4, Article 12..."
To the average ear, this phrase is dry, dusty, and distinctively bureaucratic. It is the sound of a door closing or a gavel banging. But linguistically, this is a power move. It represents a technique we can call Legal Formalism—a specific register of language designed to project absolute authority, maximize precision, and, often, intimidate the uninitiated.
At its core, this linguistic technique involves citing established codes, statutes, or precedents to justify an action or statement. It removes the speaker’s personal agency ("I think you should do this") and replaces it with an external, indisputable force ("The regulations require this"). By appealing to a numbered section or a specific article, the speaker wraps themselves in the armor of the institution. It is a rhetorical sleight of hand that transforms a subjective decision into an objective inevitability.
The Latin Roots and Norman Conquests
To understand why we speak this way when we want to sound serious, we must look back to the very foundations of Western law. The genesis of this high-formal style lies in the collision of languages and the professionalization of justice.
In the English tradition, the roots are tangled in Law Latin and Law French. following the Norman Conquest of 1066, the language of power in England shifted. While the common folk spoke Old (and later Middle) English, the courts operated in French, and the records were kept in Latin. This created a linguistic caste system where the law was literally indecipherable to those it governed.
Early legal pioneers—scribes, clerics, and eventually the first professional lawyers—developed a specialized vocabulary not merely to communicate, but to preserve precision. A word in common usage might change its meaning over a generation, but a Latin term frozen in a statute remained constant. This birthed the reliance on specific citations and rigid formulas. The phrase "In accordance with..." is a modern descendant of Latin phrases like per statutum (by the statute). It was a way of signaling that the speaker was not acting on a whim, but was a vessel for the ancient will of the law.
The Petrified Forest: How Legalese Survived
As centuries passed, one might expect legal language to simplify and merge with the vernacular. Instead, it calcified. The popularity and staying power of this technique were driven by a distinct legal concept: stare decisis, or the doctrine of precedent.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, as the commercial world expanded and contracts became the lifeblood of the global economy, the stakes for ambiguity grew higher. If a specific phrasing of a contract held up in court in 1750, lawyers in 1850 were terrified to change a single syllable of it, lest they accidentally create a loophole. Thus, archaic structures survived. The "educational" force here was the law school method, which taught students to mimic the masters rather than innovate.
Technologically, the printing press standardized these forms, allowing "boilerplate" language to spread rapidly. What began as a necessity for precision evolved into a social signal of legitimacy. A contract didn't feel binding unless it contained "heretofore," "aforementioned," and specific citations of sections and articles. The technique became a ritual; the complexity of the sentence structure became a proxy for the seriousness of the content.
The Fine Print of Modern Existence
In the modern world, Legal Formalism has escaped the courtroom and infiltrated every aspect of our daily lives. It is the native tongue of the Terms of Service we agree to without reading; it is the dialect of the HR rejection letter and the insurance claim denial.
Today, the technique serves two primary, often conflicting, functions:
Risk Management: In a litigious society, organizations use formal citations to shield themselves. By explicitly referencing "Section 4, Article 12," a corporation signals that its actions are pre-approved by the rules. It is a defensive crouch disguised as a statement of fact.
Obfuscation and Control: Paradoxically, this technique is often used to confuse. This is known as "bafflegab." A landlord might tell a tenant, "Your request is denied pursuant to the occupancy guidelines outlined in Addendum B," rather than simply saying, "No, you can't have a cat." The formalism creates distance. It makes the decision feel unarguable and impersonal, discouraging the recipient from pushing back.
We also see this in public discourse, where politicians or officials hide behind procedural language to avoid accountability. "Mistakes were made in accordance with protocol" is a way of admitting an event happened while stripping it of human agency.
Wielding the Gavel: Empowerment
Despite its reputation for stuffiness, understanding Legal Formalism is a superpower. You do not need a law degree to navigate it, nor do you need to be a lawyer to use it effectively.
Recognizing the Technique:
When you encounter a wall of text citing sections and articles, do not let your eyes glaze over. Understand that the writer is trying to establish authority. Ask yourself: Is this citation relevant? Does the section they are quoting actually say what they claim it says? Often, people use this technique as a bluff, betting that you won't actually check "Article 12." Calling that bluff by calmly asking for the source text is often enough to shift the power dynamic.
Using it Responsibly:
There are times when you need to be the one wearing the armor. When you are advocating for yourself—perhaps fighting a billing error, negotiating a salary, or demanding a refund—shifting into a formal register can be incredibly effective.
Weak: "I think you guys overcharged me, can you check?"
Strong: "In reference to the service agreement dated July 12th, specifically the clause regarding cancellation fees..."
By adopting the language of the institution, you signal that you are serious, organized, and not easily dismissed. However, use this sparingly. In interpersonal relationships or creative endeavors, Legal Formalism kills connection. It is cold and rigid. Use it when you need a shield or a sword, but put it away when you want to build a bridge.
Ultimately, language is a tool. Legal Formalism is the heavy machinery of that toolkit—clunky and dangerous if mishandled, but capable of moving mountains when used with precision.
Keep Going!
Check out these related posts
