Linguistic Characteristics of the Legal Rule

Prepared by the researche : Ali Latreche – University Ahmed Draia of Adrar, Adrar, Algeria

DAC Democratic Arabic Center GmbH

Arabic journal for Translation studies : Thirteenth Issue – October 2025

A Periodical International Journal published by the “Democratic Arab Center” Germany – Berlin

:To download the pdf version of the research papers, please visit the following link

https://democraticac.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB-%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84-%E2%80%93-%D8%A3%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B1-2025.pdf

ORCID iD : 0009-0008-3536-4126

Introduction

Language is one of the most significant gifts bestowed by the Creator upon humanity. Through it, individuals think and express their thoughts; it forms the foundation for the development of knowledge and enables communication. Literature, poetry, and philosophy have been recorded through language, which has also served as the primary means for preserving and transmitting knowledge across civilizations. However, not all languages share the same scope of use or richness of vocabulary. Today, English is the most widely used language in the world, despite having fewer than one million terms. In contrast, Arabic, the language of the Qur’an, contains over twelve million terms, reflecting its precision and expressive power.

The nature of language varies depending on its field of use. The language of literature differs from that of the social sciences, which in turn differs from that of the natural sciences. Law, composed of a set of general and abstract rules that govern individual behavior in society, uses a specialized form of language known as legal language. This language is marked by conceptual simplicity, as it addresses a broad audience with varying levels of education. As a result, the legislative authority carefully reviews the language during the final drafting of each law’s underlying philosophy to ensure its correct application in maintaining public order. This linguistic precision in legal rules also serves to clearly define rights, freedoms, and obligations. The executive authority, through public administration, ensures the proper implementation of these rules to maintain public order. When public order is disrupted, the judiciary intervenes to address the harm by resolving the disputes brought before it.

Based on this framework, a law typically consists, in form, of a title and a preamble, followed by consecutively numbered articles, and concludes with the name of the natural person responsible for its issuance. In addition, laws are promulgated only through the official state gazette. In terms of content, legal rules are marked by generality, abstraction, and the expression of authority—whether through legislation enacted by parliament as the legislative authority or through regulations issued by the head of state or government as the executive authority.

What, then, are the linguistic features that distinguish and characterize legal norms?

To address this question, I adopted a dual academic approach, presenting my ideas through the following two main sections:

• The linguistic concept of the legal norm
• The linguistic characteristics of the legal norm

The methodologies employed are as follows:

• The analytical approach, through formal and substantive analysis of legislation and regulations to extract the distinctive linguistic features common to legal norms in general.
• The inductive approach, by examining the practical significance of the language used in formulating various legal norms and assessing its impact on reality.
• The descriptive approach, through precise description supported by concrete examples, aimed at clarifying the subject for specialized readers—such as legal researchers, including professors and students, administrators, lawyers, notaries, judicial officers, and judges of various specializations—as well as for non-specialist readers, regardless of their cultural background, with the aim of presenting a scholarly depiction of the unique linguistic nature of legal drafting.

As for the spatial and temporal framework, it is not specifically defined, since this study is not limited to a particular legal system or to the legislative authority of a given state. Rather, it constitutes a comprehensive intellectual inquiry aimed at identifying the general linguistic features that characterize most legal texts. Through this, we seek to demonstrate the importance of linguistic abstraction, in all its intended functions, for legal rules, as well as the importance of linguistic generalization, which must operate without implicit exclusion, in order to ensure the structural and substantive soundness of legal rules free from legislative gaps.

Linguistic and intellectual studies of law are rare. On this basis, the present inquiry does not rest on hypotheses, as legal studies generally do not adopt a hypothetical framework in the same way as economics, political science, or other social and human sciences. Instead, illustrative examples are provided descriptively to facilitate comprehension, since the intellectual material is primarily directed toward judges, lawyers, and members of the legislative and regulatory authorities, rather than toward linguists in the strictly academic sense.

1. The Linguistic Concept of the Legal Rule

Legal scholars define law as a set of general and abstract rules that regulate individual behavior within society. This section, which addresses the linguistic concept of the legal rule, will focus on the following points:

• The linguistic definition of the legal rule
• The linguistic nature of the legal rule
• The objectives of linguistic analysis of the legal rule

1.1. The Linguistic Definition of the Legal Rule

In Arabic, the term قاعدة (qa’idah) (Almaany) means a foundation, like the base of a building that supports everything above it. More broadly, it refers to a general principle or rule that applies uniformly to all similar cases. This meaning is used in various fields such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry, where قاعدة (qa’idah) denotes a universal rule governing comparable instances.

Accordingly, from a linguistic perspective, a legal rule is defined as a general and inclusive judgment in the legislative domain that applies equally to similar cases in society.

The term “legal” relates to the establishment of a unified system intended to regulate individual behavior within society. Combining both terms, a legal rule can be linguistically understood as a general and organized judgment that forms a framework for guiding conduct to preserve public order. Notably, such rules may address specific groups rather than the general population. For example, investment law rules apply to investors, while military law governs members of the armed forces and related personnel.

1.2. The Linguistic Nature of the Legal Norm

The language used to formulate a legal norm has distinct characteristics that set it apart from other forms of language, the most important of which are:

• Scientific Structure: Legal norms are typically composed of two parts — a condition clause and a result clause. For example, in criminal law, the condition clause defines the offense, while the result clause prescribes the corresponding penalty.
• Specialized Meaning: Legal language often assigns precise, specialized meanings to terms that may otherwise have broader meanings in general Arabic. For instance, the term “free zone” in international economic law refers specifically to areas designated for commercial and industrial activity exempt from national economic regulations. This specialized definition excludes other possible interpretations. As a result, legal texts often include provisions that define the terminology used within the law.
• Technical and Functional Significance: The main purpose of legal language is to regulate individual behavior within society by defining rights, freedoms, and obligations. This reflects a scientific and technical approach aimed at addressing social reality, unlike other types of texts that differ depending on their field.
• Precision of Meaning: Legal language aims to eliminate ambiguity, reducing the scope for interpretation and judicial discretion in applying legal rules. However, it is sometimes criticized for being vague or lacking detail, which can negatively impact individuals’ rights, freedoms, and obligations due to misinterpretations by administrative bodies or judicial rulings that deviate from sound legal reasoning.
• Interpretive and Prescriptive Significance: Legal norms use language in two main ways: some describe and regulate social relationships, while others issue commands, prohibitions, or obligations. The difference between these uses is evident in the structure and content of the legal provisions.

1.3. Objectives of Linguistic Review of the Legal Rule

The linguistic review of a legal rule involves correcting errors in the language of the law without altering its underlying legislative philosophy. This process helps ensure that the law is not misapplied by administrative bodies or judicial authorities, and does not become a source of conflicting interpretations or unauthorized judicial reasoning (ijtihad) (independent interpretation).

This need is especially relevant given the vastness of the Arabic language, which contains over twelve million terms, compared to French or English, each with fewer than one million.

When a legally precise and abstract text is aligned with accurate linguistic review that prevents misinterpretation, the following objectives are achieved:

• The supremacy of law over natural and legal persons (Al-Sarraf & Hazboun, 2022, p. 85)
• Respect for the law by members of society
• Strengthening the relationship between the constitution and various laws
• Protecting national unity, thereby safeguarding territorial integrity
• Preserving the rights of natural and legal persons
• Protecting individual freedoms
• Gaining the trust of both local and international communities
• Facilitating the administration’s work in serving citizens and foreigners
• Supporting executive authorities in protecting rights and freedoms through effective enforcement to maintain public order
• Assisting judicial authorities in safeguarding rights and freedoms through judicial oversight to preserve public order
• Ensuring stability across various transactions
• Facilitating the work of judicial auxiliaries, such as judicial police officers, court clerks, and notaries
• Enhancing confidence in the justice system by reducing the frequency of judicial ijtihad (independent interpretation)
• Ensuring consistent application of the law by reducing the scope for judicial and administrative ijtihad (independent interpretation)
• Strengthening the economy by building confidence among local and foreign economic actors, which positively affects key development sectors such as education, health, and housing
• Enhancing international creditworthiness and securing the trust of foreign economic partners

2. Linguistic Characteristics of the Legal Norm

Most laws—whether national or international, public or private – share common linguistic features in their formulation that distinguish them from ordinary language used in other fields. This distinction stems from the fact that law is a discipline focused on regulating conduct within local or international communities.

The most important linguistic characteristics examined in this study include:

• The linguistic generalization characteristic of the legal norm
• The linguistic abstraction characteristic of the legal norm
• The formality of language characteristic of the legal norm

2.1. The Linguistic Generalization Characteristic of the Legal Norm

The Arabic term taʿmīm (التعميم), meaning “generalization,” is derived from the verb ʿammama (عمّم). Its plural forms are taʿmīmāt (تعميمات) and taʿāmīm (تعاميم) (Al-Hefni, 1990). For example, the phrase “وصل تعميم إداري إلى الإدارة” refers to an official administrative memo containing instructions, guidance, or information issued by a higher authority to relevant parties, instructing them to act accordingly (Almaany, n.d.).

In the social, human, and natural sciences, generalization refers to moving from the particular to the general, or from the part to the whole. For instance, generalizing free education means making it accessible to all social groups without cost. Likewise, generalizing subsidies for widely consumed food items means granting all segments of society access to them without exception.

The generalization of legal norms follows the same logic, though with specific nuances that will be discussed below:

• The absolute linguistic generalization characteristic of the legal norm
• The exception-based linguistic generalization characteristic of the legal norm
• The individual-oriented linguistic generalization characteristic of the legal norm

2.1.1. The Property of Absolute Linguistic Generalization in Legal Rules

The term “law” encompasses all regulations published in the official gazette of the state, whether they pertain to constitutional, organic, or ordinary legislation that must be ratified by the parliament as the legislative authority, or subordinate legislation that does not require parliamentary approval (Hassanein & Shehata, 2004). From a linguistic perspective, three types of laws can be distinguished:

• General laws, which comprise general legal rules. These govern interactions between the state, through its public institutions, and various members of society – for example, administrative law, economic law, military law, and judicial law.
• Special laws, which comprise specific legal rules governing relationships between individuals within society. An example is family law, which regulates family-related matters such as marriage, divorce, annulment, separation, and inheritance.
• Mixed laws, which combine general and special legal rules. For instance, commercial law includes specific legal rules regulating relationships among merchants, alongside general legal rules governing interactions between merchants and public authorities such as tax authorities, social security institutions, and customs services.

As a general principle, most branches of these laws display absolute linguistic generalization. This means that legal rules apply without excluding any individuals addressed by the law. For example, private international law applies universally to all foreigners, reflecting absolute linguistic generalization. Similarly, public international law applies to all members of the international community—states and organizations alike—under the same principle. It is important to note, however, that this type of generalization does not preclude exceptions, which will be discussed subsequently.

2.1.2. The Linguistic Generalization of Exceptions in Legal Norms

Certain laws exhibit a distinctive feature in their legal norms known as the linguistic generalization of exceptions. This means that within the same legal framework, there are norms expressed in absolute general terms as a rule, alongside exceptions where the legislative authority excludes a specific subset from the general rule by applying special legislative provisions. Similarly, the administrative authority may exempt a particular segment by enacting specialized regulatory rules.

For example, in Algeria, electricity tariffs are standardized across the northern and highland provinces, while the southern provinces benefit from reduced tariffs due to harsh climatic conditions. Despite this exception, the generalization remains intact, as the applicable tariff is determined by the resident’s location: a citizen living in the north is subject to the northern tariff, and upon moving to the south, benefits from the reduced tariff as an exception.

This linguistic generalization of exceptions is also evident in other legal contexts, such as the exemption granted to Algerian veterans of the War of Independence from paying customs duties on foreign purchases.

2.1.3. The Linguistic Generalization of Individual Address in Legal Norms

The law may address a single legal entity or a single natural person exclusively – a feature known as the linguistic generalization of individual address within legal norms. For instance, certain legal provisions specifically address the President of the Republic by regulating their constitutional rights, powers, obligations, and eligibility criteria for the office. This same linguistic generalization of individual address applies to the President of the Council of the Nation, the President of the People’s National Assembly, and heads of independent councils outside the executive branch, such as the President of the Supreme Council of the Arabic Language, the President of the Supreme Youth Council, and the President of the Supreme Islamic Council, among others.

Although this form of address may appear to be an exception, it remains a generalization because it does not refer to a particular person by name, but rather to whoever assumes or is appointed to one of these specific legal positions.

2.2. The Linguistic Abstraction Characteristic of the Legal Rule

In Arabic, the verb جَرَّدَ (jarrada) means “to remove” or “to strip away.” Its verbal noun, تجريد (tajrīd), refers to the act of removing or stripping. For example:

• jarradahu min al-thawb (جرّده من الثوب) means “he was stripped of his garment”;
• jarrada al-thimār (جرّد الثمار) means “to peel the fruit by removing its skin”;
• jarrada al-khabar min al-tafāṣīl al-zāʾida (جرّد الخبر من التفاصيل الزائدة) means “to remove excessive details from a report”;
• jarradat-hu al-ḥukūma min ḥuqūq al-muwāṭana aw al-jinsiyya (جرّدته الحكومة من حقوق المواطنة أو الجنسية) means “the government deprived him of citizenship or nationality rights”;
• jarradahu min al-silāḥ (جرّده من السلاح) means “he was disarmed”;
• jarradahu min al-māl (جرّده من المال) means “his money was confiscated”;
• jarradahu min rutbatihi al-ʿaskariyya (جرّده من رتبته العسكرية) means “he was stripped of his military rank as a form of punishment”;
• jarrada al-sayf min ghamdihi (جرّد السيف من غمده) means “he drew the sword from its sheath (Almaany, n.d.).”

Abd al-Raḥmān Ḥabannakah al-Maydānī defines abstraction in language as follows: the stripping away of something, such as peeling the bark from a tree until it is left bare; the removal of what covers a thing, such as a garment or the like, leaving it exposed; and the elimination of what is on the skin, such as hair or similar coverings (Al-Maydani, p. 431).

The linguistic dimension of abstraction involves removing or stripping away the visible, external form to reveal what was previously hidden or internal. For example, when peeling an orange, the inedible outer layer is removed to expose the edible inner pulp. Similarly, drawing a sword from its sheath removes the outer covering to reveal the sharp, dangerous blade beneath. A citizen’s nationality serves as an outward symbol that grants inherent rights such as housing, education, healthcare, employment, voting, and candidacy for public office. If a court or government strips someone of this nationality as a penalty for wrongdoing, both the outward symbol and the underlying rights are lost. Likewise, a person uses visible money to fulfill internal needs such as shopping, purchasing real estate, or traveling; if deprived of money, they become unable to meet these needs. Finally, a military officer holds a visible rank that entitles them to rights and obligations corresponding to that rank; stripping  this rank results in the loss of all associated rights and responsibilities.

This section, which addresses the linguistic abstraction characteristic of the legal rule, will focus on the following aspects:

• The linguistic abstraction of the concept of the legal rule
• The linguistic abstraction of the legal rule from subjectivity
• The linguistic abstraction of the legal rule from emotions
• The linguistic abstraction of the legal rule in relation to the achievement of personal objectives

2.2.1. Linguistic Abstraction of the Concept of the Legal Norm

Linguistic abstraction in relation to the legal norm refers to the process of isolating the essential characteristics of any real-world phenomenon subject to regulation by stripping away external linguistic elements that obscure its defining features (Zayour, 1986). This facilitates clearer understanding and easier codification.

For example, when defining the legal nature of immovable property (real estate), it is understood to include anything attached to the land. A house physically attached to the ground is classified as immovable property, whereas a detached house is considered movable property. However, a detached house becomes immovable once it is affixed to the land. Similarly, trees and fruits attached to the land are considered immovable property; yet once the fruits are harvested for consumption or sale, they become movable property because they are no longer attached to the land. Even trees, when cut or uprooted, become movable property as they lose their attachment to the land.

Thus, the legal concept of immovable property is defined through its inherent connection to land, which serves as the fundamental reference point—land being the “mother” of immovable property. Anything attached to it is considered immovable; once detached, it ceases to be so and becomes movable.

Similarly, abstraction in everyday learning – such as with children – depends on recognizing an object’s form and function. For example, children do not understand the concept of an airplane until they encounter a toy airplane, see a stationary airplane at an airport, view images or videos of one, and finally comprehend its function by watching it fly. This process of abstraction applies to other objects and ideas that teachers must simplify for students to fully grasp.

Moreover, the science of conceptual abstraction is also relevant to the natural sciences – physics, chemistry, and mathematics – where students often struggle to understand concepts if educators fail to abstract and clearly explain them.

On this basis, the language used in drafting legal rules must be clear and easily understood by all individuals to whom these rules apply. For example, merchants understand the concepts of commercial law because its terminology is unambiguous; similarly, military personnel comprehend military law, and judges understand judicial law. When technical terms that may be difficult to understand appear, the legislative authority explains their meanings at the beginning of the law before addressing its substantive content. In other words, the language is stripped of ambiguity to prevent recipients from claiming non-compliance due to misunderstanding. Regulatory authorities follow the same practice when drafting subsidiary regulations.

Even when ambiguous terms appear in legal rules, they must be interpreted—that is, their meanings clarified to eliminate vagueness, gaps, lack of necessary detail, or contradictions arising from the appearance of similar concepts in different laws. When this interpretation is carried out by legal scholars or researchers (Ramadan, 1986, p. 189), it is called doctrinal interpretation. If done by the legislator, it is referred to as legislative interpretation. When performed by regulatory authorities, it is termed administrative interpretation. Judicial interpretation occurs when judges clarify the meaning of legal rules while resolving disputes brought before them, forming what is known as binding judicial precedent. However, if judges interpret legal concepts outside the context of adjudicating disputes—such as in research papers or academic seminars – this is not considered binding precedent but rather non-binding doctrinal interpretation.

2.2.2. The Linguistic Abstraction of Legal Norms from Subjectivity

Subjectivity and objectivity are opposing concepts in the social and human sciences. Subjectivity relates to an individual’s personal perception of reality, which—being an expression of personal freedom and freedom of thought—is harmless as long as it remains within the bounds of individual cognition. However, subjectivity becomes problematic when it influences the collective, with the extent of harm proportional to the size of the affected group. Since most laws begin as drafts or proposals, and given that a bill often reflects the personal, subjective views of the minister responsible for its preparation rather than an objective analysis, it is possible for such a draft—despite its subjectivity—to be approved by the Council of Ministers, ratified by the legislative authority, and ultimately enacted as binding law in the state’s official gazette.

Over time, however, the shortcomings of such laws may become evident through their negative effects on the targeted social groups, such as the education sector, artisan communities, persons with special needs, and others. The same concern applies to various subordinate regulatory instruments, as their drafting and rule-making processes may also be shaped by individual subjectivity. The risks posed by subjectively drafted regulations are often greater than those of similar laws, particularly because regulations—such as presidential and executive decrees or ministerial decisions—are published directly in the official gazette without parliamentary oversight.

Therefore, legal norms must be linguistically abstracted from subjectivity to avoid flawed laws that harm individuals and society by infringing on their rights, obligations, and freedoms. This issue is further compounded by the inability to challenge such laws on constitutional grounds before judicial bodies or the constitutional court, as long as they do not explicitly violate the constitution.

2.2.3. The Linguistic Abstraction of the Legal Rule from Emotions

Providing a precise scientific definition of emotion – as a human feeling directed toward oneself or others – is difficult due to its complexity, the varying intensities of emotional states, and their diverse effects on human and social relationships. These relationships are the primary focus of legal regulation (Ghoneim, 2023, p. 65). Humans are central to both the application and formulation of legal rules (Jamous, 2021), as well as to the issuance of judicial rulings based on them. Emotion, as a psychological phenomenon, can motivate individuals toward benevolent actions, but it can also lead them to commit crimes or other unlawful acts. Moreover, emotion influences judges when resolving disputes – whether civil, criminal, or administrative – and can result in judicial decisions not entirely free from emotional bias. Such emotions may favor one party at the expense of another, especially when judges rely on personal interpretation in cases where legal texts are absent, incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory. For this reason, justice is generally organized through a two-tier adjudication system.

This discussion of the linguistic abstraction of the legal rule from emotions concerns the rule’s foundational development—from a philosophical concept to a draft law. The formation of this idea and legislative proposal must not be based on emotions that are harmful to society as a whole or to any of its segments, since the result is intended to become binding law. However, this does not exclude the presence of emotion in enacted laws, as the formal and substantive linguistic construction of legal rules is shaped by individuals rather than collectives. Emotion may serve the public interest when aligned with the common good, but it can also harm society when driven by private interests.

2.2.4. Linguistic Abstraction of the Legal Norm in Relation to the Pursuit of Personal Interests

Many states and civilizations that have experienced periods of moral decline and political corruption have gone through phases marked by the personal selfishness of influential individuals in positions of power, both broadly and narrowly defined. These individuals seek to promote private interests at the expense of the public good. Such dynamics have led to societal corruption, often sustained by corrupt political factions within governments. These governments spread corruption in two main ways: first, through poor enforcement of the law, and second, through the flawed enactment of laws designed primarily to serve their personal interests rather than those of society. Numerous examples illustrate this phenomenon, which need not be listed here. In some cases, laws are enacted specifically to restrict the freedoms of certain individuals.

From this perspective, law can only serve the public interest effectively if its legal norms are linguistically abstracted from the pursuit of personal objectives.

2.3. The Formality Characteristic of Legal Language

In a state governed by the rule of law, the constitution stands as the highest legal authority. All other laws, regardless of their legislative level or nature, are subordinate to it. Laws acquire legal force only upon their publication in the official state gazette. No law may contradict the constitution; if it does, it is deemed unconstitutional. Likewise, any legal norm of lower hierarchical status must not conflict with higher-ranking norms in the state’s legal hierarchy, or it will be considered invalid.

The constitutional court serves as the judicial body responsible for overseeing the constitutionality and legality of laws when called upon to do so.

The Constitutional Court cannot grant legal effect to draft laws issued by the government or to proposed laws submitted by members of parliament unless these proposals have been formally enacted and published in the official gazette. The official gazette serves as the authoritative source recognized by all natural and legal persons in both the public and private sectors. It indicates that the new legal provisions published therein are binding, while any repealed rules lose their legal force.

However, reliance on the official gazette alone is not sufficient to establish the formal validity of enacted laws. All preliminary legal procedures must also be official, including parliamentary debates, meeting the required voting thresholds, and the signature of the head of state on the legislation.

The formal language of legal rules differs significantly from customary rules and from the language used in drafting other types of texts (Ramdhane, p. 125). This formality in legal drafting is reflected in several ways:

• The formality in prohibitive language coupled with penalties
• The formality in imperative language coupled with penalties
• The formality in interpretative language
• The formality in the preamble language
• The formality in the precise identification of the persons addressed by the legal rule
• The formality in the enactment process

2.3.1. Formality in Prohibitive Language Coupled with Penalties

Many legal rules combine prohibitive language with prescribed penalties. This language is formal because it originates from an official authority, namely the legislative body. For example, disposing of industrial waste into watercourses is prohibited, and violators may face fines or imprisonment. Similarly, unlawfully accepting gifts or advantages in exchange for providing public services is forbidden, with offenders subject to imprisonment. Disclosing trade secrets is also prohibited, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment depending on the severity and impact on public order. This use of formal prohibitive language, along with penalties, means that any violation of the legal rule results in a legal sanction. In contrast, prohibitive language in customary rules lacks binding penal consequences. Thus, legal rules are characterized by formal prohibitive language tied to enforceable penalties.

2.3.2. Formality in the Language of Command Coupled with Sanctions

In civil law, the language of command appears frequently in various legal norms. For example, it is found in provisions obligating the party causing harm to compensate the injured party, or requiring the debtor to pay the creditor’s dues within the agreed timeframe. In criminal law, it appears in provisions mandating the reporting of criminals under penalty of sanction. Similarly, commercial law includes provisions requiring companies to pay taxes and mandating publicly listed companies to disclose their financial information quarterly. These and other examples show that legal norms are linguistically characterized by the coupling of command with sanction. This language originates from the legislative authority in the case of statutes, and from the administrative authority in the case of regulations.

2.3.3. Formality in the Language of Interpretation

Laws enacted by individuals representing the legislative or administrative authority aim to regulate the conduct of members of society based on lived reality – a reality marked by constant change and dynamism. Therefore, it is impossible for the legislator to have complete knowledge of all aspects of this reality or to anticipate its future developments, given the inherent limitations of human cognition. As a result, certain gaps inevitably arise (Latrech, 2020, p. 45), such as:

• The absence of a legal norm,
• The incomplete definition of a legal norm,
• The ambiguity of a legal norm,
• The lack of specificity in a generalized legal norm,
• Contradictions between legal norms, whether within the same law or across different laws.

These gaps lead to divergent doctrinal interpretations and judicial rulings. In response, legislators may sometimes intervene by enacting interpretative legal provisions to resolve these discrepancies—this is known as interpretative legislation. Similar gaps exist within regulatory texts, prompting the administrative authority to issue interpretative regulations. Ultimately, the legal norm is distinguished from other texts by the formality embodied in its language of interpretation.

2.3.4. Formality in the Language of the Preamble

Laws typically distinguish themselves from other texts through the use of a preamble written in clear and accessible language. Through this preamble, the legislator clarifies:

• The purpose of enacting the legislation
• The nature of the legislation – whether it establishes new legal rules, supplements existing rules to address changes in the regulated reality, or amends those rules
• The category of individuals to whom the legal rules are addressed
• The relationship of the legislation to other existing laws, if any

The preamble plays a crucial role in clarifying the legal philosophy underlying the legislator’s intent. It assists legal scholars in developing doctrinal interpretations to address gaps in the law and helps judges guide their judicial reasoning. It also supports administrative authorities in interpreting legal ambiguities. Thus, the language of the legal rule is marked by a formality that is particularly evident in the preamble.

2.3.5. Linguistic Formality in Identifying the Addressees of the Legal Rule

The phrase “ignorance of the law is no excuse” is universally recognized; however, this does not mean that individuals are required to know all laws. Rather, they are obligated to know the laws applicable to them. For example, commercial law applies to merchants, investment law targets investors, and traffic law governs vehicle drivers. The legislator explicitly determines the group to which each law is directed. Thus, a person who establishes an investment without completing the required legal procedures acts unlawfully under investment law; someone who operates a retail shop without commercial registration violates commercial law; and a driver operating a vehicle without a valid license is acting unlawfully—even if they drive skillfully and cause no accidents. Such individuals cannot claim ignorance of the law. Accordingly, the legal rule is distinguished by linguistic formality in the precise specification of its addressees.

2.3.6. Linguistic Formality in the Issuance of Legal Norms

The linguistic formality in the issuance of legal norms is characterized by the following features:

• Formality in the Issuance Format: Legal norms are promulgated exclusively through the official state gazette; no other means of issuance are recognized.
• Formality in the Language of Issuance: The language used must be the formal standard language officially recognized by the state. This means that the formulation must strictly follow grammatical and morphological rules. The vocabulary should be clear, simple, and free of figurative expressions or ambiguity. Attention is also given to punctuation marks—such as commas and periods—to avoid legal loopholes that could lead to excessive judicial interpretation.
• Formality in Defining the Spatial Scope of the Legal Norm: For example, a law governing a free economic zone explicitly states that its provisions apply only within the geographical boundaries of that zone. It also clarifies that the state’s general economic laws—such as labor law, union law, and tax law—do not apply within the zone.
• Formality in Defining the Temporal Scope of the Legal Norm: The legislator typically specifies when the law takes effect, either from the date of its publication in the official gazette or from a designated later date. Likewise, the end of a law’s validity or the repeal of any legal norm is also formally declared through publication in the official gazette.

4. Conclusion

The science of law is deeply rooted in ancient civilizations and is distinguished by the unique nature and subject matter of its rules. Its development has been significantly shaped by legal scholars, while state leaders have contributed to consolidating its concepts, recognizing its crucial role in regulating most interpersonal relations within society. The language of law differs fundamentally from the language used in other fields such as literature, philosophy, poetry, psychology, and the social and natural sciences.

The language used in formulating legal rules is characterized by several distinct features, most notably: scientific specificity, where the legal rule consists of a hypothetical part and a corresponding consequence; precision of meaning, leaving no room for ambiguity or interpretive discretion; an interpretative or mandatory character, as some legal rules describe reality while others convey commands, prohibitions, or obligations; a functional-technical dimension aimed at regulating individuals’ behavior by defining the framework of rights, freedoms, and duties; and a particularizing feature, whereby legal language assigns specific meanings to certain terms, despite their broader semantic range in Arabic.

These linguistic features hold great significance for the rule of law over both natural and legal persons. They foster respect for the law among members of society, strengthen the relationship between the constitution and various laws, and protect national unity, which in turn safeguards territorial integrity. They also preserve the rights of natural and legal persons and protect individual freedoms, while building trust both locally and internationally. Furthermore, these features facilitate the work of administrative authorities in serving citizens and foreigners, support executive authorities in safeguarding rights and freedoms through effective enforcement to maintain public order, and assist judicial authorities in protecting rights and freedoms through judicial regulation. They also ensure stability in various transactions, ease the work of judicial auxiliaries such as law enforcement officers, judicial officers, and notaries, and enhance confidence in the justice system by reducing inconsistent judicial interpretations.

Additionally, they ensure uniform application of the law by minimizing judicial and administrative discretion, thereby strengthening the economy by bolstering the confidence of both local and foreign economic actors. This confidence positively affects all development sectors—including education, health, housing, and employment—and improves the country’s international credit rating, further securing the trust of foreign economic partners.

Legal rules are characterized by generality, abstraction, and formality. The feature of generality is further divided into absolute linguistic generalization, which applies to legal rules whether they are general, specific, or mixed; linguistic generalization by exception; and linguistic generalization in individual communication. Despite these distinctions, all are forms of generalization. These characteristics are unique to the language used in legal drafting compared to other types of language.

Linguistic abstraction in legal rules serves first to simplify the concept, and then to eliminate subjectivity, emotion, and the pursuit of  personal interests. The formal language of legal rules also differs significantly from that of customary rules, particularly through the use of prohibitive and imperative expressions accompanied by penalties. Moreover, formality is evident in the language of interpretation, the preamble, the enactment process, and the precise identification of the persons addressed by the legal rule.

These unique features of legal language play a crucial role in preventing various legal gaps that negatively affect different transactions and public order. Such gaps often arise from the multiplicity and divergence of judicial interpretations concerning a single legal lacuna.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

Al-Hefni, A.-M. (1990). Philosophical Dictionary. Cairo: Al-Dar Al-Sharqiyyah.

Almaany. Almaany Arabic English English Arabic Online Dictionary. Retrieved 06-04-2025, from Almaany: https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/

Almaany. Jard Entry Arabic Arabic Dictionary. Retrieved 06-07-2025, from Almaany: https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/جرد/

Al-Sarraf, A., & Hazboun, G. (2022). Introduction to the Science of Law. Amman: Dar Al-Thaqafa for Publishing and Distribution.

Ghoneim, M. E.-S. (2023). The Professional Guide for the Language Proofreader (2^nd Ed.). Makawi Academy for Linguistic Training.

Hassanein, A. T., & Shehata, H. (2004). Rules of Arabic Orthography: Between Theory and Application. Maktabat al-Dar al-Arabiyyah lil-Kitab.

Jamous, D. A. (2021). The Legal Rule and Its Characteristics. Retrieved 06-12-2025, from Wadaq Legal Encyclopedia: https://wadaq.info/

Latreche, A. (2020). Methodologies within the Framework of the Schools of Interpretation. Tlemcen: University of Tlemcen.

Ramadan, A. A.-S. (1986). Introduction to Law with Special Reference to Egyptian and Lebanese Law. Alexandria: University House.

Ramdhane, K. (2022). The Generalization of the Use of the Arabic Language in Algeria: Between Official Texts and the Challenges of Reality. Journal of Integration, 6(14), 117-139.

Zayour, A. (1986). Arab Philosophical Encyclopedia. Beirut: Arab Development Institute.