LEGAL ENGLISH: LEXICAL COMPETENCE AND CURRICULUM DESIGN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46991/AFA/2026.SI-2.57Keywords:
Legal English, ESP, lexical competence, curriculum design, legal discourse, vocabulary teaching strategies, cross-cultural awarenessAbstract
This paper examines both linguistic and pedagogical aspects of legal vocabulary instruction in English for Law courses. The research examines legal language through its formal, precise, and culturally specific nature by studying vocabulary classification, polysemy, synonymy, and lexical field structure in legal discourse. The study aims to develop an effective teaching method for legal lexis to improve students' subject-specific fluency, legal reasoning abilities, and English communicative competence. The research applies theoretical models from applied linguistics, legal semiotics, and ESP curriculum design to achieve its objectives. The research employs descriptive and comparative methods to study authentic legal texts, analyze legal genre terminology and lexical patterns, and develop practical teaching methods for Armenian higher education. The paper examines content-based instruction and conceptual field mapping as recommended instructional methods. The research demonstrates that successful legal vocabulary instruction requires cognitive, contextual, and functional methods that move beyond memorization to develop semantic understanding and cultural awareness. The interdisciplinary approach leads to legal English curriculum innovation through recommendations for developing vocabulary-intensive ESP syllabi.
Downloads
References
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.
Bhatia, V. K., Candlin, C. N., & Gotti, M. (2008). Legal discourse across cultures and systems. Hong Kong University Press.
Carter, R. (1998). Vocabulary: Applied linguistic perspectives. Routledge.
Chirinova, I. I. (2016). Teaching legal English in higher education: A comparative perspective. Yurait Publishing.
Garner, B. A. (2019). Black’s Law Dictionary. Thomson Reuters.
Haigh, R. (2018). Legal English. Routledge.
Harutyunyan, A. A. (2011). English for law students: A lexical approach. YSU Press.
Harutyunyan, A. A. (2011). The specifics of legal terminology and its use in translation. Yerevan State University Legal Review, 3, 229-240.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred approach. Cambridge University Press.
Khizhnyak, S. P. (1997). Yuridicheskaya terminologiya: Formirovanie i sostav [Legal terminology: Formation and structure]. Izdatel’stvo Saratovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. (in Russian)
Miloslavskaya, D. I. (2000). Typical difficulties in the semantic interpretation of a legal text. Legal Linguistics, Altai State University, 104-116.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.2307/3585941
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Šarčević, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. Kluwer Law International.
Sheigal, E. I. (2000). Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa [Semiotics of political discourse]. Peremena. (in Russian)
Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.
Tomakhin, G. D. (1981). Lingvostranovedcheskaya teoriya stranyevedcheskogo materiala [Linguo-Cultural theory of cultural material. Russian Language Publishers. (in Russian)
Voskanyan, A. (2019). The intercultural aspect of teaching the legal English sub-language. Yerevan State University.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Anahit Voskanyan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
