Is ambiguity a source of inequity? Nominalization in sustaining and effacing power asymmetries

Abstract

This article explores the tendency to nominalization in legal discourse from different perspectives, underscoring arguments from the field of critical discourse analysis (in particular, those related to the detrimental consequences that omitting the agent may entail), and offers a qualitative case study regarding the use of nouns in the informative texts given by the Spanish Social Security department on its web about a minimum wage benefit scheme. For this case study, we have used the framework proposed by Willerton (2015) involving his BUROC model, aimed at identifying the circumstances in which plain language should be a priority. As an answer to the question posed in the title of this article, the findings suggest that excessive nominalization harms the lay reader’s ability to comprehend and, as a result, places him or her in a disadvantageous position in legal settings; however, the results also indicate that it is the writer’s overall lack of empathy towards the reader which ultimately has the most negative impact on legal communication.