Lexico-sementic characterstics of business letter correspondence
Lexico-sementic characterstics of business letter correspondence
Êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà
ïî òåìå:
«LEXICO-SEMENTIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF BUSINESS LETTER CORRESPONDENCE»
Ñäàëà: ñòóäåíòêà ãð. ÐÏ -41
Þð÷åíêî Ì. Â.
Ïðèíÿëà: ñò. ïðåïîäàâàòåëü Ãàëè÷åíêî Í. Þ.
Content
Content.........................................................................................
ANNOTATION..................................................................................
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................
BUSINESS LETTERS THROUGHT LEXICS................................
A
sampling of contract phrases......................................
Foreign
esoteric words.....................................................
Some
words against passive.............................................
EXAMINING ENGLISH BUSINESS LETTERS..........................
Example
1....................................................................................
Example2.....................................................................................
Example
3....................................................................................
Example
4....................................................................................
Example
5....................................................................................
Example
6....................................................................................
CONCLUSION................................................................................
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................
The subject matter of the course paper is the role of lexics
and semantics in the case of business letter correspondence. The question of
the history of official communication, the main stages of business
transactions, the role of person’s feeling for the proper use of phrases as
well as his knowledge of grammar are highlighted. Moreover, those phrases which
are more often used in business letters are examined from the point of view of
their appropriateness in different situations. The practical part contains
several examples of business letters; the occasions on which they were written
and some of their characteristics are observed.
Letter writing
- is an essential part of communication, an intimate part of experience.
Each letter-writer has a characteristic way of writing, his style of writing, his way of expressing thoughts, facts,
etc. but it must be emphasised that the routine of the official or semi-official business letters requires certain
accepted idioms, phrases, patterns, and grammar which are found in general use today. Therefore certain skills must be
acquired by practice, and details of writing must be carefully and thoroughly learnt.
A cheque, a
contract or any other business paper sent by mail should always be accompanied by
a letter. The letter says what is being sent so that the recipient should know exactly what you intended to send. It is a
typical business letter which some people call "routine". The letter may be short or long, it may contain some very important
and much less important information - every letter requires careful planning and thoughtful writing.
In recent
years English has become a universal business language. As such, it is
potentially an instrument of order and clarity. But words and phrases have
unexpected ways of creating binding commitments.
Letter-writing, certainly, is not the same as casual conversation, it bears only the
same power of thoughts, reflections, and observations as in conversational talk, but the form may be quite different.
What makes the letter so attractive and pleasing is not always the massage of the letter, it is often the manner and
style in which the massage is written.
E.g.: "I wish to express to you
my sincere appreciation for your note of congratulation."
or
"I
am sincerely happy that you were elected President of Biological
Society."
As you see
such formulations show the attitude of the writer, his respect and sincerity.
The language
of business, professional and semi-official letters is formal, courteous,
tactful, concise, expressive, and to the point. A neatly arranged letter will
certainly make a better impression on the reader, thus good letters make good
business partners.
In the case of
"scientific correspondence" the majority of letters bear mostly a
semi-official character and are concerned with different situations
associated with scientific activities concentrated around the organisation of
scientific meetings (congresses, symposia, workshops, etc.), the
arrangement of visit, invitation, publication, the exchange of scientific literature,
information, etc. Letters of this kind have a tone of friendliness,
naturalism. Modern English letters should not be exaggerated, overburdened,
outmoded with time-worn expressions. The key note is simplicity. Modern
letters tend towards using the language of conversational style.
Writing is
not only a means of communication and contract, but also a record of
affairs, information, events, etc. So it is necessary to feel the spirit
and trend of the style in order to write a perfect letter.
Business-letter
or contract law is a complex and vastly documented subject, only a lawyer
can deal with it on a serious level. A number of basic principles,
however, can be outlined sufficiently to mark of encounters that require the
use of specialised English.
Doing business
means working out agreements with other people, sometimes through
elaborate contracts and sometimes through nothing but little standard
forms, through exchanges of letters and conversations at lunch.
Nowadays more
and more agreements are made in English, for English is the nearest
thing we have to a universal business language. Joint ventures, bank
loans, and trademark licenses frequently are spelled out in this language
even though it is not native to at least one of the contracting parties.
As a beginning
I am going to look at the subject of writing of business letters
generally. In the main there are three stages transactions involving
business contracts: first, negotiation of terms, second, drafting documents
reflecting these terms, and third, litigation to enforce or to avoid
executing of these terms. To my mind, a fourth might be added, the
administration of contracts.
I am going to
look through the first two since the third and the fourth are related only to
the field of law. A typical first stage of contract is two or more people
having drink and talking about future dealing. A second phase might be letters
written in order to work out an agreement.
In these two
early stages it will be helpful to know something about rules of
contract. But what rules? Different nations borrow or create different legal
systems, and even within a single country the rules may vary according to
region or the kind of transaction involved.
It is worth
knowing that the distinctions in legal system of England are mainly historical.
The history
of writing business letters is undoubtedly connected with the history of
development of legal language. English is in fact a latecomer as a legal
language. Even after the Norman Conquest court pleadings in England
were in French, and before that lawyers used Latin. Perhaps, some of our
difficulties arise due to the fact that English was unacceptable in its
childhood.
Contract in
English suggest Anglo-American contract rules. The main point is always
to be aware that there are differences: the way they may be resolved usually
is a problem for lawyers. With contracts the applicable law may be the law of
the place where the contract is made; in other cases it may be the law of the
place where the contract is to be performed. It is specified in preliminary
negotiations which system of law is to apply.
Diversity is
characteristic feature of English; here is a wide range of alternatives to
choose from in saying things, although the conciseness is sometimes
lacking. Consequently, the use of English is a creative challenge.
Almost too many riches are available for selection, that leads
occasionally to masterpieces but more frequently to mistakes. English is
less refined in its distinctions than French, for example, and this makes it
harder to be clear.
That does not
mean that English is imprecise for all things are relative. If we compare
English with Japanese, we will see that the latter possesses enormous
degree of politeness to reflect the respectiveness of speaker and
listener as well as of addresser and addressee.
Here I cannot
help mentioning the fact that as contracts are so unclear in what every side
intends to do, a contract can sometimes put a company out of business.
Thus everybody
who is involved in any kind of business should study thoroughly the
complex science of writing business letters and contracts.
From the
lexicological point of view isolated words and phrases mean very little. In
context they mean a great deal, and in the special context of contractual
undertakings they mean everything. Contract English is a prose organised
according to plan.
And it
includes, without limitation, the right but not the obligation to select
words from a wide variety of verbal implements and write clearly, accurately,
and/or with style.
Two phases of
writing contracts exist: in the first, we react to proposed contracts
drafted by somebody else, and in the second, which presents greater
challenge, we compose our own.
A good
contract reads like a classic story. It narrates, in orderly sequence, that
one part should do this and another should do that, and perhaps if certain
events occur, the outcome will be changed. All of the rate cards charts, and
other reference material ought to be ticked off one after another according to
the sense of it. Tables and figures, code words and mystical references are
almost insulting unless organised and defined. Without organisation
they baffle, without definition they entrap.
In strong
stance one can send back the offending document and request a substitute
document in comprehensible English. Otherwise a series of questions may be
put by letter, and the replies often will have contractual force if the
document is later contested.
My
observations about English so far have been general in nature. Now it appears
logical to examine the examples of favourite contract phrases, which
will help ease the way to fuller examination of entire negotiations and
contracts. a full glossary is beyond reach but in what follows there is a
listing of words and phrases that turn up in great many documents, with
comments on each one. The words and phrases are presented in plausible contract
sequence, not alphabetically.
"Whereas"
Everyman's idea of how a contract begins. Some lawyers dislike
"Whereas" and use recitation clauses so marked to distinguish them
from the text in the contract. There the real issue lies; one must be
careful about mixing up recitals of history with what is actually being agreed
on. For example, it would be folly to write: "Whereas A admits owing B
$10,000..." because the admission may later haunt one,
especially if drafts are never signed and the debt be disputed. Rather less
damaging would be:
"Whereas
the parties have engaged in a series of transactions resulting
in dispute over accounting between them..."
On the whole
"Whereas" is acceptable, but what follows it needs particular care.
"It is
understood and agreed" On the one hand, it usually adds nothing,
because every clause in the contract is "understood and agreed" or it
would not be written into it. On the other hand, what it adds is an
implication that other clauses are not backed up by this phrase: by including
the one you exclude the other. «It is understood and agreed» ought to be
banished.
"Hereinafter"
A decent enough little word doing the job of six ("Referred to later in
this document"). "Hereinafter" frequently sets up abbreviated
names for the contract parties.
For example:
"Knightsbridge
International Drapes and Fishmonger, Ltd (hereinafter
"Knightsbridge").
"Including
Without Limitation" It is useful and at times essential phrase.
Earlier I've noted that mentioning certain things may exclude others by
implication. Thus,
"You may
assign your exclusive British and Commonwealth rights"
suggests that you may not
assign other rights assuming you have any. Such pitfalls may be avoided by
phrasing such as:
"You
may assign any and all your rights including without limitation your
exclusive British and Commonwealth rights".
But why
specify any rights if all of them are included? Psychology is the main
reason; people want specific things underscored in the contracts, and
"Including Without Limitation" indulges this prediction.
"Assignees
and Licensees" These are important words which acceptability
depends on one's point of view
"Knightsbridge,
its assignees and licensees..."
suggests that
Knightsbridge may hand you over to somebody else after contracts are signed.
If you yourself happen to be Knightsbridge, you will want that particular
right and should use the phrase.
"Without
Prejudice" It is a classic. The British use this phrase all by
itself, leaving the reader intrigued. "Without Prejudice" to what
exactly? Americans spell it out more elaborately, but if you stick to
American way, remember "Including Without Limitation", or you may
accidentally exclude something by implication. Legal rights, for example, are
not the same thing as remedies the law offers to enforce them. Thus the
American might write:
"Without
prejudice to any of my existing or future rights or remedies..."
And this leads to another phrase.
"And/or" It is an essential
barbarism. In the preceding example I've used the disjunctive "rights or
remedies". This is not always good enough, and one may run into trouble
with
"Knightsbridge or Tefal or
either of them shall..."
What about both together? "Knightsbridge and
Tefal", perhaps, followed by "or either".
Occasionally the alternatives become overwhelming, thus and/or is
convenient and generally accepted, although more detail is better.
"Shall" If one says "Knightsbridge
and/or Tefal shall have..." or "will have...", legally
it should make no difference
in the case you are consent in using one or the other. "Shall",
however, is stronger than "will". Going from one to another might suggest that one
obligation is stronger somehow than another. Perhaps, one's position may determine the choice. "You shall",
however is bad form.
"Understanding" It is a
dangerous word. If you mean agreement you ought to say so. If you view of affairs that there is no agreement, "understanding"
as a noun suggests the
opposite or comes close to it. .it stands, in fact, as a monument to unsatisfactory
compromise. The softness of the word conjures up pleasing images. "In accordance
with our understanding..." can be interpreted in a number of ways.
"Effect" Here is a little
word which uses are insufficiently praised. Such a phrase as "We will produce..." is inaccurate,
because the work will be subcontracted and the promise-maker technically defaults. Somebody else does the producing. Why
not say "We will produce or cause to be produced..."? This is in fact often
said, but it jars the ear.
Accordingly "We will effect production..." highlights the
point with greater skill.
"Idea" This word is bad for your own
side but helpful against others. Ideas as such are not generally protected
by law. If you submit something to a company with any hope of reward you
must find better phrasing than "my idea". Perhaps, "my
format" or possibly "my property" is more
appropriate. Naturally, if you can develop an idea into a format or
protectable property, the more ambitious phrasing will be better
justified.
"As between us" It is useful,
because people are always forgetting or neglecting to mention that a
great many interests may be involved in what appears to be simple
dialogue. "I reserve control over..." and "You have
the final power of decision over..." sound like division of
something into spheres, but frequently "I" am in turn
controlled by my investors and "You" - by a foreign parent
company, making the language
of division inaccurate. Neither of us really controls anything, at least ultimately.
Thus it will be useful to say, "As
between us, I control..." and so on.
"Spanning" Time periods are
awkward things: "...for a period commencing August,1 and
expiring November,15..." is clumsy; "...from August,1
to November,15..." is skeletal when informing how long a contract
obligation endures.
But during particular time periods one may be
reporting for work, for example, three days out of every five, or doing
something else that is within but not completely parallel to the entire time
period involved.
A happy solution is the word "Spanning".
It goes this way:
"Throughout the period spanning
August,1 - November,15 inclusive you will render services as a consultant
three days out of every five."
It will be useful to put "inclusive"
at the end for without it you may lose the date, concluding the period being
spanned.
"Negotiate in Good Faith" The
negotiators have worked until late at night, all points but one have been
worked out, the contract will never be signed without resolution of some
particular impasse. What is there to do?
Agree to "Negotiate in Good Faith" on
the disputed point at later time. This is done frequently, but make no
mistake about the outcome. The open point remains open. If it happens to be
vital you may have no contract at all. "Negotiate in Good Faith"
is one of those evasions that must be used sparingly. At the right time it
prevents collapse, at the wrong time it promotes it.
"Confirm" It suggests, of course,
that something has been agreed upon before. You are writing now only to make a
record of it. "I write to confirm that you admit substantial
default in delivery" Frequently we encounter it in ordinary
correspondence: "Confirming your order", "Confirming
the main points of our agreement", and so on.
"Furnish" It is a handy word which
usefulness lies in the avoidance of worse alternatives. Suppose you transact
to deliver a variety of elements as a package.
"Deliver" leaves out, even though
it may well be implied, the preliminary purchase or engagement of these
elements, and at the other end it goes very far in suggesting responsibility
for getting the package unscathed to where it belongs.
Alternatives also may go wrong, slightly, each with
its own implications.
"Assign" involves legal title;
"give" is lame and probably untrue; "transmit"
means send.
Thus each word misses some important - detail or
implies unnecessary things.
"Furnish" is sometimes useful when more
popular words fall short or go too far. It has a good professional ring to it
as well:
"I agree to furnish all of the elements listed
on Exhibit A annexed hereto and made part hereof by incorporation."
Who is responsible for non-delivery and related questions can
be dealt with in separate clauses.
"Furnish" avoids jumping the gun. It
keeps away from what ought to be treated independently but fills up enough
space to stand firm.
The word is good value.
"Right but Not Obligation" One of
the most splendid phrases available. Sometimes the grant of particular rights carries with it by implication a duty
to exploit them. Authors, for example, often feel betrayed by their publishes,
who have various rights "but do nothing about them." Royalties
decrease as a result; and this situation, whether or not it reflects real
criminality, is repeated in variety of industries and court cases. Accordingly it well suits the grantee
of rights to make clear at the very beginning that he may abandon them. This possibility is more
appropriately dealt with in separate clauses reciting the consequences. Still, contracts have been known to
contain inconsistent provisions, and preliminary correspondence may not
even reach the subject of rights. A quick phrase helps keep you out of trouble: "The Right but Not
Obligation". Thus,
"We shall have the Right but Not
Obligation to grant sublicenses in Austria"("But if we fail, we
fail").
Even this magic phrase has its limitations because
good faith may require having a real go to exploiting the rights in question.
Nevertheless "Right but Not Obligation" is useful, so much so as to
become incantation and be said whenever circumstances allow it. I the other side challenges these words, it
will be better to know this at once and work out alternatives or
finish up the negotiations completely.
Ñòðàíèöû: 1, 2
|
