My thoughts regarding your questions:
1. What do you call the words I read in legal documents and 1987 Constitution such as “herewith”, “therewith” and “therein”? Can writers of those legal papers avoid using those words?The words “herewith”, “therewith” and “therein”—fancy stretch terms for “here,” “there,” and “in here”—belong to the specialized language of the legal profession called
legalese, which the
Urban Dictionary pejoratively defines as follows:
“A way of talking or writing used mostly by lawyers and corporations, as a way to explain and elaborate every square inch of the matter at hand—creating an airtight verbal bubble that leaves no room for ambiguity.
“This is done by writing as little as possible with as many words as possible, in such a way that Average Joe won’t have a single clue what is presented to him, yet agrees to it because he couldn’t care less about reading page up and page down with all that legal nonsense before he gets to use his new computer program.”
Legalese is so deeply ingrained in the language of lawyers that it would be tough to wean them from their diet of “herewith”, “therewith,” “therein,” and sundry other legalese. But there’s now a movement in the United States for the use of plain and simple English by lawyers, and here in the Philippines, it’s now also being waged by advocates like Forum member Gerry T. Galacio. Check out his postings on plain and simple English in the Forum’s Advocacies section (
Plain Language Philippines). Who knows, Filipino lawyers might finally get the knack for writing documents and court pleadings that are understandable to laypeople by, say, 2030 or 15 years from now. Let’s cross our fingers.
2. Are the phrases “pursuant to” and “in consonance with” desirable in our writing? What are better substitute for those expressions?Would it be desirable to use the phrases “pursuant to” and “in consonance with” in our own writing—meaning writing by nonlawyers? Absolutely not, so banish the thought! Instead of “pursuant to,” say it plainly as “in carrying out,” “in conformity with,” or even “based on the record” as the case may be. Instead of “in consonance with,” say “in accordance with” or simply “following”; that means simply saying “Following the rule” instead of “In consonance with the rule.” This will mark you as you as a no-nonsense writer in English who's not attempting to sound like a lawyer.
3. Do we need a background of psychology to understand people for us to write effectively? I ask that question following the quote of Bryan A. Garner: “Although some who excel in people skills don’t write well, it’s all but impossible to write well if you don’t understand people.” Please give examples.You’d go overboard if you decide to take B.S. Psychology just to understand people and write effectively. People skills are learned as you go through life from infancy all the way to adulthood and old age. Some develop people skills marvelously while others remain disastrously inept at it, even if they get elected to high office by virtue of their wealth or parentage or both. And frankly, I don’t put great store on Brian Garner’s generalization about people skills; his correlations seem to be seriously off the mark. Writing is an entirely different enterprise from getting along with people; I personally know some terrific writers who are so socially gauche they won’t even attempt small talk in a gathering of more three people; they know from experience that they would just bungle the conversation and embarrass themselves. And over the years, I had worked with so many charming, socially gracious PR coordinators who couldn’t even write a decent paragraph beyond two or three sentences. Indeed, writing and socializing are entirely different talents. And as to writing, you can write good business memos, letters, and reports even if you don’t understand people or even if your English is only so-so, but you definitely can’t write a passable essay, much less great nonfiction or fiction, without a good understanding of human behavior. In contrast, if you have the writing talent and the drive and the motivation plus a profound understanding of human behavior and the human condition, you may win the Palanca Award or Booker Prize or even the Nobel Prize for literature even if you have very poor people or social skills or are a downright curmudgeon. These, I think, are the distinctions that Bryan Garner had obviously overlooked in that wrongheaded generalization that you quoted in your posting.
