Play it Again, Sam: Repetition-part I

• Publication year: 2001
• Pages: 65
• Citation: Vol. 30 No. 9 Pg. 65

30 Colo.Law. 65 Colorado Lawyer 2001.

2001, September, Pg. 65. Play It Again, Sam: Repetition-Part I

---

65

Vol. 30, No. 9, Pg. 65

The Colorado Lawyer
September 2001
Vol. 30, No. 9 [Page 65]

Departments
The Scrivener: Modern Legal Writing

Play It Again, Sam: Repetition - Part I
by K. K. DuVivier
C 2001 K.K. DuVivier

Repetition is part of learning. Advertising specialists do not expect their message to stick with consumers until the ad has aired at least three times. Yet, too much repetition can be both distracting and irritating. This column, and Part II which will appear in the November 2001 issue, will address the role of repetition in legal writing

Using the Same Word for the
Same Meaning

Many of our English teachers taught us to avoid repetitition "Vary your words," they told us, "so that the audience will not get bored." Thus, in creative writing, different words may have the same meaning: the "moon" in one line might be called the "luminous orb" in the next. Likewise, because of the use of metaphors in creative writing, the same word may have different meanings: the word "lamb" in one line may refer to a wooly animal frolicking on a hill and in the next line may mean peace.

Generally, legal writing uses repetition in a very different way from creative writing. One established canon of legal construction holds that the same words will have the same meaning.1 Furthermore, legal writing includes a corollary to the first canon: if the same words have the same meaning, then different words have different meanings. Thus, the elegant variation of words is dangerous in many legal contexts, especially in contracts and statutes where readers expect the same word and presume that variation indicates a specific intent to distinguish items or ideas.

Example of misplaced elegant variation: The first case was settled for $20,000, and the second piece of litigation was disposed of out of court for $30,000, while the price of the amicable accord reached in the third suit was $50,000.2

Revision: The first case was settled for $ 20,000; the second case for $30,000; and the third case for $50,000.

In the example, what is the difference between a "case," a "piece of litigation," and a "suit"? Also, is there any significant distinction between "settled," "disposed of out of court," and "amicable accord"? The revision is clearer because it repeats...