Syntactic complexity in applied linguistics measures the difficulty of texts, focusing on sentence length, clausal embedding, and structure types (Lu, 2011). Al-Jabr (2006) highlights three key features influencing syntactic complexity in translation: linguistic features of the language, text genre, and translator preferences. Legal translation is a significant subgenre, becoming increasingly prevalent in international organizations and the private sector (Biel et al., 2019). This study investigated the syntactic complexity of legal translations of company laws, comparing Chinese-translated corpora with British and Hong Kong corpora. It aimed to identify factors impacting legal translation, compare translated and non-translated materials, and assess the effectiveness of legal translation in communication. Ramos and Cerutti (2022) highlight the broad topic range in legal writing. The study uses Kachru's (1985) Three Circles Model of World Englishes to categorize regions based on English language use (inner circle – native speakers; outer circle – official language; expanding circle – foreign language). The study promotes plain language initiatives, emphasizing accessibility for non-legal professionals (Mattila, 2016; Adler, 2012; Yu, 2021).

While extensive research exists on syntactic complexity in L1 and L2 academic writing, fewer studies analyze translated texts by non-native speakers. Lu et al. (2020) reviewed syntactic complexity indicators, including Biber Tagger, Coh-Metrix, and L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer (L2SCA). Lu (2010, 2017) defined syntactic complexity and developed L2SCA, using 14 metrics to analyze L2 English texts. Scholars in legal translation have focused on multilingual legislative drafting (Dillion, 2022). Mancilla et al. (2015) found that non-native speakers use more coordinating phrases than native speakers. Ansarifar et al. (2018) and Song and Wang (2019) studied phrasal complexity and subordination in theses, while Wu et al. (2020) and Yin et al. (2021) examined sentence and clause length in English as a lingua franca (ELF) and the impact of experience on syntactic complexity in research articles. Liu and Afzaal (2021) explored simplification hypotheses in corpus-based translation studies, using COCE and FLOB corpora. The legal translation field is increasingly using corpus-based methodologies (Biel, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021; Biel et al., 2019; Pontrandolfo, 2011; Trklja, 2017; Li and Wang, 2013), but large-scale contrastive studies are lacking, particularly regarding syntactic complexity in legal discourse. Studies on simplification in legal translation are also limited (Biel et al., 2019; Biel, 2016; Bolton, 2009), and there’s a need to examine the complexity of translated legal texts and the role of plain language in improving public access to legal information. Laviosa (2002) found that translated texts have restricted lexical variety and a low ratio of content to function words.

This study used a corpus-based contrastive analysis of legal translation to analyze syntactic complexity. It employed Kachru's (1985) Three Circles Model, comparing UK company law (inner circle), Hong Kong company law (outer circle), and Mainland China company law (expanding circle). The UK corpus was monolingual; the Hong Kong and Mainland China corpora were bilingual, aligned at the sentence level. The Hong Kong corpus included the Companies Ordinance (1932 and subsequent amendments), and the Mainland China corpus included company law texts from 1993, 1999, 2004, and 2006. The L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer (L2SCA) (Lu, 2010) was used to analyze the corpora. L2SCA measures 14 syntactic complexity features, categorized into five types: length of production unit (MLC, MLS, MLT); sentence complexity ratio (C/S); subordination (C/T, CT/T, DC/C, DC/T); coordination (CP/C, CP/T, T/S); and particular structures (CN/C, CN/T, VP/T). The study compared the syntactic complexity across the three regions and between different versions of company laws within each region. A p-value less than 0.005 was used to indicate statistical significance in differences.

The study found statistically significant differences in syntactic complexity across the three regions and between different versions of company law within each region (Hong Kong and UK). The analysis of fourteen syntactic complexity features revealed that the newer versions of company laws (Hong Kong and UK) show significant simplification compared to their older counterparts. This indicates a move towards plain language in legal drafting, particularly in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, comparison of the old and new versions showed that several features (MLC, C/S, C/T, CT/T) were simpler in the newer version, while T/S was more complex. In the mainland China corpus, the older version showed simpler MLC, CP/T, and CP/C features, whereas other features were more complex. The newer version showed some variation. Table 2 presents a comparison of syntactic complexity features in Hong Kong legal translations. Table 3 shows differences between UK (old and new versions) and Mainland China (old and new versions). The findings highlight significant differences between Hong Kong, Mainland China, and the UK in legal translation syntactic complexity. The Hong Kong corpus exhibited simplification reflecting the adoption of plain English initiatives. The UK, as the inner circle, sets language standards; and Hong Kong, as part of the outer circle, shows some simplification in line with the inner circle norms. Mainland China's legal texts demonstrate different patterns, with complex features in older versions and some variation in newer versions. Figures 2, 3, and 4 illustrate these comparisons graphically. The overall results suggest that the plain English movement has led to simpler legal language, especially in Hong Kong.

The study addressed the research questions: (1) How do translated and non-translated legal texts differ across the three regions? (2) Do the differences relate to plain English conventions? The findings show that legal language deviates significantly from plain English, confirming the difficulty in understanding legal texts as suggested by previous research (Martinez et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2019; Yan, 2013). Ambiguous nominal and hypotactic structures contribute to high information density, increasing cognitive processing demands (Rink, 2020; Hansen-Schirra et al., 2020a, 2020b; Gutermuth, 2020; Norris and Ortega, 2009; Ortega, 2003). The study highlights the differences in syntactic complexity between the three regions, indicating significant variations in legal translation practices. The UK and Hong Kong exhibited greater simplification, likely due to the influence of the plain English movement. This movement facilitates easier understanding of legal jargon (Maaß & Rink, 2021; Adler, 2012; Asprey, 2010; Cheek, 2010; Cornelius, 2015; Dyer, 2017; Law Drafting Division, 2012). The impact of the plain English movement is more pronounced in Hong Kong than in Mainland China. The study results emphasize the role of translation in improving the accessibility of legal texts to laypeople.

This study examined the impact of the plain English movement on the syntactic complexity of legal translations across three regions. Significant differences were found, with Hong Kong showing the strongest adoption of plain language principles. The findings demonstrate the effectiveness of plain English initiatives in enhancing the accessibility of legal texts. Future research should explore the application of syntactic complexity measures in other legal contexts and investigate the correlation between syntactic complexity and readability for various target audiences. The study suggests the need for translating mainland Chinese company law into simpler English to improve accessibility.

The study's limitations include the specific corpora used, which may not fully represent the breadth of legal translation practices. Future research could expand the corpora to include diverse legal genres and jurisdictions. The study focused primarily on syntactic complexity; future research could incorporate other linguistic features to provide a more comprehensive analysis of legal text accessibility. Finally, the study did not directly assess reader comprehension, which would provide further evidence of the effectiveness of plain language initiatives.