Forms of Linguistic Ambiguity in Legal Discourse: A Forensic Pragmatic Analysis of Milimani Law Court Proceedings

Abstract

Legal discourse operates at the intersection of language, power, and meaning, where precision is acknowledged yet ambiguity is pervasive. This article assesses the forms of linguistic ambiguity manifest in legal discourse at the Milimani Law Court in Nairobi, Kenya. Drawing on forensic linguistics, pragmatics, and jurisprudence, the study identifies and categorizes types of ambiguity that may compromise judicial interpretation, access to justice, and the rule of law. Through a qualitative discourse-analytic approach, courtroom observations, pleadings, and statutory instruments were analyzed to isolate lexical, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic ambiguities. The findings reveal that while lexical ambiguity occurs from polysemous legal terminology, syntactic ambiguity stems from complex sentence constructions and unclear modifier attachment. Semantic ambiguity appears from context-dependent meaning fluctuations, whereas pragmatic ambiguity results from implicature failure, indeterminate speech acts, and context-sensitive interpretations. The study maintains that these ambiguities are not merely linguistic inconveniences but practical jurisprudential problems that affect judicial discretion, litigant rights, and the validity of legal outcomes. The article concludes by advocating for plain-language legal drafting, enriched judicial training in linguistic analysis, and the institutionalization of forensic linguistic expertise in Kenyan courtrooms. These recommendations hold implications for applied linguistics, legal education, and judicial policy reform in common-law jurisdictions.