Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Abstract

The usage of metaphor in languages for specific purposes has been in the focus of interest of cognitive linguistics for years, especially after Lakoff and Johnson published their famous book “Metaphors We Live by” in 1980. Inspired by that book, the author strives to prove that metaphor was not only intensely present in the history of law but also that it pervades the language of contemporary legal theory and practice. Terms like injury of law, the burden of evidence, soft laws, hard laws, etc. are so often used by lawyers in their professional communication that they are hardly recognizable as metaphors. In the theoretical part, the terms conceptual metaphor and lexical metaphor, as well as the source domain and the target domain of the metaphor are defined. Accordingly, conceptual metaphor and lexical metaphor are interpreted from the perspective of the language of law. As an introduction to the discussion on metaphoric terms in the field of law, a number of metaphors is presented and discussed from the point of view of legal history, as the metaphoric and other poetic expressions were recognized as the features of legalese back in the early seventeenth century. In the main part, the author presents and discusses the most common conceptual metaphors in connection with the terms law, justice, court, and the types of metaphors typically used in specific branches of law as criminal law, company law, and contract law. The empirical part of the paper is focused on two research tasks. Firstly, metaphors occurring in selected Legal English textbooks are explored and discussed by using a qualitative and a quantitative approach, and secondly, metaphoric terms and phrases of the EU Law are excerpted from the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 2002), the main task being to establish the frequency of metaphors in this relatively young branch of law and the types of conceptual metaphors they belong to. In the closing part, conclusions on similarities and differences in the use of metaphor between two different types of legal texts are drawn with specific reference to the frequency, lexical structures, and typology of conceptual metaphors in the field of law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chroma, Marta. 2004. Cross-Cultural Traps in Legal Translation. In Intercultural Aspects of Specialized Communication, Linguistic Insights Series, vol. 14, ed. Christopher Candlin and Mauricio Gotti. Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Günther, Lothar. 1898. Recht und Sprache. Vienna: Heymanns.

    Google Scholar 

  3. https://libquotes.com/henry-hawkins/quote/lbb1b4c. Accessed 14 Mar 2022.

  4. Kövecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1992. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Li, Lan, and Lucy MacGregor. 2009. Colour Metaphors in Business Discourse. In Language for Professional Communication: Research, Practice and Training, vol. 11, ed. Vijay K. Bhatia, Winnie Cheng, Bertha Du-Babcock, and Jane Lung, 11–24. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mattila, Heikki E. S. 2006. Comparative Legal Linguistics. Hampshire: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  9. McKay, William, Helen Charlton, and Grant Barsoum. 2011. Legal English-how to understand and master the language of Law. Harlow: Longman-Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mihaljević, Milica, and Ljiljana Šarić. 1996. Metaforizacija kao terminološki postupak u engleskom i hrvatskom. Suvremena lingvistika 41(42): 437–449.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Reiss, Katarina, and Hans Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Richard, Isabelle. 2014. Metaphors in English for Law: Let Us Keep Them! Lexis - Journal in English Lexicology 8: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith, Michael R. 2007. Levels of Metaphor in Persuasive Legal Writing. Mercer Law Review 58: 919–947.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sočanac, Lelija, et al. 2018. English for the Legal Professionals. Zagreb: Narodne novine.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stolze, Radegundis. 1999. Die Fachübersetzung – Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Šarčević, Susan. 2000. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  17. The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia. The Consolidated Text of 15. January 2014. https://www.usud.hr/sites/default/files/dokumenti/The_consolidated_text_of_the_Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_Croatia_as_of_15_January_2014.pdf.

  18. Treaty Establishing the European Community: Consolidated version 2002 available online at the https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT.

  19. Wiebalck, Alison, Richard Norman, Clemens von Zedtwitz, Kathrin Weston Walsh, and Jean-Luc. Delli. 2013. The Legal English Manual. Handbook of Legal Terms and Practical Scenarios for Written and Spoken Legal Language. Basel: Manz, Beck, Helbig Lichtenhahn.

    Google Scholar 

  20. www.ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/acquis-rights-of-child.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2022.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ljubica Kordić.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kordić, L. Metaphors Lawyers Live by. Int J Semiot Law 36, 1639–1654 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09975-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09975-0

Keywords

Navigation