https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.17.3.04">
  •  
  •  
 

Research in Language

Abstract

The present text offers a few comments on the metaphorical dimension of legal language and the nature of legal language as such. The authors discuss selected metaphors in the context of the Polish legislation with the aim to show how the metaphorical dimension of language can be used and abused. It is also demonstrated that the metaphorical dimension of language can cross-cut the interface between language and law on different levels. There are metaphors in legal texts that can be deliberately used to emphasise or cover selected aspects of meaning, and others that can just happen to act irrespective of any premeditated action on the part of the legislator. Finally, in a wider perspective, it is shown that the relation between ordinary language and the language of the law, i.e. ordinary meaning and legal meaning, may itself be seen as a relation between two domains within which metaphorical mapping takes place. It is claimed that the divide between the realm of law and the “real world” goes beyond a trivial division relative to expertise in the law and expertise in legal discourse, but can be better understood as the division between the legal community and the non-legal community including the academia where linguists reside.

Keywords

legal language, metaphor, law, LSP

References

Blank, Andreas & Peter Koch (eds.) 1999. Historical Semantics and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804195

Danet, Brenda. 1980. “Language in the legal process”. Law and Society Review 14, pp. 445–564. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i354491 https://doi.org/10.2307/3053192

Danet, Brenda. 1985. “Legal discourse”. In: Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Teun Van Dijk. New York: Academic Press, pp. 273–291.

Endicott, Timothy A.O. 2000. Vagueness in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268406.001.0001

Falandysz, Lech. 1970. Prawo karne: Część szczególna [Criminal Law: Case Studies], Warsaw.

Fauconnier, Gilles 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220

Frank, Jerome N. 1947. “Words and music: Some remarks on statutory interpretation”. Columbia Law Review. No. 8, pp. 1259-1278. https://doi.org/10.2307/1118098

Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.) 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Walter deGruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901

Geeraerts, Dirk & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.) (2007) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gentner, Dedre, Brian F. Bowdle, Phillip Wolff, Consuelo Boronat. 2001. “Metaphor is like an Analogy” In: The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from cognitive science, ed. by D. Gentner, K.J. Holyoak, & B.N. Kokinov. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 199-253. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1251.001.0001

Gibbons, John (ed.) 1994. Language and the Law. London: Longman.

Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. (ed.) 2008. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802

Goatly, Andrew 2007. Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23

Gotti, Maurizio. 2003. Specialised Discourse. Linguistic Features and Changing Conventions. Bern et al.: Peter Lang.

Hart, H. L. A. 1961/1994. The Concept of Law (2nd ed.). Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press.

Herrera-Soler, Honesto & Michael White (eds.) (2012) Metaphor and Mills: Figurative Language in Business and Economics. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274585

Hutton, Christopher. 1995. ‘Law lessons for linguists? Accountability and acts of professional communication’, Language and Communication 16(3): 205–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(96)00010-9

Jäkel, Olaf. 2002. "Hypotheses revisited: The cognitive theory of metaphor applied to religious texts", pp. 20-21; available at: http://www.metaphorik.de/sites/www.metaphorik.de/files/journal-pdf/02_2002_jaekel.pdf

Johnson, Mark 1993. Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226223230.001.0001

Kaufmann, Arthur. 1966. “Analogy and “the nature of things”; A contribution to the theory of types”. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 6, pp. 358-401.

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2000. Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2015. Where Metaphors Come From: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001

Lakoff, George 1987: Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980/2003 (2nd ed.) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, George & Rafael E. Núñez. 2000. Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, George & Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001

Larsson, Stefan. 2011. Metaphors and Norms: Understanding Copyright Law in a Digital Society. Lund: Lund University.

Machery, E. 2005. “Concepts are not a natural kind”. Philosophy of Science 72, 444–67. https://doi.org/10.1086/498473

Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

Morawski, Lech. 2002. Wykładnia w orzecznictwie sądów. Komentarz. Toruń.

Radecki, Wojciech. 1972. “Przestępstwa przeciwko wolności w sferze życia seksualnego” [Offences against freedom in sexual life], Vol. II, Prob. Praw. 1972, no. 5-6.

Stępień, K. 2000. Szczególne okrucieństwo jako znamię kwalifikowanego typu przestępstwa zgwałcenia, Przegląd Sądowy, no. 10 & Gdansk Appelate Court’s verdict of 25 January 2001, II AKa 382/00, Prokuratura i Prawo 2001, no. 11.

Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904

Sweetser, Eve. 2001. “Blended spaces and performativity”. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4), 305‐ 334. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2001.018

Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629

Turner, Mark. 1987. Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Turner, Mark. 2006. The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Williams, Christopher. 2005. Tradition and Change in Legal English: Verbal Constructions in Prescriptive Texts. Bern: Peter Lang.

Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2013. “Speech action in legal contexts”. In Marina Sbisà & K. Turner (eds.), Pragmatics of Speech Actions [Handbook of pragmatics; Part 2], Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 613-658.

Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2007. “Linguistic aspects of the deontic shall in the legal context” In Kredens K. & Stanisaw Goźdź-Roszkowski. (eds.) Language and the Law: International Outlooks. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 181-199.

Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2008. “The relevance of vague expressions in legal language”. Research in Language, Vol. 6, pp. 165-186.

Wojtczak, Sylwia, Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka, Rafał Augustyn. 2017. Metafory konceptualne jako narzędzia rozumowania i poznania prawniczego [Conceptual Metaphors as Tools in Legal Reasoning and Cognition]. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.

Wróblewski, Jerzy, 1948. Język prawny i prawniczy. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.

Wróblewski, Jerzy. 1959. Zagadnienia teorii wykładni prawa ludowego. Warszawa.

Wróblewski, Jerzy. 1984. “Zagadnienia terminologii nauk prawnych” [Terminology issues in legal sciences]. Nauka Polska 3, pp. 80-82.

First Page

273

Last Page

295

Language

eng

Share

COinS