Metaphors and Legal Language: a Few Comments on Ordinary, Specialised and Legal Meaning

Authors

  • Sylwia Wojtczak University of Lodz
  • Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka University of Lodz

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.17.3.04

Keywords:

legal language, metaphor, law, LSP

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.

References

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

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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

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.
Google Scholar

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

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

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

Downloads

Published

2019-09-30

How to Cite

Wojtczak, S., & Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2019). Metaphors and Legal Language: a Few Comments on Ordinary, Specialised and Legal Meaning . Research in Language, 17(3), 273-295. https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.17.3.04

Issue

Section

Articles