UDC

81'373.612.2:[34+355(71+73)]

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V241

Authors

Elena A. Dmitrieva
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia; ul. Miklukho-Maklaya 7, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6610-131X e-mail: 1042200276@pfur.ru

Abstract

Cognitive linguistic research into conceptual metaphors is the focus of attention of many scientists. These studies proceed from the postulate of cognitive linguistics which states that the world around us is categorized and structured according to certain cognitive models. These models are often based on the mapping of properties and elements of one concept onto the domain of another concept by virtue of similarity. Thus, conceptual metaphors are created, which are linguistic representations of the cognitive processes of human mind. According to G. Lakoff and M. Johnson’s definition, the metaphorical model “argument is war” is a linguistic manifestation of such cognitive associations. This article presents the results of the study that aimed to determine the extent to which the metaphorical model “trial is war” can be applied to the American and Canadian national variants of judicial discourse, as well as to identify key elements underlying the metaphorical mapping of the concept of war onto the concept of trial. In addition, a comparative quantitative analysis was performed to determine which national variant of judicial discourse contains more metaphors based on the “trial is war” model. The following sources served as the material for the study: judgements of the courts of the United States and Canada, transcripts of the countries’ highest judicial bodies, as well as articles by American and Canadian experts on law and legal proceedings. In order to conduct the quantitative and qualitative analysis, the material was arranged in two monolingual corpora, which were processed using the AntConc software.

Keywords

conceptual metaphor, American judicial discourse, Canadian judicial discourse, comparative analysis, “argument is war”

References

1. Gibbs R.W. Jr. Idioms and Formulaic Language. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford, 2007, pp. 697–725.

2. Belyaevskaya E.G. O vnutrenney strukture kontseptual’noy metafory [On Inner Cognitive Structure of Conceptual Metaphor]. Kognitivnye issledovaniya yazyka, 2018, no. 32, pp. 540–548.

3. Fedorov M.A. O ponyatii kul’turnaya razrabotannost’ v primenenii k kontseptual’noy metafore [The Term “Cultural Elaboration” as Applied to Cognitive Metaphor]. Vestnik buryatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Yazyk. Literatura. Kul’tura, 2018, no. 3, pp. 56–65.

4. Wierzbicka A. Ponimanie kul’tur cherez posredstvo klyuchevykh slov [Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words]. Moscow, 2001. 288 p.

5. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, 2003 (Russ. ed.: Lakoff Dzh., Dzhonson M. Metafory, kotorymi my zhivem. Moscow, 2004. 256 p.).

6. Yaroshchuk I.A. Metaphors in Law: Methodological Foundations for Research. Vestnik RUDN. Ser.: Yuridicheskie nauki, 2022, vol. 26. no. 3, pp. 596−610 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.22363/2313-2337-2022-26-3-596-610

7. Malysheva E.G. Metaforicheskaya model’ ‘Sport – eto voyna’ v zhurnalistskom sportivnom diskurse (na materiale tekstov sovremennykh pechatnykh i elektronnykh SMI) [Metaphorical Model ‘Sport Is War’ in Journalistic Sports Discourse (Based on the Texts of Modern Print and Electronic Media)]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2009, no. 328, pp. 14–19.

8. Mooney A., Evans B. Language, Society and Power: An Introduction. London, 2015. 262 p.

9. Palashevskaya I.V. Sudebnyy diskurs [Judicial Discourse]. Diskurs-Pi, 2015, no. 3-4, pp. 164−166.

10. Zubkova O.S. Lingvosemiotika professional’noy metafory [Linguistic Semiotics of Professional Metaphor: Diss.]. Kursk, 2011. 460 p.

11. Berger B.L. Trial by Metaphor: Rhetoric, Innovation, and the Judicial Text. Court Rev., 2002, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 30−38.

12. Gavrilova I.A. Metaphorical Terms as Part of English Legal Terminology. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2019, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 504–512 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.21603/2078-8975-2019-21-2-504-512

13. Maley Y. The Language of the Law. Gibbons J. (ed.). Language and the Law. New York, 1994, pp. 11−50.

14. Newman J.H. The Art of Litigation – Part I. The National Law Review, 30 September 2009. Available at: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/art-litigation-part-i (accessed: 14 September 2022).

15. Baranov A.N. Deskriptornaya teoriya metafory [Descriptive Theory of Metaphor]. Moscow, 2014. 632 p.

16. Bogacheva E.A., Semenova E.V. Metafory i frazeologizmy v professional’noy kommunikatsii (na materiale angloyazychnogo yuridicheskogo diskursa) [Metaphors and Phraseology in Professional Communication (on the Material of English Legal Discourse)]. Yazyk nauki i professional’naya kommunikatsiya, 2021, no. 2, pp. 13–25. DOI: 10.24412/2658-5138-2021-5-13-25

17. Legal Dictionary. Available at: https://legaldictionary.net/?s=status+quo (accessed: 15 August 2022).

18. Online Etymology Dictionary. Available at: https://www.etymonline.com/word/defendant (accessed: 19 August 2022).

19. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack#legalDictionary (accessed: 20 August 2022).