Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T11:10:30.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Narrower or Broader Ground? The Role and Function of Metaphors in Legal Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2023

By
Douglas Mark Ponton  and
Marco Canepa
Edited by
John Douthwaite  and
Ulrike Tabbert
John Douthwaite
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Genova
Ulrike Tabbert
Affiliation:
University of Huddersfield
Get access

Summary

Ponton and Canepa examine metaphor use in texts from the Cambridge Law Journal. However, the authors do not approach metaphor from a conceptual viewpoint but regard it as a component of good verbal style in the Aristotelean sense, as a figure of speech being of vital constitutive importance in legal discourse.

Keywords

metaphorfigure of speechCambridge Law Journallegal languagecourt decision
Type
Chapter
Information
The Linguistics of Crime , pp. 282 - 300
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexy, R. (2002). The Argument from Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, D. (1995). Assessing Basic Premises. In Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A., eds., Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation, 2, pp. 218–225. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1853&context=ossaarchive.Google Scholar
Amsterdam, A. G., & Bruner, J. (2000). Minding the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle (1997). Aristotle’s Poetics, trans. G. Whalley. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle (2007). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, trans. G. A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Black, M. (1993). More about Metaphor. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Britain as a Container: Immigration Metaphors in the 2005 Election Campaign. Discourse and Society, 17(5), 563–581.Google Scholar
Closs Traugott, E. (1985). ‘Conventional’ and ‘Dead’ Metaphors Revisited. In Paprotte, W. and Dirven, R., eds., The Ubiquity of Metaphor: Metaphor in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dee, J. (2009). Shedding Light or Casting Shadows? The Penumbra Metaphor, Privacy and Privileged Communication. Free Speech Yearbook, 44(1), 55–63.Google Scholar
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Saulles, D. (2017). On Law and Litigation. https://dominicdesaulles.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/the-golden-thread-burden-of-proof-woolmington-v-dpp-1935-a-c-462-hl/.Google Scholar
Douthwaite, J. (2009). Pragmatic Patterning in the Deployment of Conceptual Metaphor and Communication. In Marcato, C. & Orioles, V., eds., Studi Plurilingui e Interlinguistici in Ricordo di Roberto Gusmani. Udine: Forum, pp. 83–119.Google Scholar
Fogelin, R. J. (1988). Figuratively Speaking. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greely, H. T. (1989). A Footnote to ‘Penumbra’ in Griswold v. Connecticut. Constitutional Commentary, 6, 251–265.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Logic and Conversation, Lecture 2. In Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. (2006). An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar
Heffer, C. (2005). The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, D. (2017). Metaphor. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/metaphor/.Google Scholar
Houbert, F. (2008). Caught in the Web of the Law: Le traducteur juridique face à la métaphore. www.initerm.net/post/2011/05/18/Les-metaphores-juridiques.Google Scholar
Kirby, J. T. (1997). Aristotle on Metaphor. The American Journal of Philology, 118(4), 517–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinck, D. R. (1992). The Word of the Law: Approaches to Legal Discourse. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). The Death of Dead Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(2), 143–147.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202–251.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2014). Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M.(2003). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. (1969). A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Morra, L. (2010). New Models for Language Understanding and the Cognitive Approach to Legal Metaphors. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law/Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 23(4), 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, D. J. (1975). Fairness: The New Natural Justice? The University of Toronto Law Journal, 25(3), 281–316.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulholland, J. (2005) Handbook of Persuasive Tactics: A Practical Language Guide. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nöth, W. (1985). Semiotic Aspects of Metaphor. In Paprotte, W. & Dirven, R., eds., The Ubiquity of Metaphor: Metaphor in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and Social Reality. Oxford: Blackwood.Google Scholar
Pawlowski, T. (1980). Concept Formation in the Humanities and the Social Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A. (2016). Flesh of the Law: Material Legal Metaphors. Journal of Law and Society, 43(1), 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, I.(2014). Metaphors in English for Law: Let Us Keep Them! Lexis Online: 8. https://journals.openedition.org/lexis/251.Google Scholar
Rideout, J. C. (2010). Penumbral Thinking Revisited: Metaphor in Legal Argumentation. Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors, pp. 155–198.Google Scholar
Rowan, S. (2017). Cost of Cure Damages and the Relevance of the Injured Promisee’s Intention to Cure. Cambridge Law Journal, 76(3), 616–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1979a). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1979b). Metaphor. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 83–111.Google Scholar
Siltala, R. (2000). A Theory of Precedent: From Analytical Positivism to a Post-Analytical Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Fogelin, R. J. (2009). Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic, 8th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
Smith, M. R. (2007). Levels of Metaphor in Persuasive Legal Writing. Mercer Law Review, 58(3), 919–948.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2008). A Deflationary Account of Metaphors. In Gibbs, R. W. Jr., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavropoulos, N. (1996). Objectivity in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, W. (2019). A Historical Examination of Vicarious Liability: A ‘Veritable Upas Tree’? The Cambridge Law Journal, 78(3), 640–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarello, G. (1989). Interpretazione ed Evoluzione del Diritto. In Castignone, S., ed., L’Opera di Giovanni Tarello nella Cultura Giuridica Contemporanea. Bologna: Mulino, pp. 321–330.Google Scholar
Tarello, G. (2013). La Interpretación de la Ley, trans. Diego Dei Vecchi. Lima: Palestra Editores.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (2001). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons [1930]. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×