Conceptual Metaphor and Judicial Discourse: A Case Study

Abstract

Given that metaphor is generally conceived as a resource inherent to specific discursive fields, such as Literature, the Legal Tradition has not demonstrated substantial interest in considering it as a field of reflection. From a cognitivist standpoint, however, metaphor is assumed as a ubiquitous mental mechanism in various spheres of discourse. Adopting this theoretical-methodological perspective, we conduct an interdisciplinary analysis of a socially, politically, and legally significant ruling in recent Argentine History. We examine the most relevant conceptual metaphors in the justification of the resulting decision, identifying two schematic images that intertwine as complex and recurrent elements in the text. These images not only facilitate the argumentation of the involved magistrates but also aid in the understanding of the resolution by all its recipients, namely, the diverse audience comprising all the citizens of this nation. In our work, we aspire to integrate these reflections into the framework of Legal Discourse, which requires an interdisciplinary approach, along at least the three epistemological guidelines of law, language, and cognition.